HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-01-11; City Council; 12533; RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES- AFFORDABLE HOUSING - LCPA 93-2- CITY OF CARLSBAD$
AB i? - TITLE:
DEPT. PLN CITY OF CARLSBAD
RESIDENTIAL, DENSITY INCREASES - . MTG. 1/11/94 AFFORDABLE HOUSING - LCPA 93-2 -
(SEE-: GP/9 9A-f )
DEF
CIT
CIT
a w 3 8 t% €2- 4
t5
g
I 6 a
z
3 0 0
Y OF CARLSBAD - AG DA BILL -7‘”;” --- (
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If Council concurs, both the Planning Commission and staff are recmmendhg that
Council ADOPT Resolution No. 4Y-IL , APPROVING LCPA 93-2.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On April 13, 1993, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment (GPA 92-8) to a
policy and text to the City‘s Land Use Element. The new land use policy would permit r densities to exceed the maximum General Plan densities for the provision of affordabll
for lower-income households. This new provision would allow these higher densitie5
conformance with the General Plan. In addition, any residential project requesting
increase would have to be consistent with the Citywide dwelling unit limitation of th
Management Plan (Prop. E).
LCPA 93-2 is a follow-up to GPA 92-08, and would amend all of the City‘s six Loc;
Program (LCP) segments to add this new land use policy to each of the City‘s LCP
Pursuant to Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code, this Local Coastal Program h
(LCPA) is necessary to bring the City‘s LCP segments into conformance with the City‘s
Land Use Element.
The Planning Commission recommended approval (7-0) Local Coastal Program Amendm
on November 3, 1993. There were no major issues associated with this item. Please set
staff report to the Planning Commission for details.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration was approved for GPA 92-08 on April 13, 1993. Since LCPA 1
follow-up legislative action to GPA 92-08 and will not have a simcant effect on the env
the Planning Director has issued a Notice of Prior Compliance on June 17, 1993.
FISCAL IMPACT
Aside from typical administrative (staff) costs associated with processing project applic
direct fiscal impacts are anticipated to result from LCPA 93-02. Any development proce5
General Plan Amendment 92-08 will still be subject to growth management conditions.
public facilities will be financed through the existing system of fees and assessments. Ir
the approval of this Local Coastal Program Amendment will not grant any developmen
specific projects. The direct fiscal impacts of each project requesting a density increase ai
within the coastal zone will be evaluated as that project is brought forward for Counc.
EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
City Council Resolution No. 94-l?-
City Council Resolution No. 93-64
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3545 w/LCPA 93-02 attached
Planning Commission Staff Report w/attachments, dated November 3, 1993
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 20, 1993 & Novembt
*
I.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 *
RESOLUTION NO. -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO ALI
OF THE CITY'S SIX LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SEGMENTS
(I.E., MELLO I, MELLO 11, AGUA HEDIONDA, EAST
BATIQUITOS LAGOON/HUNT PROPERTIES , WEST B A T I Q U I T 0 S
LAGOON/SAMMIS PROPERTIES AND VILLAGE REDEVELOPMEN?
POLICY WHICH WOULD ALLOW RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES
ABOVE THE MAXIMUM DENSITIES PERMITTED BY THE CITY'S
GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SEGMENTS, TC ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER-INCOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING. CASE NAME: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES
CASE NO: LCPA 93-02 - CITY OF CARLSBAD
AREA) TO AMEND THE TEXT BY THE ADDITION OF A NEF;
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the
Coastal Program and General Plan, for properties in the Cc
Zone be in conformance;
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendme
Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program Segments, as shown on E:
"LCPA 93-02", dated October 20, 1993, attached to Pli
Commission Resolution No. 3545 and incorporated by referenc
been filed with the City Council; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a r(
for amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Mun
Code: and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 11th
J~Y , 1994, hold a duly noticed public hear
prescribed by law to consider the proposed Local Coastal P
Amendment shown on Exhibit "LCPA 93-02", and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearir
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all F
desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all f
relating to the Local Coastal Plan Amendment.
...
..
"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week ]
review period for any amendment to the Local Coastal Progr;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Counc
the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the above recitations are correct.
B) No comments were received during the State ma
six week review period, starting on August 26, 1993, and end
October 7, 1993.
C) That based on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Council APPROVES LCPA 93-02 as shown on Exhibit
93-02", dated October 20, 1993, attached to Planning Corn
Resolution No. 3545 and made a part hereof based on the fol
findings:
Findinss:
1. The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendme
consistent with all applicable policies of the respective SE
of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program.
2. The proposed amendment is necessary to bring the
Local Coastal Program into conformance with the General PI
**-
*'*
---
***
*-*
***
...
***
.-.
2
.
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11-
12
13
14
15
16
17.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e e
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 11th
of JANUARY , 1994, by the following vote, to wi
AYES:
NOES: None
Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard,
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN : None
TTEST : A
l&tL R G&L- LETHA L. RAUTENKEANZ, City Clerk A
(SEAL)
3
I-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
. 24
25
26
27
28
* EX el \
RESOLUTION NO. 93-64
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO ALLOW THE CITY TO GRANT DENSITY INCREASES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES, CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, TO ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF
AFFORDABLE) HOUSING FOR LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS,
CASE NAME: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES
CASE NO: GPA 92-08 - CITY OF CARLSBAD
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Mu1
Code, the Planning Commission did, on December 2, 1992,
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to considc
request: and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon heari
considering all testimony and arguments, examining the :
study, analyzing the information submitted by stafl
considering any written comments received, the Planning corn
considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaratic
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by th
Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and cor]
2. That the findings and conditions of the P.
Commission Resolution No. 3446, on file with the City C1c
incorporated herein by reference constitute the findings
city Council in this matter and that the Negative Declarai
hereby approved.
..e
.*.
**.
..e
***
...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
' 24
25
26
27
28
* . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting o
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the
13th day of APRIL , 1993, by the following vott
wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Nygaard, Finnila
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member K
ATTEST:
- ALETHA L. R~UTENKRANZ, City Clery
(SEAL)
-2-
I,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e a
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3446
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD A POLICY TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT TO ALLOW THE CITY TO GRANT DENSITY
INCREASES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES TO ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOWER INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS.
CASE NAME: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES
CASE NO: GPA 92-08
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 28th day of Octc
the 4th day of November, 1992, the 18th day of November, 1992, and on the
December, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to cc
request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering a1
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitt
and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission COI
factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning C
as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, thc
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaratior
to Exhibit "ND", dated July 16, 1992, and "PII", dated July 10, 199;
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The ;dtial study shows that there is no substandal eddence that the p
have a significant impact on the environment.
....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of Decem
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber,
Noble, Welshons, Savary & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
1
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMh
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3446 -2-
0 0
NEGATIVF, DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: City of Carlsbad - All residential general plan land
classifications.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amend the Land Use Element to authorize density bonuse
all residential land use classes for purpose of creating hou
for lower-income households.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described prc
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a signifii
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plan
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department Wi
30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Dennis Turner in
Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4443.
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
DATED: JULY 16, 1992
CASE NO: GPA 92-8 Planning Director
MICHAEL J. Ikk ZM~~ER
CASE NAME: LAND USE ELEMENT -
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 16, 1992
DT:km
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-'
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO
DATE: JUI
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Land Use Element - Residential Density Bonus
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(61 9438-1 161
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Addition of lanmage to the Land Use Element of the (
to authorize, via a Site Development Plan Permit, the mantinn of densitv increase
subject to a residential land use classification. for the pumose of creatinz housing a
and restricted for, lower-income households.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the e
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. 7
8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposec
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Er
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that t!
