Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-12; City Council; 16543; Reedemer by the SeaCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL 1 DEPT. HD. REDEEMER BY THE SEA ZC 00-1 OlLCPA 00-1 3 CITY ATTY. CITY MGR %? RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. Ns-blq , AMENDING the Zoning Map and Local Coastal Program Zoning Map, and ADOPT Resolution No. &?&X-050 ADOPTING a Negative Declaration and APPROVING the Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment. ITEM EXPLANATION: Proiect awlication(s) I Administrative I Reviewed bv and I To be Reviewed - I .. ., Approvals Final at Council Final at Planning Commission Environmental Review X Negative nerlarrdinn I I I X ,. 01/02/02 01/02/02 01/02/02 01 /02/02 The project is a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to replace the existing Local Control (L-C) designation with One Family Residential (R-I) on the entire 10.26 acre site. The designation change is necessary because the intent and purpose of the L-C zone is to provide an interim zone for areas where planning for future land uses has not been completed or plans of deveiopment have not been formalized. After planning or plan approval has been completed, L-C zoned property may be re-zoned. On January 2, 2002, the Planning Commission approved a 14 lot subdivision map, Conditional Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit for a church campus and 12 lot residential subdivision. The Planning Commission also made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment. The requested R-1 zoning is consistent with the site’s Residential Low-Medium Density General Plan jesignation. The request is consistent with surrounding properties that are also zoned as R-1. The jevelopment proposal for a church campus and 12 single family residential lots are uses that are allowed in the requested R-I zoning. ENVIRONMENTAL: The Planning Commission has determined that this project would not have a significant effect on the mvironment since no environmental impacts beyond those previously identified by the Zone 20 Specific Plan EIR and General Plan EIR would result from implementation of the project. All applicable mitigation measures from the previous environmental documents have been incorporated nto the project. The Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration for the project on December 18, 2001. PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 6!5q3 FISCAL IMPACT: All required improvements needed to serve this project would be funded by the developer. The Facility Financing Section of the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan lists the financing techniques being used to guarantee the public facilities needed to serve development within Zone 20. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Ordinance No. h5 - blq 2. City Council Resolution No. aOOJ - 050 3. Location Map 4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5119, 5120, and 5121 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 2, 2002 6. Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes dated January 2, 2002. d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 la 11 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. NS-619 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP AND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BLACK RAIL ROAD AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: REDEEMER BY THE SEA CASE NO.: ZC 00-10lLCPA 00-13 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Section 21.050.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the zoning map, is amended as shown on the maps marked Exhibit “ZC 00-10” and the Local Coastal Program Zoning Map Exhibit “LCPA 00-13” attached hereto and made a part hereof. CHANGE, ZC 00-10, FROM L-C TO R-l ON PROPERTY SECTION 11: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 5120 and 5121 on file in the Planning Department constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 12th day of FEBRUARY 2002, and thereafter. Ill Ill Ill Ill c 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of ,2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) -2- Y PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE zc: 00-10 drafl [XI final 0 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT LCPA: 00-13 draft [XI final 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 21 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - 050 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO REZONE A 10.26 ACRE PARCEL.GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BLACK RAIL ROAD AND SOUTH OF FUTURE POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: REDEEMER BY THE SEA CASE NO.: ZC 00-1OlLCPA 00-13 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on January 2, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration, Zone Change 00-10 and Local Coastal Program Amendment 00-13 to rezone 10.26 acres of land from Limited Control to residential One-Family, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size (R-I), and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5119, 5120 and 5121 recommending to the City Council that they be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 12th day Of FEBRUARY , 2002 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment 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 Negative Declaration, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 51 19, 5120 and 5121 constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter. Coastal Program Amendment, ZC 00-10 and LCPA 00-13 respectively, are approved as shown 3. That the Negative Declaration is adopted and the Zone Change and Local in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5119, 5120 and 5121 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 12th day of FEBRUARY 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Nygaard ATTEST: (SEAL) JdCE BREITENFELD, Deputy City Clerk -2- EXHIBIT 3 REDEEMER BY THE SEA ZC 00-1 O/LCPA 00-1 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5119 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT FROM LIMITED CONTROL ZONMG TO R-1-Q, A FOURTEEN LOT SUBDIVISION, A HILLSIDE DEVELOP- MENT PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A CHURCH CAMPUS LOCATED EAST OF BLACK RAIL ROAD AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20 CASE NAME: REDEEMER BY THE SEA CASE NO.: ZC 00-10LCPA 00-13/CT 00-22/CUP 00 44/CDP 00-64/HDP 01-12 WHEREAS, Redeemer by the Sea Lutheran Church of Carlsbad, “Developer and Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as The north half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 22, township 12 south, range 4 west, San Bernardino base and meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to official plat thereof. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of January; 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: /b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated December 18, 2001, and “PII” dated November 13,2001, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: A. B. C. D. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1.. ... ... It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project’s associated legislative actions and APPROVING the development project; and The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PC RES0 NO. 5119 -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 21 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of January 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Compas, Dominguez, Heineman, Nielsen, and Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Baker ABSTAIN: None ~&z3zicr CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HO~ZMIE~ER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 51 19 -3- ~ City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: East of Black Rail Road and south of Poinsettia Lane Project Description: Tentative Map Subdivision of 10.26 acres into 12 residential lots, a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the development of a church campus on a thirteenth lot, and a zone change and Local Coastal Program Amendment from Limited Control to One Family Residential. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) will be issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of notice. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614. DATED: DECEMBER 18,2001 CASE NO: CT 00-22/CUF' 00-44KDP 00-64/ZC 00-10LCPA 00-13MDP 01-12 CASE NAME: REDEEMER BY THE SEA PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 18,2001 -. In.*M& MICHAEL J. HOL~MILE~R Planning Director /3 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 69 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 CASE NO: CT 00-22/CUP 00-44/CDP 00-64/ZC 00-10iLCPA 00-13iHDP 01-12 DATE: November 13,2001 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Redeemer by the Sea 2. APPLICANT: Redeemer by the Sea Carlsbad Lutheran Church 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 6355 Corte Del Abeto Suite 100 Carlsbad CA 92009 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITED: Januarv 7.2001 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision of 10.26 acres into 12 residential lots, develoument of a church camuus on a thirteenth lot, and a zone change from Limited Control to One Family SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [XI Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources [XI Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 lLt DETERMINATION. I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A(n) EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 2 Rev. 03/28/96 45- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “NO Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 /k e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 /? Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18;#2:Pgs 111-76-111- b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 ~ 5.6-18;#2:Pgs 111-76-ID-87) policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18;#2:Pgs 111-76-111-87) to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18;#2:Pgs 111-76-111-87) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18;#2:Pgs established community (including a low-income or 111-76-ID-87) 87) 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal a) Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local populationprojections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrasmclure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 5.5-6) housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2 Pgs 111-112 - 111- 1 18) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2 Pgs 111-112-111-118) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2 Pgs 111-112-111-118) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l:Pgs g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2 Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15;#2Pgs111-112-111-118) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2 Pgs 111-112 i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-1-5.1.15;#2PgsIII-112-III-118) 5.1-15;#2 Pgs 111-112 - 111-118) 111-112-111-118) -111-118) 5.1-15;#2PgsII1-112-III-l18) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- 1 1 ;#3) o 5 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Incorporated Mitigation Unless Impact 0 om 0 om 0 om 0 om 0 0 0 om 0 om 0 om 0 om 0 om 0 om 0 om om 0 om Rev. 03/28/96 /8 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Imvact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 Significant Less Than Impact Impact No 0 [XI IXI o b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11;#3) surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11;#3) body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 ~ 5..2-11;#3) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - S..2-11;#3) 0 Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 52-1 1;#3) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11;#3) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11;#3) 1 l;#3) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 ~ 5.3-12) 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 [XI [XI [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI €4 IXI 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI IXI [XI VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle mps or traffk congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22;#4) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 ~ 5.7.22;#4) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22;#4) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22;#4) 0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22;#4) transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22;#4) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22;#4) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI [XI [XI [XI 0 0 0 [XI Rev. 03/28/96 19 6 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 significant Less Than Impact Impact No 0 IXI a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 ~ 5.4-24;#2 Pgs 111-37 - 111-57) h) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24;#2 Pgs 111-37 - 111-57) c) Locally designated natural commnnities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 ~ 5.4-24;#2 Pgs 111-37 - 111-57) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24;#2 Pgs III-37 - 111-57) - 5.4-24;#2 Pgs 111-37 - In-57) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1 - 5.13-9) the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & resource that would be of future value to the region and 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicalsorradiation)?(#l:Pgs5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5;#7) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health 5.10.1-5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) e) Increase fue hazard in areas with flammable brush, health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5;#7) grass, ortrees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI 0 0 0 0 IXI OIXI 0 0 0 OIXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15;#5) 1 - 5.9-15;#5) 0 0 0 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6;#6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.64;#6) c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5;#6) 0 0 0 0 0 7 Rev. 03/28/96 40 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Maintenance ofpublic facilities, including roads? (#6) e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7;#6) XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & or substantial alterations to the following utilities: b) Communications systems? 5.13-1 ~ 5.13-9;#6) c) Local or regional water treatment or dis~bution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7;#6) e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8;#6) r) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3;#6) facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7;#6) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#I:Pgs 5.12.2-I - 5.12.3-7;#6) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs c) Createlightorglare?(#l:Pgs5.11-1-5.11-5) 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Distwh paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 ~ 5.8- b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10;#2 Pgs 111-70 - 111-73) c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 ~ 5.8-10;#2 10;#2 Pgs 111-70 - 111-73) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which Pgs 111-70 - 111-73) would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8- 1 - 5.8-10;#2 Pgs 111-70 - 111-73) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10;#2 Pgs 111-70 - 111-73) XV.RECREATI0NAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) Potentially Significant Imuact 0 17 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Incorporated Mitigation Unless Impact 0 om 0 0 0 0 B o 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 om om om om om om om om om om om om om 0 om XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 8 Rev. 03/28/96 a/ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0 Incorporated 0 OH quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ~~ 0 OH (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, .. 0 0 OIXi either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a program EIR was prepared for the adoption of the Zone 20 Specific Plan. That document was used for reference but is not being relied upon for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 a2 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL. EVALUATION AIR OUALITY: In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to 10 Rev. 03/28/96 J 3 develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning Department. A MER may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. LAND USE: The project includes a request to change the zoning designation of the site from Limited Control to One-Family Residential. The requested change is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Residential Low-Medium (RLM). The General Plan describes RLM as typically being developed as single family residential. BIOLOGY The project is located within a coastal region which has historically been used for agriculture. The majority of the site has been used in the past for agriculture and therefore has been stripped of indigenous plant types. However, along the south and southeast edges of the property there are scattered patches of southern maritime chapparrall. As individual patches they have no habitat value, but they will be preserved within an open space lot which will contribute to a larger preserve area. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 9200% (760) 602-4600. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 alf 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update 2. Final Promam Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan , dated June 3. Drainage Study Prepared by Sowards and Brown Engineering dated September 12,2001. 4. Trafic Study Prepared by Damell and Associates dated September 6,2001. 5. Acoustical Analvsis Prepared by Douglas Eilar & Associates dated April 2001 6. Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan dated May 1993 7. Phase 1 Environmental Assessment Prepared by Project Resources Inc. dated October (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 1992. 