HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-09-18; City Council; 19109; Kelly/JRM Office BuildingCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB#
MTG.
DEPT.
19,109
7/24/07
PLN
KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03
DEPT. HEAD
CITY ATTY.
CITY MGR.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
City Council:
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No.NS-852 _, APPROVING an amendment to the
Zoning Map (ZC 04-15) and ADOPT Resolution No. 2007-199 ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and APPROVING an override of the San
Diego County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination Of Non-Consistency with the McClellan-
Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, a General Plan Amendment (GPA 04-20), a Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA 06-05) and a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 03-03) based upon the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Project Application(s)
Environmental Review
(Mitigated Negative
Declaration)
GPA 04-20
ZC04-15
LCPA 05-02
CDP 05-1 4
SDP 05-04
PIP 03-01
AV 06-04
MS 06-1 2
Administrative
Approvals
X
X
X
Planning Commission
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
X
City Council
X
X
X
•
X
RA = Recommended Approval
X = Final City decision -making authority
•= requires Coastal Commission approval
On May 16, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended approval (7-0) of the Negative Declaration,
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Coastal Development
Permit associated with a two lot minor subdivision and construction of an office building located on the
southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway in the southwest quadrant of the City in Local
Facilities Management Zone 5.
At the same hearing, the Planning Commission also approved (7-0) a Site Development Plan for the
construction of an 84,894 square foot, three-story office building. MS 06-12 may be approved
administratively by the City Engineer, subject to the approval of the associated discretionary actions.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Van Lynch 760-602-4613 vlvnc@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONL Y. /
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED \/
DENIED D
CONTINUED D
WITHDRAWN D
AMENDED D
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN
RETURNED TO STAFF
OTHER -SEE MINUTES
D <tllKl6l
D ' /
D
D
Page 2 - KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING - GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03
The General Plan Amendment is to change the General Plan Land Use and Open Space and Conservation
Element designations from Planned Industrial and Unplanned Area to Open Space on a portion of the site
and the Zone Change is to change the Zoning designation from Planned Industrial-Qualified Development
Overlay Zone to Open Space on a portion of the site. The Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary
to reflect the proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map.
The project site is located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Zone and as such is regulated by
the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The property is subject to noise from the airport and the
noise contours as identified in the CLUP must be utilized to determine land use compatibility. The project site
is impacted by the 70 to 75 dB range on the very northern portion of the property. Because the project falls
within the 70 - 75 dB CNEL noise contour of the Airport, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
(Authority), acting in its capacity as the San Diego Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), determined that the
proposed project was not consistent with the CLUP. The City Council may overrule the ALUC's decision by a
two-thirds vote of the City Council. To overrule the ALUC, the City Council would need to make findings that
the approval of the project would not bias the intent to "protect public health, safety and welfare by ensuring
the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure
to excessive noise and safety hazards with areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not
already devoted to incompatible uses". The findings for approval of the override can be found in the
resolution of approval and further discussion can be found in the project staff report.
The Planning Commission discussed the project design, open space, public trail easement and the proposed
City override of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority decision. Except for a brief statement from
the applicant, no public testimony was offered at the Planning Commission hearing. A full disclosure of the
Planning Commission's actions and a complete description and staff analysis of the proposed project are
included in the attached minutes and Planning Commission staff report. The Planning Commission and staff
are recommending approval of the proposed discretionary actions.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All public infrastructure required for this project will be funded and or/constructed by the developer. No fiscal
impacts to the City have been identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Potentially significant biological impacts were identified. The developer has agreed to mitigation measures to
reduce the identified impacts to below a level of significance in accordance with CEQA. The environmental
documents were sent directly to the area offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California
Department of Fish and Game, and the California Coastal Commission. In consideration of the foregoing, the
Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project on
November 18, 2004. Comments were received from the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish & Game. Mitigation measures were added and minor project revisions were made in
response to the comments that do not result in new avoidable significant effects. The revisions do not create
a new significant environmental effect and include only equivalent or more effective mitigation measures.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Ordinance No. NS-8S2
2. City Council Resolution No. 2007-199
3. Location Map
4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6296, 6297, 6298, 6299 and 6300
5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 16, 2007
6. Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 16, 2007.
1 ORDINANCE NO. NS-852
2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF
3 THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO
THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE, ZC 04-15,
4 FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL-QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY ZONE TO OPEN SPACE ON A 5.9-ACRE PARCEL
5 GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND AVIARA PARKWAY IN THE
6 MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
7 CASE NAME: KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
CASE NO.: ZC04-15
8
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
9 follows:
10 SECTION I: That Section 21.050.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the
zoning map, is amended as shown on the map marked Exhibit "ZC 04-15," dated May 16, 2007
12 attached hereto and made a part hereof.
13 ii
SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set14
forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6298 constitute the findings and conditions of the
City Council.16
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective no sooner than thirty days
after its adoption but not until Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 06-05 is approved by
1 8
the California Coastal Commission, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the
City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on
2 the 18th day of September, 2007, and thereafter.
3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the
4 City of Carlsbad on the day of , 2007, by the following vote to wit:
5
6 AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall, Packard and Nygaard.
7 NOES: None.
8 ABSENT: None.
9 ABSTAIN: None.
10
11 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
12
13
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
15
16 CLAUDE A LEWIS, Mayor
1?"
18 ATTEST:
19
20 LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
21 (SEAL)
22 "
23
24
25
26
27
28
ZC04-15 KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
5/16/2007
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Related Case File No(s): GPA 04-20/LCPA 06-05/SDP 03-01
/CDP 03-03/PIP 03-01
G.P. Map Designation Change
Property From:To:
A. 212-040-64-00
B.
C.
D.
P-M-Q P-M-Q/OS
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-199
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED
3 NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING A
4 CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR THE MCCLELLAN-
PALOMAR AIRPORT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, A
5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE AND OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION
6 ELEMENT DESIGNATIONS FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AND
UNPLANNED AREA TO OPEN SPACE ON A PORTION OF THE
7 SITE, A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND A
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 5.9-ACRE
8 PARCEL WITH A 84,894 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDINGS
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PALOMAR
9 AIRPORT ROAD AND AVIARA PARKWAY IN THE MELLO II
SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN
10 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
CASE NO.: GPA 04-20/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03
12 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:13
WHEREAS, a portion of Parcel "C" and all of Parcel "D" of Parcel Map No. 299314
is located within the Airport Influence Area of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive
Land Use Plan; and16
WHEREAS, all development within the Airport Influence Area must adhere to the
provisions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport; and
1 0
WHEREAS, the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission, represented
as the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, has determined that the office development
~. on said lot is inconsistent with the Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix in that a portion of the
~~ site is located within the 70-75 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour;
23 and
24 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and
Public Utilities Code, Section 21676, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad may, with a two-
thirds majority vote, elect to override the determination of the Airport Land Use Commission;
27 and
28
1 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
2 Commission did, on May 16, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
3 consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
4 General Plan Amendment (GPA 04-20), Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 06-05) and
5 Coastal Development Permit (CDP 03-03); and
6 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the iRt-h day of
7 September 2007, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Mitigated Negative
8 Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local
9 Coastal Program Amendment and Coastal Development Permit and at that time received
10 recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and/or GPA
12 04-20, LCPA 06-05 and CDP 03-03.
13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
14 of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That all recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council finds that the proposed office development on
, 7 Parcel "C" and all of Parcel "D" of Parcel Map No. 2993, as conditioned with internal noise
reduction, Notices of Restrictions, Hold Harmless Agreements, and Avigation easements would
minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise within areas around the airport to the greatest
extent possible, considering that the development is proposed on a legally created lot and is
consistent with the underlying Planned Industrial General Plan Land Use Zoning designations.
20 3. That based upon the above findings, the City Council approves the
recommended override, as to noise compatibility only, of the San Diego County Regional Airport
Authority's determination of non-consistency with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport.
22 4. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth
23 in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6296, 6297, 6299 and 6300 on file with the City Clerk
and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
24
5. That the application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
25 Monitoring and Reporting Program, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Coastal
Development Permit on property generally located on the southeast corner of Palomar Airport
26 Road and Aviara Parkway is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No.
6296, 6297, 6299 and 6300.
27
28
-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
6. That the application for a General Plan Land Use Map and Open Space
and Conservation Map Amendment from Planned Industrial and Unplanned Area to Open
Space on property generally located on the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and
Aviara Parkway as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6297, is hereby accepted,
approved in concept and shall be included in the second General Plan Amendment of 2007.
7. This action shall not become final until Local Coastal Program
Amendment (LCPA 06-05) is approved by the California Coastal Commission and the California
Coastal Commission's approval becomes effective. The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 18tb day of September 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulcbin, Hall, Packard and Nygaard.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
CLA
ATTEST:
May
LORRAINE' I/I. WOOD, /y Clerk '
(SEAL)
-3-
EXHIBITS
NOT TO SCALE
SITEMAP
KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-057
CDP 03-03
°(
EXHIBIT 4
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6296
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND OPEN
6 SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT DESIGNATIONS
FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AND UNPLANNED AREA
7 TO OPEN SPACE, A ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE THE
ZONING DESIGNATION FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL-
8 QUALIFIED OVERLAY ZONE TO OPEN SPACE, A LOCAL
o COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, A COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT
10 PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 5.9-ACRE PARCEL WITH A 84,894
SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE
11 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND
AVIARA PARKWAY IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE
12 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
! 3 MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: KELLY JRM OFFICE BUILDING
14 CASE NO.: GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-037
SDP 03-01
15
j 6 WHEREAS, Kelly/JRMC Palomar Airport Road I, LLC, "Developer/Owner,"
17 has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
18 A portion of Parcel "C" and all of Parcel "D" of Parcel Map
No. 2993, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to map thereof no. PM 2993, filed in
2Q the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, August 23,
1974 as file number 74-230326
21
("the Property"); and
22
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
24 Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
25 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of May 2007, hold a
2" duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
27 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
28
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
10
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
2 Program.
3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
4
- Commission as follows:
5 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
7 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
° Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to
9 Exhibits "NOI" dated November 18, 2004, and "PIP dated November 9, 2004,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
10
Findings;
11
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
13 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Kelly/JRM Office
14 Building and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and
any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project;
15 and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
17 Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental
18 Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
2Q Carlsbad; and
21 d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6296 -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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of May, 2007, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Douglas, Montgomery, Whitton
JULIE
CARLSB
ATTEST:
2/L
Chairperson
ANNING COMMISSION
DON NEU
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 6296 -3-
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Kelly/JRM Office Building
SDP 03-01/CDP 03-03/PBP 01-01
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast comer of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change to clarify, refine, and adjust the generalized land use boundaries of Planned Industrial
(PI) and (OS) and eliminate the erroneous Unplanned Area (UA) designation on a portion of the
property, a Zone Change to rezone the area designated as Open Space from the P-M-Q and E-A
zones to the Open Space (O-S) zone, and a Site Development Plan, Planned Industrial Permit,
and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a three-story, 85,000 square foot
office building.
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 (EIA Part 2) identified potentially
significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made
by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in
light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant
effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended
for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration is 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 Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD NOVEMBER 18. 2004 to DECEMBER 17. 2004
PUBLISH DATE NOVEMBER 18, 2004
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
January 30,2003
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 03-01/PIP 03-01/CDP 03-03
DATE: November 9. 2004
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Avenue
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Anne Hvsong. (760) 602-4622
4. PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Smith Consulting Architects. 12220 El
Camino Real. Suite 200. San Diego. CA 92130
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PI/OS
7. ZONING: P-M-Q/O-S
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): Airport Land Use Commission
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The relatively flat 6.06 acre parcel is vacant and previously disturbed by past agricultural
activity, construction of adjacent roadways, and temporary seasonal sales uses. The Encinas
Creek bisects the property along the southern boundary. Surrounding parcels to the east, south,
and west are vacant. The site is bounded on two sides by circulation arterial roadways: to the
north by Palomar Airport Road and to west by Aviara Parkway. The project consists of a
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to clarity, refine, and adjust the generalized land use
boundaries of Planned Industrial ( PD and (OS) and eliminate the erroneous Unplanned Area
(UA) designation on a portion of the property, a Zone Change to rezone the area designated as
Open Space from the P-M-Q and E-A zones to the Open Space (O-S) zone, and a Site
Development Plan. Planned Industrial Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to allow the
construction of a three-story. 85.000 square foot office building. The office building is 45' tall
with entry tower that extends to 52' in height. The project requires 6.250 cubic yards of
balanced cut and fill and the proposed pad elevation approximates the existing elevation within
the eastern portion of the site. The site is encumbered by easements for SDG&E transmission
lines, public utilities, open space, vehicular access and drainage. The proposed office is within
McClellan Palomar Airport's 65 -75 dBA CNEL noise contour lines and is impacted by up to 73
dBA CNEL noise levels from the adjacent circulation arterial roadways.
Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
I I Aesthetics
I | Agricultural Resources
n Air Quality
[X] Biological Resources
I I Cultural Resources
D Geology/Soils [X] Noise
I I Hazards/Hazardous Materials I I Population and Housing
Hydrology /Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
I I Public Services
I I Recreation
I I Transportation/Circulation
I I Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
IX! I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I | I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I I I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the
environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
"'
' ' /
/ f / a 3 / D V
Planner Signature , / /f Date
Planning Director 'signature Date
11
Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously
approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be
explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards
and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than
Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significantly adverse.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant 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 circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present
and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been
incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required.