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" wi
to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any 4
project may cause a sidcant effect on the environment. The project may qualifv fo
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects car
insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings YES-sig" an(
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of th
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given t
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
e 0
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
big) (insig)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
Appreciably change the topo’graphy or any 2.
unique physical features? - -
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
-
4.
any bay, inlet or lake? -
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air 6.
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
Substantially increase usage or cause
-
7.
8.
9.
depletion of any natural resources? -
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? -
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object? - -
-2-
,
e e
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
big> (insig)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
13.
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance? -
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
15.
16.
migration or movement of animals? -
HUMAN ENVIR0"T
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(Sig) (big)
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area? - -
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services? - -
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
-3-
0 0
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
big) (insig)
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
20. ~ncrease existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare? -
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? -
human population of an area? - X
23. Substantially alter the density of the
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present pattern of circulation or
27.
movement of people and/or goods? -
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
29, Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
30.
31.
aesthetically offensive public view? -
existing recreational opportunities? - -
32. Affect the quality or quantity of
-4-
e 0
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES 1
big) (ins ig)
33. Does the project have the potentid
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory. - -
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable'' means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
35.
the effects of probable future projects.) -
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? -
-5 -
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The "project" is an amendment to the City's Land Use Element to enable the City to grant der
requested by developers in association with project proposals to construct housing affordable for 1
families. The amendment would authorize such bonuses on any site designated for residential
through the approval of a Site Development Plan Permit for a specific project approval and only s
of the project to assure: the project meets certain locational criteria, there exist adequate public
neighborhood compatibility, and the project meets the City's overall project design criteria. Th
each such Site Development Plan Permit would constitute a project under the California E1
Quality Act, requiring environmental review.
This amendment is necessitated as a follow-through to the recent update of the City's Housing
part, the Housing Element calls for the City to grant density bonuses to at least 29 ddacre on ai
site in the City for lower-income targeted housing. This amendment is required to bring the Land
into conformance with the Housing Element's Program 3.7.a. (density bonus), Program 3.7.i.
for granting density bonuses) and Policy 3.7.h. (changing General Plan Land Use Designatior
density). In turn, these Housing Element programs and policy were adopted directly in response
Government Code Section 65915, et seq. (requiring a process for granting density bonuses f
housing by all local jurisdictions).
In that: (1) this General Plan Amendment is not associated with any specific development prc
not directly or indirectly result in any significant physical, biological, or human environmental
that, (3) any future development projects processed with a density bonus shall be required to und
environmental review, no project-specific environmental impacts are anticipated.
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not result in unstable earth conditic
increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards because no
development is proposed. All future development processed with a density bonus wi
to comply with all City regulations, including the issuance of grading permits to p
unstable earth conditions or the creation of geologic hazards due to developme1
grading.
The proposed General Plan Amendment will not appreciably change the topography
site or alter physical features of any site, in that no specific development is propose
this action.
The erosion of soils on or off a given site will not be affected by this Genera
Amendment. All future development processed with density bonuses shall be requ:
meet applicable standards and all conditions associated with the issuance of grading pc
In that no specific development is proposed, this General Plan Amendment will not
in any changes in the deposition patterns of beach sands or the alignment of n
2.
3.
4.
streambeds or the bottoms of any lagoons or inlets,
5-6. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not a specific development project and thc
will not have any adverse impacts on ambient air quality nor will it result in any ck
air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature.
-6-
,
0 e
7-10. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not associated with any specific develol
project, therefore the proposed amendment will not substantially alter the course or fl
marine fresh or flood waters or effect ground water or public water supply. The pro
amendment will not cause a depletion of any natural resource or will use subst
amounts of fuel or energy.
Future projects processed with density bonuses shall undergo environmental revir
-
11. evaluate impacts to archaeological, historical or cultural resources. This Genera! Amendment is not a specific development project, and therefore will not impact reso
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
12/13. Since no specific development is proposed, there will be no impacts to the divers
plant species and there will be no bamers to the normal replenishment of exisl
species. There will be no introduction of plant species into an area within the Cit
this General Plan Amendment.
The General Plan Amendment will not impact agricultural lands of any importan
the City. Since this Amendment is proposed Citywide, it would not affect any spt
Since this project does not propose specific development, there will be no impac
diversity of animal species and there will be no barriers created to alter the migr
14.
15/16.
movements of animal species within the City and no new animal species will be int
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
17. Although this General Plan Amendment would authorize the City to grant densip
on a case-by-case permit basis, thus enabling changes in the intensity of use on
would not change any land use designation already assigned to property by the
Element.
18 - 22. This amendment’s authority to grant density bonuses would not be associated
specific development. It will not substantially affect utilities, schools, police, fire, e
or other public services. The proposed program will not alter or result in the need 1
solid waste, hazardous waste or other systems. The proposed amendment will no
noise levels, light or glare or deal with hazardous substances. Future project:
density bonuses shall be required to address and adequately mitigate associated i
The purpose of this Land Use Element Amendment is to grant the City discretionary
to approve requests by developers for density bonuses, so as to create housing affoi
lower-income families. The inclusion in the Land Use Element of this general
would not directly or immediately change the density of specific areas but could li
in density changes being approved in association with specific affordable housir
proposals. Such approvals would be on a case-by-case basis and granted subj
analysis examining specified locational criteria, the adequacy of facilities, an
neighborhood compatibility. The amendment is required to assure compatibility oj
Use Element with the Housing Element, and the City‘s adopted objectives for lowc
-7-
23.
,
e 0
affordable housing. In particular, the amendment facilitates Housing Element pol:
(requiring the approval of land use density bonuses up to 29 du/acre for affordablf
Program 3.7.i. (the establishment of a mechanism for the granting of density 1
Because the amendment makes no direct changes in density and all subsequent
proposing bonuses will be subject both to discretionary review using locational E
criteria, and to environmental review it is concluded that the proposed amen&
create no significant density-related environmental impacts either directly or in&
Existing housing will not be directly affected by this action and there will not be :
for additional housing created by the adoption of the recommendations cornpr
amendment. This amendment will assist in the creation of additional units withir
which are affordable to lower and moderate income households for which existin1
has been determined and documented in the Mousing Element.
25 - 30. The proposed amendment will not substantially affect parking, generate substant
traffic, or alter existing transportation systems. This proposed General PI
Amendment is not affiliated with any specific development project and will r interfere with safety issues such as emergency evacuation response plans or increz
traffic hazard to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. Any future project grant
density bonuses pursuant to the amendment shall be required to adequately mitig:
associated parking or traffic impacts.
In that no specific development is proposed with this Amendment, no scenic visi
will be obstructed and aesthetically offensive views will not be created by
implementation.
The proposed General Plan Amendment will not affect the quality or quantity
existing recreational opportunities.
projects) and serves as partial imphentation of Program 3.7.a, (Density Bo:
24.
31.
32.
-8-
0
WALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
C) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
g) no project alternative.
a) This "project" cannot be phased; the authority to approve density bonuses ei
f) alternate sites for the proposed project, and
to the land use element or it is not.
b) N/A.
c) N/A.
d) N/A.
e) Delay in implementing the amendment would have the effect of deferring a(
Housing Element Policy 3.7.h. and frustrating Programs 3.7.a. and 3.7.i. Ex
delay would result in the Land Use Element and Housing Element
inconsistent, a condition to be avoided in a General Plan.
f) N/A.
g) See response to e).
-9-
,
0 0
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conj
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmc not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
- I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIl
IMPACT REPORT is required.