1999 12 Rev. 03/28/96 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5120 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED CONTROL TO ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF BLACK RAIL ROAD AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: REDEEMER BY THE SEA CASE NO: zc 00- 10 WHEREAS, Redeemer by the Sea Lutheran Church of Carlsbad, “Developer and Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as The north half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 22, township 12 south, range 4 west, San Bernardino base and meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to official plat thereof. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on Exhibit “Z“ dated January 2, 2002, attached hereto and made a part hereof, REDEEMER BY THE SEA - ZC 00-10 as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of January, 2002, 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 all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Change; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidehce presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of REDEEMER BY THE SEA - ZC 00-10 based on the following findings: Findings: 1. That the proposed Zone Change from Limited Control to One Family Residential and Qualified Development Overlay is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that the zone change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan Land Use designation. 2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element, in that One Family Residential implements the land use designation of Residential Low Medium and will guide the use of the site toward the development of single family detached homes within a density range of 0-4 units per acre. 3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the surrounding area is largely designated as Residential Low Medium in the General Plan and the One Family Residential zoning designation will further establish the property as a single family residential neighborhood. 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. ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5120 -2- 617 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 2nd day of January 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Compas, Dominguez, Heineman, Nielsen, and Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Baker ABSTAIN: None SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson 0 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5120 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5121 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, ~ CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO BRING THE DESIGNATIONS ON THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, GENERAL. PLAN, AND ZONING MAP INTO CONFORMANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF BLACK RAIL ROAD AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE. CASE NAME: REDEEMER BY THE SEA CASE NO: LCPA 00- 13 WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program, General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and WHEREAS, Redeemer by the Sea Lutheran Church of Carlsbad, “Developer and Owner,” has filed a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as The north half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 22, township 12 south, range 4 west, San Bernardino base and meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to official plat thereof. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “Z” dated January 2, 2002, attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5120, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of January 2002, 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 all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment. 0?9 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 WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program. 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) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on November 22,2001 and ending on January 3,2002, staff shall present to the City Council a summary of the comments received. C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of REDEEMER BY THE SEA - LCPA 00-13 based on the following findings: Findinps: 1. 2. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies of the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by this amendment, in that the proposed zone is consistent with the Local Coastal Program Land Use designation of Residential Low Medium. That the proposed amendment to the zoning map of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to bring it into consistency with the City’s zoning map. PC RES0 NO. 5121 -2- 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 2nd day of January 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Compas, Dominguez, Heineman, Nielsen, and Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Baker ABSTAIN: None SEENA TRIGAS, Chairper& CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5121 -3- . EXHIBIT 5 The Qtf of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: January 2,2002 Project Planner: Christer Westtnan SUBJECT ZC 00-101LCPA 00-13/CT 00-22/CUP 00-44/CDP 00-64EIDP 01-12 - REDEEMER BY THE SEA - Tentative Map Subdivision of 10.26 acres into 14 lots, a Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the development of a church campus, and a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment fiom Limited Control to One Family Residential on property generally located east of Black Rail Road and south of Poinsettia Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 20. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5119 ADOPTING a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5120 and 5121 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Zone Change ZC 00-10 and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 00-13 and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5122, 5123, 5124, and 5132 APPROVING Tentative Tract Map CT 00-22, Conditional Use Permit CUP 00-44, Coastal Development Permit CDP 00-64, and Hillside Development Permit HDP 01-12 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The project includes a request for a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to designate the property as One Family Residential instead of the existing designation of Limited Control. In addition the application is for the subdivision of land into fourteen lots. Twelve of the lots are for single family detached residential development and the fourteenth lot is for the development of a church campus. Lot thirteen is an open space lot. Project issues include compatibility of the proposal’s components with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program as well as the physical compatibility between the proposed site development and the surrounding land uses. The compatibility issue is not significant since the surrounding area is also developing as a single family residential neighborhood.‘ The staff report will provide more detailed discussion of the project’s consistency with the various development standards. ZC 00-10LCPA 00-13/CT 00-22/CuP 00-44/CDP 00-64/HDP 01-12 - REDEEMER BY THE SEA January 2,2002 Page 2 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The property is located at the southeast comer of Black Rail Road and the future extension of Poinsettia Lane. The property is within Local Facilities Management Zone 20 and the Zone 20 Specific Plan. The project includes a request to change the site’s zoning and Coastal Program zoning designation from Limited Control (LC) to One Family Residential (R-1). The project also proposes the subdivision of the entire 10.26 acres into fourteen lots. Twelve of the lots are for residential development ranging in size from 7,900 square feet to over 24,000 square feet. The remaining parcels are intended for an open space lot and the development of a church campus on the fourteenth lot. The church campus will include a sanctuary, administration building, family life center, pre-school and elementary/junior high school. The site is designated as Residential Low Medium in the General Plan. Surrounding properties are also designated as RLM. The site is currently vacant and is being used to a limited degree for agriculture. The site slopes generally to the east. The high point of the site being adjacent to Black Rail Road. Immediately to the south and adjacent to Black Rail Road is the water tower. There are scattered patches of southern maritime chaparral in the southeast comer of the site, otherwise the site has no significant vegetation. The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards, and policies: A. General Plan B. Subdivision Map Act and Title 20: Subdivision Ordinance C. Zone 20 Specific Plan D. Zoning Ordinance: R-1 One Family Residential E. Zoning Ordinance: Inclusionary Housing F. Zoning Ordinance: Conditional Uses G. Zoning Ordinance: Parking H. Zoning Ordinance: Hillside Development I. Zoning Ordinance: Growth Management J. Local Coastal Program: Mello II Segment K. California Environmental Quality Act The recommendation for the proposal was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below. IV. ANALYSIS A. General Plan The following Table A identifies General Plan goals and objectives relevant to the proposed project and indicates the compliance of the proposal. 