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
• If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant,
Rev. 07/03/02
and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case,
the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not
limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been
discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does
not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a
"Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact 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 possible to determine the
level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a
mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to
discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I.
II.
III.
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 highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
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?
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant 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)
b)
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?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the
significance 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:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D
No
Impact
n
n
n
n
n n
n n
n n
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Conflict 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
No
Impact
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
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 identified in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations or
by California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) 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?
D D
D D
D D
D
D
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of Q I I I I [x]
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 local policies or ordinances I I I I I I [X]
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted I I I I I I [X]
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
g) Impact tributary areas that are Q I I I I 1X1
environmentally sensitive?
Rev. 07/03/02
Z-l
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
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?
IV. 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.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
n
a
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D D
D D
n D
a
a
n
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) 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?
c) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in
Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1997), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting I I
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the I I
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or I I
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle I I
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list I I
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?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, I I
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?
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) 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 wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
n n
n
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
D
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 (i.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)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) 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?
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?
D
D
n
n n n
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Create or contribute runoff water, which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Otherwise
quality?
substantially degrade water
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?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
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?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
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)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
D
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, I I
fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
o) Increase in any pollutant to an already I I
impaired water body as listed on the Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or I I
groundwater receiving water quality
objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
D
D
D
D
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IX.
X.
LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:
a) 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)Conflict with any
conservation plan or
conservation plan?
applicable habitat
natural community
MINERAL RESOURCES
project:
Would the
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
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?
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?
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?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
D
D
D
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
f) 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?
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the
project:
a) 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
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
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:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
No
Impact
D D D
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
14 Rev. 07/03/02 Z-?
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporatedn
n
n
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
n
n
b) Does the project include recreational facilities I I
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is I I
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 vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a I I
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, I I
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design I I
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? I I
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? I I
n
n
n n
n
n n
n
n
n
n
15 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turn-outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
No
Impact
D
D
D
n D
D D
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater I |
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?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient I I
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes [""]
and regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY
SIGNIFICANCE
FINDINGS OF
D D
n
D
16 Rev. 07/03/02 ^c^
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D D D
D
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects?)
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause the substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions
for the project.
No
Impact
D
D
17 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
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 highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
No Impact (a, b & c)- The project site is undeveloped and partially disturbed by past agricultural
activity. There are no scenic resources on the site. The proposed land subdivision and grading will occur
within the previously disturbed area and will not degrade the visual character or quality of the site. There
are no significant trees or vegetation within the development footprint that could be damaged from future
development of the site. The proposed office building will be consistent with the City's Planned
Industrial development standards that ensure high quality design and compatibility with the surrounding
office development. Therefore, the project will not damage scenic resources or degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
AGRICULTRAL 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?
No Impact - The project site is not considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance, and the site is designated for Planned Industrial land use. Therefore, the proposed
project will not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use or interfere with a Williamson Act contract.
AIR 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 (Os), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to
10 microns in diameter (PMio). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards
(AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill 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 embodied 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 from 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 regarding airsheds with the worst smog
problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
18 Rev. 07/03/02
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through 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
specific 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 with the RAQS 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
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 quality 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
recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both
2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-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 readings), nor contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than
significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant 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
considerable 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.
a) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
19 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or
concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the
vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed.
b) 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, hi addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not
considered substantial.
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 identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations
or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) 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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The direct impacts associated with the
project occur on 5.12 acres of non-sensitive vegetation consisting of .33 acre of exotic species, 4.57 acre
of disturbed (bare dirt), and .22 acre of developed (paved road). Impacts to wetland resources due to the
Encinas Creek roadway (Laurel Tree Road) improvement crossing that will provide vehicular access to
both the adjacent project and the proposed Kelly/JRM office project were previously analyzed as part of
the Environmental Impact Assessment and subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration approved for the
adjacent Pacific Enterprises property on July 5, 2001 for a project entitled Pacifica Palomar Office
Building. The roadway improvements include installation of a 140' x 65' triple box culvert under the
improved roadway within the creek area. Permanent impacts resulting from construction of the roadway
improvements include approximately 0.02 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.04 acre of freshwater marsh,
and 0.05 acre of culverted waters of the U.S. under the joint jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) and the California Dept. of Fish and Game (CDFG). The proposed roadway
improvement will also permanently impact 0.06 acre of southern willow scrub and 0.03 acre of disturbed
southern willow scrub under the jurisdiction of CDFG only. Proposed mitigation for permanent impacts
includes the onsite creation and enhancement of a total of 0.41 acre of jurisdictional wetlands. Impacts to
0.05 acre culverted waters of the U.S. will be mitigated 1:1 through the replacement of the existing pipe
culverts onsite with a new triple box culvert. The impacts resulting from the roadway improvement and
proposed mitigation measures have been authorized through the issuance of a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (File No. 02C-047), 1603
Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game (No. R5-2002-0128),
and 404 Nationwide Permit from the Army Corp of Engineers, incorporated herein by reference. The
applicant, Kelly/JRM Palomar Airport Road I LLC, is the co-permittee for the above referenced permits;
therefore, the project is subject to the mitigation measures required by those permits. The project will
also be required to comply with the Final Wetland Mitigation/Buffer Plan, dated 11/15/05.
20 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
Less than Significant Impact - The proposed development will occur on 6.06 acres, the majority of
which has been previously disturbed. Although disturbance to wetland vegetation within Encinas Creek
is necessary for the construction of the Laurel Tree Road improvements, the required improvements and
mitigation measures to restore wetlands impacted by the roadway improvements will not interfere with
the movement of wildlife through this corridor.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact - The project is consistent with the preservation and mitigation requirements of the City's
Draft Habitat Management Plan which is used as a standard of review for biological impacts.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Less than Significant Impact - Encinas Creek is identified as an existing hardline area in the City's
Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The proposed Laurel Tree Road crossing improvements and
associated wetland mitigation measures within the hardline area are consistent with the HMP.
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Encinas Creek contains wetland resources
and is tributary to the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Laurel Tree Road crossing improvements will be
mitigated as required by the ACOE 404 Nationwide Permit, CRWQCB 401 Water Quality Certification
and CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement issued for the project.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
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, b, & d) - The project site is an undeveloped infill site that has been previously disturbed
by agricultural operations. There are no known historical or archeological resources or human remains
on the project site.
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:
21 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iii.) - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within
the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active of potentially active faults within 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
seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad
Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992). In addition, the Geotechnical
Hazards Analysis identifies the project site to be in an area of low to moderate risk from ground shaking.
The risk from ground shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform
Building Code (earthquake standards). Because the site is located in an area of stable soil conditions,
and any future dwelling constructed on the site must comply with the UBC earthquake construction
standards, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from
the risks associated with earthquakes.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site is in an area of stable soil conditions that are not subject to landslides.
There are no unique geologic or physical features present on the site. The geotechnical analysis
performed for the site by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. revealed that no significant geotechnical
problems exist that could result in exposure to unsafe conditions.
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 through slope planting and installation of detention/desiltation basins or other
temporary 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?
Less Than Significant Impact - The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc. revealed that unstable soils are present that could result in exposure to unsafe
conditions without remediation; however, the site is favorable for the proposed development provided the
recommendations summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report are followed.
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact- The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc. revealed that geotechnical problems exist with respect to a stable base for the proposed
structure; however, the site is favorable for the proposed development provided the recommendations
summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report are followed.
22 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site surrounded by urban development. Existing
sewer facilities are located near the site and are available and adequate to support the project.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - 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?
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?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project consists of an office building; therefore, no hazardous materials
would be used or generated by the project. The site is not identified as a hazardous materials site.
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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact (e & f) - The project is located within the McClellan Palomar Airport influence area. The
Carlsbad Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) specifies the areas subject to safely hazards, i.e., the flight
activity zone and the crash hazard zone. The development is not located within either of these zones;
therefore a significant safety hazard would not result from the office development.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact - The project does not interfere with the City's emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact - The project site is surrounded on three sides by roadways and vacant land, and the Encinas
Creek and associated riparian habitat abut the development along the southern boundary. The project
consists of an office building and surrounding parking lot; therefore no risk of wildland fires resulting
from adjacent wildlands will result.
23 Rev. 07/03/02
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) 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 (i.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)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) 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?
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?
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The infill project will rely on an existing public storm drain system and
is subject to City standards regarding water quality, drainage and erosion control, including storm water
permit (NPDES) requirements and best management practices. The project is conditioned to require a
Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and constructed in
compliance with the City's NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Diego NPDES
Municipal Storm Water Permit issued to San Diego County and Cities by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
In addition, according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site is located in an area where development will not have a significant
impact to groundwater. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete
groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion
or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems.
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?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
No Impact (h & i) - The proposed office building and parking lot are not located within the 100-year
flood hazard area according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed development will
not result in structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.
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?
24 Rev. 07/03/02
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping
Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area
subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the project will not result in exposing people or
structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam failure, or from inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow.
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)?
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or
following construction?
o) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project site is located adjacent to Encinas
creek, however, drainage from the site is subject to the City's drainage and storm water pollution
control standards (NPDES and best management practices), which ensure that sediment and
pollutants from any development of the site will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface
waters. Also, the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards ensure that
development does not reduce water quality of any marine, fresh or wetland waters or groundwater.
The project is designed to drain through a grassy swale prior to entering Encinas Creek. The project
will be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that City
standards are met.
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) 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?
Potentially Significant Without Mitigation: The proposed office building is entirely consistent with
the underlying PI General Plan designation and P-M zoning, and will result in office development that is
consistent with office development approved on surrounding sites. The office project, which extends
into the 70 - 75 dBA airport noise contour, was deemed not consistent with the McClellan-Palomar
Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority acting as
the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The CLUP land use compatibility matrix
does not allow office uses within the 70 - 75 dBA CNEL contour. It does, however, specify that office
buildings can be located within the 65 - 70 dBA CNEL airport noise contour if interior noise levels are
mitigated to 50 dBA CNEL. Only a portion of the office building extends into the 70 - 75 dBA CNEL
noise contour and the project is subject to the 50 dBA interior noise standard by Title 24 CFR adopted by
the City of Carlsbad. The acoustical analysis performed for the project indicates that the 50 dBA interior
noise level can be achieved. Therefore, prior to final approval of the project, the City must overrule the
ALUC inconsistency determination by a two-thirds vote of the City Council at a public hearing where
25 Rev. 07/03/02
findings are made that the action is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act. Mitigation
required to avoid conflict with the CLUP consists of City Council overrule of the ALUC inconsistency
determination prior to final approval of the project.
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State?
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?
No Impact (a & b) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping
Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources; therefore, the project will
not result in the loss of availability of a know mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site.
NOISE - Would the project:
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 performed for the
project by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. revealed that exterior noise levels adjacent to the
proposed office building along Palomar Airport Road will be 73dBA. The proposed office project is also
located within the McClellan Palomar Airport 65 - 75 CNEL noise contours. The Airport Land Use Plan
(CLUP) compatibility matrix allows office buildings in areas up to 70 dBA CNEL with interior noise
levels mitigated to 50 dBA. The City's noise guidelines limit interior noise in office uses to 55 dBA;
however, the City's has adopted The California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Noise Insulation
Standards. These standards limit interior noise for office uses to 50dBA consistent with the CLUP
requirement. The acoustical analysis indicates that interior noise levels can be attenuated to 50 dBA
CNEL by incorporating specific structural acoustical requirements. Therefore, mitigation to attenuate
noise levels to 50dBA CNEL shall consist of compliance with the acoustical analysis recommendations.
Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, an interior noise analysis compliant with City
standards will be required to demonstrate that the proposed design would limit interior noise to the City's
50 dBA CNEL interior noise standard.
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) 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
infrastructure)?
No Impact - The project is located on an infill site that is surrounded by existing and/or approved
development and served by existing infrastructure.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact (b & c) - The project site is currently vacant.
26 Rev. 07/03/02
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:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
No Impact (a.i to a.v.) -The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 5.
The provision of public facilities within LFMZ 5, including fire protection, parks, libraries and other
public facilities, has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of that area. Because the
project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 5, all public facilities will
be adequate to serve office development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial
adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities.
RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
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?
No Impact (a & b) - As part of the City's Growth Management Program (GMP), a performance
standard for parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park
and Special Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided. The
project site is located within Park District #1 (Northwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to
achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #1 has been achieved; therefore
recreational facilities are adequate to accommodate the project.
TRANSPORTATION/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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 1,700 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 238
peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways: Palomar Airport Road, Aviara Parkway
and College Boulevard. Existing traffic on these arterials is 46,286 ADT on Palomar Airport Road (2003
data), 12,287 ADT on College Boulevard (2003 data) and 9,800 on Aviara Parkway (2002 data) and the
2003 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection(s) is currently B or higher. The only
intersection which would change the Level of Service due to the project is the Palomar Airport
Road/College Boulevard/Aviara Parkway intersection during the P.M. peak hour. The Level of Service
is expected to drop from a B to a C. The design capacities of the arterial roads effected by the proposed
project are 40,000 or more vehicles per day for Palomar Airport Road and 20,000 to 40,000 vehicles per
day for Aviara Parkway and College Boulevard. The project traffic would represent 1%, 14%, and 3% of
the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the
27 Rev. 07/03/02
proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to
accommodate traffic 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 significant.
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 Airport 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 designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing APT* LOS Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 "A-D" 35-56
El Camino Real 27-49 "A-C" 33-62
Palomar Airport Road 10-57 "A-D" 30-73
SR78 124-142 "F" 156-180
1-5 199-216 "D" 260-272
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) 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 "F" in 1990).