71 t .I Qa -- a.7-
Date Signature
4IOh7
Dhe ' Planning Directw U
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE]
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-10-
,
e e
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
DT:h
-11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e @
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3545
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO ALL OF THE CITY'S SIX
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SEGMENTS (LE., MELLO I,
MELLO 11, AGUA HEDIONDA, EAST BATIQUITOS
LAGOONIHUNT PROPERTIES, WEST BATIQUITOS
LAG0 0 N/ SAMMI S PROP E RTI E S AND VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA) TO AMEND THE TEXT BY THE
ADDITION OF A NEW POLICY WHICH WOULD ALLOW
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM
DENSITIES PERMITTED BY THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN
AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SEGMENTS, TO ENABLE
HOUSING.
CASE NAME: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER-INCOME AFFORDABLE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CASE NO: LCPA 93-02
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coast
Segments and General Plan, be in conformance;
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to Carl5
Coastal Program Segments, as shown on Exhibit "LCPA 93-02" dated Octobe
has been filed with the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for
as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of Oci
and the 3rd day of November, 1993 hold duly noticed public hearings as pi
law to consider the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment shown on El
93-02", attached hereto, and;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and con
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e t
considered all factors relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week pu
period for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning(
of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
At the end of the State mandated six week review period, ,
August 26, 1993, and ending on October 7, 1993, staff shall prc
City Council a summary of the comments received.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, th
Commission recommends APPROVAL of LCPA 93-02 as shown
"LCPA 93-02", dated October 20, 1993, attached hereto and rr
hereof based on the following findings:
C)
Findinffs:
1. The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with all
policies of the respective segments of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Prograr
The proposed amendment is necessary to bring the City's Local Coast:
into conformance with the General Plan.
2.
*--
... I ...
...
...
"'
.**
PC RES0 NO. 3545 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 @
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of thc
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 3rd day of November, 19‘
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz,
Savary, Erwin & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
” - 0-4 -. - k- v BAILEY NO E, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMI
ATTEST:
Planning Director
//
PC RES0 NO. 3545 -3-
@ EXHIBIT"LCPA93-
CXXOBEX 20,1i e
LB POLICIES
mu0 I
2. STANDARD PACIFIC
Policy 1 - Maximum Density of Development
The Standard Pacific property shall be designated for a medium density reside]
development with a maximum density of 7 dwelling units per gross acre (See Ekhibit :
The property shall be developed using the City's RD-M (Residential-Multiple Zone) o
(Planned Community) in effect at the date of certification. An overlay zone shal
established incorporating the Coastal Act requirements contained herein (See Exhibit
All permitted uses in the underlying zone shall be conditional uses in the overlay z
Divisions of land and other. developments as defined in the Coastal Act shall be in ac
with the requirements of the Policies contained herein. Poinsettia Lane shall be exter
only as generally shown on the PRC Toups land use map (See Exhibit 2.1) to the eas
boundary of the &. The location of Poinsettia Lane is in no way determined by this L
Coastal Program (LCP), however, this LCP is not intended to preclude access to agricull
areas to the east.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 c)
3. OCCIDENTAL LAND, INC.
d. If, by December 1, 1980, the landowners of the Occidental parcels record
irrevocable offer to dedicate an agricultural conservation easement or a sin
instrument providing for certain protection of agricultural land, over the 57 acre
22 acre parcels north of Poinsettia Lane, development may be allowed on thc
acres of Class 111 soils (See Exhibit 4.2) located immediately east of Paseo del Nc
and at the 28 acres of soil below Class IV in the same parcel of up to 7 units
acre. Said conservation easement or similar instrument shall be free of all I
liens and encumbrances, shall be executed in favor of the People of the Star
California, and shall bind the landowners and successors in interest. Said easex
may include a term which states that the Commission may mom the easeme:
its sole discretion if the Commission determines that such modification woul
essential to implement the remainder of the Carlsbad LCP.
4. RANCHO LA COSTA
POLICY 1 -- LAND USES
1. Development of the property may occur only under the provisions of the Pacific
Country Club and Resort Master Plan, and shall be subject to the requiremer
Policy 2 "Agriculture/Planned Development".
2
@ e
2. The land uses allowed by the Master plan shall be compatible with the Cit
Carlsbad General Plan as amended and as adopted as of March 1, 1988, to pro.
a combination of residential, commercial (including visitor serving) and open SI
uses.
3. Residential density permitted through the Master Plan shall not exceed that all0
arlsbad General Plan as of March 1, 1988,
4. All land uses and intensity of use shall be compatible with the protectio
sensitive coastal resources.
5. Land use intensity shall be consistent with that allowed by the Carlsbad Grc
Management Ordinance (Chapter 21 90, Carlsbad Municipal Code) as adopt€
of March 1, 1988 except that any increase in the total number of dwelling 1
proposed in the Master Plan (2836) shall require review and approval of the Co
Commission through the LCP amendment process.
3
e
VlLLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
The Design Review Board shall promote the effective interdependence for the urban cc
several areas by advocating the establishment of pedestrian linkages between the SE
sub-areas. These linkages, where feasible, should take the form of landscaped path
arcades.
VII. DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
Compliance with City Remlations
Except as indicated herein, all proposals for projects in the Village Redevelopment A
shall comply with all normal City development regulations pertaining to zoning and :
use.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lot Coverane
All buildings, including accessory buildings and structures, and all parking areas
driveways, should not cover more than eighty percent (80%) of the net lot area.
5
6 e e
.
0 MEMORANDUM
DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1993
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: LCPA 93-02 - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES - AFFORDABLE HOUSIN(
amendment to all of the City's six Local Coastal Program segments to add
land use policy which would allow residential density increases above the mar
residential densities permitted by the City's Local Coastal Program segme
enable the development of lower-income affordable housing.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Codssion ADOPT Planning Cornmission Resolution No. 3545, recomme
APPROVAL of LCPA 93-02, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained th
11. DISCUSSION
This matter was on the agenda of October 20, 1993 and continued due to the lateness of the
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3545
Staff Report dated October 20, 1993, with attachments
PROJECT ? LANNER: CHRIS DECEl e
SAJ?F REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 1993
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: LCPA93-02 -RESIDENTIAL DENSITYINCREASES -AFFORDABLE HOU5 - An amendment to all of the City's six Local Coastal Program segmen
add a new land use policy which would allow residential density incrc
above the maximum residential densities permitted by the City's I
Coastal Program segments to enable the development of lower-inc
affordable housing.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Codssion ADOPT Plannhg Commission Resolution NO. 3
recommending APPROVAL of LCPA 93-02, based on the findings and subject to
conditions contained therein.
11. PROJECX DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On Apnl 13, 1993, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment to the Land
Element (GPA 92-08) to add a new policy which would enable the City to grant de
increases above the maximum allowable General Plan densities to enable the develop]
of lower-income affordable housing through processing of a Site Development Plan pt
(See Exhibit "A").
This project is a followup to GPA 92-08, and would amend all of the City's six I
Coastal Program (LCP) segments (Le.; MeUo I, MeUo 11, Agua Hedionda, East Batiq
LagoodHunt Properties, West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties, and Vi
Redevelopment Area) to add this new land use policy to each of the above noted
segments. Pursuant to Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code, this Local Co
Program Amendment (LCPA) is necessary to bring the City's LCP segments
conformance with the City's amended Land Use Element.
111. ANALYSIS
Planninn Issues
1. Will this Local Coastal Program Amendment affect other sections of Carls
certified Local Coastal Programs?
4
e 0 LCPA 93-02
RESIDENTlAL DENSITY INCREASES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PAGE 2
- OCTOBER 20,1993
2. Will this Local Coastal Program Amendment significantly impact coastal resources'
DISCUSSION
Any project within the Coastal Zone which is proposing a density increase shall be requ
PO comply with all other applicable Local Coastal Program policies and provisil
Therefore, no effects on other LCP sections are anticipated.