33 ZC 00-10LCPA 00-13KT 00-22/CuP 00-44KDP 00-64/HDP 01-12 - REDEEMER BY THE SEA January 2,2002 ELEMENT Land Use Circulation Housing Open Space & Conservation Public Safety Parks & Recreation TABLE A - GENl USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM at 0-4 ddac. Site is designated for RLM New development shall dedicate and improve all public right-of-way for circulation facilities needed to serve development. Provision of affordable housing. Utilize Best Management Practices for control of storm water and to protect water quality. Review new development proposals to consider emergency access, fne hydrant locations, and fire flow requirements. Ensure that parks are developed prior to or concurrent with need, as defmed by the Growth Management Plan. UL PLAN COMPLIAN PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS 3.2ddac 12 residential lots; Access to residential lots is via driveways from a new cul-de-sac. Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road improvements will be required along both frontages. The project will be conditioned to enter into a housing agreement prior to the issuance of building permits for housing units. The project will conform to all NF'DES I requirements. The project does not encroach into any areas of General Plan designated Open Space or un-developable slopes. Required facilities have be& conditioned to be provided concurrent or in advance of demand. The project will pay a contribution toward the provision of parks through a Park-in-Lieu fee. E COMPLY? Yes. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes The project is proposed within the General Plan density range of 0-4 dwelling units per acre, and, it is proposed at the Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 units per acre. B. Subdivision A major subdivision (the subdivision of five or more lots) is required per Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Chapter 20.12 identifies the procedure for processing a major subdivisions and includes the required findings for approval of same. Chapter 20.16 identifies the requirements that must be met in the design of the subdivision. The proper procedure was followed regarding the submittal of the application for the requested subdivision including the provision of all of the required information on the map. ZC 00-10LCPA 00-13/CT 00-22/CW 00-44/CDP 00-64/HDP 01-12 - REDEEMER BY THE SEA January 2,2002 Page 4 The proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the subdivision is proposed in an area designated for residential development which is not exposed to hazardous land uses. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the General Plan. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements required of the project will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that dedications for Black Rail Road, Poinsettia Lane and Street “A” have been included as conditions of approval and the project does not otherwise propose building encroachment into any easement. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the geographical disposition of the project site will allow for the design of structures to implement passive heating and cooling systems. The proposed lot sizes conform to the requirements of Chapter 20.16 which is a minimum of 7,500 square feet. Lots range in size fiom 7,900 square feet to 5.91 acres. All residential lots have access to a publicly dedicated street and conform to the dimension criteria established in Chapter 20.16 and Section 21.10.080 which requires a minimum of 60 feet in width. Typical lot frontage is 60 feet except for cul-de-sac lots which are 35 feet. All of the proposed lots can potentially accommodate individual onsite storage of recreational vehicles. In order for the proposed lots to have utility services and access fiom the adjacent streets, the developer will be required to offer various dedications (e.g., drainage easements, street right-of- way) and install street and utility improvements, including but not limited to, driveway aprons, gutters, sewer facilities, drainage facilities, and fire hydrants. The project is participating in Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 2 for the construction of Poinsettia Avenue. The specifics are contained in the agreement with the City. Generally, the District is doing the grading, and constructing the median, curbs and inside lanes and storm drains. The project is responsible for median landscaping and construction of the outside lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk across the project eontage. C. Zone 20 Specific Plan The Zone 20 Specific Plan refers mostly to the underlying zoning for development standards, but there are some specific standards required by the plan. Processing requirements include a Tentative Tract Map for the subdivision; a Conditional Use Permit for the church facility; and, a change of zone for properties that are currently Limited Control. Each of these permits or legislative actions are being processed as required. 33- ZC 00-10LCPA 00-13/CT 00-22/CUP 00-44/CDP 00-64/HDP 01-12 - REDEEMER BY THE SEA January 2,2002 The Specific Plan does identify a requirement for an average 50 foot landscaped setback along Poinsettia Lane. As seen on the plans, the project has been designed to comply with the requirement and has provided setbacks from the Poinsettia Lane right-of-way from 39 to 92 feet. The specific plan also calls out for properties adjacent to Carlsbad Water District water tanks, to include landscape screening of the tanks as feasible. The project includes landscape on the slopes adjacent to the water tank property and is furfher conditioned to include such landscape on the landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Additional landscape requirements include the use of Southern Magnolias and Flame Trees in the landscape palette for Poinsettia Lane. As discussed under Inclusionary Housing, the Zone 20 Specific Plan allows for the purchase of inclusionary housing credits at the Villa Lorna apartment complex. The applicant has requested approval of such a purchase. D. R-1: One Family Residential The project proposes a zone change to the R-1 designation. The analysis of the project must include consistency with the proposed zoning. The analysis applies only to that portion of the property which will be subdivided into lots for residential development. There are two separate components which will be discussed. The first is the subdivision and the second is the church campus. Only two standards apply to the subdivision: lot size and lot width. Each lot is required to be at least 7,500 square feet. The proposed subdivision is designed with residential lots ranging in size from 7,900 to 24,000 square feet. The open space lot is 26,000 square feet. The single church campus lot is 5.91 acres. The minimum lot width requirement is 60 feet except for those which are on a cul-de-sac which may be 35 feet at the right-of-way. The subdivision has been designed to these standards. The church campus is subject to the setback, lot coverage and height limits of the zone. The standard and the project’s compliance with the standard is illustrated in the following Table B. TABLE B - R-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Standard Provided Setbacks Front 20 feet maximum Rear 39-92 feet 10 feet minimum Side 80 feet 20 feet minimum 130 feet Height 14 % 40 YO maximum Lot Coverage 30 feet 30 feet maximum The main structure of the buildings are within the maximum building height of 30 feet. The sanctuary and the family life center have qualifying basements and the height is measured from existing grade versus the new finished floor elevation. The tallest of the project’s three tower elements is on the sanctuary at 46 feet tall with a 14 foot tall cross. The additional height may be allowed since the towers are architectural features and do not provide additional floor space ZC 00-10LCPA 00-13KT 00-22/CUP 00-44KDP 00-64/HDP 01-12 - REDEEMER BY THE SEA January 2,2002 (Section 21.46.020), and through the associated Conditional Use Permit as being appropriate to the use (Section 21.42.060). The basis for the additional height is discussed further under the Conditional Use Permit heading. E. Inclusionary Housing The project is subject to the provisions of the Carlsbad Inclusionary Housing Ordinance which requires that 15% of the total residential units proposed be made affordable to lower income households. Consistent with the Zone 20 Specific Plan, the applicant has requested permission to satisfy their inclusionary housing need through the purchase of off-site credits in Villa Loma. Approval of such a request is required to be made through approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement. The project has been conditioned to enter into such an agreement. Unit credits at Villa Loma are currently available for purchase. F. Conditional Uses Churches are permitted in all zones with approval of a conditional use permit. The required findings for approval of a conditional use permit with justification for each are summarized below. 