HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-05-16; City Council; ; An Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Site Development Plan for a 164,833 Square-Foot Research and Development Building in the Carlsbad Oaks North BusiCA Review _RK_
Meeting Date: May 16, 2023
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: Eric Lardy, City Planner
eric.lardy@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2712
Subject: An Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Site
Development Plan for a 164,833 Square-Foot Research and Development
Building in the Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park
District: 2
Recommended Action
Hold a public hearing and:
1.Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding a decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a site development plan for the development of a 164,833
square-foot, 48-foot-tall research and development building, a 21-foot tall, three-level
parking structure and a pedestrian bridge across Whiptail Loop for IONIS
Pharmaceuticals, located on a 8.37-acre vacant site, on the north side of Whiptail Loop,
comprising Lots 21 and 22 (Assessor Parcel Numbers 209-120-23-00 and 209-120-24-00
and within local Facilities Management Zone 16) of the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific
Plan, SP 211(C)
Executive Summary
The City Council is being asked to deny an appeal and uphold a ruling by the Planning
Commission.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 1, 2023, to review and approve
discretionary actions for the following project:
•A research and development building (164,833-square-foot & 48-foot-tall)
•326 surface parking stalls and 100 stalls in a three-level parking structure (21-foot tall)
•Pedestrian bridge that spans across Whiptail Loop.
The development is proposed on a vacant 8.37-acre site within the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific
Plan on the north side of Whiptail Loop. The Planning Commission voted 4-0, (with
Commissioners Lafferty and Stine absent and one vacancy) to approve the site development
plan for the project.
The decision included an environmental finding that the potential environmental effects of the
project were adequately analyzed as part of Program Environmental Impact Report 98-08,
which was prepared for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan 211 and approved by the City
Council (Exhibit 7).
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 1 of 48
An appeal was filed on March 13, 2023, by the Supporters Alliance for Environmental
Responsibility. As outlined in Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, an appeal of a Planning
Commission decision shall be presented to the City Council, which may affirm, modify or
reverse the decision of the Planning Commission as supported by substantial evidence as it
deems appropriate.
Staff recommend that the appeal be denied and the Planning Commission’s decision to approve
the project be upheld for the reasons explained below.
Explanation & Analysis
Background
The proposed project is for a 414-acre planned industrial development in the northeast
quadrant of the city consisting of office and light industrial uses, as well as an assisted living
community. The project applicant, IONIS Pharmaceuticals, currently occupies two buildings
within the Oaks North Business Park.
The Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan and associated environmental impact report established
requirements and regulations for industrial lots surrounded by open space and established
mitigation measures and conditions for development within the site. The property is designated
planned industrial in the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. In the Carlsbad Oaks North
Specific Plan, a minor site development plan is required for light industrial buildings up to 35
feet in height. If the building exceeds 45 feet, a site development plan with approval by the
Planning Commission is required as stated in Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.06. (Refer to
the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 1, 2023, Exhibit 2, for additional
information on the project’s scope, scale and design.)
Issues cited in appeal
The appeal was filed on March 13, 2023, by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of the Supporters
Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (Exhibit 3). Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.54.140
outlines the procedures for appeal of a Planning Commission decision and requires applicants
to file such an appeal within 10 calendar days of the action. Due to the 10-day appeal date
falling on a weekend, the appeal was determined timely and accepted. A notice of
determination was filed with the County Clerk on March 9, 2023 (Exhibit 4).
The appeal states:
The Planning Commission violated the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
by finding that the Project is within the scope of the 2002 Carlsbad Oaks North
Specific Plan EIR and that the CEQA requires no further environmental analysis or
documentation for the project. Rather, new information available since 2002
demonstrates that the project will have impacts not considered in the 2002 EIR and
that mitigation measures for the Project’s impacts that were unavailable/ infeasible
in 2002 are now feasible. Therefore, the City Must prepare an EIR or negative
declaration for the project.
City staff and the City Attorney’s Office disagree with the appellant’s premise. The California
Environmental Quality Act is implemented in both state law as well as guidelines adopted by
the Secretary for the California Natural Resources Agency. State law, through Public Resources
Code Section 21166, establishes rules for when a city can require additional environmental
documents, such as a new environmental impact report, and cannot require one be prepared
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 2 of 48
unless substantial changes to the project, circumstances in which the project is being
undertaken, or if new information is available.
Section 15162 in the CEQA guidelines sets forth findings that should be used if an
environmental impact report has been prepared for this project or a subsequent project, and
Section 15168 sets forth the methodology to use a program environmental impact report for
private development projects. The Planning Commission’s decision to approve findings relying
upon the previous environmental impact report was documented with a checklist that
evaluated all CEQA topic areas and applicable mitigation measures to the project and is
included as an exhibit to the Planning Commission staff report attached as Exhibit 2.
None of the standards included in these state guidelines limit or restrict a city’s ability to rely on
a certified environmental impact report due to the age of the document. The appeal does not
raise any specific issues related to the standards of when a new environmental impact report
could be required. Further, there is no evidence that there are any changes to the project or
circumstances, and no new information was presented during the Planning Commission’s
review and public hearing, or with the filed appeal. The Community Development Department
therefore recommends that the appeal be denied and the decision to approve the project be
upheld.
Standard of review for appeals
The City Council is being asked to consider an appeal of an approval of the site development
plan and a determination that Program Environmental Impact Report 98-08 of the Carlsbad
Oaks North Specific Plan 211 is adequate without modification and that no additional
environmental review is required.
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.150(c) outlines the procedures for appeals of Planning
Commission decisions and the city planner’s CEQA determinations and states:
Grounds for appeal shall be limited to the following: that there was an error or
abuse of discretion on the part of the planning commission in that the decision was
not supported by the facts presented to the planning commission prior to the
decision being appealed; or that there was not a fair and impartial hearing.
Section 21.54.150(c) goes on to state that the City Council’s consideration is “de novo” (that is,
“like new”) but limits the consideration to “only the evidence presented to the Planning
Commission for consideration in the determination or decision being appealed.” That means
the City Council’s consideration on the appeal is confined to only the issues presented to the
Planning Commission that were also raised in the appeal. Any matters that were presented to
the Planning Commission but that were not specified in the appeal are considered to have been
approved correctly and supported by substantial evidence.
None of the public record submitted to the Planning Commission or in the submitted written
appeal provide any documentation that the grounds for an appeal as outlined in the Carlsbad
Municipal Code have been met.
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 3 of 48
The City Council may uphold, modify or overturn the Planning Commission’s and the city
planner’s decision. To overturn the appeal, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.150 requires
the City Council to make written findings supporting the grounds for appeal, which are limited
to the following:
“… that there was an error or abuse of discretion on the part of the planning
commission in that the decision was not supported by the facts presented to the
planning commission prior to the decision being appealed; or that there was not a fair
and impartial hearing.”
The decision of the City Council on this matter is final.
Community Engagement
The proposed project is subject to City Council Policy No. 84, Development Project Public
Involvement Policy. An enhanced stakeholder outreach meeting was held by the applicant at
the site on July 6, 2022. No members of the public attended the meeting and no comment
letters were received by the city or the applicant at that time.
The Planning Commission hearing on March 1, 2023, was a noticed public hearing and subject
to the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law. Staff published the notice for this requirement
in the San Diego Union Tribune and on the city’s website on February 17, 2023. No public
testimony was provided at the hearing. Two letters were received; one from the preserve
manager of the Center for Natural Lands Management, who commented on the impacts to the
development adjacent to the habitat preserve, and one from the Supporters Alliance for
Environmental Responsibility, who questioned the on the adequacy of the environmental
analysis. Neither commentor attended the hearing. These letters are included as Exhibit 4,
which also includes a letter the project’s applicant sent the city in response to the appeal.
Mitigation measures included in Program Environmental Impact Report 98-08 for the Carlsbad
Oaks North Specific Plan reduce edge effects, or impacts, of the properties adjacent to the
preserve. These mitigation measures apply to all projects in the plan area and include use of
low-pressure sodium lamps as well as fencing and signage to reduce intrusion into the open
space areas.
Staff published a notice of public hearing in the San Diego Union Tribune and on the city’s
website on May 6, 2023.
Fiscal Analysis
There is no direct fiscal impact from this item.
Options
Staff recommend the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision. The City Council
may uphold, modify, or overturn the Planning Commission’s and the city planner’s decision.
However, that decision must be based upon evidence that was provided to the Planning
Commission and raised in the appeal.
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 4 of 48
Next Steps
If the City Council denies the appeal, approving the project, the decision is final. Staff will work
with the applicant to implement all project conditions and mitigation measures in the
Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan. The applicant will be
required to finalize ministerial actions, such as building permit, grading permit, and landscape
plan review and can proceed with construction was all permits are issued.
Environmental Evaluation
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, Program Environmental
Impact Report 98-08 for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan (Planning Case Nos. EIR 98-
08/GPA 97-05/ZC 97-05/SP 211/LFMP 89-16(A)/CT 97-13/HDP 97-10/PIP 02-02/SUP 97-07),
State Clearinghouse No. 2000051057 (Exhibit 6), was certified as complete by the City Council
on October 8, 2002 (Exhibit 7 - City Council Resolution No. 2002-298).
When taking subsequent discretionary actions for which a program environmental impact
report has been certified, the lead agency is required to determine if subsequent activities are
within the scope of the prior environmental analysis and/or review any changed circumstances
or new information to determine whether any of the circumstances in CEQA Guidelines
sections 15162 and 15168 require additional environmental review.
The program EIR for Specific Plan 211 evaluated all land development anticipated through the
application of policies and regulations, and as logical parts of a long-term plan. In keeping with
CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15168, the request to construct a 164,833-square-foot,
48-foot-tall light industrial building, three-story parking structure and bridge across Whiptail
Loop is within the scope of the of the previously certified program EIR. The project would not
result in new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the final program EIR and
would not meet any other standards requiring further environmental review pursuant to state
guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168. No further analysis, public review or environmental
documentation is required. Please see Exhibit 6 for additional information.
Exhibits
1. City Council resolution
2. March 1, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
3. Appeal
4. Correspondence received
5. California Environmental Quality Act notice of determination
6. Environmental Impact Report 98-08 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
7. City Council Resolution 2002-298 approving Environmental Impact Report 98-08
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 5 of 48
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-130
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A 164,833-SQUARE-FOOT, 48-FOOT-TALL RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT BUILDING, A 21-FOOT-TALL, THREE-LEVEL PARKING
STRUCTURE AND A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE ACROSS WHIPTAIL LOOP FOR IONIS
PHARMACEUTICALS, LOCATED ON A 8.37-ACRE VACANT SITE, ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF WHIPTAIL LOOP, COMPRISING LOTS 21 AND 22 (ASSESSOR
PARCEL NUMBERS 209-120-23-00 AND 209-120-24-00 AND WITHIN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 16) OF THE CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH
SPECIFIC PLAN, SP 211(()
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that IONIS
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., "Applicant/Owner," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad
described as:
LOTS 21 AND 22 OF CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 97-13-03, CARLSBAD OAKS
NORTH PHASE 3, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP THEREOF NO. 16145, RECORDED AS
DOCUMENT NO. 2016-7000438, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, OCTOBER 13, 2016.
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development Plan as shown
on Exhibit(s) "A" -"Ill" dated March 1, 2023, on file in the Planning Division, SDP 2021-0029 (DEV2021-
0141) -IONIS LOTS 21 & 22, as provided by Chapters 21.06, 21.34, 21.44 and Title 20 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code and the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan SP 211((); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on March 1, 2023, hold a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law to consider the applicant's request and adopted Planning Commission Resolution
7472;and
WHEREAS, at said hearing the Planning Commission voted 4-0, with two Commissioners Absent
and one vacancy, to approve the site development plan application for the project; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2023, the appellant, Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of the Supporters
Alliance for Environmental Responsibility, timely filed an appeal with the city as provided in accordance
with Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
Exhibit 1
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 6 of 48
WHEREAS, Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 98-08, State Clearinghouse No.
2000051057 (Planning Case Nos. EIR 98-08/GPA 97-05/ZC 97-05/SP 211/LFMP 89-16(A)/CT 97-13/HDP
97-10/PIP 02-02/SUP 97-07), was prepared and the City Council certified it on Oct. 8, 2002, for the
Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan SP 211; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEOA, Public Resources Code
section 21000 et. seq.), and its implementing regulations (the CEOA Guidelines), sections 15162
through 15164 set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental
documentation, if any, to be completed when there is a previously-certified environmental impact
report (EIR) covering the project for which a subsequent discretionary action is required; and
WHEREAS, there is no "new information of substantial importance" in keeping with CEOA
Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), and the potential environmental effects of the project were adequately
analyzed by the previously-certified Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 98-08 for the Carlsbad
Oaks North Specific Plan SP 211 (City Council Resolution No. 2002-298), Therefore, the previously
certified EIR is adequate without modification and no additional environmental review is required; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the project's site development plan; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1.That the above recitations are true and correct.
2.That the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision is denied, that all other matters
not specified in the appeal have been supported by substantial evidence with findings
and approved by the Planning Commission, and that the findings and conditions
contained in Planning Commission No. 7472 on file in the Office of the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference and as "Attachment A", are the findings and
conditions of the City Council.
3.That this action is the final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The
provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial
Review" shall apply.
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 7 of 48
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 16th day of May, 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Acosta, Burkholder, Luna.
None.
None.
None.
KEITH BLACKBURN, Mayor
L,sHERRY �erk �--
(
SEAL)
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 8 of 48
l
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 164,833-SQUARE-FOOT, 48-FOOT-TALL
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUILDING, A 21-FOOT-TALL, THREE-
LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE AND A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE ACROSS
WHIPTAIL LOOP. THE VACANT 8.37-ACRE SITE COMPRISES LOTS 21 AND
22 OF THE CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN SP 211(C), ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF WHIPTAIL LOOP, ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 209-120-
23-00 AND 209-120-24-00 AND WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 16.
CASE NAME: IONIS LOTS 21 & 22
CASE NO: SDP 2021-0029 (DEV2021-0141)
WHEREAS, IONIS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., “Applicant/Owner,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad described as
LOTS 21 AND 22 OF CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 97-13-03, CARLSBAD OAKS
NORTH PHASE 3, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP THEREOF NO. 16145,
RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. 2016-7000438, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, OCTOBER 13, 2016.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development Plan as
shown on Exhibit(s) “A” – “III” dated March 1, 2023, on file in the Planning Division, SDP 2021-0029
(DEV2021-0141) – IONIS LOTS 21 & 22, as provided by Chapters 21.06, 21.34, 21.44 and Title 20 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code and the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan SP 211(C); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on March 1, 2023, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the
Site Development Plan;
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 98-08, State Clearinghouse No.