This proposed LCPA, which would incorporate a new land use policy to allow der
increases to enable the development of affordable housing, is not anticipated to resu
significant impacts to coastal resources. As discussed above, any project proposh
density increase within the Coastal Zone, shall be required to comply with all applic
LCP policies and provisions, including those dealing with protection of coastal resoul
The City's already approved Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 92-02) which would a
development standards modifications to enable the achievement of higher de1
affordable housing projects provides a mechanism to increase project densities within
unconstrained, developable areas of any given property, without the necessity of ha
to encroach into sensitive coastal resources. Accordingly, no impacts to coastal resou
are anticipated.
N. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration was approved for GPA 92-08 on April 13, 1993. This prc
(LCPA 93-02) is a followup legislative action to GPA 92-08. Since LCPA 93-02 will
revise the environmental findings of the previously approved Negative Declaration for
92-08, the Plannfig Director has determined that this project will not have a sign%
effect on the environment and, therefore has issued a Notice of Prior Compliance on.
17, 1993.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2. Exhibit ttA"
3.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3545
Carlsbad Local Coastal Programs Segment Boundary Map.
CDD:h
August 23, 1993
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 ’--’ 0 EXHIBIT
RESOLUTION NO. 93-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 92-08) TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO
ALLOW THE CITY TO GRA”T DENSITY INCREASES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM PEFNWTED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES, CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM,
TO ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. CASE NAME: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES
CASE NO: GPA 92-08 - CITY OF CARLSBAD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on December 2
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by 1
consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Genera
G PA 92-08; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsba
April 13, 1993, held a duly advertised public hearing to cc
said amendment, and at that time received the recommend2
objections, protests, comments of all persons interested
d ppased to GPA 92-08: and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by th
Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 1. That the above recitations are true and cor]
2. That the revised Land Use Element of the (
Plan (GPA 92-08) is approved according to (revised) Exhi1
ated April 13, 1993, attached hereto, and that the find. d
the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Corm
esolution No. 3447, on file in the Planning Department, a R
a part hereof, are the findings and conditions of th
Council .
.*.
..’
.”
0..
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
,2 a
I
(REVISED) ExHIBrr x
APRIL 13, 1993
PROPOSED REVI SIONS To CARLSBAD'S LAND USE ELEMENT
The Land Use Element is proposed for revision to add the following language within
section "B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN", "...standards of population density and building
intensity to be applied to the land use classifications: 1. Residential", which begins on
page 24.
All Italic text is from the existing adopted and proposed Land Use Element. Language to
be added is in highlighted text.
[Beginning on page 251
EXPLANATORY NOTE ON DENSITYRANGES: The densities established for the low and
low-medium density residential classifications simply designate the maximum number of dwelling
units per gross acre that would be permitted if all other requirements are met. In those
exceptional cases where the base zone is consistent with the land use designahon but would
permit a slightly higher yield than that recommended in the low and low-medium density
residential classifications, the City may find that the project is consistent with this element if it
k compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses arld programs expressed herein and
The density ranges established for the medium, medium-high and high density residential
categories are NOT meant as "minimums" and "maximums". The lower figure for each of these
categories represents a "guaranteed" density and the higher figure represents a potential maximum
that could be located in dach area if certain crileria are met. 7he criteria shall be reviewed on
a project-by-project basis and shall include such things as slope of land, soil stability,
compatibility with surrounding land uses, flood plain protection, adequacy of public facilities,
onsite amenities and preservation of unique and desirable natural resources. In orher worak, the
density allocation for any project stam at the low end and, if a higher density is desired, the
proposed development must pmve itself worthy of the higher designation.
Residential density shall be determined based on the number of dwelling units per developable
acre of prop*. 'Ihe following lands are considered to be undevelopable and shall be excluded
from density calculations:
(I) beaches
(2) permanent bodies of water
(3) floodways
1
0 4’ e
(4) (S) significant wetlanak
(6) signgcant riparian woodland habitats
(7)
(8)
Slopes with an inclination of greater than 40%
land subject to major power irnilrmirsion easemenfi land upon which other sign@cant environmental features as detern by the environmental review process for a project are located
NO residential development shall occur on the lands listed above, however, the City Counci,
permit limited development of such property if when considering the property as a whoi
prohibition against development would constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of pro
Limited development of accessory or nonresidential uses may be permitted.
Development on slopes with an inclination of 25% to 40% inclusive shaU be design
minimize the grading and slope development provkions of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Prc
shall apply.
The City of Carlsbad in implementing its public facilities element and growth managemen1
has made an estimate of the number of dwelling units that will be built as a result c application of the density ranges in the Land Use Element to individual projects. me I
Capital Improvement Budget, growth management plan, and public facilitia plans are aU I on this estimate. In order to ensure that all necessary public facilities will be avai
concurrent with need to serve new development it is necessary to limit the number of residc
dwelling units which can be constructed in the City to that estimate. For that purpose th
has been divided into four quadrants along El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road.
maximum number of residential dwelling units to be conshucted or approved in the City
November 4, 1986 h as follows: Northwest Quadrant 5,844; Northeast Quadrant (
Southwest Quadrant 10,667; Southeast Quadrant 10,801.
The City shall not approve any General Plan amendment, zone change, tentative subdi
map or other discretionary approval for a development which could result in development 1
the limit in any quadrant In order to ensure that development does not exceed the lim
following growth management coram1 points are established for the Land Use Element d
ranges.
ALLOWED DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE
General Plan Growth Managem
Qemitv Ranaes Control Point
RLO- 1.5 1
RLMO - 4 3.2
RM4 - 8 6 RMH 6 9 15 11.5 RH 1s - 23 19
2
-
' 1. 0" 0
t
The City shall not approve any residential development at a density that exceeds the gr
management control point for the applicable density range without making the folk
findings:
1. That the project will provide suficient additional public facilities for the dc in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City's p
facilities plans will not be adversely impacted.
That there have been sufficient developments approved.in the quadra
densities below the control point to cover the units in the project abov
control point so the approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant lim
2.
[END OF SECTION]
A new Residential Guideline (#19) is proposed to be added to the Land Use Element I
45) as follows:
19. Allow density increases, above the maximum residential densitiespennitted 4
General Plan, to enable the development of lower-income affordable ho,
through processing of a Site Development Plan permit. Any Site Develoi
Plan application request to increase residential densities (either: abot
Growth Management Control Point or upper end of the residential d
range(s), for purposes of providing lower-income afiordable housing shr
evaluated relative to: (a) thepmposahs compatibility with adjacent land ust
the adequacy of public facilities; and (c) the project site being locat
proximiy to a minimum of one of the following: a fieeway or major ma
a commercial centet, employment opportunities, a City park or open spact
this Residential Guideline shall not be pennitted to exceed the Citywid(
quadrant dwelling unit limitations of the Growth Management Plan (Prop
commuter: rail or nansit center, Any request for a density increase pursu'
E).
3
QMELLO II a AGUA HEDIONDA
@EAST BATIQUITOS LAGOONIHUNY N WEST BATIQUITOS LAGOON/SAMMIS n REDEVELOPMENT AREA 4
City of Carisl
L
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASE LCPA 93-1
I
e 0
PLANNING COMMISSION October 20, 1993 PAGE 14
Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to adopt Planni
Commission Resolution No. 3559, recommending approval of the amendment '
1 and 12 Local Facilities Management Plans, based on the findings cont
e, Commissioners Erwin, Hall, Savary, and Welshons
ABSTAIN: None
Due to the late hour, Chairman No
item #5. d the Commission about the possibility of continuing A!
mission and stated that this item contai e the Master Plan is on a tig
d duly seconded, to continue ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner We
Commissioners Erwin, Savary, and Welshons
Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz and Hall
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN: None
later than 10:30 p.m.