1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is located. The proposed church/daycare/elementary school provides worship, daycare, and school services for the Lutheran denomination which makes it available to residents of the surrounding neighborhood. Although the site is within a developing single family residential area, it is somewhat removed from other properties. Black Rail Road and Poinsettia Lane separate the project from development on the north and west. South of the site is a water tank and the residential subdivision portion of the project. To the east is vacant property and then the development of another church facility. Because of this separation the project is not expected to have detrimental affects regarding light, noise, and/or physical location. 2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. The proposed building and the required parking and landscaping can fit within the boundaries of the developable portion of the property with no need to encroach into required setbacks. The project has a building coverage of 14% when 40% is allowed and all setbacks are well above the minimum required. 3. That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained. ZC 00-10LCPA 00-13/CT 00-2UCLJP 00-44jCDP 00-64/HDP 01-12 - REDEEMER BY THE SEA January 2,2002 The project is completely surrounded by landscaping and all of the proposed development fits within the buildable portion of the lot. No special conditions will be necessary to adjust the requested use for compatibility with existing or future permitted uses. 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. The proposed use would generate 1,974 additional daily traffic trips which can be supported by Black Rail Road (a collector street) and Poinsettia Lane (a major arterial roadway). These facilities and the project will provide access to and from Black Rail Road and Street “A”, and well defined parking areas. The Conditional Use Permit may also allow the project to attain height above the maximum otherwise allowed. Places of religious worship have through the ages been designed with spires or towers. The height of these elements may be considered symbolic of a spiritual reach toward the heavens. As such, the finding may be made that places of worship are expressions of faith and traditionally have “towering” elements which may be permitted to reasonably exceed the height limit established by the underlying zone, as permitted by Zoning Ordinance Section 21.42.060. The tower is proposed with a muted interior illumination of the entire upper 8 feet. The applicant has stated that the illumination will not project beyond the project site and has agreed to a condition limiting the hours that the tower may be illuminated. G. Parking The parking requirements for development projects are contained in the Chapter 21.44 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The parking for churches is based upon the sum of all distinctly separate proposed uses within the facility. The three uses within the Redeemer by the Sea proposal are public assembly, pre-school and elementary school. Table C below indicates the amount of each of these uses, the parking requirement for each use and the provision of parking proposed by the project. Given the data in Table C below, the project is consistent with the requirements of the Parking Ordinance. TABLE C - PARKING CONFORMANCE Proposed Use Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Parking Requirement Required 30 spaces 24 spaces One space per 10 students Re-school - 118 students plus 101 spaces 90 spaces One space per five (5) seats. Public Assembly - 450 seats Provided 12 employees plus one space per employee Classrooms - 240 students One space per employee 12 spaces olus 12 emolovees 25 spaces ~ Total Parking Required: 126 spaces Total Parking Provided 156 spaces I ZC 00-10LCPA 00-13ICT 00-22/CUP 00-44/CDP 00-64/HDP 01-12 - REDEEMER BY THE SEA January 2,2002 Page 8 H. Hillside Development The site has a grade elevation change greater than 15 feet and slopes greater than 15% and therefore requires a Hillside Development Permit. Hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages. Undevelopable areas of the project, i.e., slopes over 40%, have also been properly identified. Those slopes will be within the open space preserve Lot No. 13. The development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that the site has been designed to step development consistent with the natural terrain sloping from west to east and that grading quantities for the residential portion of the project are within “acceptable” levels, less than 8,000 cubic yards per acre. The non- residential portion of the project is allowed up to 10,000 cubic yards of disturbance per acre, yet the project proposes less than 8,200 cubic yards per acre. The project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that there are no slopes being created greater than twenty feet when thirty foot slopes are allowed. The project design and lot configuration also minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, since the large buildings of the church campus have been designed with basements and partial basements which places the buildings into the slope versus on the slope. I. Growth Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table D below. TABLE D - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE The project is in compliance with the requirements of the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan. Fees will be paid in contribution to city administration facilities, library, waste water treatment, parh, drainage, schools, and sewer collection. The project has been designed and or conditioned to provide the appropriate facilities to accommodate storm water drainage, circulation, and open space. Fire station 4 will adequately serve the project and there is currently an adequate water supply to service the project. 37 ZC 00-10LCPA 00-13KT 00-22/CLJF’ 00-44KDP 00-64/HDP 01-12 - REDEEMER BY THE SEA January 2,2002 Page 9 J. Local Coastal Program: Mello II Segment The Local Coastal Program zoning designations are required to be consistent with the City’s zoning designations. The request to amend the Coastal Program Zoning Map to designate the property R-1-7,500 is consistent with the Coastal Program since it identifies this site as Residential Low-Medium. The 10.26 acre Carlsbad Tract and associated development permits are located within the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. The development is also subject to the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone and the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone. The intent of the overlay zone is to supplement the underlying zoning by providing additional resource protective regulations within designated areas to preserve, protect and enhance the habitat resource values of Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Batiquitos Lagoon, and steep sloping hillsides; to provide regulations in areas which provide the best wildlife habitat characteristics; to encourage proper lagoon management; and to deter soil erosion by maintaining the vegetative cover on steep slopes. Development within the Coastal Zone requires the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit consistent with the Local Coastal Program, the underlying zoning and applicable overlay zones. The following Table E illustrates the applicable land use designations under the Local Coastal Program (LCP) if approved: TABLE E - LAND USES Proposed LCP Land Use Plan Residential Low Medium General Plan R-1-7,SOO R-1-7,500 Proposed Zoning Discussion regarding the project’s compliance with the City’s Zoning is found in a previous section of this staff report. Discussion of the project’s compliance with the applicable LCP overlay zone follows: Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone The overlay zone identifies five areas of protection. They are 1) steep slopes and vegetation; 2) drainage, erosion, sedimentation, habitat; 3) landslides and slope instability; 4) seismic hazards; and 5) floodplain development. 1. The overlay policy states that up to 10% of the total slopes greater than 25% possessing endangered planffanimal species and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities may be disturbed plus steep slope areas that are required to access flatter developable areas. The site does contain slopes greater than 25% with southern mixed chaparral. The project proposes preservation of these slopes in a deed restricted open space lot. In addition, fire suppression zones have been established over the lots adjoining the open space. Zone three coincides with the outermost 20 feet of the open space lot, and only limited clearing of plant materials is permitted within zone three of the fire suppression zone. The most restrictive fire suppression zones are within the 40 ZC 00-10LCPA 00-13KT 00-22/CUP 00-44/CDP 00-64/HDP 01-12 - REDEEMER BY THE SEA January 2,2002 Pave 10 residential lots. Implementation of the project will not impact this segment of the overlay zone. 2. Special erosion control measures must be included as conditions of approval. These “special” measures are standard measures required by the City’s Grading Ordinance and are included as conditions of approval. 