2000051057 (Planning Case Nos. EIR 98-08/GPA 97-05/ZC 97-05/SP 211/LFMP 89-16(A)/CT 97-13/HDP
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7472
Exhibit 1
Attachment A
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 9 of 48
- 2 -
97-10/PIP 02-02/SUP 97-07), was prepared and the City Council certified it on Oct. 8, 2002, for the
Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan SP 211; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA, Public Resources Code
section 21000 et. seq.), and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), Sections 15162
through 15164 set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental
documentation, if any, to be completed when there is a previously-certified environmental impact report
(EIR) covering the project for which a subsequent discretionary action is required; and
WHEREAS, there is no "new information of substantial importance" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162(a)(3), and the potential environmental effects of the project were adequately analyzed by
the previously-certified PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 98-08 for the CARLSBAD OAKS
NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN SP 211 (City Council Resolution No. 2002-298), Therefore, the previously-certified
EIR is adequate without modification and no additional environmental review is required; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES
of SDP 2021-0029 (DEV2021-0141) – IONIS LOTS 21 & 22, based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
Site Development Plan, SDP 2021-0029
1. That the proposed development or use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
master plan or specific plan, complies with all applicable provisions of Chapter 21.06 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, and all other applicable provisions of this code, in that the proposal
to construct a 48-foot-tall, three-story, 164,833-square-foot biomedical research and
development building (R&D) and a 21-foot-tall, three-level parking structure on a vacant
8.37-acre site on the north side of Whiptail Loop (APNs 209-120-23 and 209-120-24), is
consistent with the General Plan, Oaks North Specific Plan 211(C), as well as Titles 20 and
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC). Specifically, the biomedical R&D building is a
permitted use pursuant to SP 211(C) and the project complies with public facilities, access,
setbacks, height, employee eating areas, wall heights, parking requirements and the
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 10 of 48
- 3 -
architectural guidelines. As the proposed R&D building is proposed to be developed on two
lots, the project is conditioned to consolidate Lots 21 and 22 of Map No. 16145 into one lot,
consistent with CMC Title 20.
Pursuant to CMC Section 21.34.070.A.2(b),the increase in building height from 35 to 48 feet can
be supported as the setbacks have been increased at a ratio of one horizontal foot for every
one foot of vertical construction beyond 35 feet (i.e., an increased setback of 13 feet).
Consistent with CMC Section 21.34.070.A.2(b), the increased setback area is landscaped. In
addition, the 48-foot-tall building will not adversely affect the surrounding properties and will
not be unduly disproportional to other buildings in the area.
Pursuant to CMC Section 21.44.020, a total of 549 spaces are required based on a parking ratio
of one parking space per 300 square feet of building area. Pursuant to a Parking Study prepared
by Urban Systems for the project (February 2023), a minimum of 217 parking spaces are
recommended based on a parking ratio of 1.316 parking space per 1,000 square feet of building
area. The details of the request include the added provision of 426 total parking spaces, which
exceeds the recommendations of the February 2023 Parking Study. The City Planner, through
the authority granted by CMC Section 21.44.040 (B) has reviewed the study from the qualified
traffic engineer and has determined that a reduction is justified based on hourly parking
demand. Due to the special conditions referred to in the February 2023 Parking Study, and
considering the availability, if any, of public transportation within convenient walking distance,
the reduced amount of parking will be adequate for the activities served, and that the reduction
will not contribute to traffic congestion, circulation problems, traffic safety, or impair the
efficiency of on-street parking. Peak parking demand does not occur frequently enough to
justify building more parking.
In addition, all roadways necessary to serve the development exist and only minor
modifications are needed to the existing frontage improvements along the Whiptail Loop to
provide access to the development. Furthermore, the proposed pedestrian bridge across
Whiptail Loop complies with the minimum Engineering and Fire Department standards and will
provide safe and efficient access between the IONIS campus properties.
2. That the requested development or use is properly related to the site, surroundings and
environmental settings, will not be detrimental to existing development or uses or to
development or uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed development or use
is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that
the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan SP 211(C) was approved to be developed with a 414-acre
light industrial park. SP 211(C) identified 23 industrial lots, three open space lots, and one lot
for an employee picnic area that would serve the industrial business park. The project consists
of the construction of a 48-foot-tall, three-story, 164,833-square-foot biomedical R&D building
and a 21-foot-tall, three-level parking structure on Lots 21 and 22 of SP 211(C). The project site
is 8.37 acres and located on the north side of Whiptail Loop.
The site is bordered by light industrial buildings south, east and west and open space to the
north. The proposed 164,833-square-foot R&D building and three-level parking structure is
compatible with the surrounding similar land uses. Specifically, the R&D building is terraced to
follow the existing step in topography between Lots 21 and 22 of SP 211(C) and the proposed
colors, materials and architectural features are well-coordinated with the exiting IONIS
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 11 of 48
- 4 -
buildings to the south, complementary to the site and its surroundings and would enhance the
appearance of the surrounding light industrial park. The parking structure will be partially
screened with a berm as viewed from the open space parcel to the north and a green screen
will further soften the views. No evidence has been submitted or discovered that would suggest
that the proposed project would cause any material depreciation in appearance or detriment
in value to the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the proposed project will not adversely
impact the site, surroundings, or traffic circulation in that the existing surrounding streets have
adequate capacity to accommodate the 1,319 Average Daily Trips (ADT) generated by the
project. The project complies with all minimum development standards pursuant to SP 211(C),
in that the setbacks have been increased 13 feet to accommodate the additional building height
and the Parking Analysis prepared by Urban Systems (February 2023) provides the evidence to
support the applicant’s request to reduce the required number of parking stalls onsite from 549
to 426 spaces.
3. That the site for the intended development or use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the use, in that the lots were approved as part of a 23-lot light industrial subdivision pursuant
to SP 211(C) and the project is consistent with the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan’s
Development Standards and Design Guidelines and the Planned Industrial (P-M) Zone.
Adequate onsite circulation is provided with the proposed two (2) driveway off Whiptail Loop.
The biomedical R&D building complies with the development standards pursuant to SP 211(C)
and CMC Chapter 21.34 in that the setbacks have been increased to accommodate the
additional building height and a Parking Analysis (Urban Systems, February 2023) has been
submitted to support the request to reduce the minimum required number of parking stalls
from 549 to 426 spaces.
4. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the
requested development or use to existing or permitted future development or use in the
neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that pursuant to CMC Section
21.34.070.A.2(b), the required setbacks have been increased by 13 feet to accommodate the
additional increase in building height from 35 to 48 feet, the additional setback area is
landscaped and the Parking Analysis prepared by Urban Systems (February 2023) provides the
justification to support the request to reduce the required number of parking stalls onsite from
549 to 426 spaces in that a minimum of 217 parking spaces are recommended. In addition, the
retaining walls onsite do not exceed 42 inches in height in the front yard setback or six feet in
height outside of the front yard setback. Adequate vehicle circulation has been provided to
accommodate truck turning movements and emergency vehicle access. The proposed 60-foot-
wide fire buffer has been approved by the Fire Department and the landscaping proposed
around the perimeter of the property and within the 60-foot-wide fire buffer is consistent with
the requirements of the city’s Landscape Design Manual.
5. That the street systems serving the proposed development or use is adequate to properly handle
all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the site has frontage along Whiptail Loop to the
south. Primary access to the site would be provided by two private driveways off Whiptail Loop.
Pursuant to the Local Mobility Analysis prepared by Urban Systems (December 2022), Whiptail
Loop, which is fully improved, can adequately handle the 1,319 Average Daily Trips (ADT)
generated by the project and the ADTs fall within the scope of the circulation analysis prepared
for the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, EIR 98-
08. In addition, the internal traffic circulation and the 16’-11”-tall pedestrian bridge across
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 12 of 48
- 5 -
Whiptail Loop comply with the minimum Land Development Engineering and Fire Department
standards.
Pursuant to CMC Section 21.34.070.A.2(b), building height above 45 feet may be permitted through the
approval of a Site Development Plan provided the following additional findings are made:
6. The project complies with CMC Section 21.34.070.A.2(c) in that the required front, side and rear
yard setbacks have been increased at a ratio of one horizontal foot for every one foot of vertical
construction beyond 35 feet. As 35 feet is the permitted height and a 48-foot-tall building is
proposed on the lower building pad, the setbacks have been increased by 13 feet and the
increased setback area is landscaped.
7. The allowed height protrusions as described in 21.46.020 do not exceed the height authorized by
the decision making authority in that a 48-foot-tall building with allowable architectural
projections up to 60 feet is proposed on the lower building pad and roof equipment is necessary.
The proposed 60-foot-tall roof screen is an allowable architectural projection since it does not
provide useable floor area, does not adversely impact the adjacent properties and is necessary
to ensure the building’s design excellence. In addition, the roof equipment is centrally-located
on the roof and setback from the edge of the building to minimize the visual impacts associated
with the additional height for the roof screen.
8. The height of the building will not adversely affect the surrounding properties in that the
proposed 48-foot-tall, three-story, 164,833-square-foot biomedical R&D building has been
designed to follow the existing step in topography thus minimizing the grading and visual
impacts as viewed from the open space to the north and light industrial buildings to the south,
east and west. The portion of the building which exceeds the building height is setback 135 feet from the front property line, 164 feet from the nearest side property line and 190 feet from the
rear property line. The building incorporates enhanced architectural features and will be
softened with landscaping proposed around the perimeter of the site and in the parking lot.
The pad elevation of the adjacent building to the east is approximately 20 feet higher than the
upper building pad and 36 feet higher than the lower building pad of the proposed R&D
building. The light industrial buildings located on the adjacent parcel to the west are located a
minimum of 20 feet below the subject site. The building on the south side of Whiptail Loop is
developed with the IONIS employee conference center. As the setbacks have been increased 13
feet as required, the building is setback a significant distance from the adjacent property lines
and the adjacent properties are located a minimum of 20 feet above or below the project site,
the surrounding properties will not be adversely impacted.
9. The building will not be unduly disproportional to other buildings in the area in that the three (3)
light industrial buildings on the adjacent lot to the west (Pacific Vista Commerce Center, Lot 23
of SP 211C) total 411,000 square feet and are 38-feet-tall with allowable architectural
projections up to 43 feet. As the building to the west also exceeded the 35-foot maximum
building height by three feet, the required setbacks were also increased by three feet. The
building to the east, is 37,578 square feet, two stories in height and located on a building pad
approximately 20 feet higher in elevation than the upper building pad of the subject site and 36
feet higher than the lower building pad, where the 48-foot-tall section of the building is
proposed. The existing IONIS R&D building located off Whiptail Loop at 2855 Gazelle Court is
approximately 173,000 square feet in size. In addition, the project site comprises two of the 23
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 13 of 48
- 6 -
light industrial lots created as part of the SP 211(C). As such, the proposed 164,833-square-foot,
48-foot-tall building is not unduly disproportional to other buildings in the area.
McClellan Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
10. The project is consistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the McClellan-
Palomar Airport (ALUCP), dated December 1, 2011, in that pursuant to Exhibit III-2 of the ALUCP
(Safety Compatibility Policy Map), the site is located within Safety Zone 6, the Traffic Pattern
Zone. Light industrial buildings such as the proposed biomedical R&D building are considered
to be compatible land uses within Safety Zone 6. At the tallest point, the proposed 48-foot-tall
building, including the architectural projections up to 60 feet, is at 478 AMSL, which is below
the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 obstruction surface of 548 feet AMSL established
at the project site and pursuant to SP 211(C). In addition, pursuant to Exhibit III-1 of the ALUCP,
the project is located outside of the 60 dB CNEL noise contour, but within the Overflight
Notification area pursuant to Exhibit III-6. As such, the project will be conditioned to require the
recordation of an Overflight Notification Notice. Therefore, the project is consistent with SP
211(C) and the McClellan-Palomar ALUCP.
California Environmental Quality Act
11. Record and Basis for Action. The Planning Commission has considered the full record before it,
which includes the Record of Proceedings. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to
be true and correct and material to this resolution; and are incorporated herein by reference.
12. Compliance with CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, this project is covered by a
previously-certified Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 98-08, State Clearinghouse No.
2000051057 (Planning Case Nos. EIR 98-08/GPA 97-05/ZC 97-05/SP 211/LFMP 89-16(A)/CT 97-
13/HDP 97-10/PIP 02-02/SUP 97-07), that was prepared and the City Council certified it on Oct.
8, 2002, for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan SP 211. The effects of the project were
examined in the previously-certified EIR and all feasible mitigation measures developed in the EIR
are incorporated into the appropriate entitlements to ensure that the mitigations measures will
be implemented.
a. There are no substantial changes proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the certified EIR.
b. There are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified EIR.
c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known at the time
the EIR was certified by the City Council on October 8, 2022 pursuant to City Council
Resolution No. 2002-298.
d. The Planning Commission considered the EIR and all significant impacts and mitigation
measures in the certified EIR, and considered all written and oral communications from
the public regarding the environmental analysis, and found that (1) The project falls under
the scope of the certified EIR; (2) All significant impacts were adequately addressed in the
certified EIR; (3) The project would not make a considerable contribution to a new
significant cumulative impact; and (4) None of the triggers for subsequent/supplemental
EIRs in CEQA apply. The project is, therefore, determined to within the scope of the
certified EIR and the certified EIR satisfies all requirements of CEQA for this later activity.
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 14 of 48
- 7 -
e. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Office of the City Clerk of the City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
f. The Planning Commission directs the City Planner to file the notice of determination
required by Public Resources Code section 21152(a) within five days after project
approval.
General
13. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with
the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated
March 1, 2023, including, but not limited to the following:
a. Land Use & Community Design – The project site is identified as Lots 21 and 22 of the
Oaks North Specific Plan, SP 211(C). The proposed project includes a request to develop an 8.73-acre property designated PI in the General Plan with a 164,833-square-foot, 48-
foot-tall, three-story R&D building, a 21-foot-tall, three-level parking structure and a
pedestrian bridge across Whiptail Loop.
A majority of the light industrial park is developed with light industrial building such as
the proposed R&D building. The site can be adequately served by existing utilities and
is convenient to public transit located along El Camino Real, Faraday Avenue and
Melrose Drive. The proposed office building will provide employment opportunities for
residents who live within proximity to the site and will enhance the city’s position as a
premier regional employment center.