LCPA 93-02 - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING - An am
to all of the City's six Local Coastal Program segments to add a new land use policy which u
allow residential density increases above the maximum residential densities permitted by the
Local Coastal Program segments to enable the development of lower-income affordable hoi
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to continue LCPd
to November 3,1993.
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Savary, and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
a
MP 175(D)/GPA 91-05/LCPA 91 -02/LFMP 87-09(A) - POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PI
t for the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Mat
Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 9, to change Gene
lace the educational and related land uses of the former Batiquiti
the western portion of the site on Planned-Coi
t quadrant of the City, north of the I32
oca1 Facilities Management
\\
Lagoon Educational Park (BL service-commercial land use designatio
(P-C) zoned property generally located in the sou
Lagoon, west of the 1-5 freeway, east of Carlsbad Boulevar , .
land use designation
ster Plan with residential uses, and retain the travel - :
Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated t
Shores Master Plan is an area north of the Batiquitos Lagoon, west of 1-5, and east of Carlsba
This is the master plan property which was formerly the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park. The
MINU7
e e
PLANNING COMMISSION November 3,1993 PAG
, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
mmending approval of the Mitigated Ne
ission Resolution Nos. 3552, 3553, 35!
on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therc,
noted on Errata Sheet #I dated October 18, 1993, Errai
1993, and Errata Sheet #3 dated November 3, 191
Hall, Savary, and Schlehuber
75(d), GPA 91-05, LCPA 91-02, and 1
VOTE: 5-2
NOES: Commissioners Erwin and W
ABSTAIN: None
LCPA 93-02 - RESIDENTIAL DENStTY INCREASES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING - An ai
to all of the City's six Local Coastal Program segments to add a new land use policy which
allow residential density increases above the maximum residential densities permitted by tt
Local Coastal Program segments to enable the development of lower-income affordable hc
Chris DeCerbo, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that on April
the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element (GPA 92-08) to a
policy which would enable the City to grant density increases above the maximum allowable Gem
densities to enable the development of lower-income affordable housing through processing of a
Development Plan permit. LCPA 93-02 is a fallaw-up to GPA 92-09 and would amend all of the
Local Coastal Program (LCP) segments (Le. Mello I, Mello I!, Agua Hedionda, East Batiquitos La(
Properties, West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties, and Village Redevelopment Area) to add
land use policy to each of the above noted LCP segments. Pursuant to Section 3051 4 of the Pub
Resources Code, this Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) is necessary to bring the City's
segments into conformance with the City's amended Land Use Element.
Commissioner Hall inquired what triggered a CUP in the Steiger project. Mr. DeCerbo replied th:
Senior Housing Ordinance allows senior housing up to 75 du's/ac with a CUP.
Commissioner Hall inquired if this project would preclude senior housing. Mr. DeCerbo replied th
would not.
Commissioner Hall inquired about the maximum density. Mr. DeCerbo replied that a maximum d
was not stated because staff wanted to be flexible. The Density Bonus Ordinance would allow a n
25% density increase.
Commissioner Hall stated that he thought we were trying to steer away from very high densities.
he is starting to see a different trend and it troubles him to see such high densities. He is concern
would like to close the door. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that the City has a
responsibility to make a 25% density bonus. If we are going to have the 25% increase, staff must
certain findings. There is no way to close that door.
Commissioner Savary inquired how the density can be increased without exceeding the overall ca
DeCerbo replied that staff is monitoring all density increases. They will not exceed the Citywide 01
quadrant dwelling unit caps. Staff will keep the Commission informed.
Commissioner Savary inquired if unused units can be used in any other quadrant. Mr. DeCerbo i
no.
Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
0
- MlNl
0 e
PLANNING COMMISSION November 3,1993 PAGf
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that staff had received a letter from the attorney:
Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD) dated November 1, 1993 which objects to approval of tht
proposal without a proper environmental evaluation of the proposal's effect on the District's school
Mr. Wayne stated that the LCP Amendment is enabling legislation only. We don't know where, wI
it will be used. Therefore, we cannot analyze specific impacts to facilities at this time. Additionall)
Wayne stated that a negative declaration was done for the General Plan Amendment and it was a,
and certified. The proposal tonight is nothing more than companion legislation and is of a housek
nature. For the record, staff feels that we have complied with CEQA on this matter for the above r
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Noble (
the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Commissioner Erwin requested a comment by the City Attorney regarding the CUSD letter. Karer
Deputy City Attorney, stated that she disagrees with CUSD because this proposal does not represl
change from the General Plan Amendment. It only makes it consistent with that action. Furtherrr
General Plan Amendment states that all projects will be reviewed for adequacy of facilities. The sI are public facilities.
Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to adopt Plannir
Commission Resolution No. 3545, recommending approval of LCPA 93-02, bas
the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Savary, Schlehuber and Wc
ACTION:
VOTE: 7-0
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
92-01 /SDP 93-04/HDP 92-1 0 - COSTA DO SOL - Request for recornmen
nned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, ar
ide and construct 11 2 single-family homes, and 40 on
, all on property generally located east of Paseo del h
e PC Zone, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zon
ackground of the request and stated that the applici
1 12 single-family homes and 40 one, two, and thn
t located east of Paseo del Norte and direct11
acres, is undeveloped, and mostly contains
ricultural usage of the site. The surroundin
neighborhood is developed with two-story multi-family r 'dences to the south, a single family hoi
multi-family residences to the west, and vacant land to the e t and north. The future Poinsettia
Community Park would be located directly north of the project% Access to the project will be frc
The single family homes in the project will be one and two-story and will ha o and three-car a
Hidden Valley Road which will also provide access to the park.
garages located on individual lots ranging in size from 5,400 to 15,000 s.f. Ther ill be a central (
recreation facility containing a pool, clubhouse, active playing courts, and a children lay area to
the entire project. The project will feature contemporary architecture consisting of tile ro fs with va
roof lines and stucco exteriors.
Four condominium buildings, containing 40 units ranging in size from 685 to I ,250 sf., wilt be con on a 2.2 acre lot along the eastern portion of the project site. These units will be a mixture of one,
k.a
\ 3\
\
MINU'
wp3r. CX-eCA &x- / /i %/
&-
@ gLq .t 6
Bow, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORpORATlON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4920 CAMPUS DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
c;;tl
AREA cor ALEXANDER BOWIE*
JOAN C. ARNESON TELEPHONE FAX (714) 81 WILLIAM J. KADI
WENDY H. WILES PATRICIA B. CIANNONE
ROBERT E. ANSLOW ERIC R. DOERING
KENNETH S. LEVY
JANET L. MUEUER KIMBERLY A. McMURRAY
REF OUR1
3c
ARTOJ NUUTNEN January 11, 1994
*A PROFESSIONALCORFO~TION
City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Re: LCPA 93-02 - Residential Density Increases - Affordable Housing
Honorable Members of the City Council:
This firm represents the Carlsbad Unified School District ("District"). This letter is
submitted with respect to the impacts which the Local Coastal Program (LCP) 93-02 pro
(the "Proposal") will have on the District's school facilities, and in response to the
conditional negative declaration prepared for the above-referenced actions (the "Negative
Declaration"). The Proposal envisions amending the six Local Coastal Plan ("LCP")
segments (Mello I, Mello II, Agua Hedionda, East Batiquitos LagoodHunt Properties,
Village Redevelopment Area) of the City to apply a residential guideline (Residential
Guideline No. 19) of the City's Land Use Element of its General Plan, allowing density
increases, through processing of a "Site Development Plan permit," above the maximum
residential densities permitted by the General Plan in order to facilitate the development
lower-income affordable housing. The Proposal also affects territory within the boundar
the District. We request on behalf of the District that approval of the Proposal be
conditioned upon ensuring that any application for a Site Development Plan permit to
increase housing density under the Proposal be expressly conditional upon adequate pub1
school facilities to meet the demands from the Proposal's residential density housing inci
for low- and moderate- income housing development, which increases the Proposal pres€
envision would be beyond the applicable control points set forth in the City's Growth
Management Ordinance.