Accordingly, 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
used 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 designated 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) 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. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar
Airport except that it exceeds noise levels allowed for office development. The proposed office land use
is consistent with the designated land use on the property and would not result in a change of air traffic
patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed.
b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards;
and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's
general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No
impact assessed.
c) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire
and Police Departments. No impact assessed.
28 Rev. 07/03/02 MI
d) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would
comply with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed.
e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The project is located at the intersection of two circulation arterial roadways where bus
service is available. The project located adjacent to two circulation arterial roadways that provide bike
lanes; therefore it is conditioned to install bike racks to support alternative transportation.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects?
No Impact (a & b) - The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 5
which is served by the Encina wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater treatment capacity has been
planned to accommodate the projected growth of Zone 5. Because the project will not exceed the total
growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 5, wastewater treatment capacity will be adequate to serve
residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts
to or result in the need for additional wastewater treatment facilities.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
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?
No Impact (c, d & e) - All public facilities, including water facilities and drainage facilities, have been
planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed
official project will not result in growth that exceeds the City's growth projections.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact (f & g) - Existing waste disposal services contracted by the City of Carlsbad are adequate to
serve the proposed residence without exceeding landfill capacities.
29 Rev. 07/03/02
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Potentially Significant Without Mitigation: The project will not degrade the quality of the physical
environment in that although jurisdictional waters of the U.S. including wetlands will be disturbed due to
the Laurel Tree Road crossing improvements, impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the Section
401 Water Quality Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (File No,
02C-047), 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game (No,
R5-2002-0128), and 404 Nationwide Permit from the Army Corp of Engineers.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?)
Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional
growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into
SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water
quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are
established to reduce the cumulative 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, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, 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
discussed above, the proposed development would represent a contribution to a cumulatively
considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however,
emissions associated with residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions
potentially associated with a residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same
whether or not the residential development is implemented. Therefore, the impact is assessed as less
than significant.
Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three
roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in
Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City's
growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function 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 impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than
significant.
With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will
ensure that residential development on the site will not result in a significant cumulative considerable
impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
30 Rev. 07/03/02 \ ./^
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Development of the site will comply with
City development standards designed to avoid substantial adverse environmental effects to employees
working in Carlsbad industrial areas/ The project site is located in an area where human beings could be
exposed to excessive noise levels; however, interior noise levels will mitigated to SOdBA in accordance
with City standards and the CLUP.
31 Rev. 07/03/02
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR
93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
2. San Diego Regional Authority ALUC Consistency Determination - PAL 03-002, Resolution No.
03-059, dated September 12, 2003.
3. "Structural Acoustical Analysis/CCR Title 24 Survey Kelly/JRM Palomar Airport Road,
Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #03-044" prepared by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc.,
dated May 15, 2003 and "Accoustical Addendum Letter" dated June 2, 2003.
4. Section 401 Water Quality Certification (File No. 02C-047), California Regional Water Quality
Control Board; 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement (No. R5-2002-0128), California
Department of Fish and Game; and 404 Nationwide Permit (File # 200300033-KIC), Army Corp
of Engineers.
5. "Preliminary Vegetation Assessment of APN 212-04-64, Carlsbad, CA" prepared by Planning
Systems dated January 7, 2003, and Letter from Merkel Associates, Inc., dated August 27, 2004.
6. "Report of Soil Investigation and Geologic Reconnaissance - Proposed JRM/Kelly Commercial
Property Southeast of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway Intersection, Carlsbad,
California", prepared by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc., dated October 27, 2000.
32 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Biology: Compliance with the Section 401 Water Quality Certification (File No. 02C-047),
California Regional Water Quality Control Board; 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement (No.
R5-2002-0128), California Department of Fish and Game; and 404 Nationwide Permit (File #
200300033-KIC), Army Corp of Engineers, and the Enhanced Buffer alternative in the Final
Wetland Mitigation/Buffer Plan dated 11/15/05. The pedestrian trail shall be located in the outer
15 feet of the 70 foot wetland buffer. No maintenance of the bioswale within the buffer is
allowed. Drain inlet filters and development side filter maintenance shall be required.
2. Land Use: City Council overrule of the ALUC inconsistency determination prior to final
approval of the project based on findings that the project is consistent with the State Aeronautics
Act.
3. Noise: Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, an interior noise analysis compliant
with City standards will be required to demonstrate that the proposed design would limit interior
noise to the City's 50 dBA CNEL interior noise standard.
33 Rev. 07/03/02
NOV-15-2004 MON 01=59 PM CITY OF CARLSBAD FAX NO. 760 602 8559 P. 36
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTlb'Y THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MRASURKS ANDC:ONCUR wrm THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO TUB PROJECT.
Date
35 Rev, 07/03/02 14-7
T —
"o
0)O)
CO
Q_
i
COo
QL
Q
O
25
9too
^f
CL
O_J
in
T-
4o
ON
0
CM
O
^CL
O
75TO
I
COa: jrUJ 0
CD CO2 o
D 0.
Z Q
UJ </)
d COU- 0
oz
a
5
CQ
UJ
O
LLU.
0
a:
^j_i
UJ
LU
o*^
0•5o
c
ts0
"o"
Q.
CO
—o
"co
1Q.Q.
<
*to
O
TJ
O
0
0£
o
^
TJ
to
Oa.
ooc
20$
COe^toCO0
g
"coTO
E
"co-1— '
0
Ec• • °
^ '< 0
< Q a)
Z _j C
B 1 1LU O -5
0 CL aa: D. ^a. < H
to.c
CO^)
0
TJC
§toCO
0E
c
0
toTO
E
x:oCO
£
*--~
o0
o
TJ0C
TO
'to
TJ
CO
1"0a.
Eoo
<
0oc
8^^_
'c
TO
'to
•
"5
CD
CD
CO
0
to
"oCOQ.
E"~™
lo
c0
Eco
•>
c0
TJ0
M—
'c
0TJ
E0to
<
O•+-*
Ito
2
JZ
•4-J
^to
"c
0
CD
D-CD
TO
'CO
'EoE
JOT
0
0
•4-f
to
:=
|J
TJCCO
TJ"
H-ic0
E0a.
E*
TJ
CO
-*— •
>
TJ.0
"5.
Eoo
c00.a
toCO£:
CD
toCO0E
c_o
(D
COo
CN
0
0
CO
0TJOo
c/>0o
^oto0a:
o
15
3
TOO
^ CO
E
to
£
CO
CQ
co
CO
E
0o:
.0
TJ SCD c
£ CD
1 §"a
E
c
0 toiOE
CO
O)"cC 0•c c
.-§ "Cf^ CO
^c CD12 D
D)
C'i— CDO Q.= S
O *~
«E
Mitigation MeasureV)
CD
O0?
z Cd^_ L^
Z UJ11
n ^UJ
*- O)"o .g .i±.5>,TJ E
S E IB
Q_ C9 CL
i_ := CO0 "o CO TJ T
Compliance with the Section 401 Water QualityCertification (File No. 02C-047), California Regional WatQuality Control Board; 1603 Streambed AlterationAgreement (No. R5-2002-0128), California Department <Fish and Game; and 404 Nationwide Permit (File #200300033-KIC), Army Corp of Engineers, and theEnhanced Buffer alternative in the Final WetlandMitigation/Buffer Plan dated 1 1/15/05. The pedestrian trshall be located in the outer 15 feet of the 70 foot wetlanbuffer. No maintenance of the bioswale within the buffeiallowed. Drain inlet filters and development side filtermaintenance shall be required.oz
O)c
'c
CO
Q.
._ O) O)O C C *i
CD =5 =5 E
S'E'B 0Q. (3 CO CL
City Council overrule of the ALUC inconsistencydetermination prior to final approval of the project basedon findings that the project is consistent with the StateAeronautics Act.O
O) O)c c
'c jg|d
' 0)
0 .£ ^a> TJ E
'$'B 0
Q. CQ CL
0 0-Q in
Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, aninterior noise analysis compliant with City standards willrequired to demonstrate that the proposed design wouldlimit interior noise to the City's 50 dBA CNEL interior noistandard.CL
XT3
C<uQ.a
Qa:ency, responsible for monitoring a particulai• *?
I Sro= cE ?)
in
Explanation of Headingsis
Type = Project, ongoing,Monitoring Dept. = Depaimitigation measui1*1
1c1
I
!g
incCD
Q.
CO
o
in
M
13
OJ
0)
E
J13O)
E-ri
information.Shown on Plans = Wheninitialed and date>
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6297
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE AND
4 OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENTS OF THE
GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE AND OPEN
SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT DESIGNATIONS
6 FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AND UNPLANNED AREA
TO OPEN SPACE, OPEN SPACE TO PLANNED INDUSTRIAL
7 AND ADJUST THE OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST
8 CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND AVIARA
9 PARKWAY IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
10 MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
11 CASE NO: GPA 04-20
12 WHEREAS, Kelly/JRMC Palomar Airport Road I, LLC, "Developer/"Owner"
13 has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
14
A portion of Parcel "C" and all of Parcel "D" of Parcel Map
15 No. 2993, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
,,- of California, according to map thereof no. PM 2993, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, August 23,
17 1974 as file number 74-230326
18 ("the Property"); and
1Q WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
20 Amendment as shown on Exhibit "GPA 04-20" dated May 16, 2007, attached hereto and on file
21
in the Carlsbad Planning Department, KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING - GPA 04-20, as
22
provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad
24 Municipal Code; and
25 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 16th day of May, 2007, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
27 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
28
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the General Plan Amendment.
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
3
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
4
- B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING - GPA
5 04-20, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
7 Findings:
8 1. 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 May 16, 2007 including, but not limited to the following:
10
a. Land Use: The redesignation of 1.36 acres from the Unplanned Area (UA)
11 and Open Space (OS) to Open Space is for the purpose of habitat
preservation and buffers necessary to meet development and design
12 standards of the Habitat Management Plan. A portion of the OS is being
, o changed to PI as the existing Open Space area is being adjusted to follow the
existing riparian habitat corridor including the associated habitat buffer.
14
b. Open Space and Conservation: - 1.36 acres will be redesignated to Open Space
15 and preserved and maintained as a habitat preserve area in accordance with
the City's Habitat Management Plan. The project also includes a portion of
*" the Citywide trail network.
17 c. Circulation: That the proposed street vacation for Laurel Tree Road is
I g consistent with the General Plan in that: the roadway does not provide access
to any parcels; the roadway is not identified in the circulation Element; and
19 the street vacation will not disrupt the local traffic patterns as the street is
not improved to local street standards.
20
2. That the proposed open space area:
22 a. is equal to or greater than the area depicted on the Official Open Space and
Conservation Map. The present OS area is estimated to be 1.45 acres in size
23 where 1.36 acres are to be preserved. The area should not be viewed as a
reduction but as a refined acreage based on accurate biological surveys; and
24
b. is of environmental quality equal to or greater than that depicted on the Official
Open Space and Conservation Map the proposed open space area further defines
26 the limits of the Encinas Creek area being preserved; and
27 c. is contiguous or within close proximity to open space as shown on the Official
Open Space and Conservation Map. The open space area is adjacent to Open
" Space Land Use designated properties which make up the Encinas Creek
drainage.
PC RESO NO. 6297 -2-',.«" .r—v
0°
3. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
2 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
3 degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
4 Conditions:
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
5 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
7 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
o 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
10 or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this General Plan Amendment.
11 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the General Plan Amendment documents, as necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
13 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
14
3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
15 regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
17 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
18 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.
20 5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
21 harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
22 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 General Plan Amendment,
(b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or
24 nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
25 including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation
2" survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's
27 approval is not validated.
28 6. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ZC 04-15, LCPA 06-05, and
PC RESO NO. 6297 -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
CDP 03-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 6296, 6298,6299, and 6300 for those other approvals.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of May, 2007, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Douglas, Montgomery, Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JULIE B
CARLSB
ATTEST:
hairperson
.NNING COMMISSION
DON NEU
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 6297 -4-
GPA 04-20 KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
5/16/2007
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Related Case File No(s): ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/SDP
/COP 03-03/PIP 03-01
G.P. Map Desig
Property
A. 2 12-040-64-00
B.
C.
D.
From:
PI/OS/UA
nation Change
03-01
To:
PI/OS
„,..,) A
1" -^
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6298
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM PLANNED
4 INDUSTRIAL-QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
ZONE TO OPEN SPACE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PALOMAR
6 AIRPORT ROAD AND AVIARA PARKWAY IN THE MELLO
II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN
7 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
8 CASE NO: ZC04-15
9 WHEREAS, Kelly/JRMC Palomar Airport Road I, LLC, "Developer/Owner"
10
has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
11
A portion of Parcel "C" and all of Parcel "D" of Parcel Map
No. 2993, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
13 of California, according to map thereof no. PM 2993, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, August 23,
14 1974 as file number 74-230326
15 ("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
17
Exhibit "ZC 04-15" dated May 16, 2007, attached hereto and on file in the Planning
18
Department, KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING - ZC 04-15, as provided by Chapter 21.52 of
2Q the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of May, 2007, hold a
22 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
23 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
24
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
25
relating to the Zone Change.