The building use and design is compatible with the existing light industrial buildings to the south, east and west. The site is suitable for the proposed light industrial
development as the building setbacks have been increased to comply with CMC Section
21.34.070. Specifically, the maximum allowable building height in the P-M zone is 35
feet. As the applicant is proposing a 48-foot-tall building, the setbacks are required to
be increased one foot for every foot of height above 35 feet. Therefore, the required
front, side and rear yard setbacks have been increased by 13 feet. Further, views of the
parking structure from the north are softened through the use of berms and a green
screen to allow vines to grow up the screen. In addition, the building design steps with
the topography to limit the grading and retaining wall heights and reduce the visual
impacts. A total of 549 parking spaces are required and 426 parking spaces are
proposed. Pursuant to a Parking Study prepared for the proposed project (Urban
Systems, February 2023), a minimum of 217 parking spaces are recommended for Lots
21 and 22 of SP 211(C). As 426 spaces are provided onsite, adequate parking is provided.
b Mobility – The proposed project has been designed to meet all circulation requirements,
including vehicular and Fire access. In addition, the applicant would be required to pay
any applicable traffic impact fees, prior to building permit issuance, which would go
toward future road improvements. Pursuant to the Local Mobility Analysis prepared
by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. (December 2022), the average daily trips (ADTs)
generated by the project, 1,319 ADTs, falls within the scope of what was analyzed
pursuant to EIR 98-08 and no new significant impacts have been identified. A
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 15 of 48
- 8 -
Transportation Demand Management Plan (Urban Systems, October 2022) has also
been prepared for the proposed project.
c. Public Safety – The proposed structural improvements would be required to be designed
in conformance with all seismic design standards. In addition, the proposed project is
consistent with all the applicable fire safety requirements, including fire sprinklers and
a minimum 60-foot-wide fire buffer around the perimeter of the buildings. Two
bioretention basins and a storm water vault are proposed in between the building and
parking lots and Whiptail Loop to treat the stormwater before entering the storm drain
system. Furthermore, the project has been conditioned to develop and implement a
program of “best management practices” for the elimination and reduction of
pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities.
d. Noise – The project site is located approximately 1.1 miles northeast of McClellan Palomar Airport and is subject to the McClellan Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan (ALUCP). The project is consistent with the noise policies in the ALUCP in that 1)
the proposed light industrial R&D building is located outside of the 60 dB CNEL noise
contour and thus is not impacted by airport noise; and 2) the site is within the Overflight
Notification area pursuant to Exhibit III-6. As a result, the project is conditioned to
require the recordation of an Overflight Notification Notice.
14. The project is consistent with the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 16 and all city public facility policies and ordinances. The project
includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all
facilities and improvements regarding sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage;
circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government
administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new
development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically,
a. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified School
District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
b. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected
prior to the issuance of building permit.
c. The Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 16 is required by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 21.90.050 and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
15. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 16.
16. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual and Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.50).
17. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to
mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree
of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 16 of 48
- 9 -
Conditions:
NOTE: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of grading
permit, or building permit, whichever comes first.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented
and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained
according to their terms, the city shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein
granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke, or further
condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted;
record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained
by Developer or a successor in interest by the city’s approval of this Site Development Plan.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and
modifications to the Site Development Plan documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur
substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development, different from this
approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any
fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged,
this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such
condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council
determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and
costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the city arising, directly or indirectly,
from (a) city’s approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan, (b) city’s approval or issuance
of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use
contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility
permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by
the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives
until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the city’s approval is not
validated.
6. Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of an exterior lighting plan including
parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on
adjacent homes or property.
7. Prior to submittal of the building plans, improvement plans, grading plans, or final map, whichever
occurs first, developer shall submit to the City Planner, a 24" x 36" copy of the Site Plan,
conceptual grading plan and preliminary utility plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 17 of 48
- 10 -
decision-making body. The copy shall be submitted to the City Planner, reviewed and, if found
acceptable, signed by the city's project planner and project engineer. If no changes were required,
the approved exhibits shall fulfill this condition.
8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part
of the Zone 16 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to
the issuance of building permits.
9. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within
24 months from the date of project approval.
10. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and
sewer services to the project provides written certification to the city that adequate water service
and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the
building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until
the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Grading Permit.
11. Developer shall report, in writing, to the City Planner within 30 days, any address change from
that which is shown on the permit application, any change in the telecommunications provider,
or any transfer in ownership of the site.
12. Developer shall pay the Citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the
License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD
#1 special tax, subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040.
Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 16,
pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the
taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall
become void.
13. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, Developer shall submit to the city a Notice of
Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be developed. Said notice is to be filed
in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the City Planner, notifying all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Site
Development Plan on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description,
location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as
any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The City Planner
has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or
terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest.
14. Developer shall make a separate formal landscape construction drawing plan check submittal to
the Planning Division and obtain City Planner approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan
showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the city’s Landscape
Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping and irrigation as shown on the
approved Final Plans. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free
from weeds, trash, and debris. All irrigation systems shall be maintained to provide the optimum
amount of water to the landscape for plant growth without causing soil erosion and runoff.
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 18 of 48
- 11 -
15. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan
check process on file in the Planning Division and accompanied by the project’s building,
improvement, and grading plans.
16. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance
as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of
Community Development and Planning.
17. Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot-high
masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the City Planner. Enclosure
shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
18. Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups, and in locations clearly marked to the
satisfaction of the City Planner.
19. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that
this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-
Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the City Planner and the City Attorney (see
Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Division).
20. A construction change to the landscape plan approved in association with DWG # 514-7L (SDP
2018-0012) to address the changes to the landscaping in association with the construction of
the pedestrian bridge on APN 209-120-27-00 shall be approved prior to issuance of the grading
permit, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
21. The approval of SDP 2021-0029 is granted subject to the Program EIR for the Oaks North Specific
Plan SP 211. (EIR 98-08, SCH No. 2000051057), and all project features and mitigation measures
contained therein. The applicant shall implement or cause the implementation of the Final EIR
MMRP, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5244 and pursuant to Section V.H of
SP 211(C), which is incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein.
Engineering:
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the approval of
this proposed development, must be met prior to approval of a building or grading permit, whichever
occurs first.
General
22. 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.
23. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for
the development of the subject property unless the district engineer has determined that
adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of permit issuance and will continue
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 19 of 48
- 12 -
to be available until time of occupancy.
24. The developer shall complete processing of an adjustment plat for the lot line adjustment
between lot 21 and lot 22 as shown on the site development plan. Developer shall pay processing
fees per the city’s latest fee schedule.
25. Developer shall include rain gutters on the building plans subject to the city engineer’s review and
approval. Developer shall install rain gutters in accordance with said plans.
26. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in
accordance with City Engineering Standards. The property owner shall maintain this condition.
27. Prior to building permit issuance, developer shall show all transportation demand management
infrastructure measures on the building plans.
28. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall show an updated title report reflecting
the adjustment plat and certificate of compliance.
Fees/Agreements
29. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation,
the city’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
30. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation
the city’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement.
31. Developer shall cause property owner to submit an executed copy to the city engineer for
recordation a city standard Permanent Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice
Maintenance Agreement.
32. Developer shall cause property owner to apply for, execute, and submit, to the city engineer for
recordation, an Encroachment Agreement covering private pedestrian bridge located over
existing public right-of-way or easements as shown on the site plan. Developer shall pay
processing fees per the city’s latest fee schedule.
33. Developer shall implement Transportation Demand Management strategies per Carlsbad
Municipal Code section 18.51. Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall have a
consultation with city staff regarding submittal of the final TDM Plan. Prior to occupancy, the
Developer shall submit a final Tier 3 Transportation Demand Management Plan to the satisfaction
of the Engineering Manager.
34. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall include all transportation demand
management infrastructure measures, in accordance with the project’s Transportation Demand
Management Plan, in the building plan set to the satisfaction of the Engineering Manager. Items
include, but not limited to:
a) Secure bike parking
b) Outdoor bike racks with shared bikes.
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 20 of 48
- 13 -
c) Designated parking space for car/vanpools, in addition of Cal Green requirements, along
signage and striping.
d) Showers and lockers
e) Basketball/badminton court, half basketball court and a fitness center
f) Bicycle and pedestrian connections and wayfinding
g) Passenger loading zone
35. Prior to occupancy, all infrastructure measures shall be installed and approved by the Engineering
Manager.
Grading
36. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site plan
a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall prepare and submit plans and
technical studies/reports as required by city engineer, post security and pay all applicable grading
plan review and permit fees per the city’s latest fee schedule.
37. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the contractor shall submit a Construction Plan to the city
engineer for review and approval. Said Plan may be required to include, but not be limited to,
identifying the location of the construction trailer, material staging, bathroom facilities, parking
of construction vehicles, employee parking, construction fencing and gates, obtaining any
necessary permission for off-site encroachment, addressing pedestrian safety, and identifying
time restrictions for various construction activities.
38. Developer shall prepare and submit a separate grading plan and an addendum to the Storm
Water Management Plan for Ionis Pharmaceuticals Conference Center (Parcel 1, Map 21705) to incorporate the improvements depicted on the site plan, including but not limited to: proposed
sidewalk, pedestrian ramp, retaining wall, storm drain, biofiltration basin revision and
implementation of trash capture. Developer shall pay all applicable fees per the city’s latest
fee schedule.
39. Improvements of the private pedestrian bridge depicted on the site plan shall be conveyed on
the grading plans for the site improvements or by separate document. The developer shall
prepare and submit plans and technical studies/reports as required by the engineering manager
of land development engineering, post security and pay all applicable plan review and permit
fees per the city’s latest fee schedule.
Storm Water Quality
40. Developer shall comply with the city's Stormwater Regulations, latest version, and shall
implement best management practices at all times. Best management practices include but are
not limited to pollution control practices or devices, erosion control to prevent silt runoff during
construction, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices,
maintenance procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the
discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water or stormwater conveyance system to the
maximum extent practicable. Developer shall notify prospective owners and tenants of the above
requirements.
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 21 of 48
- 14 -
41. Developer shall submit for city approval a Tier 3 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (TIER 3
SWPPP). The TIER 3 SWPPP shall comply with current requirements and provisions established
by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Requirements. The
TIER 3 SWPPP shall identify and incorporate measures to reduce storm water pollutant runoff
during construction of the project to the maximum extent practicable. Developer shall pay all
applicable SWPPP plan review and inspection fees per the city’s latest fee schedule.
42. This project is subject to ‘Priority Development Project’ requirements and Trash Capture
requirements. Developer shall prepare and process a Storm Water Quality Management Plan
(SWQMP), subject to city engineer approval, to comply with the Carlsbad BMP Design Manual
latest version. The final SWQMP required by this condition shall be reviewed and approved by
the city engineer with final grading plans. Developer shall pay all applicable SWQMP plan review
and inspection fees per the city’s latest fee schedule.
43. Developer is responsible to ensure that all final design plans (grading plans, improvement plans,
landscape plans, building plans, etc.) incorporate all source control, site design, pollutant control
BMP and applicable hydromodification measures.
Dedications/Improvements
44. Developer shall design the private drainage systems, as shown on the site plan to the satisfaction
of the city engineer. All private drainage systems (12” diameter storm drain and larger) shall be
inspected by the city. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection
fees for private drainage systems.
45. Prior to any work in city right-of-way or public easements, Developer shall apply for and obtain a
right-of-way permit to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
46. Developer shall prepare and process public improvement plans and, prior to city engineer
approval of said plans, shall execute a city standard Development Improvement Agreement to
install and shall post security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 for public
improvements shown on the site plan. Said improvements shall be installed to city standards to
the satisfaction of the city engineer. These improvements include, but are not limited to:
A. Demolition of Existing Sewer and Water Laterals
B. Sewer Laterals
C. Water Laterals
D. Driveway
E. Pedestrian Ramps
F. AC Grind & Overlay
Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees in accordance with
the fee schedule. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 36 months of approval
of the subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in
said agreement.
47. Developer shall design, and obtain approval from the city engineer, the structural section for the
access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with city standards due to truck access
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 22 of 48
- 15 -
through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. Prior to completion of
grading, the final structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with
required R-value soil test information subject to the review and approval of the city engineer.
48. Developer shall provide all-weather maintenance access roads to the public drainage facilities
(e.g.: headwalls, rip-rap field, etc.) for this project to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Where
maintenance access roads are not practical and/or permitted, developer shall incorporate low-
maintenance design features to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
Utilities
49. Developer shall meet with the fire marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows,
fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project.
50. Developer shall design and agree to 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 or city engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate maintenance,
access and/or joint utility purposes.
51. The developer shall agree to design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled water as a
source and prepare and submit a colored recycled water use map to the Planning Department for
processing and approval by the district engineer.
52. Developer shall install potable water and/or recycled water services and meters at locations
approved by the district engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
53. The developer shall agree to install sewer laterals and clean-outs at locations approved by the city
engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
54. The developer shall apply for a provisional source control permit with Encinas Wastewater
District for any conveyance of flows from this development other than wastewater. Prior to
the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall comply with all conditions and pay all fees
required by the Encinas Wastewater District to obtain the provisional source control permit.
55. This project is approved for 105 equivalent dwelling unit (EDUs) for sewer generation. Any
future tenant improvement permit applications subsequent to this approval shall include a
sewer study and/or plumbing calculations to demonstrate that the 105 EDU is not exceeded. If
the tenant improvements exceed the 105 EDU sewer generation, the project may be subject to
public infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to upsizing the impacted
downstream sewer mains and modifying the sewer pump facilities. In addition, an amendment
to SDP 2021-0029 may be required.
Code Reminders
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the
following:
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 23 of 48
- 16 -
56. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Developer shall pay a Public Facility fee as required by
Council Policy No. 17.
57. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Developer shall pay the Local Facilities Management
fee for Zone 16 as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.050.
58. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
59. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable city ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance,
except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
60. The project shall comply with the latest nonresidential disabled access requirements pursuant to
Title 24 of the California Building Code.
61. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 17.04.060. Prior to submittal for a building permit, Developer shall submit a request for
addressing to the Building Division.
62. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with
the city’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the City Planner prior to
installation of such signs.
63. Developer acknowledges that the project is required to comply with the city’s greenhouse gas
(GHG) reduction ordinances and requirements. GHG reduction requirements are in accordance
with, but are not limited to, Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapters 18.21, 18.30, and 18.51 in addition
to the California Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11 – CALGreen), as amended
from time to time. GHG reduction requirements may be different than what is proposed on the
project plans or in the Climate Action Plan Checklist originally submitted with this project.