A. School ImDacts
The staff report for the Proposal (the "Staff Report") states that the Proposal is "i
follow-up legislative action" to the City Council's General Plan Amendment to its Land
BAKW&G/AJN/an/8747
e 0
b BOWIE, ARNESON, &hI, WILES & GIANNONE
City Council - City of Carlsbad
January 11, 1994
Page 2
Element ("GPA 92-08") to enable the City to grant density increases above the maximurr
allowable General Plan densities to enable the development of lower-income affordable
housing through processing of a Site Development Plan permit. A Negative Declaration
previously approved by the City Council on June 17, 1993 for GPA 92-08. The Staff Rt
goes on to state that since the Proposal will not revise the environmental findings of the
Negative Declaration for GPA 92-08, the Planning Director has determined that the Prop
will not have a sigriificant effect ofi the environment, and that a "Notice of Prior
Compliance" has therefore been issued for the Proposal. This Notice of Prior Complianc
purportedly completes the environmental analysis for the Proposal (see staff report, Page
The District, however, objects to the conclusion that the Proposal will result in no signif:
environmental effects, since the District has previously stated for purposes of each Local
Facilities Management Plans for each management zone affected by the Proposal that Dii
facilities are currently operating at or near capacity. The conclusions of the Notice of PI
Compliance also ignore the potential for increased service demands on school facilities fi
existing residences relative to population increases anticipated to result from the approva
the Proposal. The District therefore objects to the approval of the Proposal without a pr
environmental evaluation of the Proposal's effect on the District's school facilities. This
should occur within the context of a properly prepared Environmental Impact Report ("E
providing for mitigation of all school facilities impacts to the District from the approval c
Site Development Plan permits or other implementation of this Proposal.
Therefore, we request on behalf of the District that the environmental effect of s
student generation on the District's facilities be properly addressed in the context of an E
which EIR would further include provisions for full mitigation of those school facilities
impacts upon the District, and that such provisions be expressly made a condition of any
approvals of Site Development Plan permits relative to the Proposal. It should be noted
Government Code Section 65583.5, which generaily provides that local agencies shall nc
disapprove a housing development project for low- and moderate- income households ab!
specified findings, also specifically states that nothing in that section is to be construed tc
relieve a local agency from making a required finding that changes or alterations to such
development project have been incorporated to mitigate or avoid significant environment
effects identified in a completed EIR, or otherwise relieve the local agency from comply
with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Moreover, Government Codc
Section 65589.5 specifically provides that nothing in that section shall be construed to
prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise required by la7
which are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to a proposed projc
regardless of whether such project is for the development of low- and moderate- income
BAKW&GIAJNlan18747
0 0
.e
- BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES 6s GIANNONE
City Council - City of Carlsbad
January 11, 1994
Page 3
housing. Conditioning the approval of the Proposal on mitigation of impacts on the Dist
K-12 school facilities would therefore be appropriate under Government Code Section
65589.5. Therefore, the District is requesting that an additional mitigation
measurekondition be added to the Proposal which requires any developer of property sul
to the Proposal to submit evidence to the City that impacts to school facilities have been
mitigated prior to the City approving a Site Development Plan permit for that property.
Other mitigation programs which developers, as Site Development Plan permit
applicants, and the District may agree to include the inclusion of properties subject to tht
Proposal in a community facilities district, as discussed below.
B.
On January 1, 1993, SB 1287 became effective. SB 1287 made changes to the school
facilities fees legislation which is found in Government Code Section 53080 etseq. and
65995 et. sea. ("School Facilities Legislation"). Previously there had been considerable
debate between school districts, cities and builders regarding whether or not SB 1287
overturned the holdings in the Mira. Hart and Murrieta decisions, which stand for the
proposition that a city or county is not limited to statutory school fees when considering
adequate mitigation for legislative projects such as specific plans or zone changes. This
confusion has now been resolved in that the purported repeal of the holding of the Mira, Hart. and Murrieta decisions was legislatively terminated as a result of the rejection of
Proposition 170 by the voters at the state-wide general election of November 2, 1993.
Therefore, the City's requirement for adequate school facilities consistent with its Gener;
Plan Public Facilities Element and its Growth Management Plan is not limited to statuto1
school fees when considering adequate mitigation for legislative projects such as specific
plans or zone changes.
SB 1287 and Mello-Roos Communitv Facilities Districts
Alternatively, it should be noted that subsequent to January 1, 1993, the effective
of SB 1287, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Grupe Development Company v
SuDerior Court (February 11, 1993) 4 Cal.4th 911, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 226 j"Grupe") . One
the holdings in the Grupe decision is that a city or county has the authority to condition
development on the use of Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts ("CFDs") to mitig
school impacts. The Grupe decision is significant in that it acknowledges SB 1287 regal
the ability of cities and counties to use CFDs for mitigation of school impacts.
The ability of the City to condition new development upon the use of CFDs to
BAKW&GIAINlad8747
0 0
fi*
- Born, ARNESON, K~I, WILES & GIANNONE
City Council - City of Carlsbad
January 11 , 1994
Page 4
mitigate school impacts is found in Sections 65995(a) and 65995(f). Section 65995(a)
provides that:
Except for a fee, charge, dedication or other requirement authorized undel
Section 53080 . . ., no fee, charge, dedication or other requirement shall 1
. . for the construction or reconstruction or schooi faciiities.
Section 65995(f) specifically exempts CFDs from the limitations set forth in Section 6595
by providing:
levied by the legislative body of a local agency against a development proj
Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the use of .
(CFDs) to finance the construction or reconstruction of school facilities.
This provision makes CFDs a feasible method of school financing in that they have been
specifically exempted from any dollar limitation for school mitigation. SB 1287 did not
the authority the City has to require school mitigation through CFDs was never altered b
1287, even prior to the failure of Proposition 170 to win approval of the voters.
Section 65996 also lends further support to this proposition and provides that CFI
are one of the specific methods of mitigating environmental effects relating to the adequ;
school facilities when the City is considering the approval of or the establishment of
conditions on a development. SB 1287 did not change the ability of the City to use CFI:
a means of mitigation under Section 65996, and CFDs are specifically exempt from the
statutory dollar limits of Section 65995.
The Sqreme C~iirt's decision in Grupe is consisteni with this position. In Gmpe
voted special tax on new development for school facilities, "Measure C I' , was challenge(
Measure C had been approved by the voters within the Chino Unified School District pr
the 1986 legislation which authorized residential school fees originally at $1.50 per squa
foot ("School Facilities Legislation"). The Supreme Court distinguished special taxes le7
by a CFD from the special taxes of Measure C. One of the Supreme Court's key argun
used to support its decision was that Measure C special taxes were included within the si
of the limitations on "fees, charges, dedications, or other requirements" found in Sectior
65995 and that CFD special taxes were specifically excluded from the limitations of Sec
65995. Grupe, pg. 2027. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the limitations of
Government Code Section 65995 applied to Measure C, and therefore Measure C was ir
BAKW&GIAJNlan/8747
0 0
- BOW, ARNESON, KADI, WLES & GLANNoNE
City Council - City of Carlsbad
January 11, 1994
Page 5
because the school district was also levying the maximum school fee allowed by Section
65995. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court's decision was rendered while
acknowledging the enactment of SB 1287.