26
2? NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
28 Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
2 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING - ZC 04-15
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
3
Findings;
4
- 1. That the proposed Zone Change from Planned Industrial-Qualified Development
Overlay Zone (PM-Q) to Open Space (OS) is consistent with the goals and policies of
the various elements of the General Plan, in that the redesignation of 1.36 acres from
PM-Q to OS is for the purpose of habitat preservation and buffer areas necessary to
7 meet development and design standards of the Habitat Management Plan. The
existing Open Space area is being adjusted to more specifically follow the existing
riparian habitat corridor including the associated habitat buffer.
9 2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as
10 mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use
Element, in that the Open Space Zoning designation implements the OS General Plan
Land Use designation.
12 3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity, and general
13 welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the proposed zone
change will enable implementation of the City's Habitat Management Plan for the
14 preservation of sensitive habitat and associated buffers.
4. 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
17 degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
18 Conditions:
If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
20 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
21 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
22 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
24 or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Zone Change.
25 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Zone Change documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall
27 occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development,
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
28
3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
PC RESO NO. 6298 -2-
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
2 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
3 Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be
invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies
with all requirements of law.
5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
6 harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
7 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 Zone Change, (b) City's
° approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary,
n 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
10 liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have
11 been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated.
12 6. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 04-20, LCPA 06-05 and
CDP 03-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
14 Resolutions No. 6296,6297,6299 and 6300 for those other approvals.
15 NOTICE
16
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees,
17 dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
"fees/exactions."18
19 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
20 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.
23 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,
24 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.
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6298 -3-
1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 16th day of May, 2007, by the following vote,
3
to wit:
4
i- AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Douglas, Montgomery, Whitton
6
NOES:
7
ABSENT:8
9 ABSTAIN:
10
11
12
13 JULIEflBAKER, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
14"
15 ATTEST:
16
17
DON NEU
18 Planning Director
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PCRESONO. 6298 -4-
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6299
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
4 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO CHANGE THE
DESIGNATIONS ON THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
5 LAND USE PLAN AND ZONING MAP FROM PLANNED
6 INDUSTRIAL (PI) AND UNPLANNED AREA (UA)TO OPEN
SPACE (OS) AND OS TO PI, AND PLANNED INDUSTRIAL
7 QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (PM-Q) TO
OPEN SPACE (OS) RESPECTIVELY ON PROPERTY
8 GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND AVIARA PARKWAY IN
y THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL
10 PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 5.
11 CASE NAME: KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
CASE NO: LCPA 06-0512
,., WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
14 General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
15 WHEREAS, Kelly/JRMC Palomar Airport Road I, LLC, "Developer/Owner"
has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
17 A portion of Parcel "C" and all of Parcel "D" of Parcel Map
18 No. 2993, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to map thereof no. PM 2993, filed in
1° the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, August 23,
2Q 1974 as file number 74-230326
21 ("the Property"); and
22 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
9^Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit "LCPA 06-05" dated May 16, 2007, attached hereto,
24 as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2,
25
Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal
26
Commission Administrative Regulations; and
28 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of May, 2007, 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
2
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
3
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.; and
4
, WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six-week public review period
g for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
o0 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
9 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
10
B) At the end of the State-mandated six-week review period, starting on March 22,
2007 and ending on May 3, 2007, staff shall present to the City Council a
summary of the comments received.
13 C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING -
14 LCPA 06-05 based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
17 in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
of the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by
18 this amendment, in that the project will protect Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
Areas and the payment of Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fees will provide
funding of other agricultural programs.
20 2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program is required to bring it into consistency with the City's General Plan Land Use
Map, Zoning Map (as amended), and Mello II Implementation Plan (the zoning
22 map).
23 Conditions;
24 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
25 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
26 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
2' 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
PC RESO NO. 6299 -2-
or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Local Coastal Program
2 Amendment.
3 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Local Coastal Program Amendment 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.
5 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
7
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
o 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
10 invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies
with all requirements of law.
11
. 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
13 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
14 or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Local Coastal Program
Amendment, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether
discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
17 facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation
survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's
18 approval is not validated.
6. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
20 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 04-20, ZC 04-15, and
CDP 03-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
21 Resolutions No. 6296, 6297, 6298, and 6300 for those other approvals.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6299 -3-
1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
2
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 16th day of May 2007, by the following vote,
3
to wit:
4
e- AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Douglas, Montgomery, Whitton
6
NOES:
7
ABSENT:8
9 ABSTAIN:
10
11
12
13 JULlKBAKfeR, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
14"
15 ATTEST:
16
17
DON NEU
18 Planning Director
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6299 -4-(el
LCPA 06-05 KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
5/16/2007
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Related Case File No(s): ZC 04-15/GPA 04-20/SDP
/CDP 03-03/PIP 03-01
G.P. Map Desig
Property
A. 21 2-040-64-00
B.
C.
D.
From:
PI/OS/UA
nation Change
03-01
To:
PI/OS
LCPA 06-05 KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
5/16/2007
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Related Case File No(s): ZC 04-15/GPA 04-20/SDP 03-01
/CDP 03-03/PIP 03-01
G.P. Map Desig
Property
A. 212-040-64-00
B.
C.
D.
From:
P-M-Q
nation Change
To:
P-M-Q/OS
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6300
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
4 DEVELOP A 5.9-ACRE PARCEL WITH A 84,894 SQUARE
FOOT OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND AVIARA
6 PARKWAY IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
7 MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
8 CASE NO.: CDP 03-03
9 WHEREAS, Kelly/JRMC Palomar Airport Road I, LLC, "Developer/Owner"
10
has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
12 A portion of Parcel "C" and all of Parcel "D" of Parcel Map
No. 2993, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
13 of California, according to map thereof no. PM 2993, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, August 23,
14 1974 as file number 74-230326
15 ("the Property"); and
16 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
17
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits "A" - "H" dated May 16, 2007, on file in the
18
19 Planning Department, KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING - CDP 03-03, as provided by
20 Chapter 21.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 16th day of May, 2007, hold a
22 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
23
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
24
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
£* 0
26 relating to the CDP.
27 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
28 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
2 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING - CDP
03-03 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
3
Findings:
4
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal
Program and all applicable policies in that the development does not obstruct public
5 views of the coastline as seen from public lands or rights-of-way; no present
agricultural activities, sensitive resources, public access or shoreline access, or
7 water-oriented recreation activities are impacted. The project has been conditioned
to pay the Agricultural Conversion fee for the conversion of agricultural land. The
project enhances and conserves the environmentally sensitive habitat areas of the
Q Encinas Creek.
IQ 2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that there are no public access or recreation requirements for
11 the property.
12 3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the
City's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard
14 Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff
Management Program (JURMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil
15 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.
17 4. The project is not located between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea and,
jg therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Shoreline Protection Zone
(Chapter 21.204 of the zoning Ordinance).
19
5. The project complies with the requirements of the Coastal Agricultural Overlay
20 Zone as the project is conditioned to pay the agricultural conversion mitigation fee
to develop with other than agricultural uses.
22 6. 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
23 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.
24
Conditions:25
2/r Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to grading permit
issuance or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first.
27
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
28 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
PC RESO NO. 6300 -2-
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
2 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
3 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
6 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.
7 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
o
9 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
10
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
12 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
13 unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
14
5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
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
17 or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Coastal Development Permit,
(b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or
nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
20 facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation
survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's
21 approval is not validated.
22 Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
23 water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
24 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.
7. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 04-20, ZC 04-15, and
27 LCPA 06-05 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 6296, 6297, 6298 and 6299 for those other approvals.
28
PC RESO NO. 6300 -3-
To offset the conversion of non-prime agricultural land to urban land uses per the
2 requirements of the Mello II Local Coastal Program, the applicant shall provide
payment of the agricultural mitigation fee, the amount of which shall not be less
3 than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 for each net converted acre of non-prime
agricultural land. The amount of the fee shall be determined by the City Council
4 and be paid by the applicant prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any
c grading permit, whichever occurs first and shall be consistent with the provisions of
Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program.
6
9. The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two
7 (2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per
Section 21.201.210 of the Zoning Ordinance.
o
9 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
10
11. If grading activities are to occur between March 1st and October 1st, a Least Bell's
* vireo survey shall be completed to determine the presence of the bird. If vireos are
,~ found during surveys, noise control measures, such as a sound wall, must be
implemented at the edge of the Encina Creek buffer in order to limit construction
13 noise levels within vireo occupied riparian habitat to below 60dB(A) or ambient
levels, whichever is higher.
14
15
16 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."
19
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
22 follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
23
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
26 NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6300 -4-
1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
2
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of May, 2007, by the
3
following vote, to wit:
4
~ AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Douglas, Montgomery, Whitton
6
NOES:
7
ABSENT:o
9 ABSTAIN:
10
11
12
13 JULIE-BAKER, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
14"
15 ATTEST:
16
17 n
DON NEU1 o° Planning Director
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6300 -5-
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 5
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 16, 2007
Application complete date: May 16, 2007
Project Planner: Van Lynch
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01 - KELLY/JRM
OFFICE BUILDING - Request for a recommendation of approval to adopt a
Consistency Determination for the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive
Land Use Plan and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a recommendation of approval of a
General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use and Open Space
and Conservation Element designations from Planned Industrial and Unplanned
Area to Open Space on a portion of the site, a Zone Change to change the Zoning
designation from Planned Industrial-Qualified Development Overlay Zone to
Open Space on a portion of the site, a Local Coastal Program Amendment, and a
Coastal Development Permit; and a request for approval of a Site Development
Permit to develop a 5.9-acre parcel with a 84,894 square foot office buildings
located on the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway in
the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities
Management Zone 5.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6296
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6297,
6298, 6299 and 6300 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment 04-20,
Zone Change 04-15, Local Coastal Program Amendment 06-05 and Coastal Development Permit
03-03 and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6301 APPROVING Site
Development Permit 03-01 and based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
II.INTRODUCTION
The application request is for the construction of an 84,894 square foot, three-story office
building proposed on the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway. The
General Plan Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Element Amendments, Zone Change
and Local Coastal Program Amendment are required to change the Land Use and Zoning
designations of a 1.36 acre portion of the site from Planned Industrial and Unplanned Area to
Open Space for conservation purposes.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01/PIP 03-01 -KELLY/JRM OFFICE
BUILDING
May 16, 2007
Page 2
The southern quarter of the property contains Encinas Creek and its associated sensitive habitats
and wetland buffer. The building faces, but does not have access to, Palomar Airport Road. A
minor subdivision is proposed to create a separate lot for the open space portion of the project to
allow the open space lot to be later owner and managed by a separate entity for Habitat
Management Plan compliance. The Minor Subdivision is an administrative permit and will be
acted on by the City Engineer after the Planning Commission, City Council and California
Coastal Commission act on the applications. The project is also required to process a Planned
Industrial Permit application which is also administrative and will be acted upon by the Planning
Director after the other project approvals are final.
The proposed 84,894 square foot building is rectangular in shape and is three stories tall with the
main entrance located on the south side of the building. The proposed building has a variety of
wall angles and offsets to provide architectural relief. The building also incorporates vertical
wall features and parapets which resemble a Moderne architectural style. The "Class A", steel
frame building will be clad with a limestone veneer. The bottom floor exterior will have an
"Estril Blue Limestone" and the upper two floors will have "Cascais Gold Limestone with a
"Jura Green Limestone" accent under the windows. The windows will be dual glazed with a
green tint. The front entry feature will be glass with a metal arched entry canopy. A few of the
second and third floor offices provide exterior balconies. The northern building elevation
(Palomar Airport Road elevation) is the mirror image of the southern building elevation (Main
entry). The project provides both interior and exterior employee eating areas and will construct a
portion of the citywide trail system along Encinas Creek.
The project site is constrained because of the large arterial roadway setbacks, the 150-foot wide
SDG&E High Tension Power line easement which bisects the site, and the Encinas Creek and
associated wetland buffer. For the above reasons, the Planning Director issued an
Administrative Variance, AV 06-04, on June 13, 2006 to allow for a 10 foot reduction of all the
required yard setbacks.
The adjacent project (Biltmore/24 Hour Fitness) has already received approvals from the Army
Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board for the improvement of the Laurel Tree Lane creek crossing and for the habitat
restoration of the creek area. These creek and habitat improvements have been completed. The
Kelly JRM Office Building portion of the Encinas Creek was made a part of Biltmore's project
approval and mitigation requirement by the Wildlife Agencies. The proposed project does not
impact the open space or modify the previously approved improvements in the open space.
IV. ANALYSIS
The Kelly JRM Office Building project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and
standards:
A. Planned Industrial (PI) and Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use designations;
B. Planned Industrial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (P-M-Q);
C. Site Development Plan findings required by the Qualified Development Overlay Zone,
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.06, Section 21.06.020;
D. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport;
GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01/PIP 03-01 -KELLY/JRM OFFICE
BUILDING
May 16, 2007
Page 3
E. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone -
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.202 and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone - Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.203;
F. Habitat Management Plan;
G. Commercial Visitor Serving Overlay Zone; and
H. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5).
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project's compliance with each of
the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A. General Plan
The present General Plan Land Use designations for the project area (5.9 acres) of the project
site are Planned Industrial (PI), Unplanned Area (UA), and Open Space (OS). The southerly
2.39 acre southerly portion of the site has the Open Space (OS) and Unplanned Area (UA) Land
Use designations. Based on the biological constraints of the project and the associated habitat
buffers, the proposed Land Use amendment will change 1.36 acres of the southern portion of the
site impacted by the creek and buffer to OS. The General Plan Land Use amendment also
reflects a change to the existing OS designation to PI because the detailed analysis of the riparian
corridor and associated buffer area better defined the general placement of the Open Space
mapping of the Encina Creek. The project complies with most of elements of the General Plan
as illustrated in the Table A below:
Table A - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT
Land Use
Land Use
Circulation
Noise
USE,
CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE
OR PROGRAM
Development area is
designated as PI.