Developer acknowledges that new GHG reduction requirements related to energy efficiency,
photovoltaic, electric vehicle charging, water heating and traffic demand management
requirements as set forth in the ordinances and codes may impact, but are not limited to, site
design and local building code requirements. If incorporating GHG reduction requirements results
in substantial modifications to the project, then prior to issuance of development (grading,
building, etc.) permits, Developer may be required to submit and receive approval of a
Consistency Determination or Amendment for this project through the Planning Division.
Compliance with the applicable GHG reduction requirements must be demonstrated on or with
the construction plans prior to issuance of the applicable development permits.
64. Developer shall pay planned local area drainage fees in accordance with Section 15.08.020 of the
City of Carlsbad Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
65. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section
13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor
area contained in the staff report and shown on the tentative map are for planning purposes only.
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 24 of 48
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 25 of 48
66 . Subdivider shall comply with Section 20.16.040(d) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code regarding the
undergrounding of existing overhead utilities.
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's
decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in
writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal
prior to any judicial review.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions."
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest
them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the
protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent
legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT
APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other
similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any
fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute
of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
AYES: Commissioners Kamenjarin, Meenes, Merz, and Sabellico
NAYS:
ABSENT: Commissioners Lafferty and Stine
ABSTAIN:
v~~
PETER MERZ, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
ERIC LARDY
CITY PLANNER
-17 -
Exhibit 2
March 1, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 26 of 48
Exhibit 3
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 27 of 48
RECEIVED
C cicy Df MAR 1-3 2023 AP ~EAL FORM Deve/ol!_ment Services
P-27 Planning Division
Carlsb2 cl CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 Faraday Avenue
(442) 339-2610 ITY CLERK'S OFFICE www.carlsbadca.gov
Date of Decision you are appealing~: 0~3~/~0~1/=2~3 ______________________ _
Subject of the Appeal:
BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Planner's Decision, please say so. If a project has multiple
applications, (such as a Coastal Development Permit, Planned Unit Development, Minor Conditional Use
Permit, etc) please list all of them. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here.
Please see fee schedule for the current fee.
Planning Commission approval of Site Development Plan for IONIS LOTS 21 & 22
SOP 2021-0029 (DEV2021-0141)
Reason(s) for the Appeal: PLEASE NOTE: The appeal shall specifically state the reason(s) for
the appeal. Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of the appeal, and you will be limited
to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal.
BE SPECIFIC How did the decision-maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with local laws,
plans, or policy? Please see Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.54.140(b) for additional
information (attached). Please attach additional sheets or exhibits if necessary.
The Planning Commission violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") by finding that the
Project is within the scope of the 2002 Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan EIR and that CEOA requires no
further environmental analysis or documentation for the Project. Rather, new information available since
2002 demonstrates that the Project will have impacts not considered in the 2002 EIR and that mitigation
measures for the Project's impacts that were unavailable/infeasible in 2002 are now feasible. Therefore, the
City must prepare an EIR or negative declaration for the Project.
NAME (Print): Brian Flynn on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER)
MAILING ADDRESS: LOZEAU DRURY LLP, 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
CITY, STATE, ZIP: Oakland, California 94612
TELEPHONE: (510) 836-4200
EMAIL ADDRESS: brian@lozeaudrury.com
SIGNATURE:
DATE: 3/7/23
P-27 Page 1 of 1 Rev. 3/22
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 28 of 48
VIA EMAIL
Peter Merz, Chair
T 510.836.4200
F 510.836.4205
Bill Kamenjarin, Commissioner
Alicia Lafferty, Commissioner
Roy Meenes, Commissioner
Joseph Stine, Commissioner
Kevin Sabellico, Commissioner
Carolyn Luna, Commissioner
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Emai I: planning@carlsbadca.gov
1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150
Oakland, CA 94612
March l , 2023
www.lozeaudrury.com
rebecca@lozeaudrury.com
Re: Comment on SDP 2021-0029 (DEV2021-0141) -IONIS LOTS 21 & 22;
March 1, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda Item 1
Dear Chair Merz and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER")
regarding SPD 2021-0029 (DEV2021-0141) -JONIS LOTS 21 & 22, including all actions
related or referring to the proposed development of a 164,833-square-foot research and
development building, located at the north side of Whiptail Loop, Lots 21 and 22 (Assessor
Parcel Numbers 209-120-23-00 and 209-120-24-00) in the City of Carlsbad (the "Project"),
listed as Item 1 on the Planning Commission's March 1, 2023 Agenda.
The City's reliance on the 2022 Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan EIR for the Project
violates the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The 2002 EIR is out of date
and did not analyze the impacts of this project. A project-specific EIR is required to analyze
and mitigate the Project's environmental impacts. SAFER therefore requests that the
Planning Commission decline to approve the Project at this time and, instead, direct city staff
to prepare an EIR for the Project and circulate the Draft EIR for public review and comment
in accordance with CEQA prior to any approval.
Sincerely, /ft--
Rebecca L. Davis
March 1, 2023
VIA EMAIL
Peter Merz, Chair Bill Kamenjarin, Commissioner Alicia Lafferty, Commissioner Roy Meenes, Commissioner Joseph Stine, Commissioner
Kevin Sabellico, Commissioner Carolyn Luna, Commissioner Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Email: planning@carlsbadca.gov
Re: Comment on SDP 2021-0029 (DEV2021-0141) – IONIS LOTS 21 & 22; March 1, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda Item 1
Dear Chair Merz and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding SPD 2021-0029 (DEV2021-0141) - IONIS LOTS 21 & 22, including all actions related or referring to the proposed development of a 164,833-square-foot research and development building, located at the north side of Whiptail Loop, Lots 21 and 22 (Assessor
Parcel Numbers 209-120-23-00 and 209-120-24-00) in the City of Carlsbad (the “Project”), listed as Item 1 on the Planning Commission’s March 1, 2023 Agenda.
The City’s reliance on the 2022 Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan EIR for the Project violates the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The 2002 EIR is out of date
and did not analyze the impacts of this project. A project-specific EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts. SAFER therefore requests that the Planning Commission decline to approve the Project at this time and, instead, direct city staff to prepare an EIR for the Project and circulate the Draft EIR for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA prior to any approval.
Sincerely,
Rebecca L. Davis
Exhibit 4
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 29 of 48
T 510.836.4200
F 510.836.4205
1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150
Oakland, CA 94612
www.lozeaudrury.com
rebecca@lozeaudrury.com
/1 I------.
From:Brooke Dekker
To:Planning
Subject:SDP 2021-0029 (DEV2021-0141) – IONIS LOTS 21 & 22 2023-3-1 (S034)
Date:Wednesday, February 22, 2023 5:31:05 PM
Attachments:Letter to Carlsbad Planning Commission SDP 2021-0029 (DEV2021-0141) – IONIS LOTS 21 & 22 Final.docx
Hi,
I would like to add comments to the agenda in response to the proposed development
(SDP 2021-0029 (DEV2021-0141) – IONIS LOTS 21 & 22) for the meeting on March
1, 2023. I am the preserve manager for the adjacent Habitat Conservation Area,Carlsbad Oaks North (S034), which is west and north to the development. Attached ismy letter of comments regarding the development.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks,
Brooke
--
Brooke Prentice-Dekker
Preserve Manager
Center for Natural Lands Management
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 30 of 48
February 22, 2023
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
Council Chamber
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Public Hearings: SDP 2021-0029 (DEV2021-0141) – IONIS LOTS 21 & 22
Dear City of Carlsbad Planning Commission,
The Center for Natural Lands Management owns and manages the Habitat Conservation Area
(HCA), Carlsbad Oaks North Preserve (S034) north and west of the of the property for the
proposed development SDP 2021-0029 (DEV2021-0141) – IONIS LOTS 21 & 22. We would like
to voice some of our concerns regarding this development as it relates to the HCA which was
established for the benefit of threatened and endangered species affected by prior development
in the vicinity:
• Increased noise pollution from the construction of this project, as well as noise pollution
that will continue as long as the structure stands. This could be harmful to wildlife within
the HCA.
• Increased light pollution during construction and once completed that could affect wildlife
within the HCA.
• Increased human activity, which could lead to trespassing into the HCA from the building
and parking structure, as well as the bridge that will connect to Whiptail. This would
affect wildlife and negatively impact the habitat within the HCA.
• Potential damage to the habitat of the HCA during and after the construction of the
development. Although the HCA is marked with signage to prevent trespassing, there is
no fence which prevents people from entering.
Please consider these concerns when determining the aspects of construction and development
of this proposed project.
Regards,
Brooke Prentice-Dekker
Preserve Manager, San Diego
bdekker@cnlm.org
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 31 of 48
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, 27th Floor | San Diego, CA 92101-0903
Telephone: 619.233.1155 | Facsimile: 619.233.1158
www.allenmatkins.com
Jeffrey A. Chine
E-mail: jchine@allenmatkins.com
Direct Dial: 6192351525 File Number: 392487.00002/4884-3843-0305.7
Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco
Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail - clerk@carlsbadca.gov
May 9, 2023
Carlsbad City Council
c/o City Clerk
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: May 16, 2023 City Council Hearing; Ionis Pharmaceuticals - Response
to Appeal of Site Development Plan 2021-0029 (DEV2021-0141)
Honorable Mayor Blackburn and City Council Members:
This firm represents Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in connection with its proposed research
and development project (“Project”) located on the north side of Whiptail Loop, Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers 209-120-23 and -24. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the appeal submitted by
Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) on March 7, 2023, challenging
the Planning Commission’s CEQA determination for the Project Site Development Plan 2021-0029
(DEV2021-0141).
SAFER’s appeal consists of a single page without any information or evidence as to why the
Planning Commission’s CEQA determination was inadequate. The Planning Commission found
that the Project is consistent with the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Report (“EIR”) and thus no further environmental review is required. SAFER challenges this
determination, alleging that “new information available since 2002 demonstrates that the Project
will have impacts not considered in the 2002 EIR and that mitigation measures for the Project’s
impacts that were unavailable/infeasible in 2002 are now feasible. Therefore, the City must prepare
an EIR or negative declaration for the Project.”1
Yet, the appellant failed to provide the allegedly “new information” or articulate what “new”
mitigation measures are now supposedly feasible. SAFER’s appeal presents only a conclusory
assertion that error has occurred. Thus, SAFER has failed to “establish by substantial evidence”
that the Planning Commission’s decision was erroneous, as required by the Carlsbad Municipal
Code (“CMC”).2 Moreover, as the CMC limits an appellant to the claims and evidence in the
1 SAFER Appeal.
2 CMC, § 21.54.150(b).
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 32 of 48
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
May 9, 2023
Page 2
appeal as submitted, SAFER is barred from presenting new evidence at this stage. Thus, SAFER
has failed to carry its burden and its appeal must be denied.
By way of background, the CMC sets out the following requirements for appeals of
Planning Commission determinations:
The appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal.
The burden of proof is on the appellant to establish by substantial
evidence that the grounds for the decision or determination exist.
Grounds for appeal shall be limited to the following: that there was an
error or abuse of discretion on the part of the planning commission in
that the decision was not supported by the facts presented to the
planning commission prior to the decision being appealed; or that
there was not a fair and impartial hearing.3
The City’s Appeal Form P-27 emphasizes that an appeal “shall specifically state the
reason(s) for the appeal” and “[f]ailure to specify a reason may result in denial of [the] appeal.”
Further, an appellant is “limited to the grounds stated [in the appeal form] when presenting [their]
appeal.”4
SAFER’s appeal is a hollow “form letter” we understand it sends to object to dozens of
projects proposed in the greater San Diego County area. The appeal is a form of spam. It contains
no substance whatsoever, and does not apprise the City or the applicant of the supposed defects in
CEQA compliance. The sole purpose of the letter is to leverage concessions from the applicant
under threat of processing delays and potential litigation. Unfortunately, such objectionable
behavior adds unnecessary cost to development projects and needlessly consumes limited City
resources, including staff time and that of the City Council.
We urge the City Council to summarily deny the appeal.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey A. Chine
JAC
3 CMC, § 21.54.150(b).
4 See CMC, § 21.54.150(c).
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 33 of 48
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
May 9, 2023
Page 3
cc: Sherry Freisinger, City Clerk Via Email-clerk@carlsbadca.gov
Cindie K. McMahon, City Attorney Via Email-smcmahon007@adelphia.net
Ronald Kemp, Senior Assistant City Attorney Via Email-ronald.kemp@carlsbadca.gov
Eric Lardy, City Planner Via Email-eric.lardy@carlsbadca.gov
Shannon Harker, Project Planner Via Email-shannon.harker@carlsbadca.gov
Mallorie Klemens, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.-Via Email-MKlemens@ionisph.com
Ben Wilson, Project Management Advisors, Inc. Via Email-benw@pmainc.com
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 34 of 48
Exhibit 5
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 35 of 48
., ..
,,,
State of California -Department of Fish and Wildlife
2023 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT
DFW 753.5a (Rev. 01/01/23) ~reViously DFG 753.5a
-
SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY.
LEAD AGENCY Ll;:AD AGENCY EMAIL
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION
COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING
SAN DIEGO
P.ROJECTTITLE
IONIS LOTS 21 & 22
--City 'of Carlsbad
MAR 14 2023
Planning Division
REQEIPT NUMBER:·
37-03/09/2023-0148
STATE CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER(/f applicable)
2000051057
DATE
03/09/2023
DOCUMENT NUMSER
2023-NOD-0028
PROJECT APPLICANT NAME PROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL PHONE NUMBER IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS ·760-931-2200
PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS ' CITY STATE ZIP CODE
2855 G,I\ZELLE CT.
PROJECT APPLICANT(Check appropriate.box) D Lo.cal Public Agency D School District
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
t!I Environment~! Impact Report {EIR)
D Mitigated/Negative Declaration (MND)/(ND)
CARLSBAD
D Other Special District
· 0 Certified Regulatory Program (CRP) document -payment due directly to CDFW
D Exempt from fee
D Notice of Exemption {attach)
D · CDFW No Effect Determination (attach)
D _Fee previously paid {attach previously issued cash receipt copy)
D Water Right Application or Petition Fee(State Water Resources Control Board only) ·
~ County documentary handling fe·e
D Oth'er
CA
0 State Agency
$3,839.25 $
.$2,764.00 . $
$1,305.25 $
$850.00 $
'$
$
PAYMENT METtiOll
□Cash □ Cr~dit Kl Check D Other TOTAL RECEIVED $
AGENCY OF FILING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE
92010
Ix] Private Entity
3,839,25
a.po
0.00
o.oo
50.00
0.00
3,889.25
X San Diego County Cl'erk, JULIE ANN SAN JUAN, Depu~y'
Payment
ORIGINAL -PROJE9T APPLl~ANT COPY -CDFW/ASB COPY -LEAD AGENCY COPY -COUNTY CLERK DFW752.5A(Rev. 0101202?)