The holding in Grupe is a significant development with respect to confirming the
city's ability to condition new development through the use of CFDs. The Supreme Cou
denied review of the Mira, Hart and Murrieta decisions, and this is the first time the
Supreme Court has addressed the issue of school facilities fees as authorized under
Government Code Section 53080 and 65995. Both before and after the effective date of
1287, the City has had the authority to condition new development upon the use of CFD!
mitigate school impacts. The Supreme Court's decision in Grupe lends additional suppoi
such authority.
C. Consistency With General Plan.
The City's General Plan, Public Facilities Element as well as the City's Growth
Management Element contain provisions which require availability of schools prior to
legislative approvals, including specific plans and zone changes. For example, the LFM
for each of the management zones affected by the Proposal require as a "special mitigatil
condition'' that all development conform with the District's stated performance standards
which requires school capacities to meet projected enrollment requirements within each 2
as determined by each school district, prior to projected occupancy. Absent adequate
mitigation the District's facilities cannot meet the projected enrollment requirements whe
development approvals result in the generation of additional students within the existing
control points of the City's Growth Management Ordinance, let alone when the Proposal
authorize residential development in densities exceeding those set forth in the Growth
Management Ordinance.
It should be noted as previously stated Government Code Section 65589.5 specific
provides that nothing in that section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from
imposing fees and other exactions otherwise required by law which are essential to provj
necessary public services and facilities to a proposed project, regardless of whether such
project is for the development of low- and moderate- income housing. In order to fully
mitigate the impacts from the Proposal the District requests that the City require that
developers of property authorized to exceed the City's maximum density standards undei
Proposal enter into a mitigation agreement acceptable to the District which fully mitigate
impacts to be incurred by the District as set forth above.
BAKW&GIAINlan/8747
* 0
L 1’
- BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GLANNONE
City Council - City of Carlsbad
January 11, 1994
Page 6
We would be pleased to provide you with any additional information you may rec
Very truly yours,
BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI,
WILES & GIANNONE
-
By:
cc: Dr. George Mannon I
Mr. John Blair
Mr. Alexander Bowie
BAKW&G/AJN/an/8747
LOCAL COIITAL *.0~",:",'.:,',=9
s10ILhl¶ 'Job '4 D ARY hlAP
I certify under penalty of perjur
foregoing is true and correct. E: i Carlsbad, County of San Diego
California on the 23rd December, 195 day of
- ,OI*4."b.P
auELLO I c r- I
Clerk
z] WILL0 LI
mraur *emomon
$I~IABT .attau1108 LA~OOW~UW-
0 n.O.')I.O.rs*? 4L..
UW1S'f 8ATIOUIIOI L&0001I84YUll .. 4
cirr 1 EM
t I
v 7
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING
LCPA 93-2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m., on Tuesday, January 11, 1994, to consid request for an amendment to all six of the City's Local Coastal Program segm to add a new land use policy which would allow residential density incre,
above the maximum residential densities permitted by the City's Local Coa Program segments to enable the development of 1 ower-income affordable hous
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Chris DeCerb the Planning Department, at 438-1161 , ext. 4445.
If you challenge the Local Coastal Plan Amendment in court, you may be lim to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public heal
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Cit. Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: December 23, 1993 APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
CARL' LOCAL COASTAL. PROGRAM (
SEGM
UOUNDARY
LC~ saauamr
~MELLO I
~AGUA HEDIONDA
RMELLO I1
HEAST BATIOUITOS LAOOONlHUNI u WEST EATIQUITOS LAGOON1SAMMIS 0 REDEVELOPMENT AREA 1
City of
RESIDENTIAL DENSTY INCREASE
T w
e
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will
a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carl!
California, at 6:OO p.m. on Wednesday, October 20, 1993, to consider recommer
approval of an amendment to all of the City's six Local Coastal Program segments tc
a new land use policy which would allow residential density increases above the maxi
residential densities permitted by the City's Local Coastal Program segments to enabl
development of lower-income affordable housing.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the p
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after October 13, 1993. 11
have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at 438-1
ext, 4445.
If you challenge the Local Coastal Plan Amendment in court, you may be limited to ra
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this n
or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the p
hearing.
CASE FILE: LCPA 93-02
CASE NAME: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PUBLISH:
CARLSBAD SUN: OCTOBER 7, 1993
BLADE CITIZEN: OCTOBER 8, 1993
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
CDD:km
@
* 0
(Forr
TO: CITY CLERKS OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice RESIDENTIAL DEN!
INCREASES AFFORDABLE HOUSING ILCPA 93-02) for a public hearing beforc
City Council.
Please notice the item for the Council meeting of
Thank you.
MARTY ORENYAK DECEMBER 2, 1993
Assistant City Manager Date
Attachments
0
t AK OLIVER LTD
0
AGATEP, DON
CARLSBAD CA 92008 1911 SAXONY
e e'
LCP. INTERESTED PARTY LIST
UPDATED 8/93 PO BOX 590 C/O CHRIS KOLB
ENCINITAS CA 920:
ALLAN, BOB ANDERSON HORACE & MARY ANDERSON, HORAC
STANDARD-PACIFIC 2010 SHERIDAN AVE 400 LA COSTA AVE
1731 COLGATE CR ENCINITAS CA 92024 ENCINITAS CA 920
LA JOLLA CA 92037
ANDERSON, ALBERT JR ASHBY, FLOYD BAKER, LARRY
2006 SPERRY AVE 416 LA COSTA AVE 255 N WLCAN AVE
PATTERSON CA 95353 ENCINITAS CA 92024 ENCINITAS CA 920:
BETS, DONALD & BEVERLY BIRTCHER PACIFIC BLADE CITIZEN
2051 SHERIDAN RD ROBERT CAMPBELL 1722 S HILL STREE:
ENCINITAS CA 92024 27611 LA PAZ RD OCEANSIDE CA 920
LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677
BOLTON, GEORGE BONS, ANTHONY BOWEN MIGNON
6519 EL CAMIN0 REAL 1124 BLUE SAGE LEAGUE OF WOMEI
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 2290 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 9201
BREMERMA" BIX BROWNLEY, MARGARET BW COLLINS