Protect and conserve
natural resources.
New development
shall dedicate and
improve all public
right-of-way for
circulation facilities
needed to serve
development.
Utilize noise
standards contained in
the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan
(CLUP) for Palomar
Airport.
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS
Office uses.
Place Open Space designation
and easements over biologically
sensitive areas.
Additional dedication for a
public street, Laurel Tree Lane
and frontage improvements to
Palomar Airport Road and
Aviara Parkway. Project also
vacates portion of old Laurel
Tree Road.
The project has been
determined to be inconsistent
with the CLUP as the project is
within the 70 - 75 dB CNEL
noise contour for the Airport.
COMPLY?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No. See
discussion
below
GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01/PIP 03-01 -KELLY/JRM OFFICE
BUILDING
May 16,2007
Page 4
Table A - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT
Open Space &
Conservation
USE,
CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE
OR PROGRAM
Designate as buffers
portions of land next
to sensitive
environmental areas.
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS
The project includes a 70-foot
buffer from Encinas Creek.
COMPLY?
Yes
The project site is located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Zone and as such is
regulated by the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The property is subject to
noise from the airport and the noise contours as identified in the CLUP must be utilized to
determine land use compatibility. The project site is impacted by the 70 to 75 dB range on the
very northern portion of the property. Because the project falls within the 70 - 75 dB CNEL
noise contour of the Airport, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (Authority),
acting in its capacity as the San Diego Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), determined that
the proposed project was not consistent with the CLUP. The City Council may overrule the
ALUC's decision by a two-thirds vote of the City Council. To overrule the ALUC, the City
Council would need to make findings that the approval of the project would not bias the intent to
"protect public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the
adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety
hazards with areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to
incompatible uses." A separate City Council resolution of approval of the Consistency
Determination has been prepared for the City Council's action.
At the time of the redrawing of the aircraft noise contours in 1994, the subject lot was already
created and designated for industrial/office development in the City's General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. Given this pre-existing condition, and the fact that noise reduction measures and
disclosure provisions are incorporated into the project, the public's exposure to excessive noise is
minimized to the greatest extent possible. Based on this, staff is supportive of the override of the
ALUC determination. This recommendation is consistent with past City Council actions on
previous projects with similar circumstances. It should be noted that the Public Utilities Code
Section 21678 states that, upon such local agency override of the ALUC's determination, "the
operator of the airport shall be immune from any liability for damages to property or personal
injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency's decision to override
the commission's action or recommendation."
The project proposes to vacate a portion of Laurel Tree Road. Laurel Tree Road use to provide
access from Palomar Airport Road to the subject property and properties more southerly. Once
Aviara Parkway was completed, the Laurel Tree Road access was not needed. Laurel Tree Lane,
from Aviara Parkway, provides access to the subject property. The street vacation is consistent
with the General Plan Circulation element as the road is not shown as a circulation element
roadway. The properties served by the old roadway now have other roads providing vehicular
access via publicly dedicated streets and the street vacation will not disrupt local circulation.
GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01/PIP 03-01 -KELLY/JRM OFFICE
BUILDING
May 16, 2007
Page 5 .
B. Planned Industrial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone
The development area of the project site is zoned Planned Industrial, Qualified Development
Overlay Zone (P-M-Q). Based on the biological constraints of the project and the associated
biological buffers, the Zone Change will change the roughly 1.36 acre southern portion of the
site that is impacted by the creek and buffer area to OS, which will implement the proposed OS
Land Use designation. The proposed Zone Change will also apply to the LCPA. The project
complies with the requirements of the P-M Zone, except as noted and demonstrated in Table B
below:
Table B - P-M ZONE COMPLIANCE
STANDARD
Permitted Use
Building Height
Setbacks
Parking
Parking area landscaping
Minimum Lot Area
Lot Coverage
Employee Eating Areas
Outdoor Equipment
REQUIRED
Business & Professional Offices
35 feet/ 45 ft.*; 55 ft. for allowed
protrusions
Palomar Airport Road - 50 ft.*
Interior Side Yard - 10ft.
Front Yard - 35 foot average (25
foot minimum)
340 (1:250 office)
10% of the required parking area
1 acre
50% maximum
5, 100 sq.ft. (40%
interior/60%exterior)
Enclose by a concrete or masonry
wall not less than 6 ft. in height
PROPOSED
Multi-tenant office use
43 ft. maximum; 5 1 ' 6" for
allowed protrusions
Palomar Airport Road - 50 ft.
Interior Side Yard - 10ft.
Front Yard - 180 foot building
setback - 25 ft. minimum for
parking.
340 \
12% of the required parking
area
4.54 acres
10.92%
5, 1 00 sq ft total (3, 162 sq.ft.
outdoor (or 60%)
Mechanical equipment
enclosure built to 1 8 ft. tall
with masonry block and to
match building materials
* All setbacks shall be increased one foot for every foot of building height over 35 feet.
The project is required to increase building setbacks one foot for every foot of building height
over 35 feet. The project should have a 58 foot setback from Palomar Airport Road and Aviara
Parkway. Because of the aforementioned site constraints, the project requested approval of an
Administrative Variance and was issued a 10-foot setback reduction. The increase in building
height from 35 feet to 45 feet complies with Section 21.34.070, P-M Development Standards, in
that the building is not more than three stories and the building will conform to Section
18.04.170 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (regarding fire sprinklers, smoke alarms and
elevators). The increase in height for architectural features from 45 to 51' 6" complies with
Section 21.34.070, P-M Development Standards, in that the architectural features do not function
to provide usable floor area; do not accommodate and/or screen mechanical equipment; do not
adversely impact adjacent properties; and are necessary to ensure the building's design
-13
GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-0.1/PIP 03-01 - KELLY/JRM OFFICE
BUILDING
May 16, 2007
Page 6
excellence. The building maintains the minimum setbacks from the roadways of the PM Zone;
does not adversely impact adjacent neighbors as one adjacent neighbor exists to the east with a
very large building separation (>300') and open space to the south; and the architectural
elements provide vertical relief and add interest to the building's elevations.
C. Site Development Permit Findings Required by the Qualified Development Overlay
Zone
The Qualified Development Overlay Zone (Q-Overlay), which is a part of the zoning designation
for the property, requires that a SDP be approved for the proposed use prior to the issuance of
any building permit. The Q-Overlay Zone requires four findings. This section summarizes the
necessary findings and support for each.
The requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental setting as the
project design complies with the requirements of the P-M zone with the exception of the
approved setback reduction through an Administrative Variance as discussed above. All
required building setbacks are landscaped, lot coverage is well below the maximum permitted,
and landscaping exceeds the minimum 10% P-M zone requirement. Adequate separation is
provided from adjacent uses and a 70-foot buffer from Encinas Creek has been incorporated into
the site design. The site is also adequate in shape to accommodate the use as all other applicable
code requirements have been met. The project meets the minimum office parking standard of
one parking space per 250 square feet of building area. The building coverage of 10.9 percent is
less than one fourth of the maximum 50 percent permitted. Twelve percent of the parking area is
landscaped which exceeds the minimum 10 percent requirement. The project has been
conditioned to finish the roof in a gray color as to mitigate the appearance of the roof as viewed
from surrounding residential development located on higher elevations. Other buildings in the
vicinity have the same condition. No roof mounted equipment is proposed. A ground located
equipment enclosure will house the heating and cooling equipment.
As shown on Exhibits "A" - "H," all features necessary to adjust the use to existing and
permitted future uses will be provided. Landscaping is proposed to screen the parking areas from
public roadways. Adequate vehicle circulation has been provided to accommodate truck-turning
movements. Laurel Tree Lane, a public street off of Aviara Parkway, will provide access to the
site. The existing street system is adequate to handle all traffic (1,700 average daily traffic)
generated by the use.
D. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan - Palomar Airport
The project site is located approximately 3,200 feet southwest of the airport and within the
Airport Influence Area for McClellan-Palomar Airport. The northerly portion of the site is
within the 70 to 75 CNEL noise contour with the southerly area located outside the 70 to 75
CNEL noise contour. A portion of the building is proposed within the 70 to 75 CNEL noise
contour. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) identifies office use as being not
compatible within the 70 to 75 CNEL noise contour. As stated in the General Plan Land Use
section above, the City Council can approve an override to the ALUC decision with findings,
conditions and disclosures to allow the project in the noise sensitive area. The project has been
conditioned to implement the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Kelly/JRM
GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01/PIP 03-01 -KELLY/JRM OFFICE
BUILDING
May 16, 2007
Page?
project which includes the requirement to submit an acoustical study showing compliance with
the 50 CNEL interior noise level, requiring the property owner to notify all tenants and include
in all leases provisions detailing the environmental impacts associated with McClellan-Palomar
Airport and Palomar Airport Road, filing hold harmless agreements, and recording notices of
Restriction and Avigation easements over the property.
E. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Agricultural Overlay
Zone and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
The subject property is located in the Mello II Segment of the City's Local Coastal Program
(LCP). The LCP consists of two parts - the Land Use Plan and the implementing ordinances.
For this portion of the Mello II Segment, the implementing ordinances consist of the applicable
portions of the Zoning Ordinance. This section addresses only compliance with the Land Use
Plan since Zoning Ordinance compliance is discussed in Section B above. The policies of the
Mello II Land Use Plan emphasize topics such as preservation of agricultural and scenic
resources, protection of environmentally sensitive resources, provision of shoreline access, and
prevention of geologic instability and erosion.
The proposed LCP Land Use changes to the portion of the project site from PI and Unplanned
Area (UA) Land Use designations to Open Space (OS) are consistent with the policies contained
in the Land Use Plan for the Mello II Segment of the LCP. Since the project includes
preservation of the Encinas Creek area and associated habitat buffer area, no impacts to any
physical features, such as scenic resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or geologic features,
will occur. The Land Use changes represent the placement of Open Space in lieu of PI and UA
Land Uses over existing open space easements, HMP preserve areas and biologically sensitive
land.
As designed, the project is consistent with the relevant policies of the Mello II Segment of the
Local Coastal Program (LCP), the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 21.202) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Zoning Ordinance Chapter
21.203). The project site has a LCP Land Use designation of Planned Industrial (PI) and an LCP
Zone designation of Planned Industrial with the Qualified Development Overlay (P-M-Q). The
project includes a 70-foot riparian buffer from the edge of the riparian habitat of Encinas Creek.
The objective of the buffer is to protect water quality and associated biological resources by
providing separation from human activities and to serve as a filtering mechanism for runoff
before it enters the riparian zone. The buffer area was recently improved by the Biltmore/24
Hour Fitness project adjacent and to the east of the project site, as required by the resource
agencies. No additional work is needed in the habitat buffer area or within the Encinas Creek.
Pursuant to Policy 3-8 of the LCP, the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service were consulted on the project impacts and determination of the
adequacy of the 70-foot buffer and both resource agencies have issued resource permits for the
project. The habitat buffer was determined to be acceptable with the following conditions: that
the public trail is placed on the periphery of the buffer; that the public trail not be paved and have
a permeable surface; and that the buffer is planted with native vegetation. The 70-foot buffer
zone is protected by the execution of an open space and conservation easement and a General
Plan Open Space designation. No activity will occur within the buffer except for the proposed
GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01/PIP 03-01 -KELLY/JRM OFFICE
BUILDING
May 16, 2007
PageS
pedestrian trail. The trail is a passive recreational use located in the upper half of the buffer zone
as allowed per Policy 3-8 of the LCP and will be constructed with a permeable surface.
Water retention basins are proposed along Aviara Parkway that are designed to control the rate
of storm water runoff and improve water quality from the site. The retention basins provide
protection to regional and local biological resources as noted in the Biological Report prepared
for the project.
The property is designated as coastal agricultural land and has been conditioned to pay the
agricultural conversion mitigation fee. The payment of this fee will supersede the HMP habitat
impact fee. Because of the potential for least Bell's vireos to be impacted by grading noise
levels, a condition restricting grading during the breeding season (March 1 - October 1) has been
added to the project so as not to impact the least Bell's vireo if present. The CDP Permit
requires a vireo survey prior to grading if grading will occur in the breeding season.
The project was noticed for a State mandated six-week public notice of availability review
period, from March 22, 2007 through May 3, 2007. No comments were received during the
comment period. The project is within the appeal jurisdiction of the California Coastal
Commission as it is with 100 feet of a wetland. Given the above, the proposed project is
consistent with the Mello II Segment of the LCP.
F. Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
The City's HMP identifies the Encinas Creek as a hardline area within Link 4. Link 4 provides
for connectivity between Batiquitos Lagoon (Core Area 8) and Agua Ffedionda Lagoon and the
Golf Course (Core Area 4). The review of the specific biological information for the project
identified the need to modify the project's hardline boundary to more precisely follow the creek
area and associated wetland buffer. The amendment to the hardline boundary details the
preserve and the hardline boundary and is equal or greater in the preserve acreage and, therefore,
the necessary HMP equivalency findings can be made. The project is subject to the adjacency
standards of the HMP and the project has been conditioned accordingly through the recordation
of a Conservation Easement.
G. Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone
The project site is located within the Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone. Because the
property is being developed as an Office building, which is a permitted use of the underlying PM
zone, the project is not subject to the provisions of the Overlay Zone.