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 36 of 48
. FILED .
Mar 09, 2023 03:24 PM
JORDAN Z. MARKS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY CLERK
File # 2023-000170
SAN DIEGO COUNTY CLERK
CEOA FILING COVER SHEET
State Receipt# 37030920230148
Document# 2023-NOD-28
THIS SPACE FOR CLERK'S USE ONLY
· Complete and attach this form to each CEQA Notice filed with the County Clerk
TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY
Project-Title
IONIS LOTS 21 & 22
Check Document being Filed:
(!) Environmental Impact_ Report (EIR) . o Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or Negative Declaration (ND)
Q Notice of Exemption (NOE)
Q Other (Pl~ase fill in type):.
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO
COUNTY CLERK ON _M_a_rc_h_9_, 2_0_2-'3, ____ _
Posted March 9, 2023 Removed _____ _
. Returned to agency on _________ _
DEPUTY _________ ~----
FIiing fees are due at the time a Notice of Determination/Exemption is flied with our office.For rriore Information
on filing fees and No Effect Determinations, please refer to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 753,5.
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 37 of 48
2023-NOD-28 Page 2 of 3
Notice of Determination
To: State Clearinghouse
https:/ /ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/
Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk
Attn: Fish and Wildlife Notices
1600· Pacific Highway, Suite 260
San Diego, CA 92101
-,. MS: A-33
From: CITY OF CARLSBAD
, Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008 ·
(442) 339-2600
Project No: SDP 2021-0029 (DEV 2021-0141)
Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources
Code.· ·
IONIS Lots 21 & 22
Project Title
2000051057 Shannon Harker, Senior Planner (442) 339-2621
State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number
Assessor Parcel Numbers 209-120-23-00 and 209-120-24-00, Carlsbad, CA 92010 (San Diego County)
Project Location (include County)
Name of Appl_icant: IONIS Pharmaceuticals
Applicant's Address: 2855 Gazelle Ct., Carlsbad, CA 92010
· Applicant's Telephone Number: (760) 931-2200
Project Description: 'A 164,833-square-foot. 48-foot-tall research and development building, a 21-
foot-tall, three-level parking structure and a pedestrian bridge across Whiptail Loop. The vacant 8.37-acre
site comprises Lots 21 and 22 of the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan SP 211(Cl. on the north side of
Whlptail Loop. Assessor Parcel Numbers 209-120-23-00 and 209-120-24-00.
On October 81 2002, the City of Carlsbad certified a Final Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 98-
08) (State Clearinghouse No. 2000051057) for the Carlsbad Oaks North Business.Park Specific Plan SP 211
and related discretionary permits. The City of Carlsbad, after considering the public comments received
and the evidence and testimony befo're it, determined the request to construct a 164,833-sguare-foot.
48-foot-tall · light industrial-buiiding, three-story parking structure· and . bridge acros·s Whlpta'il-Loop Is
within the scope of the of the previously-certified Final Prograf!l EIR for SP 211, which evafuated all land
development anticipated through the application of policies, regulations, and as logical parts of a long-
term plan. The project would riot result in new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the
Final PEIR and would not meet any other standards requiring further environmental review pursuant to
state CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15168. No further analysis. public review or environmental
documentation is required.
This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad, as a Responsible Agency, has approved the above described
project on March 1, 2023, and has made the following determination regarding the above described
project.
1. The project will not have a·significant effect on the environment.
2. [gl A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously prepared for this project pursuant
to the provisions of CEQA (SCH No. 2000051057).
D A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
Revised 04/19
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 38 of 48
20 3-NOD-28 Page 3 of 3
D This project was reviewed previously and a(n) EIR was prepared pursuant to the provisions of
CEQA
3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project in accordance with the
previously certified Program EIR.
4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was adopted for this project in accordance with the
previously certified Program EIR.
5. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA-Public Resources Code,
Section.21083 et. seq.) Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164, and as demonstrated by the substantial
evidence contained in the administrative record, the project activities [['.gj are D are not] covered
by and within the scope of the project approved by a previously certified Program EIR, the· prev·ious
certified Program EIR [['.gj does D does not] adequately describe the project for purposes of CEQA,
and therefore, n_o further environmental documentation is required ..
This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available
to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. .
ERIC LARDY, City Planner Date
Date received for filing at OPR:
Revised 04/19
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 39 of 48
JORDAN Z. MARKS
Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk
1600 Pacific Highway Suite 260
P. 0. Box 121750, San Diego, CA 92112-1750
Tel. (619) 237-0502 Fax (619) 557-4155
www.sdarcc.gov
Payment
CHECK PAYMENT #330124
Total Payments
Filing
San Diego County
Transaction#:
Receipt#:
Cashier Date:
7020052
2023082982
03/09/2023
Cashier Location: SD
111111111111 1111 111111 11111 111111111111111111 .
Print Date: 03/09/2023 3:25 pm
Payment Summary
Total Fees:
Total Payments:
Balance:
$3,889.25
$3,889.25
$0.00
$3,889.25
$3,889.25
CEQA-NOD FILE#: 2023-000170 Date: 03/09/2023 3:24PM
State Receipt# 37-03/09/2023-0148
Pages:3
Fees: Fish & Wildlife County Administrative Fee
Fees: Fish & Wildlife Environmental Impact Report
Total Fees Due:
Grand Total -All Documents:
$50.00
$3,839.25
$3,889.25
$3,889.25
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 6
Environmental Impact Report 98-08
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 40 of 48
Exhibit 7
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 41 of 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-298
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 98-08, APPROVING
CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE
CHANGE, CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN,
CARLSBAD AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT, AND ZONE 16 LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE CARLSBAD
OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD BETWEEN
EL CAMINO REAL AND THE CITY'S EASTERN BOUNDARY
WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 16.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN
CASE NO.: EIR 98-08/GPA 97-05/ZC 97-05/SP 211/SP
200(8)/LFMP 16(A)
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2002, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held
a duly noticed public hearing to consider a proposed Program Environmental Impact
Report (EIR 98-08), General Plan Amendment (GPA 97-05), Zone Change (ZC 97-05),
Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan (SP 211 ). Carlsbad Airport Business Center Specific 19
20 Plan Amendment (SP 200(B)), Zone 16 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment
21 (LFMP 16(A)}, CT 97-13, HOP 97-10, PIP 02-02, and SUP 97-07, and adopted Planning
22 Commission Resolutions No. 5244, 5245, 5246, 5247, 5275 and 5248 respectively,
23 recommending to the City Council that EIR 98-08, GPA 97-05, ZC 97-05, SP 211, SP
24 200(B), and LFMP 16(A); and
25
26
27
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, did on the 8th day of
October, 2002, hold a public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all
persons interested in or opposed to EIR 98-08, GPA 97-05, ZC 97-05, SP 211, SP
28
200(8), and LFMP 16(A); and
Page I of Resolution No. 2002-298
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 42 of 48
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and submitted
2 to the State Clearinghouse and a Notice of Completion filed, published, and mailed to
3 responsible agencies and interested parties providing a 45 day review period. All
4
5
6
7
8
comments received from that review period are contained in the Final Program EIR as
well as the responses to comments; and
WHEREAS, the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the
approval of the Carlsbad Airport Business Center Specific Plan (SP 200(8)) is approved
9 and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Commission Resolution No. 5275, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council and Ordinance No. NS-647
shall be adopted according to law except as modified herein; and
WHEREAS, City of Vista has objected that Carlsbad is not requiring
physical intersection improvements or paying to Vista a sum of money to pay for a
portion of those improvements in the city of Vista to two intersections: Faraday/Melrose
and Sycamore/Melrose (the "Two Intersections"). While the Program EIR indicates
these intersections will be adversely impacted by project traffic, the identified mitigation
measure is the physical improvement of the two intersections. As set forth in the
Candidate Findings, as these two intersections are not in the City of Carlsbad, but rather
are surface street and circulation element facilities in the City of Vista, the specific finding
of California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Section 21081(a)(2) is appropriate as
to the actual physical mitigation and that sections states:
"(2) Those changes [the physical mitigation] or alterations are within the
25 responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency [City of Vista] and have been, or
can and should be, adopted by that other agency." [Parenthetical added]
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has no jurisdiction or authority to
undertake or cause physical public street improvements in the City of Vista; and
Page 2 of Resolution No. 2002-298
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 43 of 48
1 WHEREAS, Carlsbad's jurisdictional authority and police power is limited to
2 its incorporated city limits. Conversely, the City of Vista has the legal authority and duty
3 to design, improve and plan for its surface street improvements as part of its Circulation
4
5
6
7
8
Element of its General Plan, and has done so when it caused to be constructed the Two
Intersections in the existing design and configuration; and
WHEREAS, the road segments were intended to be connected to future
Faraday and Melrose road segments in the City of Carlsbad and thereby complete an
9 integrated regional or inter-city road network to handle regional traffic patterns; and
10 WHEREAS, Section 21081(a)(2) was intended as an alternative finding,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recognizing that lead agencies have only jurisdiction and authority which is limited to their
boundaries; and
WHEREAS, it is an express statutory alternative to requiring physical
mitigation under the precise circumstances outlined here. The City of Vista has the
responsibility for adequately designing and improving its circulation and other surface
streets, taking into account the surrounding long standing land uses elsewhere in the
region and that responsibility should not be transferred to the lead agency; and
WHEREAS, Vista, apparently did not exercise that responsibility to fully
improve or design the Two Intersections so as to accommodate the projected future
regional traffic loads it; and
WHEREAS, Vista had the present ability to condition projects within its
jurisdiction to construct and pay for needed and anticipated traffic circulation
improvements and invited and planned for them as evidenced by Vista's constructing
Faraday and Melrose to the very City limits of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, the identified mitigation (improvement of the Two
Intersections) is (1) outside the jurisdiction of Carlsbad, (2) within the jurisdiction of Vista,
Page 3 of Resolution No. 2002-298
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 44 of 48
1 and (3) can or should be undertaken by Vista as part of its public street network and
2 General Plan Circulation Element; and
3
4
5
6
7
WHEREAS, to conclude otherwise, would be to delay, frustrate, delete or
otherwise interfere with governmental duties and powers Vista exercises within its own
city limits, while the cities around Vista, including Carlsbad, undertake to adequately size
and design the public street intersections within its own city to handle both existing and
future traffic patterns created by the interconnecting regional road network; and
8
9
10
11
WHEREAS, Vista's request for money .to improve the Two Intersections
does not relieve it of its responsibility to design, improve and fund traffic circulation
improvements within its jurisdiction which should have been exercised previously for
12 those projects which have generated traffic both in Vista and Carlsbad and regionally;
13 and
14
15
16
17
WHEREAS, the request for money will not relieve or eliminate any adverse
environmental impacts until and unless the improvements are constructed; and
WHEREAS. Vista has previously approved numerous projects within its
18 jurisdiction that have generated traffic in Carlsbad and throughout the region without
19 mitigation conditions in those other jurisdictions,
20 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
21 Carlsbad, California, as follows:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.
2.
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-08) on the above
referenced project is certified and that the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are
approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5244, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated
Page 4 of Resolution No. 2002-298
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 45 of 48
herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council except as
2 modified below.
3
4
5
6
7
8
3. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the
approval of the General Plan Amendment (GPA 97-05) as shown in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 5245, is hereby accepted, approved in concept and shall be
formally approved in connection with General Plan Amendments GPA 98-03, and GPA
01-13.
9 4. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the
10 approval of the Zone Change (ZC 97-05) is approved and that the findings and
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 5246, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, as the findings
and conditions of the City Council and Ordinance No. NS-645 shall be adopted according
to law.
(a) Condition: This approval shall be null and void if the project
site subject to this approval is not annexed to City of Carlsbad CFO No. 1 within 60 days
of the approval. The City shall not issue any grading, building, or other permit, until the
19 annexation is completed. The City Manager is authorized to extend the 60 days, for a
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
period deemed necessary, upon a showing of good cause.
(b) Revisions: The following revisions shall be incorporated into
the final draft of the Specific Plan:
(1) Second "unnumbered" page of Specific Plan under
owner: Delete Escondido Serenas Development, Inc.
(2) Page 111-22: § G, Item 1a. Line 4 shall be revised to
read as follows: " ... one (secondary) permanent ground sign, not to exceed 12 feet in
length and 4 feet in height, will be ... "
Page 5 of Resolution No. 2002-298
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 46 of 48
5. The Two Intersections are outside the City limits of Carlsbad and
2 therefore, under CEQA Section 21081 (a)(3), the identified mitigation (improvement of the
3 Two Intersections) is not feasible for Carlsbad because of lack of jurisdiction in the City
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
of Vista and limitations on the exercise of governmental authority and police power to its
own incorporated area and recognizing the fact that CEQA does not grant additional
police power or jurisdiction, the improvement of the Two Intersections is beyond the
authority of Carlsbad and hence infeasible within the meaning of CEQA.
6. The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5244 are incorporated except as
modified herein. The Statement of Overriding Considerations beginning a page 62
recognize that the EIR identifies several significant environmental impacts that are not
being mitigated and the City of Carlsbad sets forth the specific overriding economic,
legal, social and other benefits of the project that outweigh the identified unmitigated
significant effects on the environment associated with the project. The Statement of
Overriding Considerations set forth in the Final Program EIR are hereby supplemented to
make it clear that the Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted with regard to,
and applies to, the Two Intersections and the inability to cause the identified mitigation of
20 Two Intersections in addition to the other identified unmitigated significant effects. This
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
clarification is made on an alternative basis under CEQA Section 21081(b), in addition to
and not in substitution of the prior finding under CEQA Section 21081(a)(2).
7. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the
approval of the Zone 16 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (LFMP 16(A)) is
approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5248, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated
herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
Page 6 of Resolution No. 2002-298
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 47 of 48
1 8. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City
2 Council. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for
3 Judicial Review" shall apply:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT'
"The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section
1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of
Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any
petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in
the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth 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 proceedings accompanied by the required
deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of
preparation of such record, the time within which such petition
may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth
day following the date on which the record is either personally
delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he
has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of
the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California
92008."
EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption,
except as to the General Plan Amendment, which shall be effective thirty (30) days
following its adoption.