1547 LORING ST 4120 SKYLINE 591 1 BEAUMONT
SAN DIEGO CA 92109 CARLSBAD CA 92008 LA JOLLA CA 92035
CAL STATE COASTAL CONSERV CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANS CARLSBAD SUN
1330 BROADWAY #1100 ATTN: KURT BARNES DONNA MEDEIRON
OAKLAND CA 94612 2829 JUAN ST 2841 LOKER AVE E
SAN DIEGO CA 92110 CARLSBAD CA 92C
CARLSBAD CHMBR OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER CHRISTENSEN, BM
COMMERCE 5950 EL CAMINO REAL PO BOX 188
PO BOX 1605 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 920i
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
MAIN LIBRARY BRANCH LIBMY CITY CLERK
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR 1200 CARLSBAD VIL
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 9200
7750 "M" EL CAMINO REAL
CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF VISTA
320 N HORNE STREET
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 PO BOX 1988
105 W RICHMAR AVENUE 600 EUCALYPTUS A'
VISTA CA 92084
,
1 COPLEY INTERNAT11 CITY OF ENCINITAS
7817 HERSCHEL AV
ENSINITAS CA 92024-3633 CARLSBAD CA 92008 LA JOLLA CA 92037
0
CLARKE, HAROLD
505 Sa WLCAN AV 824 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO
COPLEY INTERNATIONAL CORDOZA, MICHAEL DAMM, CHUCK
7776 IVANHOE AVE 1698 CREST DR CAL COASTAL COM
LA JOLLA CA 92037 ENCINITAS CA 92028 3111 CAMINO DEL I
SAN DIEGO CA 921(
DEALY, WILLIAM & RUTH DEPT HOUSING & C
1282 CREST DR BAT LAGOON FOUNDATION ATI": PERLA ESTG
ENCINITAS CA 92024 675 NORMANDY 7940 WILLOW GLEK
ENCINITAS CA 92024 LOS ANGELES CA 9
DEAN, BILL PRESIDENT
DOCKINS, KAREN TIMM, CARLENE ECKERT, PAUL - SU
410 LA COSTA AVE SDG&E COUNTY ADMIN CE
ENCINITAS CA 92024 PO BOX 1831 1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 921( SAN DIEGO CA 92112
ECKMANN & LODGE ELSNER, CURT EMPEY, DICK
1207 CARLSBAD VILL DR #R LAURA & JON LANDRY SD CO DPT PLN & L
CARLSBAD CA 92008 2081 SHERIDAN RD 5201 RUFFIN RD #I
ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGO CA 921
ESPOSITO PROPERTIES ESPOSITO, LESLIE & FILOMENA ESTES, SYLVIA
3222 ST ALBANS DR
ROSSMOOR CA 90220 LONG BEACH CA 90803 ENCINITAS CA 920;
2934 E FIRST ST 510 LA COSTA AVE
FARRIS, ROBERT FLOWER PATCH FLOWER PEDDLER
1929 ALTA VISTA DR 6523 EL CAMINO RE
VISTA CA 92083 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 9200
6491 EL CAMINO REAL
FRANDSEN, JIM GEIS, DEVON GEISBRET, A
500 CAMINO DE ORCHIDA 3101 SAN GABRIEL
ENCINITAS CA 92024 OLIVENHAIN CA 92024 GLENDALE CA 921(
770 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
GIBSON, CYRIL & MARY GIRA, DANIEL GRIGGS, MARY
12142 ARGYLE DR 964 URANIA CA STATE LANDS C(
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90720 ENCINITAS CA 92024 1807 13TH ST
SACRAMENTOCA 5
HANSON, HUGO HIDALGO, MANUAL HILLEBRECHT, BEN
SAN RAFAEL CA 94903 CARLSBAD CA 92008 ESCONDIDO CA 92( 210 ROUNDTREE WY 6511 EL CAMINO REAL 2170 SKYLINE DR
\
* HOFFMAN, RICH
e
HOEHN * HOGHMAN, BRUCE
2034 SHERIDAN RD C/O CHEVRON USA HNC 7094 MIRAMAR RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024 PO BOX 7611 SAN DIEGO CA 921:
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120
HOLDEN, RONALD & JUDITH HPI HUMPHREYS, LOIS
2022 SHERIDAN RD C/O AD VALOREM TAX DEPT LEUCADIA CO WTR
ENCINITAS CA 92024 2840 THANKSGIVING PO BOX 2397
DALLASTX 75201 ENCINITAS CA 920
HUNT PROPERTIES INC LA COSTA HOTEL & SPA LAITAS, ANASTASIA
2400 THANKSGIVING TOWER COSTA DEL MAR RD MARIA & ETAL SOU
1601 ELM ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 PO BOX 2047
DALLAS TX 75201 ENCINITAS CA 920
LAKESHORE GARDENS LAMB, PERRY & BARBARA LAMB, JOHN
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS 947 N LA CIENEGA
CARLSBAD CA 92008 MERE POINT RD LOS ANGELES CA 5
RFD 3 BOX 3066
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
LANIKAI LAUPPE, EARL LODGE, ERIC
6550 PONTO DR STATE DEPT FISH & GAME
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LODGE & HELLER
CARLSBAD CA 9200 CARLSBAD CA 92008 330 GOLDEN SHORE ST #50 1901 CAMINO VIDA
LUJAN, WILLIAM MAY, HERMAN & LOIS MAY, EARL & MARS
6505 EL CAMINO REA 2041 SHERIDAN RD 2021 SHERIDAN RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 92024 ENCINITAS CA 920'
MB SHORES CORP MCDONALD, JOHN MCMURPHY CORP
BO BOX 2571
ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 CARLSBAD CA 920(
1600 PACIFIC HWY 640 GRAND
MCREYNOLDS, ANDREW MERRILL, JANE MITSUUCHI KOICHI
2316 CALLE CHIQUITA LAFCO 1120 S FIGUEROA LA JOLLA CA 92037 1600 PACIFIC COAST HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SANTA ANA CA
MOORE, GUY JR MURPHY, MICHAEL 8z NICOL, BRITTON &
6503 EL CAMINO REAL 4444 OAKWOOD AV
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 LACANADACA 91C
BARBARA 640 GRAND AVE
OLIVENHAIN MWD PADILLA, MIGUEL PICKUS, GLEN
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD 754 DEL RIEGO PACESETTER HOME
ENCINITAS CA 92024 ENCINITAS CA 92024 4540 CAMPUS DR
NEWPORT BEACH C
. .
REDIKOP J & VAUG PLANNING LAND USE SYSTEMS
2155 NEWCASTLE AVE COSTA DEL MAR RD 2056 SHERIDAN RE CA%DIFF-BY-THE-SEA CA 92007 CARLSBAD CA 92008 ENCINITAS CA 920
e
RANCHO LA COSTA INC
r e
HOLLAND, STELLA SALATA, LARRY SAN DIEGUITO WA'
SDG&E US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE DISTRICT
PO BOX 1831 2730 LOKER AVE WEST 59 EAST D
SAN DIEGO CA 92112 CARLSBAD CA 92008 ENCINITAS CA 920
SANDAG - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAVAGE, WILLIAM SCHOPPE, EP
1ST INT PLAZA PO BOX 773 3754 BALBOA DR
401 "B" STREET #800 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 OCEANSIDE CA 9205
SAN DIE0 CA 9210
SCHREIBER, DALE & DONNA SHORES, MICHAEL &
1457 CREST DR C/O CAROL WALKER PO BOX 2571
ENCINITAS CA 92024 237 NOWLES ST ENCINITAS CA 92021
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
SD CO ARCHAEOLOG SOC INC
SIERRA CLUB SITTNER, DAVID SOLAMAR
SAN DIEGO CHAPTER 2808 LUCIERNAGA ST 195 PALOMAR AIRPO
3820 RAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 9200E
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SPIERS, DWIGHT STRAUSS, FRANCIS & PATRICIA SUN-FRESH FLORAL
SPIERS ENTERPRISES 2055 SHERIDAN RD 6515 EL CAMINO REA
17941 MITCHELL ST ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92008
IRVINE CA 92714
TABATA BROS THOMPSON, DAVID THOMPSON ROSE CO
PO BOX 943 7400 BATIQUITOS DR 7040 ROSE DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
THOMPSON, BILL TIERNEY, JENNIFER WELTY, WALDON & I
PO BOX 450
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 5555 OVERLAND AVE BUILDING 3 ENCINITAS CA 92021
DEPT OF AGR. WEIGHTS & MSRS
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1292
2076 SHERIDAN RD
WESTON, FRED & LITA WHITSON, DANA WINTER, MRS
514 LA COSTA AVE 5051 SHORE DR KEITH BROWNELL CC
ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92008 1120 SILVERADO
LA JOLLA CA 92037