3. The geotechnical investigation prepared by Geosoils, Inc. did not indicate that there are soils onsite of the La Jolla group which are susceptible to accelerated erosion. Therefore, additional reports are not required. 4. Because of the soil types and topography, the site is not prone to liquefaction and therefore site-specific investigations are not required. 5. No part of the site is within the 100 year floodplain. A restriction has been adopted in the Mello I1 segment restricting grading between October 1 and April 1 of each year. All graded areas must also be landscaped for erosion control prior to October 1 of each year. Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone Conversion of the site from agricultural production to urban uses is allowed per the Coastal Program, however, mitigation is required as specified in Policy 2-1 of the Mello 11 segment of the Coastal Program. An Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee will be applied as a condition of approval. The proposed project is in compliance with the requirements of the Local Coastal Program V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is located within the Zone 20 Specific Plan which was reviewed for significant environmental impacts and published in the Zone 20 Environmental Impact Report. No significant resources were identified on the subject site in that document. A Phase 1 analysis was completed which indicated that there is not a significant risk for hazardous materials onsite. Further project analysis determined that there are onsite slopes with southern mixed chaparral, however, no significant biological effects will be caused by the development of the site since those areas of slope with southem maritime chaparral will be preserved within a deed restricted open space lot. There are no other onsite significant resources. A Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5 1 19 (Neg Dec) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5120 (ZC) 3. Planning Commission ResolutionNo. 5121 (JXPA) 4. Planning Commission ResolutionNo. 5122 (CT) ZC OO-lO/LCPA 00-13KT 00-22/CUP 00-44/CDP 00-64/HDP 01-12 - REDEEMER BY THE SEA January 2,2002 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5123 (CUP) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5124 (CDP) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5 132 (HDP) Location Map Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Disclosure Statement Exhibits “A” - “X”, dated January 2,2002 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: ZC 00-10LCPA 00-13KT 00-22/CUP 00-44/CDP 00-64HDPO1-12 CASE NAME: Redeemer by the Sea APPLICANT: Redeemer by the Sea Lutheran Church of Carlsbad REQUEST AND LOCATION: Subdivision of 10.26 acres into 12 residential lots. one open space lot, development of a church campus on the fourteenth lot. and zone change from Limited Control to One Family Residential on property generally located east of Black Rail Road and south of Poinsettia Lane. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north half of the southwest auarter of the southeast auarter of section 22. township 12 south. range 4 west, San Bernardino base and meridian. in the County of San Diego. State of California. according to official plat thereof APN. 215-080-22-00 Acres: 10.26 Proposed No. of LotsAJnits: 14 lotdl2 residential units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: Residential Low-Medium Density Allowed: 0-4 Density Proposed 3.2 Existing Zone: Limited Control Proposed Zone: One-Family Residential Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: General Plan Current Land Use Site L-c RLM Agriculture North L-C RLM Agriculture south L-c RLM Residential East L-c RLM Agriculture West R-1 RLM Residential PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 12 EDU (ResidentialV15 EDU (Church) + 27 EDU ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT [XI Negative Declaration, issued December 19,2001 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, CITY OF CAIUSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: Redeemer by the Sea ZC 00-10iLCPA 0013CT 00-22/CW 00-44/CDP LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 20 GENERAL PLAN: RLM ZONING LC DEVELOPERS NAME: Redeemer by the Sea Carlsbad Lutheran Church ADDRESS: 6355 Corte Del Abeto Suite 100 Carlsbad CA 92009 00-64/HDP 01-12 PHONE NO.: 760-721-6674 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 215-080-22-00 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 10.26 acres A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 41.72 B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 22.25 C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity 27 EDU D. Park Demand in Acreage = 0.08 E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = 33.6 Identify Drainage Basin = C/D F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = 1,974 weekdayd807 Sundays G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4 H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = 1.5 I. Schools: Elementarv 3.13 Jr.Hirrh 0.86 High 1.63 J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 27 EDU K. Water: Demand in GPD = 5,940 L. The project is proposed at the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defmed as “Any individual, fq co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.” Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a coruoration or uartnershiu, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned coruoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person N *A COrpPart IGO€€fl€% RY vm&A Lm LbxZc4i Title rJ. A Address N. A Address b.355 &/c. & 1 A bwh#lOn AJedfwoR7- Title #.A . Cerlhd. CB 9-8 2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, coruoration or uartnershiu, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- owned coruoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person A, A CorpPartwbuth> tjea /“h Title rJ, A Title AJA . Address N. A Address&pig &vi= 12. I Ah& #lo0 + L.’ -pmff7 Qrhbad, d 92008 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 tii- If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonmofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANy person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profiflrust Non Profiflrust Title Title Address Address 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees andor Council within the past twelve (12) months? 0 Yes Go If yes, please indicate person(s): ~~~ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. - - Ll;lanom,*+i A*d.e.4.f,7€- $gnat& of applkanddate 11. io , OAvtO AUW fLhfT€L.+ Print or &e name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date Print or type name of ownedapplicant’s agent H:ADMIN\COUNTEA\DISCLCISURE STATEMENT 5/98 Planning Commission Minutes January 2,2002 Page EXHIBIT 6 3. ZC 00-101LCPA 00-131CT 00-22/CUP 00-441CDP 00-531HDP 00-10 - REDEEMER BY THE SEA - Negative Declaration. Tentative MaD Subdivision of 10.26 acres into 14 lots, a Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit'and Coastal Development Permit for the development of a church campus, and a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment from Limited Control to One Family Residential on property generally located east of Black Rail Road and south of Poinsettia Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 20. Mr. Wayne introduced agenda item #4 stating that Christer Westman would give the presentation assisted by Frank Jimeno and David Hauser. Chairperson Trigas opened the public hearing. Mr. Westman stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a Zone Change and a Local Coastal Program Amendment. These changes are necessary to create city and coastal zoning to allow the development of the site with a church campus and a 12-lot residential subdivision. Mr. Westman described the lots and sizes included in subdivision. He stated all the lots have access to a public street and exceed the minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet, which is consistent with the R-I zoning requested by the applicant. Mr. Westman stated that the project is proposed to be graded consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance and the church campus buildings will step down in elevation from the west to the east consistent with the natural fall of the site. Grading quantities are within acceptable limits. The project's CUP is specifically for the church campus which is comprised of a sanctuary, an administrative elder center, a family life center, a preschool for 118 students, and a Christian education building for 240 students. The applicant proposes to build the campus in phases, the first being the sanctuary and parking for the sanctuary. The project exceeds the parking ordinance requirement for the entire onsite parking by 30 spaces. He stated the buildings were designed in a modern style using earthy materials and colors. The sanctuary tower is the tallest element of the project. The typical height limit for this type of facility in an R-I zone is 35 feet, however, by a Conditional Use Permit the Commission may approve this structure at 46 feet plus the 14-foot cross on top. Lighting is proposed in the tower and a condition