II
II
II
II
II
fl
fl
If
II
Page 7 of Resolution No. 2002-298
May 16, 2023 Item #5 Page 48 of 48
1 //
2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City
3 Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 8th day of October 2002, by the following vote, to
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
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
GLAU
ATTEST:
Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard, Hall
None
None
~~ 1n ~
LOR INM.WOQD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Page 8 of Resolution No. 2002-298
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear City Clerk,
Ail RecelVe -Agenda Item i §
Nelson, Shelley <snelson@allenmatkins.com > For the Information of the:
Tuesday, May 16, 202312:11 PM -ifrlf.;'~OUNCJ,L j
City Clerk Dat~CJ'-✓_cc 7 City Clerk; Cindie McMahon; Ronald Kemp; Eric Lardy; Shann~t~19'ar~~fv1 -DCM {3)_
MKlemens@ionisph.com; benw@pmainc.com; Chine, Jeffrey
May 16, 2023 City Council Hearing; lonis Pharmaceuticals -Further Response to Appeal
of Site Development Plan 2021 -0029 (DEV2021-0141)
5-16-23 Letter to City Council re Appeal-with Exhibit.pdf
Attached is correspondence from Jeffrey Chine regarding the above-referenced matter, for your records.
Kind regards,
Shelley
Shelley Nelson I Legal Secretary for
Jeffrey A. Chine, Michael C. Pruter, Geoffrey K. Stauffer, and Lauren E. Palmer
Direct (619) 235-1555 x32238 I snelson@allenmatkins.com
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
One America Plaza, 600 West Broadway, 27th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101-0903
Allen Matkins
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is
intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this
communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and
delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou reco nize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail -clerk@carlsbadca.gov
May 16, 2023
Carlsbad City Council
c/o City Clerk
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, 27"' Floor I San Diego, CA 92101-0903
Telephone: 619.233.1155 I Facsimile: 619.233.1158
www.allenmatkins.com
Jeffrey A. Chine
E-mail: jchine@allenmatkins.com
Direct Dial: 6192351525 File Number: 392487.00002/4878-03 l 6-4260. l
Re: May 16, 2023 City Council Hearing; Ionis Pharmaceuticals -Further
Response to Appeal of Site Development Plan 2021-0029 (DEV2021-
0141)
Honorable Mayor Blackbum and City Council Members:
This firm represents Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in connection with its proposed research
and development project ("Project") located on the north side of Whiptail Loop, Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 209-120-23 and -24. We previously sent a letter, dated May 9th, objecting to the appeal
submitted by Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") on March 7, 2023,
challenging the Planning Commission's CEQA determination for the Project Site Development Plan
2021-0029 (DEV202 l-O 141 ).
SAFER has just submitted new information to the City in support of its appeal, in direct
violation of the Municipal Code. Both the letter from SAFER's attorney dated May 12th and the
attached exhibit include information not provided to the City or the applicant in a timely manner,
and importantly, not provided to the Planning Commission in connection with its consideration of
the Project.
The Municipal Code prohibits an appellant from creating new arguments and producing new
evidence after the Planning Commission's review of a development project. SAFER's strategy is to
ambush the City and applicant by manufacturing evidence after the fact, in clear contravention of
the City's rules. Therefore, all materials submitted by SAFER on May 12th should be deemed
inadmissible and not considered in the appeal.
Even if the materials had been timely submitted, SAFER's arguments lack merit. Included
herewith is a detailed response to the untimely claims made by SAFER from RECON
Environmental, Inc., which we request be included in the administrative record for the Project.
Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Century City I San Francisco
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
May 16, 2023
Page 2
We urge the City Council to summarily deny the appeal.
Very truly yours, {},(!?/
Jeffrey A. Chine
JAC
cc: Sherry Preisinger, City Clerk Via Email-clerk@carlsbadca.gov
Cindie K. McMahon, City Attorney Via Email-Cindie.McMahon@carlsbadca.gov
Ronald Kemp, Senior Assistant City Attorney Via Email-ronald.kemp@carlsbadca.gov
Eric Lardy, City Planner Via Email-eric.lardy@carlsbadca.gov
Shannon Harker, Project Planner Via Email-shannon.harker@carlsbadca.gov
Mallorie Klemens, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.-Via Email-MKlemens@ionisph.com
Ben Wilson, Project Management Advisors, Inc. Via Email-benw@pmainc.com
REC ON
An Employee-Owned Company
May 16, 2023
Mr. Jeffrey A. Chine
Partner
Allen Matkins
600 West Broadway, 27th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101-0903
Reference: Response to SAFER Appeal for Ion is Lot 21 and Lot 22 (RECON No. 9867)
Dear Mr. Chine:
RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON) has reviewed the correspondence submitted by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of
the Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) in support of their appeal regarding the lonis Lot 21
and Lot 22 project dated May 12, 2023. We offer the following responses.
I. The project is not exempt from further CEQA review because new mitigation measures are available to
address air quality impacts since certification of the 2002 Specific Plan EIR. .
The comment claims that the availability of Tier 4 construction equipment standards as a mitigation
measure qualifies as new information. The comment further identifies available mitigation measures that
could be applied to the project.
A project-specific Air Quality Analysis has been prepared by RECON. The project site has already been
mass graded and no further mass grading, blasting, or rock crushing activities are required. The Air
Quality Analysis demonstrates that construction of the proposed project would not result in e~issions
that exceed the applicable thresholds. The analysis modeled default construction equipment engine tiers.
The use of Tier 4 construction equipment and other measures identified in the comment letter would
further reduce emissions from what was modeled in the Air Quality Analysis, however, because emissions
would be less than the applicable thresholds, these additional measures would not be required as
mitigation. All construction activities would comply with current SbAPCD Rules and Regulations, CARB
regulations, and EPA emission standards. Additionally, as detailed in the Air Quality Ana lysis, the project
would implement construction best management practices and would be conducted in accordance with
CARB regulations. Specifically, the project would implement the following Best Available Control
Technology for Toxics (T-BACT) measures during construction:
• The construction fleet shall use any combination of diesel catalytic converters, diesel oxidation
catalysts, diesel particu late filters and/or utilize CARB/U.S. EPA Engine Certification Tier 3 or
better, or other equivalent methods approved by the CARB.
• The engine size of construction equipment sha ll be the minimum size suitable for the required
job.
• Construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer's specifications.
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92108-5726 I 619.308.9333 I reconenvironmental.com
SAN DIEGO I BAY AREA I TUCSON
Mr. Jeffrey A. Chine
Page 2
May 16, 2023
• Per CARB's Airborne Toxic Control Measures 13 (California Code of Regulations Chapter 10
Section 2485), the applicant shall not allow idling time to exceed 5 minutes unless more time is
required per engine manufacturers' specifications or for safety reasons.
These measures are required per regulatory compliance and would not be considered mitigation
measures. Because construction-related emissions would be less than the applicable thresholds and the
project would implement all T-BACT measures as required by CARB, construction-related air quality
impacts would be less than significant.
11. The project requires a new EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations due to the remaining
significant and unavoidable impacts.
The comment claims that "even though air quality impact were found significant and unavoidable in the
2002 EIR and the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations at the time, the City cannot
adopt one statement of overriding considerations for a prior, more general EIR, and then avoid future
political accountability by approving later, more specific projects with significant unavoidable impacts
pursuant to the prior EIR and statement of overriding considerations."
As it relates to air quality impacts, the project-specific Air Quality Analysis prepared for the current
project demonstrates that the project would not result in any significant air quality impacts.
111. The Exemption Checklist's Analysis of the Project's Energy Impacts is Inadequate.
Sincerely,
The 2002 EIR did not address energy impacts in detail. The comment claims that the Exemption Checklist
does not provide the necessary analysis to determine the significance of energy impacts.
A Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist has been prepared for the project. It demonstrates how the
project would reduce energy consumption. Additionally, the project would be constructed in accordance
with 2022 Title 24 energy code requirements, which are increasingly strict over previous code
requirements, and would be served by SDG&E which is increasing renewable energy in accordance with
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements.
~~-
Jesska Fleming d
Senior Technical Specialist
Noise, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas
From:
Sent:
To:
Faviola Medina . 5
Tuesda , Ma 16, 2023 9:38 AM All Receive -Agend_a Item #_
· I yk y For the Information of the:
City C er CITY COUNCIL
Subject: :W: CC Hea:ing-Item No. 5, additional correspondence rec''tlate}J&.12-) CA ✓ cc~
1mage001.g1f; Recon_Memo_SAFER_Appeal_Comments.pdf CM _ACM-✓-DCM (3) _ Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
From: Shannon Harker <Shannon.Werneke@carlsbadca.gov>
Date: May 16, 2023 at 8:56:56 AM PDT
To: Kaylin McCauley <kaylin.mccauley@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Eric Lardy <Eric.Lardy@carlsbadca.gov>, Tammy Cloud-McMinn <Tammy.McMinn@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: CC Hearing-Item No. ~, additional correspondence rec'd
Hi Kaylin,
Attached please find a letter we received this morning from IONIS' environmental consultant. It is a
response to the letter received from the appellant yesterday. Please distribute to City Council and post
online. Thank you!
s n Cl 111,V\,O 111,
SHANNON HARKER
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2621 I shannon.harker@carlsbadca.gov
Development or Planning-related Inquiries
The Planning Team is here to assist you with resources online, by phone (442) 339-2610, by email
planning@carlsbadca.gov, or in-person by appointment.
Appointment-Based Submittals
Appointments for new projects can be made online.
Application Resubmittals
Please contact your planner directly to schedule a resubmittal drop-off appointment.
Faceb'ook I Twitter I You Tube I Flickr I Pinterest I Enews
1
REC O N
An Employee-Owned Company
May 15, 2023
Mr. Jon Ohlson
Senior Associate /Project Executive
DGA
2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 115
San Diego, California 92103
Reference: Response to SAFER Appeal for lonis Lot 21 and Lot 22 (REC ON No. 9867) ..
Dear Mr. Ohlson:
RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON) has reviewed the correspondence submitted by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of
the Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) in support of their appeal regarding the lion is Lot 21
and Lot 22 project dated May 12, 2023. We offer the following responses.
I. The project is not exempt from further CEQA review because new mitigation measures are available to
address air quality impacts since certification of the 2002 Specific Plan EIR.
The comment claims that the availability of Tier 4 construction equipment standards as a mitigation
measure qualifies as new information. The comment further identifies available mitigation measures that
could be applied to the project.
A project-specific Air Quality Analysis has been prepared by RECON. The project site has already been
mass graded and no further mass grading, blasting, or rock crushing activities are required. The Air
Quality Analysis demonstrates that construction of the proposed project would not result in emissions
that exceed the applicable thresholds. The analysis modeled default construction equipment engine tiers.
The use of Tier 4 construction equipment and other measures identified in the comment letter would
further reduce emissions from what was modeled in the Air Quality Analysis, however, because emissions
would be less than the applicable thresholds, these additional measures would not be required as
mitigation. All construction activities would comply with current SDAPCD Rules and Regulations, CARB
regulations, and EPA emission standards. Additionally, as detailed in the Air Quality Analysis, the project
would implement construction best management practices and would be conducted in accordance with
CARB regulations. Specifically, the project would implement the following Best Available Control
Technology for Toxics (T-BACT) measures during construction:
• The construction fleet shall use any combination of diesel catalytic converters, diesel oxidation
catalysts, diesel particulate filters and/or utilize CARB/U.S. EPA Engine Certification Tier 3 or
better, or other equivalent methods approved by the CARB.
• The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum size suitable for the required
job.
• Construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer's specifications.
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92108-5726 I 619.308.9333 I reconenvironmental.com
SAN DIEGO I BAY AREA I TUCSON
Mr. Jon Ohlson
Page 2
May 15, 2023
• Per CARB's Airborne Toxic Control Measures 13 (California Code of Regulations Chapter 10
Section 2485), the applicant shall not allow idling time to exceed 5 minutes unless more time is
required per engine manufacturers' specifications or for safety reasons.
These measures are required per regulatory compliance and would not be considered mitigation
measures. Because construction-related emissions would be less than the applicable thresholds and the
project would implement all T-BACT measures as required by CARB, construction-related air quality
impacts would be less than significant.
II. The project requires a new EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations due to the remaining
significant and unavoidable impacts.
The comment claims that "even though air quality impact were found significant and unavoidable in the
2002 EIR and the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations at the time, the City cannot
adopt one statement of overriding considerations for a prior, more general EIR, and then avoid future
political accountability by approving later, more specific projects with significant unavoidable impacts
pursuant to the prior EIR and statement of overriding considerations."
As it relates to air quality impacts, the project-specific Air Quality Analysis prepared for the current
project demonstrates that the project would not result in any significant air quality impacts.
Ill. The Exemption Checklist's Analysis of the Project's Energy Impacts is Inadequate.
Sincerely,
The 2002 EIR did not address energy impacts in detail. The comment claims that the Exemption Checklist
does not provide the necessary analysis to determine the significance of energy impacts.
A Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist has been prepared for the project. It demonstrates how the
project would reduce energy consumption. Additionally, the project would be constructed in accordance
with 2022 Title 24 energy code requirements, which are increasingly strict over previous code
requirements, and would be served by SbG&E which is increasing renewable energy in accordance with
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements.
~¼~
Jessica Fleming {)
Senior Technical Specialist
Noise, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Due By:
Flag Status:
Brian Flynn <brian@lozeaudrury.com>
Friday, May 12, 2023 1 :40 PM
Council Internet Email; City Clerk
All Receive -Agenda Item # ..S
For the Information of the:
Li I f CUOM~f'. J OateJ t<a'Z?ety cc ~ CM_ACM_✓_DCM {3)_ ..J
SAFER Appeal Comment_ IONIS Lots 21 & 22 ($DP 2021-0029; DEV2021-0141)
2023.05.12 SAFER Appeal Comment_lONIS Lots 21_22 (SDP 2021-0029;
DEV2021-0141).pdf
Follow up
Monday, May 15, 2023 8:30 AM
Flagged
Dear Mayor Blackburn, Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, Honorable City Council Members, and Ms. Freisinger,
Please find attached correspondence submitted on behalf of the Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility
(SAFER) in support of their appeal regarding the IONIS Lot 21 & 22 Project (SDP 2021-0029; DEV2021-0141) to be heard
at the City Council's May 16 meeting.
Acknowledgement of this email and attachment would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau I Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
(510) 836-4200
(510) 836-4205 (fax)
brian@lozeaudrury.com
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless
1
nize the sender and know the content i
BYE-MAIL
May 12, 2023
Keith Blackbum, Mayor
T 510.836.4200
F 510.836.4205
Priya Bhat-Patel, Mayor Pro Tern
Melanie Burkholder, Council Member
Carolyn Luna, Council Member
Teresa Acosta, Council Member
City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
council@carlsbadca.gov
Re: SAFER Appeal
1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150
Oakland. CA 94612
www.lozeaudrury.com
brian@lozeaudrury.com
Sherry Preisinger, City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
clerk@carlsbadca.gov
JONIS Lots 21 & 22 (SDP 2021-0029; DEV2021-0141)
Carlsbad City Council May 16, 2023 Meeting
Dear Mayor Blackbum, Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, and Honorable City Council Members:
This correspondence is submitted on behalf of the Supporters Alliance For
Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") in support of their appeal regarding the IONIS Lot 21
& 22 Project (SDP 2021-0029; DEV2021-0141), which proposes the development of a 164,833-
square-foot, 48-foot-tall, three-story R&D building and a 21-foot-tall, three-level parking
structure on an 8.37-acre site on the north side of Whiptail Loop ("Project").