H. Growth Management Ordinance (LFMP Zone 5)
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 5 in the southwest
quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with the
adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01/PIP 03-01 -KELLY/JRM OFFICE
BUILDING
May 16, 2007
Page 9
FACILITY
City Administration
Library
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water Distribution System
IMPACTS
N/A
N/A
47EDU
$.40/sq. ft.
Basin C
1JOOADT
Station 4
N/A
Payment of non-residential
school fee at bldg. permit
issuance
47EDU
11,187GPD
COMPLIANCE WITH
STANDARDS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
V.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a
potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Potentially
significant biological impacts were identified. These impacts have been mitigated through
previous Agency permits associated with the Biltmore/24 Hour Fitness project. The developer
has agreed to mitigation measures as performed by others to reduce the identified impacts to
below a level of significance in accordance with CEQA. The environmental documents were
sent directly to the area offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game. In consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director issued a
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project on November 18,
2004. Comments were received from the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish & Game. Mitigation measures were added and minor project revisions were
made in response to the comments that do not result in new avoidable significant effects. The
revisions do not create a new significant environmental effect and include only equivalent or
more effective mitigation measures.
ATTACHMENTS;
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6296 (Neg. Dec.)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6297 (GPA 04-20)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6298 (ZC 04-15)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6299 (LCPA 06-05)
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6300 (CDP 03-03)
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6301 (SDP 04-04)
7. Location Map
8. Disclosure Statement
9. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
10. Background Data Sheet
GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01/PIP 03-01 -KELLY/JRM OFFICE
BUILDING
May 16, 2007
Page 10
11. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority letter dated September 12, 2003
12. Draft City Council Resolution of Override of ALUC
13. Engineering draft conditions of approval for MS 06-12
14. Reduced exhibits "A" - "H" dated May 16, 2007
15. Site Plan with noise contours
SITEMAP
NOT TO SCALE
KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-057
CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01/PIP 03-01 -fl
City of Carlsbad
~~ ••'^'••^••••••P^VBHHMMBMPlanning Department
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 cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, 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 political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) ~\t .
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names-and addresses of ALL persons having a financial
interest in .the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS 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.)
Person Corp/Part
Title Title
Address Address
OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (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.)
Corp/Part ,J1<M<4(te®tt> 2. jLLC- its
Title
.jjgfe>Address_
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894
3. NON-PROFIT OR iNIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust. list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust - . Non Profit/Trust
Title Title
Address Address,
4. Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff.
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
Yes y No If yes, please indicate person(s):_
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
1 certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best o£my knowledge
•I
iignature/ofowner/date
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2
f
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01
CASE NAME: KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
APPLICANT: Kellv/JRMC Palomar Airport Road I, LLC
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a
Consistency Determination for the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and adopt a Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land
Use and Open Space and Conservation Element designations from Planned Industrial and
Unplanned Area to Open Space, Zone Change to change the Zoning designation from Planned
Industrial-Qualified Development Overlay Zone to Open Space, Local Coastal Program
Amendment, and Coastal Development Permit, and approval of a Site Development Permit to
develop a 5.9-acre parcel with a 84,894 square foot office buildings located on the southeast
corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway in the Mello II Segment of the Local
Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Parcel "C" and all of Parcel "D" of Parcel Map No.
2993, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof
no. PM 2993. filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego. August 23, 1974 as file
number 74-230326.
APN: 212-040-64-00 Acres: 5.9 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 2 Lots/84,894 sq ft Office
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Existing Land Use Designation: Planned Industrial/Open Space/Unplanned Area
Proposed Land Use Designation: Planned Industrial/Open Space
Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: Planned Industrial-Qualified Development Overlay
Proposed Zone: Planned Industrial-Qualified Development Overlay Zone/Open Space
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan Current Land Use
Site Planned Industrial- Planned Industrial/Open Vacant
Qualified Development Space/Unplanned Area
Overlay Zone
North Planned Industrial Planned Industrial Golf Course
South Exclusive Agriculture Unplanned Area Vacant
East Planned Industrial/Open Planned Industrial Office Building/Gym
Space
West Planned Industrial/Open Planned Industrial Office Building
Space
Revised 01706
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Coastal Zone: 1X1 Yes I I No Local Coastal Program Segment: Mello II
Within Appeal Jurisdiction: IXI Yes I I No Coastal Development Permit: IXI Yes I I No
Local Coastal Program Amendment: [x] Yes I I No
Existing LCP Land Use Designation: Planned Industrial/Open Space/Unplanned Area
Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: Planned Industrial/Open Space
Existing LCP Zone: Planned Industrial-Qualified Development Overlay Zone
Proposed LCP Zone: Planned Industrial-Qualified Development Overlay Zone /Open Space
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 47
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Categorical Exemption,
/\| Negative Declaration, issued November 18. 2004
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other,
Revised 01/06
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING - GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-
05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 5 GENERAL PLAN: Planned Industrial/Open
Space/Unplanned Area
ZONING: Planned Industrial-Qualified Development Overlay/Open Space
DEVELOPER'S NAME: Kellv/JRMC Palomar Airport Road I, LLC
ADDRESS: 1040 S. Andreasen. Suite 200, Escondido CA 92029
PHONE NO.: (760) 781-5300 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 212-040-64-00
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT f AC.. SO. FT., DID: 84,894 sa
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Unknown
ft
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 47 EDU
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = $.40/sq ft impact fee
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = 16.7
Identify Drainage Basin = C
F. Circulation: Demand in ADT= 1,700
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4_
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = 1.36 Ac
I. Schools: Carlsbad Unified
J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 47
Identify Sub Basin = 5K
K. Water: Demand in GPD = 11,187
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY
P.O. BOX 82776, SAN DIEGO. CA 92138-2776
619.400.2400 WWW.SAN.ORG •
September 12, 2003
Ms. Anne Hysong
Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008-7314
Re: San Diego County Regional Airport Authority ALUC Consistency Determination -
Kelly/JRMProject Palomar Airport RoadlLLC (McClellan-Palomar Airport CLUP)
- PAL-03-002, Resolution No. 03-059
Dear Ms. Hysong:
This letter is to notify the City of Carlsbad ("City") of the September 4, 2003, consistency
determination that was made by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
("Authority"), acting in its capacity as the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission
("ALUC"), for the referenced project. The ALUC has determined that the proposed project
is not consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan
("CLUP"). A copy of Resolution 03-059, approved by the ALUC on September 4, 2003, and
memorializing the inconsistency determination, is enclosed for your information. This letter
summarizes the ALUC's consistency determination, the facts and findings supporting its
determination, and the City's rights and responsibilities with respect to this determination.
The ALUC's determination that the Kelly/JRM Palomar Airport Road I LLC project is not
consistent with the Airport CLUP was made consistent with the ALUC Policies and the State
Aeronautics Act provisions (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §21670-21679.5), and was based on
numerous facts and findings, including those summarized below:
(1) The proposed project is described by the project sponsor and the City as a three-
story, 45 foot high, 85,000 square foot multi-tenant office building with an entry
tower (architectural feature) that extends to 54 feet high. The building would be
located within both the 65-70 decibel ("dB") Community Noise Equivalent Level
("CNEL") noise contour and the 70-75 dB CNEL noise contour.
(2) The policies of the McClellan-Palomar Airport CLUP do not allow office uses
within the 70-75 dB CNEL noise contour. Therefore, because a portion of the
proposed office building is located within the 70-75 dB CNEL noise contour for
the Airport, the proposed office building is not consistent with the Airport
CLUP.
(3) Additionally, the height of all structures must be reviewed by the Federal
Aviation Administration ("FAA") consistent with the Federal Aviation Regulation
(FAR) Part 77 Guidelines, using the site development plan review procedure.
SAN DIEGO
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
Ms. Anne Hysong
September 12, 2003
Page 2
Any use found to be a "hazard" to navigation by the FAA is not in conformance
with the Airport CLUP.
The City may request that the.ALUC reconsider its September 4, 2003, determination of
inconsistency with respect to the proposed Kelly/JRM Palomar Airport Road I LLC project
pursuant to Article 8, Part 8.3, Section 8.30(3)(g) of the Authority's Policies, a copy of which
is attached for your information. Any request for reconsideration, however, must be made
within thirty (30) days of the ALUC's decision on the application, on or before October 6,
2003.
The City may also overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency by taking the
following mandatory steps: (i) the holding of a public hearing; (ii) the making of specific
findings that the action proposed is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act;
and (iii) the approval of the proposed action by a two-thirds vote of the City's Council. If the
City intends to overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination on this matter, the ALUC
requests: (i) notification of the proposed overruling; (ii) a copy of any staff report and
proposed findings with respect to the proposed overruling; and (iii) that the City include any
comments from the ALUC in the public record of any final decision by the City to overrule
the ALUC's inconsistency determination.
In addition, and importantly, the ALUC requests that if the City decides to overrule the
ALUC's finding of inconsistency with respect to the referenced project (in accordance with
the legal process described above), that the City require the following as conditions of project
approval: (i) that the interior noise levels of the proposed project be attenuated to 50 dB
CNEL; (ii) that the City require the project developer to comply with FAA's Part 77
requirements and that the City not approve the project if FAA makes a "hazard"
determination; and (iii) that the City require an avigation and noise easement be recorded
against the property in favor of the County of San Diego, the proprietor of the Airport. See,
Resolution 03-021RR, attached.
Please contact Mr. Ted Anasis at (619) 400-2478 if you have any questions regarding the
issues addressed in this letter.
ens
:nt/CEO
7B/ljt
Ms. Anne Hysong
September 12, 2003
PageS
Enclosures: Resolution 03-059
Airport Authority Policy Article 8
cc: Floyd Best, Airport Manager, McClellan-Palomar Airport
Peter Drinkwater, Director, County Airports
Lori Ballance, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Ron Bolyard, Caltrans - Division of Aeronautics
1 RESOLUTION NO.
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, OVE'RRIDDING THE SAN
3 DIEGO COUNTY AIPRORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S
4 DETERMINATION OF NON-CONSISTENCY WITH THE
MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT COMPREHENSIVE
5 LAND USE PLAN AND APPROVING THE DEVELOPMNET
OF AN 84,894 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON AN
6 EXISTING INDUSTRIAL LOT LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
7 AND AVIARA PARKWAY IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF
THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL
8 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: KELLY JRM OFFICE BUILDING
CASE NO.: GPA 04-20
10 WHEREAS, a portion of Parcel "C" and all of Parcel "D" of Parcel Map No.
11
2993 is located within the Airport Influence Area of the McClellan-Palomar Airport
12
Comprehensive Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, all development within the Airport Influence Area must adhere
15 to the provisions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McCleSlan-Palomar
16 Airport; and
17 WHEREAS, the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission,
18 represented as the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, has determined that
19 the office development on said lot is inconsistent with the Noise/Land Use Compatibility
20 Matrix in that a portion of the site is located within the 70-75 dBA Community Noise
21
Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour; and
22
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Comprehensive Land Use
23
Plan and Public Utilities Code, Section 21676, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
25 may, with a two-thirds majority vote, elect to override the determination of the Airport
26 Land Use Commission.
27 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of
28 the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1 1. That all recitations are true and correct.
2 2. That the project is located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Influence Area and also within the 70-75 dBa CNEL noise contour.
4 3. That the City Council finds that the proposed industrial
development on Parcel "C" and all of Parcel "D" of Parcel Map No. 2993, as conditioned
5 with internal noise reduction to 50 dBa, Notices of Restrictions, Hold Harmless
Agreements, and Avigation easements would minimize the public's exposure to
6 excessive noise within areas around the airport to the greatest extent possible,
considering that the development is proposed on a legally created lot and is consistent
7 with the underlying Planned Industrial Zoning.
o 4. That based upon the above findings, the City Council approves the
9 recommended override, as to noise compatibility only, of the San Diego County
Regional Airport Authority's determination on non-consistency with the Comprehensive
10 Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport.
11 5. The action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City
Council. The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits
12 for Judicial Review" shall apply:
13 "NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
14 The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
15 sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by
16 Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper
seeking review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than
17 the nineteenth day following the date on which this decision
becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision
becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an amount
19 sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such record,
the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended
20 to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the
record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his
21 attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the
preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the
22 City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
CA. 92008."23
24 '"
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
-2-
1 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
2 City of Carlsbad on the day of , 2007, by the following
vote, to wit:
4 AYES:
5 NOES:
6
ABSENT:
7
8
9
10
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
11 "
12 ATTEST:
13
14 LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
16"
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
artlsbacr
Public Works
May 17, 2007
Attention: Natalie Dew
Kelly/JRM Palomar Airport Road
Suite 200
1040 S. Andreason Drive
Escondido, CA 92029
PROPOSED MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. MS 06-12, CARLSBAD KELLY/JRM OFFICE
BUILDING
A preliminary decision has been made, pursuant to Section 20.24.120 of the City of Carlsbad
Municipal Code, to approve the tentative parcel map of the proposed minor subdivision subject
to conditions that follow in this letter.
Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the approval of
this tentative parcel map, must be met prior to approval of a final parcel map.
Engineering Conditions:
1. 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.
2. This approval is subject to the approval and conditions of GPA 04-20, ZC 04-15, LCPA
06-05, SDP 03-01, CDP 03-03, PIP 03-01.
3. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the
tentative map and a digital copy of said map (in AutoCAD format, latest version)
reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body and any applicable
coastal commission approvals. The reproducible shall be submitted to the City engineer,
reviewed and, if acceptable, signed by the City's project engineer and project planner
prior to submittal of the building plans, final map, improvement or grading plans,
whichever occurs first. The digital file copy shall be submitted in a format as approved by
the City Engineer.
4. Developer shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless
the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, agents, officers, and representatives, from
and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claim 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 parcel map, (b) City's approval or issuance
of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the
use contemplated herein, including an action filed within the time period specified in
Government Code Section 66499.37 and (c) Developer'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.
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92OO8-7314 • (760) 602-2730 • FAX (760) 602-8562
5. Developer shall install^sightdistance^Qrridorsat-aH^treet-inteFseetions^fid-dftveways in
accordance with City Engineering Standards.
Fees/Agreements
6. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation, the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
7. 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 subject property.
8. Developer shall cause property owner to execute, and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation, a City Standard deed restriction on the property which relates to the
proposed cross lot drainage as shown on the tentative map. The deed restriction
document shall:
a. Clearly delineate the limits of the drainage course;
b. State that the drainage course is to be maintained in perpetuity by the underlying
property owner; and
c. State that all future use of the property along the drainage course will not restrict,
impede, divert or otherwise alter drainage flows in a manner that will result in
damage to the underlying and adjacent properties or the creation of a public
nuisance.
9. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer
for recordation a notice against the property owners regarding potential odor from
the existing sewer trunk main located along Palomar Airport Road. The form of
said notice shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
10. 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
11. 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 from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
12. 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 from 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 from both the City Engineer and Planning Director. An on-site retaining
wall between the parking stalls and the easterly property line, no higher than 6
vertical exposed feet, may be used to eliminate the need for off-site grading.
MS 06-12 7 05/08/2007
^Specific-location and design-ofsaid alternative design~is-subject to^the City
Engineer's and Planning Director's approval.
13. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer
receipt of a Notice of Intention from the State Water Resources Control Board.
14. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the City's SUSMP. 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. 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.
b. 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.
c. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements.
15. 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.
16. 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
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region
of 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. Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern.
b. Identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that
could be impacted by this project.
c. 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 offsite;
MS 06-12 7 05/08/2007
dr~Establish-specific procedures~for~handling spills—and routine^cleanup:—Special
considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper
procedures for handling cleanup and disposal of pollutants.
e. Ensure long-term maintenance of all post-construction BMPs in perpetuity.
f. Identify how post-construction runoff rates and velocities from the site will not exceed
the pre-construction runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable.
17. Developer shall cause property owner to process, execute and submit an executed copy
to the City Engineer for recordation a City standard Best Management Practice
Maintenance Agreement for the perpetual maintenance of all treatment control,
applicable site design and source control, post-construction permanent BMP's prior to
the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, or the recordation of a parcel map,
whichever occurs first for this Project.
Dedications/Improvements
18. Developer shall cause Owner to make an offer of dedication to the City and/or other
appropriate entities for the drainage, storm drain access, sewer, water, open space
and conservation, street and public access (trail) easement and any other public
easements shown on the tentative parcel map. The offer shall be made by a certificate
on the parcel map or separate recorded document. The proposed public water
easement shall be dedicated to Carlsbad Municipal Water District. This easement
shall be recorded by separate document and processed by separate application
through the City Engineering Department. All land so offered shall be free and clear
of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. Streets that are already public
are not required to be rededicated. Developer shall ensure that all off-site public
easements, as shown on the tentative parcel map, have been secured.
19. 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.
20. Developer shall provide the design of all private drainage systems to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer. All private drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer
shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees.
21. Developer shall execute a City standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement to install
and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on
the tentative parcel map. These improvements include, but are not limited to paving,
base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, signing and striping, traffic control, pedestrian
trail, grading, clearing and grubbing, relocation of utilities, installation of sewer, water,
fire hydrants, street lights, retaining walls and reclaimed water all constructed to City
Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. More specifically, these improvements
include:
a. Construct 5-foot wide sidewalk along project frontage of Palomar Airport Road.
Relocate any signs as needed. Remove the existing Laural Tree Lane driveway
approach to Palomar Airport Road and replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
b. Construct concrete pad along Palomar Airport Road frontage for a future bus
stop as shown on the tentative parcel map and as required per North County
Transit District.
c. Construct curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement and driveway approach
improvements along the Laurel Tree Lane property frontage as shown on the
MS 06-12 7 05/08/2007 qi]
tentative parcel map.—Developer shall provide off-site transitional pavement
and obtain off site easement for public right-of-way as needed to provide
adequate vehicle turns at the cul-de-sac and provide a half street width, plus a
minimum additional 12-feet, outside the cul-de-sac.
d. Construct a looped public water line system connecting from Laurel Tree Lane
to Aviara Parkway including all appurtenances as shown on the tentative
parcel map.
e. Construct a sewer lateral in Laural Tree Lane as shown on the tentative parcel
map.
f. Install public pedestrian trail as shown on the tentative parcel map and per City
standards.
A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Parcel Map per the
provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above
shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the subdivision or development
improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
22. Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights for that portion of Parcel 1
fronting Palomar Airport Road.
23. Developer shall extinguish the existing rights-of-way of Laurel Tree Lane that
currently traverse along the eastern portion of the property. Easements to be
vacated are identified as Items "E, F, I, J and K" of the tentative parcel map. The
developer shall provide proof that the private easements have been extinguished.
Application(s) for a street and/or easement vacation shall be submitted to the City
and approved for the above listed easement(s) that are public.
24. Developer shall preliminarily design, and obtain approval from the City Engineer, the
structural section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City
Standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT
greater than 500. Prior to completion of grading, the final structural pavement design of
the aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information
subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
25. Developer shall incorporate into the grading/improvement plans the design for the project
drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for
maintenance purposes is not practical. These end treatments shall be designed so as to
prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe outfall. Designs could consist of a
modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended concrete spillway section with
longitudinal curbing and/or radially designed rip-rap, or other means deemed appropriate,
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
26. Developer shall pay their fair-share cost of the design and construction of the
traffic signal at Laurel Tree Lane and Aviara Parkway. Said cost shall not exceed
the maximum amount stipulated under item No. 5 of Exhibit A of the stipulated
judgment in City of Carlsbad v. Richard C. Kelly, et. al. (1998) Case No. N 73929-1
of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego.
Parcel Map Notes
27. Add the following notes to the Parcel Map as non-mapping data:
MS 06-12 7 05/08/2007
—a. All improvements^aTe~pTivate1^ maintalnedi/vith^the
exception of the following:
i. Median improvements along the frontage of Palomar Airport Road.
ii. Sidewalk along project frontage of Palomar Airport Road.
iii. Concrete pad along Palomar Airport Road frontage for future bus
stop as required per North County Transit District,
iv. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement and driveway approach
improvements along the Laurel Tree Lane property frontage and any
off-site transitional pavement within the public right-of-way,
v. All onsite water line systems located within a public water easement,
vi The sewer lateral located within the public right-of-way
vii. The public pedestrian trail located within the public access
easement.
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 may be placed or
permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor as
defined by City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards.
d. The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest
has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action
that may arise through any diversion of waters, the alteration of the normal flow of
surface waters or drainage, or the concentration of surface waters or drainage
from the drainage system or other improvements identified in the City approved
development plans; or by the design, construction or maintenance of the drainage
system or other improvements identified in the City approved development plans.
Utilities
28. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District easement identified as File No. 223207 of
Official records recorded December 28, 1961 and identified as Item "G" of the
Easement Notes on the tentative parcel map shall be vacated.
29. 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.
30. The Developer shall design and construct public facilities within public right-of-way or
within minimum 20-foot 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.
31. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities.
32. The Developer shall design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled water as a
source and prepare and submit a colored recycled water use map to the Planning
Department for processing and approval by the District Engineer.
MS 06-12 7 05/08/2007
33. The Developer shall install (potable water and/or recycled water services) and meters at
a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be
reflected on public improvement plans.
34. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the
District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
35. The Developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water
facilities substantially as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map to the satisfaction of the
District Engineer.
Code Reminder
36. The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not
limited to the following:
a. The tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date on which the City
Engineer approved the application.
b. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report
and shown on the tentative parcel 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.
The developer may request a review of the preliminary decision with the City Engineer in writing
within ten (10) days of the date of this letter. Upon such written request the City Engineer shall
arrange a time and place with the developer for such review.
The City Engineer has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the developer contained in
these conditions of approval, 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 degree of
the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
If you have any questions, you may contact David Rick at (760) 602-2781.
David A. Mauser
Deputy City Engineer
c: David Rick, Assistant Engineer
Project Planner, Van Lynch
File
MS 06-12 7 05/08/2007
on' i
viNHOdnvo 'ovasibvo
avoa idoddiv uvnoivd war / Anax kWKKJJ
.jiyjjjA, j{,
fcUliii nin
, ; ;i ip
! i M U n,.i i III i 3» s! Is
C
1-1
It1
* hL-S .J
-----
" f AWWfUVdVyVlAV
~ - _J JI vttoa**' an -jr.z ^O^'C™/.".I--~
•
ILUr-ULteSti
OOEXPSp*j<*WB KCE1
OTl 'I Peou yodi!VJBaiO|Bd War/AT13>l
viNuodnvo 'ovasnavo
avou laoduiv avwoivd war / AIISX 1 rihi
iO/60/W - P»n
y ao-Efitfesa)u&-ut.<asa on' i
viNHOdnvo 'ovesnuvo
avou idOduiv dvwoivd war / Aiiax -a j A *film I I
8!
iO/60,tO - iranj dQS
OTl' I Peoa yodiw Jeoioied HUP / AT13X
viNHOdnvo 'ovasiavoavod luoduiv yvwonvd war /Ilia!
o3,
io/60/to • pra j <ias
cm' i peoa yodJiv JBUJopd war / ATBX
viNuodnvo 'ovasnuvoavou luoddiv uvwonvd war / tcnm Ikikkk hi!
iO,60/» - FUU das
on' i peoa uodw JBiuoiBd war / ATia><
viNHOdiivo 'ovasiavo
avod luoddiv uvnoivd wur / xniax liHdl
i ii
; 5 !; if ii;i! I 3s !? «
j !'iili it 111 ffi ii! ! |til t: lit its its 33 i S5s as s a BH i
Sil
n n a HE nn
'I" "I I
I" I
I I M IFTKH r
HIR
H
HfeH-
HteH-
^
I r^f
•^w^wLvun \-^
a
iO/60/M -
®t Tilst IIII
IsOft
:jiiil il i si^s... 15s s Si ls«si;;; ; n> ?
iillii
i!
H
»ia«aH 31*33*8.9iniiiinHyj!
I i«
lills ill! i lii ilii
PWH
Cm'I pw>u UOcUwJ8U»Pd nar/ATH>l
viNdOdnvo'avasiuvo
ovou luoduiv uvwoivd war / ATI™i dill!
/.0/fiO/W -
i!I I ill!
I i i i i
1 >:aill
i EJ nol
Hi ill
! i
313
I
a > 3 a S S Si 3 - a! 8 i a a S «
I " ! *
i si !
Ii MI\ \ il «
H
M IMM |
i I || | iiilLii
i!
Mlii •
10 Hi ii l»i i' ii
i
105
07/23/2003 07:35 16197256011 SDCRAA PAGE 02'
UJzo
ao
3
I
oa
o
N
ifIIa.
[fl
P
111 !It3! ^Pifiiff
pi
11|
11
I
\W
Planning Commission Meeting
EXHIBITS
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cardosa, and duly seconded, that the
Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No.
6294 and 6295 approving a retroactive two year extension of
Tentative Tract Map (CT 04 05), and Condominium Permit (CP 04-
01) based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioner Cardosa, Commissioner
Montgomery, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Douglas,
Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Whitton
NOES: None
Chairperson Baker closed the Public Hearing on Item 1 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce
the next item.
2. GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01 - KELLY/JRM OFFICE
BUILDING- Request for a recommendation of approval to adopt a Consistency
Determination for the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and a recommendation of approval of a General Plan
Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use and Open Space and
Conservation Element designations from Planned Industrial and Unplanned Area to
Open Space on a portion of the site, a Zone Change to change the Zoning
designation from Planned Industrial-Qualified Development Overly Zone to Open
Space on a portion of the site, a Local Coastal Program Amendment, and a Coastal
Development Permit; and a request for approval of a Site Development Permit to
develop a 5.9-acre parcel with a 84,894 square foot office buildings located on the
southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway in the Mello II
Segment of the Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone
5. Resolutions No. 6296, 6297, 6298, 6299, 6300, 6301
Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Senior Planner Van Lynch would
make the Staff presentation.
Chairperson Baker opened the Public Hearing on Agenda Item 2.
Mr. Lynch gave a brief presentation bringing to the attention of the Commission the
addition of an errata sheet. He stated Staff would be available to answer any
questions.
Chairperson Baker asked if the Commission had any questions of Staff.
Commissioner Whitton asked if there would be any signage provided at locations
where the trails intersect with the roadway advising pedestrians to use crosswalks.
Mr. Lynch stated none had been proposed that he is aware of. Commissioner
Whitton stated he believes that signs should be provided at these locations.
Commissioner Dominguez asked for an outline of any variances that had been
issued on this project. Mr. Lynch pointed out these areas on the displayed site map.
10-?
Page 3 of 6
Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Cardosa asked if there is any other possible configuration for the
structure on the site. Mr. Lynch stated the site is restricted and the configuration
offered is the most efficient site design.
Commissioner Boddy asked about landscaping requirements in light of the site's
proximity to the habitat area. Mr. Lynch gave a brief overview of the
proposed landscape design.