On March 1, 2023, the Carlsbad Planning Commission approved the Project, finding that
the Project was covered by the 2002 Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Report ("2002 Oaks North Specific Plan EIR") and, as a result, no additional environmental
review of the Project was required under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
However, where new mitigation measures are available to reduce a project's significant impacts,
CEQA requires the additional environmental review and the preparation of an environmental
impact report ("EIR") or negative declaration.
· As discussed below, since the City's certification of the Oaks North Specific Plan EIR in
2002, new mitigation measures have become available to reduce the significant impacts
identified in the 2002 EIR, specifically measures to address significant air quality impacts.
Therefore, the Planning Commission's decision to forego further environmental review of the
Project was in error and an EIR or negative declaration is required for the Project. SAFER
SAFER Appeal Comment
IONIS Lots 21 & 22 (SDP 2021-0029; DEV2021-0141)
May 12, 2023
Page 2 of 9
respectfully requests that the City Council correct the Planning Commission's error by granting
SAFER's appeal and ensuring that the Project complies with CEQA prior to approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
In 2002, the City certified the Oaks North Specific Plan EIR, which serves as a program
EIR for the Oaks North Business Park, a 414-acre industrial park with 23 industrial lots, 3 open
space lots, 1 lot for employee picnic area, and a maximum of 1,921,000 square feet of light
industrial/business park uses. As the EIR explained, "[A] Program EIR is appropriate for a series
of actions that can be characterized as one large project, are related geographically, and as
logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions in connection with issuance of rules,
regulations or plans .... When future discretionary actions related to the Specific Plan,
roadways, or sewer are proposed, the City will examine the action to determine whether the
effects were fully analyzed in the Program EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15162." (2002 Oaks North Specific Plan EIR, p. 1-2.) The Oaks North Specific Plan EIR found
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to traffic, air quality, biological resources.
(Id. at pp. 2-5 to 2-8, 2-13.)
Since certification of the 2002 Oaks North Specific Plan EIR, the lots of been terraced
and graded and a majority of the lots are developed and in-use. The Project applicant, IONIS
Pharmaceuticals, proposes the construction of a 164,833 square-foot, 48-foot-tall, three-story
R&D building and a 21-foot-tall, three-level parking structure on a 8.37-acre site comprised of
two of the undeveloped lots (Lots 21 and 22) of the Oak North Business Park. Construction of
the Project is expected to occur over an approximately 18-month period.
For CEQA review of the Project, the City prepared a "Statement of Reasons for
Streamlined Review and Exemption from Additional Environmental Review Checklist Pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines§ 15168" ("Exemption Checklist"). The Exemption Checklist concluded
that the Project is within the scope of the 2002 North Oaks Specific Plan EIR and that no further
environmental review of the Project was required under CEQA.
LEGAL STANDARD
The 2002 Oaks North Specific Plan EIR serves as a program EIR for the Oaks North
Business Park. For program EIRs, "later activities in the program must be examined in the light
of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be
prepared." (14 CCR§ 15168(c).) A program EIR may only serve "to the extent that it
contemplates and adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project."
(Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1171
[ quoting Citizens for Responsible Equitable Envtl. Dev. v. City of San Diego Redevelopment
Agency (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 598, 615].) No new environmental document for a project is
required if the project is "within the scope" of the program EIR. (14 CCR§ 15168(c)(2).)
Whether a project is "within the scope" of the program EIR is determined by whether a
subsequent EIR is required under Guidelines section 15162. (Id.)
SAFER Appeal Comment
IONIS Lots 21 & 22 (SDP 2021-0029; DEV2021-0141)
May 12, 2023
Page 3 of 9
Pursuant to Guidelines sections 15162(a) and 15168( c ), a project is not within the scope
of a previous program EIR where:
(1) Substantial changes ate proposed in the project which will require major revisions of
the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) · New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous
EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of
the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt
the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
If a later project is outside the scope of the program, then it is treated as a separate project
and the lead agency must prepare an initial study to determine "whether the later project may
cause significant effects on the environment that were not examined in the prior environmental
impact report." (PRC§ 21094(c); see Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th
1307, 1320-21.) If there is a fair argument that the Project may result in new significant impacts,
the agency must prepare an EIR, which can "tier" off the program EIR. (PRC§ 21094; 14 CCR§
15168(c)(l).) The tiered EIR may "incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior [EIR]
and[] concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b)
were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior [EIR]" (PRC§ 21068.5.)
Furthermore, when a "first tier" EIR admits significant and unavoidable environmental impacts,
a subsequent project with the same significant and unavoidable impacts requires its own EIR and
statement of overriding considerations prior to approval. ( Communities for a Better Envt. v. Cal.
Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 122-25.)
SAFER Appeal Comment
IONIS Lots 21 & 22 (SDP 2021-0029; DEV2021-0141)
May 12, 2023
Page 4 of 9 DISCUSSION
I. The Project Is Not Exempt From Further CEQA Review Because New Mitigation
Measures Are Available to Address Air Quality Impacts Since Certification of the
2002 Specific Plan EIR.
The City can only exempt the Project from further CEQA review if the Project is "within
the scope" of the 2002 Oaks North Specific Plan EIR, as determined by the criteria of Guidelines
section 15162. (14 CCR § 15168( c )(2).) Pursuant to Guidelines section 15162, the Project is not
within the scope of the 2002 EIR where new information since the certification of the 2002 EIR
demonstrates that mitigation measures "which are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment,
but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure." (14 CCR § l 5 l 62(a)(3)(D).)
The 2002 Oaks North Specific Plan EIR concluded that that implementation of the
specific plan would have significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. (2002 EIR, pp. 2-6, 2-
8.) Specifically, the 2002 EIR concluded that construction emissions ofNOx and PMIO and
operational emissions of CO, ROG, NOx and PMl0 would be significant and unavoidable. (Id.)
The 2002 EIR also concluded that the cumulative air quality impact on the region would be
significant and unavoidable. (2002 EIR, p. 2-24.)
For these significant and unavoidable impacts, the 2002 EIR required two mitigation
measures:
AQ-1. During the clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation on the project site, the
following measures shall be implemented:
• Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads, or
other dust preventive measures;
• Maintain equipment engines in proper tune;
• Seed and water until vegetation cover is grown;
• Spread soil binders;
• Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with
repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust
pickup by the wind;
• Street kweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares;
• Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles
move dirt enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site;
• Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the
day;
• Use of low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment;
• Soil erosion measures;
• Water exposed surfaces two times per day;
• Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph or less; and
• Water haul roads two times per day .
SAFER Appeal Comment
IONIS Lots 21 & 22 (SDP 2021-0029; DEV2021-0141)
May 12, 2023
Page 5 of 9
AQ3. The following measures shall be implemented as feasible for all subsequent
development projects within the project area as identified in the City of Carlsbad
General Plan Final Master Environmental Impact Report:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide within the proposed development, a commercial site designated to
serve the commercial needs of the occupants of the business park.
Development within Carlsbad Oaks North shall provide traffic control
devices along all roadway segments and at intersections and interconnect
and synchronize the operation of traffic signals along arterial streets,
whenever feasible.
Development and businesses within Carlsbad Oaks North shall encourage
commuter usage of busses, carpools and vanpools.
Provide, whenever possible, incentives for car pooling, flex-time,
shortened work weeks, and telecommunications and other means of
reducing vehicular miles traveled.
Develop and implement employer incentive programs to encourage the
placement of strategic bicycle storage lockers, and the construction of safe
and convenient bicycle facilities.
Development within Carlsbad Oaks North shall provide shade trees to
reduce building heating ( cooling) needs.
Development within Carlsbad Oaks North shall use energy efficient low-
sodillln parking lot lights.
Development within Carlsbad Oaks North shall use light colored roof
materials to reflect heat.
(2002 EIR, pp. 2-6 to 2-8.)
Even though the City's Exemption Checklist for the Project admits that the above
measures may not reduce the Project's impacts to less than significant, the Exemption Checklist
astoundingly concludes that "[t]here are no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives
previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one
or more significant effects of the Project." (Exemption Checklist, pp. 10-11.) The Checklist
misstates the legal standard. The question is not whether the 2002 EIR only found certain
mitigation measures to be infeasible, but whether new information since the certification of the
2002 EIR demonstrates the availability of "considerably different" mitigation measures OR now-
feasible mitigation measures. (14 CCR§ 15162(a)(3)(C)-(D).) More importantly, the Checklist
ignores that over the 20+ years since the 2002 EIR was certified, numerous mitigation measures
are now available.
For example, the Exemption Checklist notes that, since 2022, "the EPA adopted new tiers
of emission standards for nonroad equipment. To meet new Tier 4 emission standards, engine
manufacturers produce new engines with advanced emission control technologies and
maintenance intervals to reduce diesel exhaust." (Exemption Checklist, p. 10.) However, the
SAFER Appeal Comment
IONIS Lots 21 & 22 (SDP 2021-0029; DEV2021-0141)
May 12, 2023
Page 6 of 9
Exemption Checklist fails to disclose that there is no requirement that the Project's construction
equipment meet the Tier 4 standards.
In 2004, the EPA adopted regulations phasing in progressively heightened emissions
standards for heavy-duty construction equipment, specifically aimed at reducing emissions of
NOx and PM, with Tier 4 standards taking effect in 2008. (69 Fed. Reg. 38958.) Notably, the
EPA rules only apply to manufacturers and importers of the equipment, not to the equipment's
users. (Id.) In other words, unless the City expressly requires the Project to utilize Tier 4
equipment, the Project is free to utilize lower standard equipment with greater emtssions of NOx
and PM.
The availability of Tier 4 standards as a mitigation measure for the Project's air quality
impacts qualifies as new information that could not have been known at the time the 2002 Oaks
North Specific Plan EIR was certified, since they were not announced until 2004 and not phased
in until 2008. Requiring Tier 4 equipment is not only currently feasible, but it is also
considerably different from the mitigation measures in the 2002 EIR, which did not have any
standards for construction engines except that they be kept "in proper tune." Due to the
availability of this new mitigation, the Project is not within the scope of the 2002 EIR pursuant to
Guidelines sections 15162 and 15168. Unless this mitigation is applied to the Project, CEQA
requires an initial study, followed by an EIR or negative declaration that can tier from the 2002
EIR where applicable.
SAFER has also retained air quality experts Matt Hagemann, P.O., C.Hg., and Paul E.
Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise ("SW APE") to review the Project.
· SW APE' s comment is attached hereto as Exhibit A. SW APE identified numerous feasible
mitigation measures, including and in addition to Tier 4 equipment, that could be applied to the
Project. SW APE' s suggested mitigation measures include:
Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1)
engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control
technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%
Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission
. control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum
of 85%.
Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have
either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission
control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce
PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a
minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp.
Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as
recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction
equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
SAFER Appeal Comment
IONIS Lots 21 & 22 (SDP 2021-0029; DEV2021-0141)
May 12, 2023
Page 7 of 9
1. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person
responsible for the vehicles or equipment.
11. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine
manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating),
horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of
operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number,
make, model, manufacturer, EP A/CARB verification number/level, and
installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles
waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel
emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially
sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and
convalescent facilities.
The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle,
nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
1. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month,
and on off-site date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls.
iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:
1. Source of supply
2. Quantity of fuel
3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight)
(Ex. A, pp. 3-4.) The feasibility of these measures is demonstrated by the fact that they are all
included in the Southern California Association of Governments' recent 2020 Connect SoCal
Program EIR. (Ex. A, p. 3.) Unless these measures are applied to the Project, the Project is
outside the scope of the 2002 EIR and CEQA requires an initial study, followed by an EIR or
negative declaration that can tier from the 2002 EIR where applicable.
II. The Project Requires a New EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations Due
to the Remaining Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.
In addition to the requirement for a new EIR due to the availability of new mitigation
measures, an EIR is also required for the Project due to impacts that remain significant and
unavoidable. When a prior EIR, such as the 2002 Oaks North Specific Plan EIR, admits
significant and unavoidable impacts, a later project requires its own EIR and statement of
overriding considerations for any impacts that remain significant and unavoidable. (Communities
for a Better Envt., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at 124-25.)
The 2002 Oaks North Specific Plan EIR found significant and unavoidable impacts to air
quality, biological resources, and traffic. (Oaks North Specific Plan, pp. 2-5 to 2-8, 2-13.) For the
Project's air quality impacts, the Exemption Checklist concluded that "not all impacts may be
reduced to less than significant levels." (Exemption Checklist, p. 11.) Even though air quality
SAFER Appeal Comment
IONIS Lots 21 & 22 (SDP 2021-0029; DEV2021-0141)
May 12, 2023
Page 8 of 9
impacts were found significant and unavoidable in the 2002 EIR and the City adopted a
statement of overriding considerations at that time, the City cannot "adopt one statement of
overriding considerations for a prior, more general EIR, and then avoid future political
accountability by approving later, more specific projects with significant unavoidable impacts
pursuant to the prior EIR and statement of overriding considerations." ( Communities for a Better
Envt., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at 124.) Therefore, the Project requires its own EIR and statement
of overriding considerations to ensure that the City "go on the record and explain specifically
why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (Id. at 125.)
III. The Exemption Checklist's Analysis of the Project's Energy Impacts Is Inadequate ..
The 2002 Oaks North Specific Plan EIR did not address energy use impacts in any detail.
The EIR's Initial Study merely concluded, "This project does not conflict with any adopted
energy conservation plans nor use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner."
(2002 EIR Initial Study, p. 13.) The Exemption Checklist merely notes that the Project will
comply with eh City's Climate Action Plan ("CAP") and concludes, "The Project is consistent
with the overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for
environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the Program EIR. Therefore,
the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a
previously identified significant impact relative to the Program EIR." (Exemption Checklist, p.
17.)
The Exemption Checklist does not provide the necessary analysis to determine whether
the Project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources
and, therefore, cannot be relied upon to conclude that energy impacts are less than significant
Energy conservation under CEQA is defined as the "wise and efficient use of energy." (CEQA
Guidelines, App. F, § I.) The "wise and efficient use of energy" is achieved by "(1) decreasing
overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal,
natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources." (Id.) In order to
assess the Project's energy impacts, CEQA requires that the City undertake "an investigation into
renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate." (California Clean Energy
Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 213.) Even where an agency has
concluded that a project's impacts on energy resources would be less than significant, a lead
agency must still analyze implementation of all "renewable energy options that might have been
available or appropriate for [a] project." (League to Save Lake Tahoe v. County of Placer (2022)
75 Cal.App.5th 63 , 166-67.) A lead agency's failure to consider implementation of all feasible
renewable energy proposals raised during the environmental review process constitutes a
"prejudicial error." (Id. at 168.)
Despite CEQA's requirement to consider all renewable energy options, the Exemption
Checklist fails to evaluate any alternative energy options and merely relies on compliance with
the City's CAP. However, mere compliance with existing regulations does not constitute an
adequate analysis of energy impacts. (League to Save Lake Tahoe, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at 165;
Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 256, 264-65; California
SAFER Appeal Comment
IONIS Lots 21 & 22 (SDP 2021-0029; DEV2021-0141)
May 12, 2023
Page 9 of 9
Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 209-13.) As such, the
Checklist's energy analysis is inadequate and its conclusion that the Project's energy impacts
will be less than significant is unsupported. The Project's energy analysis should be updated in
an EIR to consider the implementation of all feasible renewable energy features.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council grant the
appeal and direct staff to prepare an initial study followed by an EIR or negative declaration,
which can tier from the 2002 Oaks North Specific Plan as applicable.
Sincerely,
Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP
EXHIBIT A
I SWA p E I Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
March 17, 2023
Brian Flynn
Lozeau I Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the IONIS Lots 21 & 22 Project
Dear Mr. Flynn,
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
We have reviewed the March 2023 Exemption ("Exemption") for the IONIS Lots 21 & 22 Project
("Project") as well as the August 2002 Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Carlsbad Oaks
North Specific Plan, located in the City of Carlsbad ("City"). The Project proposes to construct a 164,833-
square-foot ("SF") research building and a three-level parking structure on the 8.37-acre site.
Our review concludes that the Exemption fails to adequately evaluate the Project's air quality impacts.
As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the
proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. A subsequent EIR should be
prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the project may have
on the environment.
Air Quality
Incorrect Reliance on CEQA Guidelines§ 15162
The Exemption claims that no further review is required for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines§
15162. Specifically, the Exemption claims:
"The proposed Project is a "later activity" of the Program EIR. Section 4 of this CEQA Analysis
provides an assessment of the Project's environmental impacts relative to what was analyzed in
the Program EIR. As described in Section 4, the Project, does not result in environmental effects
that were not previously examined. As such, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and
15163, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15168(c)(2), the city can "approve the activity as being within the scope of the project
covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required" (p. 4).
However, according to CEQA Guidelines § 15162:
"(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the
basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: [ ... ]
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR
was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the
following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative."
According to section (D), a subsequent EIR should be prepared if there are mitigation measures that are
considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR that would substantially reduce one or
more significant effects on the environment. Here, regarding applicable mitigation measures, the
Exemption states:
"The Program EIR evaluated all land development anticipated through the application of
policies, regulations, and as logical parts of a long-term plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15162 and 15168, the request to construct a 164,833-SF, 48-foot-tall light industrial
building, three-story parking structure and bridge across Whiptail Loop is within the scope of the
previously certified Program EIR, and there would be no additional impacts to air quality beyond
those analyzed in the Program EIR. The following environmental conditions of approval would
apply to the Project to implement requirements of the Program EIR Mitigation Measures: AQ-1
AQ-3" (p. 11).
2
Review of mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-3 demonstrates that there are additional mitigation
meas ures that could be implemented tofurther reduce the Project 's significant air quality impacts (p.
10, 37). The measures outlined in the following section titled "Feasible Mitigation M eas ures Available to
Reduce Emissions" were developed after the 2002 FEIR w as adopted and should be incorporat ed in a
subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines§ 15162.
Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions
The Exemption states that 2002 FEI R's analys is dem onstrates that the Project w ould res ult in potentially
significa nt air quality impacts that should be mitigated further (p. 9, 10). To reduce the Project's
emissions, we identified several mitigat ion measures that are applica ble t o the proposed Project. We
recommend consideratio n of SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS PEI R's Air Quality Project Level M itigation M easures
("PMM-AQ-1") as described below: 1
SCAG RTP /SCS 2020-2045 ,
Air Quality Project Level M itigation Measures -PMM-AQ-1:
In accordance w ith provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(l)(B) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a proj ect can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce
substantial adverse effects related t o violat ing air quality standards. Such measures may include the
following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities.
j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower,
emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (SO horsepower and greater) that
could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the
applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a (ARB-approved
fleet.
I) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes-saves fuel and reduces emissions.
n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power
generators.
p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project
work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment
Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the
District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site.
q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines
above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be
required to mitigate emissions below sign ificance thresholds.
1 "4.0 Mitigation Measures." Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September
2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/fpeir connectsocal addendum 4 mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 -4.0-10; 4.0-19 -
4.0-23; See also: "Certified Final Connect SoCaJ Program Environmental Impact Report." Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca .gov/peir.
3
r) Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD "SOON"
funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available low-emission heavy-
duty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles.
s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction
Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects.
t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools,
including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and
Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in
certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors).
y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider
installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or
better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance
of an occupancy permit.
z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters.
aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income
and/or minority communities.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as
appropriate and feasible:
-Diesel non road vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA
on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM
emissions by a minimum of 85%
Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control
technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%.
Non road diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher.
Diesel non road construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines
meeting EPA Tier 4 non road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or
CARB for use with non road engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp
and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp.
Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the
emission control technology manufacturer.
The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and
generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the
vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer,
engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and
expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model,
manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter
reading on installation date.
The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or
unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on
abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare
facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities.
The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, non road
construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site
date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls.
iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:
4
1. Source of supply
2. Quantity of fuel
3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight)
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into
the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project constru ction.
Furthermore, as it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon
resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31,
2045, we emphasize the applicability of incorporating solar power system into the Project design. Until
the feasibility of incorporating on-site renewable energy production is considered, the Project should
not be approved.
A subsequent EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include an
updated air quality analysis to ensure the mitigation measures will effectively reduce emissions. The EIR
should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project
approval, to ensure that the Project's significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become
available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional
information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of
care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants
practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made as to ttie scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing
results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was
reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or
otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by
third parties.
Sincerely,
-~ire /1-u-iz~c---
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
5
Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
6
lswAPEI Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Education:
Attachment A
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQAReview
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B:A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydro geologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation,
stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and
Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional
Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with
EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major
military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic
characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SW APE,
Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include
consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from
industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/ Air Protection Enterprise (SW APE) (2003 -present);
• Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 -2104, 2017;
• Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H20 Science, Inc. (2000 --2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001-2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989-
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998-2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 -
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990-1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 -1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984-1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SW APE, Matt's responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports
and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard
to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,
and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead
agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks
and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from
toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial
facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA
compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial storrnwater contamination.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.·
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
With Komex H20 Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, eleclrnnically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted
3
public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned
about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation-
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in-National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9.
Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA' s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EP A's scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
4
principles into the policy-making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the comrimnity college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California
where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
5
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
Brown, A, Farrow, J., Gray, A and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F ., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
6
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MIBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MIBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water ResourcesDivision, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL-
contarninated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention ... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations,
2009-2011.
8
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Principal Environmental Chemist
Education
Attachment B
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld(ti)swape.com
Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Ph.D. So il Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Disse1iation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991 . Focus on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks,
storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil
drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and
modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in
surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by
water systems and via vapor intrusion.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi-and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, P AHs, creosote,
perchlorate, asbestos, per-and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates
(MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from
various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the
evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist
at SW APE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expe1i
witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an
expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad,
agricultural, and military sources.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SW APE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amee), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999-2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996-1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G ., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure
Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011 ). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113-125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Tam L. K .. , Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of · Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K .. , Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. l 05, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation's Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application ofBiosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Bio filter. Water Environment Research. 76( 4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS--6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Hemy C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E .. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. {1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Siell"a County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses OfBiogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. ·
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law
Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th · Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Socie'ty. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States" Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platfonn lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Some1ville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual Imernational Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 -25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants -DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005) .. Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey's C8!PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Coriference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Coriference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey 's Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Coriference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
}vfeeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21 , 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulat01y Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Ground!vater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants .. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (Februaiy 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUP A Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7-10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7-10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids 1vfanagement Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington ..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M.A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maiyland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recove1y
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
_Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids A1anagement Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E.; and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998}. Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Hanison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Depaiiment of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
voe emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the Superior Comi of the State of California, County of San Bernardino
Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDSl 711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana
Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.
Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division
Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad
Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Cowi of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division
Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Cowi of St. Louis County, State of Missouri
Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.
CaseNo.19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division
Jeffery S. Lamotte, Pl~intiffvs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Cowi, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District
Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Cowi Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington
John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois
Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiffvs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Comi of the State of California, County of Kern
George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Comi of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.
Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Comi Easter District of Florida
Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida
Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York
Romano et al. vs. Nmihrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Comi of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska
Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thi1ieenth District Court of Yellowstone County
James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Comi Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Ma1iha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.
Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a
AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Comi For the Northern District of Illinois
Theresa Romcoe vs. No1iheast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail
Case No. 17-cv-8517 ·
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Comi of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa
Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7~2021
In the United States District Comi for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division
Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino
Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse
Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.
Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.
Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey
Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No. 2:l 7-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Comt of Southern District of Texas. Galveston Division
MIT Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-Gl\ffiH & Co. Bulker KG MS "Conti Perdido" Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles -Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles -Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case No. l:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, l 12tl1 Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No. Cl2-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Comi Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi
Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. l:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles
Warm Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC
Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division
Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants
Case No. 4: l 6-cv-52-Dl\ffi-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 201 7
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No. RG1471 l l 15
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Comi In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Comi of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, No1ihem Division
James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division
Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022
IONIS LOTS 21 & 22
Eric Lardy, City Planner
Community Development Department
May 16, 2023
SDP 2021-0029
1
{ City of
Carlsbad
PROCEDURES
1.Public Hearing opened
2.Staff Presentation
3.City Council questions on staff presentation
4.Applicant presentation (10 Min)
5.City Council opportunity to ask questions
on application
6.Appellant presentation (10 Min)
7.Staff Response to Appeal
8.Applicant Response to Appeal (if
necessary)
9.City Council opportunity to ask questions
on appeal
10.Public testimony opened
11.Input from public
12.Staff, Applicant, and Appellant response (if
necessary)
13.Public testimony closed
14.City Council discussion
15.City Council vote
16.Public hearing closed
{city of
Carlsbad
BACKGROUND
Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Specific Plan
EIR 98-08 certified by the City Council in 2002
414-acre planned industrial development
Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit
27-lot subdivision
-23 light industrial lots
-4 open space lots (135 acres)
3
{city of
Carlsbad
4
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
164,833 SF, 48’-tall R&D building
Three-level parking structure
Pedestrian bridge across Whiptail Loop
to connect to existing IONIS campus
---/
''---
' -----------------.
'
5
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT BUILDING
SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS
48’
32’
{city of
Carlsbad
•March 1, 2023: Planning Commission
approves Site Development Plan and
consistency with Certified EIR
•March 13, 2023: Appeal filed by
Supporters Alliance for Environmental
Responsibility
APPEAL TIMELINE
6
( City of
Carlsbad
IONIS LOTS 21 & 22
Eric Lardy, City Planner
Community Development Department
May 16, 2023
SDP 2021-0029
7
{ City of
Carlsbad
APPEAL PROCEDURES
88
•This appeal is de novo, meaning that the matter is being heard “anew”
The City Council shall consider only the evidence presented to the
Planning Commission prior to the decision
•The burden of proof is on the appellant to establish substantial
evidence
•Grounds are limited to if there was an error or abuse of discretion or
that the decision was not supported by the facts
•City Council may uphold, uphold in part, or reverse the decision that is
subject of the appeal.
Appeal Procedures
{city of
Carlsbad
•March 13, 2023: Appeal filed by Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility, appeal states:
•The Planning Commission violated the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by finding that the Project is within the scope of the 2002 Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan EIR and that CEQA requires no further environmental analysis or documentation for the project. Rather, new information available since 2002 demonstrates that the project will have impacts not considered in the 2002 EIR and that mitigation measures for the Project’s impacts that were unavailable/ infeasible in 2002 are now feasible. Therefore, the City must prepare an EIR or negative declaration for the project.
DETAILS OF APPEAL APPLICATION
9
( City of
Carlsbad
EIR 98-08 examined the impacts associated with the
development of an industrial park, including the
proposed lots.
CEQA Sections 15162 and 15168 establish procedures for
when a new environmental document can be required.
Project conditioned to comply with mitigation measures.
No specific issues, changed circumstances or new
information were raised in the appeal application or at
the Planning Commission hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
10
D P10nnQCJ hw,bi:,I 1.01,
~ Alrolcry U"' lotE jooe p:iga 1-2)
0 ml nlligt, cJ-Wo,
0 Sawot ~~=nl""[wdhPcdonOniioi erl(i'\lolll)
Eat119 ""'°' lo! 9 on'v ,r not "'9d fc.-"""" itolionl
"OO<'l""-"'10'>CI trol --,J o
cor<lrhonoloi:.,rovol•.h<roOOOOiSOI'/
Not~ orrsne FarCXlOf A-..erue
CC<'OTTUC 0<1<>:,Wo,j9 to 0,oo \\1:7i
refat to larrtatt.'e M~ '1'-13 tcr more datdl
{ City of
Carlsbad
A letter was received from appellant on May 12, 2023
with additional information
Carlsbad Municipal Code States, “the City Council shall
consider only the evidence presented to the Planning
Commission for consideration in the determination or
decision being appealed.” CMC 21.54.150(c)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
11
{ City of
Carlsbad
The standard under CEQA [15162 (a)(3)(D)]:
Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative.
New air quality measures required for regulatory compliance and
the air quality impacts are found to be less than significant for this
project
Applicant also prepared a Climate Action Plan Checklist
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
12
{ City of
Carlsbad
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt the City Council Resolution denying the appeal
and upholding a decision of the Planning Commission
to approve a Site Development Plan for the
development of a 164,833 square-foot, 48-foot-tall
research and development building, a 21-foot tall,
three-level parking structure and a pedestrian bridge
across Whiptail Loop for IONIS Pharmaceuticals.
IONIS LOTS 21 & 22
13
( City of
Carlsbad