Commissioner Douglas asked for an explanation of truck turning movement within
the site. Mr. Lynch explained the truck turning movement.
Chairperson Baker asked who will be responsible to revegetate the area
from Laurel Tree Road to the cul-de-sac after Laurel Tree Road is vacated. Mr.
Lynch explained how the responsiblity would be distributed and explained the
landscaping plans for the project, stating the proposed project and adjacent sites
landscaping would abutt one another.
Commissioner Montgomery asked about trail linkage on the site. Mr. Lynch pointed
out the existing and proposed trail system on the map displayed.
Commissioner Boddy asked if there is an existing traffic signal at Aviara Parkway
where it intersects with the site. Mr. Lynch stated there is a traffic signal located at
Palomar Road and Aviara Parkway and another at Laurel Tree Road and Aviara
Parkway.
Commissioner Dominguez asked about the size of the habitat area on the southerly
side of the site. Mr. Lynch stated after the development of the site there will not be
very much left on that side of the site.
Assistant City Attorney, Jane Mobaldi elaborated on determinations made by the
Airport Land Use Commission and noncompliance issues that could arise.
Discussion followed between Ms. Mobaldi and Commissioner Montgomery.
The applicant, John Couvillion, JRM Real Estate, 1040 South Andreasen,
Escondido, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer
any questions that the Commission might have.
Commissioner Boddy asked if the applicant had obtained a letter of permission from
the adjacent property owner. Mr. Couvillion stated that they are diligently working
on obtaining one.
Commissioner Douglas asked what the expected timeline is for development of the
site. Mr. Couvillion stated he anticipates the start of development to be the first or
second quarter of next year.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if the applicant is confident with the expected
noise mitigation measures associated with the project. Mr. Couvillion stated that he
is fairly confident and discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr.
Couvillion.
Chairperson Baker asked the specific street address of the project. Mr. Couvillion
Page 4 of 6
Planning Commission Meeting
stated the address is located at 1265 Laurel Tree Lane.
Chairperson Baker asked if the applicant feels this project is the best use of the
site. Mr. Couvillion stated that he feels this is the best and highest use of the
property.
Chairperson Baker asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda
Item 2; seeing none, she opened and closed public testimony.
Commissioner Whitton asked about the trail length after all proposed connections
are made. Mr. Lynch stated approximately three quarters of a mile.
Further discussion ensued regarding the trail system usage and maintenance of the
trials.
Chairperson Baker stated the project is nice looking and she is pleased with the
design. She added that the people who will work in those buildings might enjoy
walking on the trails and suspect they might get more use than it at first appears.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cardosa, and duly seconded, that the
Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
6296, including errata sheet, recommending adoption of a Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6297, 6298, 6299 and
6300 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 04-20,
Zone Change 04-15, Local Coastal Program Amendment 06-05 and
Coastal Development Permit 03-03 and adopt Planning Commission
Resolution No. 6301 approving Site Development Permit 03-01 and
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioner Cardosa, Commissioner
Montgomery, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Douglas,
Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Whitton
NOES: None
Chairperson Baker closed the Public Hearing on Item 2.
Chairperson Baker stated there had been previous discussion regarding a tour of the City's new
golf course and Mr. Neu has an update.
Mr. Neu stated Friday afternoons would be the best time frame for a tour of the golf course and
added available times would be forwarded to the Commissioners for their review.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Dominguez stated when the City finds it necessary to override a decision from
another agency, more fact based information should be presented at the hearing.
Page 5 of 6
Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Whitton stated he feels that signage should be provided at the locations of the
trail that cross roadways. Mr. Neu stated that through the plancheck process the City's Trail
Manager will review the plans for improvement of trails and if the need for a sign is found, it will
be indentified and required by the developer.
Commissioner Douglas asked when the inclusionary housing item would appear on an agenda.
Mr. Neu explained the process involved and stated that it would appear as an agenda item after
the Housing and Redevelopment Department has completed their survey.
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS
Mr. Neu stated the issue of garage door width will be brought before the City Council as a
resolution of intention.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of May 16, 2007, was
adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
DON NEU
Acting Planning Director
Michelle Lenkowski
Minutes Clerk
Page 6 of6
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 24, 2007, to consider a recommendation of approval of a General
Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use and Open Space and Conservation
Element designations from Planned Industrial and Unplanned Area to Open Space on a portion
of the site, a Zone Change to change the Zoning designation from Planned Industrial-Qualified
Development Overlay Zone to Open Space on a portion of the site, a Local Coastal Program
Amendment, and a Coastal Development Permit on property generally located on the southeast
corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway in the Mello II Segment of the Local
Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 5 and more particularly described as:
A portion of Parcel "C" and all of Parcel "D" of Parcel Map No. 2993, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof no. PM 2993, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego, August 23, 1974 as file number 74-230326
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after July 20, 2007. If you have any
questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program
Amendment, or Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03
CASE NAME: KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
PUBLISH: July 14, 2007
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITEMAP
NOT TO SCALE
KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/
CDP 03-03
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010& 2011 C.C.P.)
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
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:
July 14th, 2007
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This 16th, day of July, 2007
Signature
Jane Allshouse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Proof of Publication of
tion ofand a rerally located on the southeast comerAirport Road and Aviara Partway in the Mellp IIment of the Local Coastal Program and in bFacilities Management Zone 5 and more particularlydescribed as:
Aportjon of Parcel. "C" and all of. ParcePD" of Parcel
n Diego, August 23, 1974 as fil
Those persons wishin'cordially invited toof the agenda Mil20, 2007. If you haveLynch in the Planning
„ Plan Amendment, Zonerogram Amendment, or
It In court, ypumfyj-]6llm
id to the/Gity oj, 1200 Carlsbadi, at or prior to the
CASE FILE: GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP03-03
CASE NAME: KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
PUBLISH: July 14, 2007 NOT 2072117
Easy Peel Labels
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
See Instruction Sheet j
for Easy Peel Feature^
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
STE 250
255 PICO AVE
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
|AVERY®5160®
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST
TIM JOCHEN
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
1966OLIVENHAINRD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
600 EUCALYPTUS AVE
VISTA CA 92084
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
201 VALLECITOS DE ORO
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STEB
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
ATTN TEDANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
SCOTT MALLOY - BIASD
STE 110
9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
5934 PRIESTLEY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECREATION
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
15/23/2007
Etiquettes faciles a peler
Utilisez le aaharit AVFRV® «!1fin®Sen* HP rharnomant
Consultez la feuille www.avery.com
Easy Peel Labels
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
Paper
See Instruction Sheet j
for Easy Peel Feature ^
BUSINESS, TRANS & HSG AGENCY
STE 2450
980 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
I AVERY® 5160®
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 921084402
CANNEL ISLANDS NATL PARK
SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE
1901 SPINNAKER DR
SAN GUENA VENTURA CA 93001
CITYOFENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
COUNTY OF SD
SUPERVISOR
RM335
1600 PACIFIC
SAN DIEGO ca 92101
DEPT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DISTENG
PO BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES CA 90053
DEPT OF ENERGY
STE 350
901 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPT OF ENERGY
STE 400
611 RYAN PLZDR
ARLINGTON TX 760114005
DEPT OF FISH & GAME
ENVSERVDIV
PO BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 942442460
DEPT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL RESOURSES
RM100
1220NST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPT OF FORESTRY
ENV COORD
PO BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 942442460
DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV
600 HARRISON ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107
DEPT OF JUSTICE
DEPTOFATTYGEN
RM700
110 WEST AST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120NST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
FED AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
PO BOX 92007
LOS ANGELES CA
MARINE RESOURCES REG DR & G
ENV SERVICES SPR
STEJ
4665 LAMPSON AVE
LOSALAMITOSCA 907205139
OFF OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
OFF OF LOCAL GOV ARRAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 958123044
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERV & DEV
COM
STE 2600
50 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941114704
SANDAG
EXEC DIRECTOR
STE 800
1STINTLPLZ401BST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SD COUNTY
PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
STE B-5
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SDGE
8315 CENTURY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
STE 1005
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 958258202
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
STE 100 S
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER
STE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941052197
US BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM W
2800 COTTAGE WY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MID PACIFIC REG
2800 COTTAGE WY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICES
2800 COTTAGE WAY
STEW-2605
SACRAMENTO CA 958251888
USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPT 4169
430 GST
DAVIS CA 95616
Etiquettes faciles a peler
Utilisez le qabarit AVERY® 5160®Sens de charaement
Consultez la feuille www.avery.com
Easy Peel Labels
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
See Instruction Sheet j
for Easy Peel Feature j^lAVERY®5160®
Etiquettes faciles a peler
Utilisez le aabarit AVFRY® 51 fin®Sens H*> rharnamont Consultez la feuille www.avery.com
Easy Peel Labels
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®-! Feed Paper
See Instruction Sheet i
for Easy Peel Feature I tAVERY®5160® !
ASCENT BILTMORE CARLSBAD L L
111 W MONROE ST 1111
PHOENIX, AZ 85003-1762
WEB SERVICE CO INC
3690 REDONDO BEACH AVE
REDONDO BEACH, CA 90278
SADDLEVIEW L L C
16461 SHERMAN WAY 350
VAN NUYS, CA 91406-3828
JAMES S UKEGAWA
4218 SKYLINE RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3642
GREYSTONE HOMES INC
1525 FARADAY AVE 300
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7372
SIM USA INC
1400 FLAME TREE LN
CARLSBAD, CA 92011-1201
KELLY CORPORATE CENTER II A
6005 HIDDEN VALLEY RD 150
CARLSBAD, CA 92011-4222
KELLYJRM-PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAI
1040 S ANDREASEN DR 200
ESCONDIDO, CA 92029-1951
KELLY CORPORATE CENTER II A I
5330 CARROLL CANYON RD 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121-3758
KELLY CORPORATE CENTER II LLC
5330 CARROLL CANYON RD 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121-3758
*** 11 Printed ***
SANDI SAWA
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
Etiquettes faciles a peler
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160®Sens de chargement
Consultez la feuille
destruction
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY
Easy Peel Labels
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
j A
! Feed Paper
See Instruction Sheet I
for Easy Peel Feature !AVERY®5160®
Current Resident
6145 LAUREL TREE RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92011-1204
Current Resident
1300 LAUREL TREE LN
CARLSBAD, CA 92011-1203
Current Resident
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92011-4213
*** 3 Printed ***
Etiquettes faciles a peler
Utilisez le qabarit AVERY® 5160®Sens de charaement
Consultez la feuille
H'inctrnrtinn
www.avery.com
Kelly/JRM Office Kelly/JRM Office BuildingBuildingGPA 04GPA 04--20/ZC 0420/ZC 04--15/LCPA 0615/LCPA 06--0505CDP 03CDP 03--0303
Location MapLocation MapAVIARA PYPALOMAR AIRPORT RDCOLLEGE BLTOPMAST DRLAUREL TREE LN
AVIARA PYH I D D E N V A L L E Y R D PALOMAR AIRPORT RDCOLLEGE BLSAPPHIRE DRTOPMAST DRLAUREL TREE LNFLAME TREE LNSALTAIRE WY0400800200Feet GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01/PIP 03-01KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING
Kelly/JRM Office BuildingKelly/JRM Office Building¾¾General Plan Land Use Designation: General Plan Land Use Designation: zzExisting: PI, OS and UAExisting: PI, OS and UAzzProposed : PI and OSProposed : PI and OS¾¾CirculationCirculation¾¾Street VacationStreet Vacation¾¾Open Space and Open Space and ConservationConservation¾¾NoiseNoise¾¾Palomar AirportPalomar AirportPIOS
Kelly/JRM Office BuildingKelly/JRM Office Building¾¾McClellanMcClellan--Palomar Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Palomar Comprehensive Land Use Plan: zzAirport Influence AreaAirport Influence Areazz70 dB70 dBzzNot in Flight Activity ZoneNot in Flight Activity ZonezzNot in Crash Hazard ZoneNot in Crash Hazard ZonezzConditionally CompatibleConditionally Compatiblew/ interior 50 CNELw/ interior 50 CNELPIOS70 dB
Site
7075TOPMAST DRAVIARA PYA V IA R A P Y
H I D D E N V A L L EY RDCOLLEGE BLWEST OAKS W YCOBBLESTONE DRLAUREL TREE LNPALOMAR AIRPORT RDCOBBLESTONE RDSite
Kelly/JRM Office BuildingKelly/JRM Office BuildingZone Designation:Zone Designation:zzExisting: PExisting: P--MM--Q and OQ and O--SSzzProposed: PProposed: P--MM--Q and OQ and O--SSP-M-QO-S
Kelly/JRM Office BuildingKelly/JRM Office Building¾¾Building Height allowed 35Building Height allowed 35’’to 45to 45’’w/ Architectural w/ Architectural projections 55projections 55’’¾¾Proposed 43Proposed 43’’with 51with 51’’66””projectionsprojections
Kelly/JRM Office BuildingKelly/JRM Office Building¾¾Mitigated Negative Mitigated Negative DeclarationDeclarationzzCompliance with Compliance with issued permits for issued permits for restoration projectrestoration projectzzALUC determinationALUC determinationzzNoise mitigationNoise mitigation
RecommendationRecommendation¾¾Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Adoption of the Mitigated Negative DeclarationDeclaration¾¾Approval of the GPA, ZC, LCPA and CDPApproval of the GPA, ZC, LCPA and CDP¾¾Approval of the Consistency Determination Approval of the Consistency Determination for the McClellan Palomar Airport Land for the McClellan Palomar Airport Land Use PlanUse Plan