of approval for this project is to extinguish the tower illumination at 1O:OO p.m. unless there is a special service. In that was the main concern of Staff and the project otherwise meets all development standards. The sensitive case the lighting would need to be extinguished half an hour after the service is completed. He stated that there will be a deed restriction on that lot to protect those resources. resources on site are going to be preserved entirely within the 26,000 square foot open space lot and a new condition was added that states the developer shall contribute to the cost of the traffic signal at Mr. Hauser stated that there is an errata sheet for the project and explained the revisions and the reason Black Rail Road and Poinsettia Lane. He then read in some revised language for this new condition #38 because of the applicant's concerns with the original language. The new wording stated that the developer shall contribute a pro-rata share of the cost of the traffic signal at Black Rail Road and Poinsettia Lane, based upon average daily trips as determined by a traffic analysis approved by the City Engineer. There were also two words changed on the item for Page 11. Chairperson Trigas wanted clarification that for Condition #38 instead of saying 25% of the cost of the traffic signal, we're saying we're going to figure out what the impact of the average daily trips of the project itself is and it will be a pro-rata of that, Mr. Hauser replied that there are two kinds of conditions for traffic signals. Many times if it's on a corner, and there are four corners, it would be 25% of the signal. In this case there was actually a previous condition placed on the Ocean Bluffs project that they pay a pro-rata share and it's going to be based upon an analysis. Excluded from that and the intention of the condition is to exclude the regional traffic that passes along Poinsettia Lane. The need for the signal is to service the developments that are off of the local streets so it's a pro-rata of the local street contribution to the intersection. wanted to know who pays the difference, Mr. Hauser said that would have to be addressed when they do Commissioner Segall stated based on that you're probably not going to reach 100% on the signal and their Capital Improvement Program as to whether or not the City would make up the differential or it would possibly be done by another developer that may come in, but it has not yet been determined. 4'7 Planning Commission Minutes January 2,2002 Page 18 Commissioner Segall asked if they typically do it on a 25% basis, but the reason that is not the that‘s the appropriate mechanism for this project because the City could potentially be challenged if they recommendation this time is because the other development is on a pro-rata share. Mr. Hauser said did the 25% share because the project would be paying more than their pro-rata share obligation. Commissioner Dominguez asked if it‘s an accurate assumption that this project is somewhat into the future since Poinsettia hasn’t been extended to that area. Mr. Hauser replied that the City currently has a project in process to build Poinsettia Reach C that extends it from Black Rail Road to Ambrosia. This completes the link that allows a full connection to El Camino Real in combination with Cassia Road. Commissioner Dominguez then asked if the Daybreak Church project will almost touch this project. Mr. the Daybreak Church. He said it‘s not part of their current project description but it is something that they Hauser replied that they almost touch and the property in between the two projects has been acquired by acquired and it‘s burdened with a road and a power line easement, so about the only thing the church indicated they would put on it is an expansion to their parking lot. Commissioner Dominguez asked if they have a similar ADT condition for participation in signalization. Mr. Hauser replied they do not at this particular signal because they don’t draw access off Black Rail Road. Chaiprerson Trigas opened public testimony. Applicant, Pastor Robert McDonald of Redeemer By The Sea Lutheran Church, 952 Jasmine Court, them to purchase the land. He said the congregation is thrilled with this step and a large number of them Carlsbad, stated the church has been in Carlsbad for about eleven years and their growth has caused were present to support the project. He turned the presentation over to their architect, Lou Dominy. Lou Dominy of Dominy 8 Associates, Architects at Doma Studio, 2150 West Washington, San Diego, 921 IO, stated they submitted the project in December of 2000. He said they are pleased with the Staff Report and have come to agreement on how to develop the project. He said their firm is 15 years old and has done some 100 church projects. He mentioned some projects they did in Carlsbad, including St. several years ago. He turned the presentation over to the project architect, David Keitel, for a brief Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church on Alga Road, which won six Orchids and the Grand Orchid Award overview. David Keitel of Dominy & Associates, Architects at Doma Studio, 2150 West Washington, Suite 303, San Diego, 921 10, pointed out the location on the site map and described the project and what buildings would be built in each phase and where they would be located as well as the parking locations. There was also a model of the sanctuary on display. Mr. Dominy had the following questions and comments: On Page 5 of the Staff Report, Table B - R-1 Development Standards. He thought the Standard Rear Setback should say 20 feet minimum rather than maximum. On page 7 of the Staff Report Table C - Parking Conformance - He said even though they are providing more than the required number of spaces, he thought the total parking required should be 90 spaces because the preschool is only operational Monday through Friday and the sanctuary is only used on Sunday. He said they are okay with the Staffs last minute condition regarding the traffic developer because he said it‘s really part of the infrastructure that offers services to the community. signal, although it‘s a financial blow to the church. He did not agree with treating the church a He said having to fund the City’s infrastructure when they’re part of the infrastructure becomes doubly burdensome. He said they’re willing to pay their fair share and will accept the pro-rata condition. He questioned Condition #I 1 on page 4 of PC Resolution 5123 which states the CUP is granted for a that the third sentence of the condition be stated as: “This permit shall automatically be extended for a period of 10 years. He said he did not have that condition with other church projects. He proposed reasonable time period of not to exceed 10 years unless written opposition to the project is made no less that 90 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission shall grant such extension just flip the language around to say they get to stay unless there is some reason they shouldn’t and unless it finds there are substantial negative effects on surrounding land uses.” He said this would someone would have to take the initiative to file the opposition to not grant the extension. Mr. Westman responded that there is a maximum requirement of 20 feet in the R-1 zone for rear yard setbacks. The church is not in violation, it is well within standards. Regarding the parking spaces - Mr. Planning Commission Minutes January 2,2002 Page 19 Westman said they essentially took three different uses on site - the preschool, the Christian education center, and the sanctuary - and parked each one as though they were operating independent of each other. He said it's a conservative approach and typical of what they've done in the past. He said the applicant meets all the parking requirements. Unless there is an intent to expand the development later and increase the size of the school or the sanctuary that would trigger an additional need for parking, there shouldn't be a problem. Commissioner Compas wanted him to explain the 20 foot maximum setback. Mr. Westman explained that a 100 foot wide lot, that comes out to be 20 feet for rear yard setback. If there is a 300 foot wide lot, the 10% of the lot width is required for side yard, 20% of the lot width is required for rear yard, and if you have maximum requirement for rear yard setback is still only 20 feet; they would not require a 60 foot setback. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Compas and duly seconded that the Planning Commission to continue with the meeting until 10:30 p.m. or until the item is completed. VOTE: AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners, Compas, Dominguez, Heineman, Nielsen, and Segall NOES: ABSTAIN: None None 6-0-0 Mr. Wayne responded to the question of the Conditional Use Permit period of 10 years stating that it is a Council Policy. He said they took the issue to the Council a number of years ago at which time there was a 5 year limit. Most of the CUP's in the City have a 5 year limit and they were willing to extend it to 10 with the way the condition is worded. If Council decides to change that policy in the future we would be years when the capital expenditure exceeded a million dollars. He said Council policy is being followed able to deal with all of the CUP's that are in effect today. He said he is surprised if St. Elizabeth Seton is not conditioned on a ten year renewal and is going to check into that. Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Wayne what the condition is for a fire station that's operated by the City. Mr. Wayne said that Council said because we are the City and have to respond to the constituency, we to have the CUP, there's nothing that says they have to make things right. Commissioner Segall said that have to make things right, they don't. If they aren't good neighbors and we don't have a condition on them years on a CUP. Mr. Wayne said that's correct. his point was that until that came up last year the City was requiring fire stations to be approved every 5 Commissioner Nielsen asked about the residential portion of the project and asked who the developer is. Mr. Westman replied that Redeemer By The Sea is the developer in question as far as the subdivision being approved. He said it's his understanding that the congregation will not actually be developing and building homes and believes that it is their intent that if the application is approved they would sell the subdivision to a merchant builder. Commissioner Nielsen asked if they would contribute to the traffic signal also, and if so, it wouldn't be true that the church would have the sole burden. Mr. Hauser replied they would and it would be part of the ADT generation and analysis that would be done before they market it. Each development has to pay their fair share, whether it's a City, private, non-profit, church, etc. Commissioner Nielsen asked what the phasing would be on the residential portion. Mr. Westman replied that everything would be graded upfront. The improvements to the subdivision, the grading of the lots would be done in the first phase. The reason for that is that some of the earth for the sanctuary needs to come from the subdivision site. Commissioner Nielsen asked if there is a condition to inform anyone buying a house in the subdivision of the extent of the church campus that will be built there in the future. Mr. Westman replied they don't have a disclosure condition included in the subdivision resolution. Commissioner Nielsen asked if he thought that might be prudent. Mr. Westman agreed it would be a benefit to the future homeowners. Planning Commission Minutes January 2,2002 Page 20 Commissioner Dominguez commented that it‘s becoming more important that we let people know what‘s approved on these properties, especially when they’re semi-public facilities, such as churches. In this case there are two churches adjoining each other and he thought it would be prudent to have a condition that requires the church to put up a sign, “Future Home of Redeemer By The Sea Church”, so that people are well aware. said he believes it would behoove us to make sure the people know that these facilities are going into Chairperson Trigas asked if there should be formal noticing as well as a sign. Commissioner Dominguez their neighborhood. Commissioner Nielsen added he thinks a disclosure statement is needed. Mr. Westman said that Pastor McDonald informed him that they already have a future home sign up. Commissioner Segall asked how the school facilities would be promoted once it‘s built so the whole community can benefit from them. Pastor McDonald stated he has been in contact with many members of the housing development across from them and had many phone calls in the last six months asking when the preschool would be open. He said he thinks the word is getting out now and they will do more advertising in the future. Many people who live there now know a preschool is going in and he gets calls on a regular basis. The sign says preschool, daycare. etc. Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Trigas closed public testimony. Commissioner Compas stated that Mr. Dominy did a wonderful job designing St. Elizabeth Seton Church, and they’re very happy with it. He’s sure he’ll do a fine job on this one as well and he supports the project. Commissioner Segall concurred and said it‘s a beautiful project and thought it would add a lot to Carlsbad. Commissioner Dominguez said he supports the project and would like to start putting notices on as a condition. Commissioner Heineman said he’s in favor. Commissioner Nielsen agreed there should be a disclosure statement signed by the buyer. Commissioner Segall asked if it would be better to do a disclosure or on title. Mr. Wayne recommended they do both. He said it should be put in the resolution for the tentative map. There’s a requirement for posting of disclosures in the sales office and it should also be placed in the CC&Rs, and it could also be a final map condition so it runs with the title. Commissioner Heineman added it should be in all the governing documents, (meaning by-laws and CC&Rs). Chairperson Trigas said she thinks it should include the church, school, etc. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman and duly seconded that the Planning Negative Declaration and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5120 and Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5119 adopting a Amendment LCPA 00-13, with the Errata Sheet dated January 2, 2002 and with 5121 recommending approval of Zone Change ZC 00-10, Local Coastal Program the following revised wording on Condition 38, “Prior to the approval of the final map, Developer shall contribute a pro-rata share of the cost of the traffic signal at determined by a traffic analysis approved by the City Engineer.”, and also revised Black Rail Road and Poinsettia Lane based upon average daily trips as wording on “Page 11 Conditions 46, 47, 48 and 49 should be labeled A, B. C and D under Condition 45.”. plus whatever conditions are necessary to provide disclosure on the Resolution for the Tentative Map, disclosure in the CCBRs, disclosure in the sales literature, and disclosure in the title of the fact that this is a substantial church establishment which should prior knowledge of anyone buying a house there, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5122, 5123, 5124 and 5132 approving Tentative Tract Map CT 00-22 as amended, Planning Commission Minutes January 2,2002 Page 21 Conditional Use Permit CUP 00-44, Coastal Development Permit CDP 00-64 and Hillside Development Permit HDP 01-12 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION None VOTE: 6-0-0 AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners, Compas, Dominguez, Heineman, Nielsen, and Segall NOES: ABSTAIN: None None PROOF OF PUBLICATION This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Proof of Publication of f Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is : copy (set in type not smaller than nonpal been published in each regular and entire said newspaper and not in any supplemen on the following dates, to-wit: february 1, 2002 I certify (or declare) under penalty of per the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at San Marcos ,c this 1st February, 2002 -1 Irinted NOTICE OF PUBL Black Rail Road and south of Poinsettia Lane in Local Faciliti more particularly described as: The north half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 22, township 12 south, range 4 west, San Eernardino base and meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to official plat thereof. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614. If you challenge the Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment andor Negative Declaration in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad. Attn: City Clerk’s Office, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: ZC 00-IO/LCPA 00-13 CASE NAME: REDEEMER BY THE SEA CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL .. Legal Advertising n 12200, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 6:OO p.m. to consider a Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Negative Declaration to grant a zone change from L-C (Limited Control) to R-I (Residential One-Family) on property generally located on the east side of Black Rail Road and south of Poinsettia Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 20 and more particularly described as: The north half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 22, township 12 south, range 4 west, San Bernardino base and meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to official plat thereof. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after Friday, February 8, 2002. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614. If you challenge the Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment and/or Negative Declaration in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: ZC 00-101LCPA 00-13 CASE NAME: REDEEMER BY THE SEA PUBLISH: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2002 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REDEEMER BY THE SEA ZC 00-1:OILCPA 00-1 3 U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS LILY ALYEA STE 702 333 MARKET ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2197 WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BD PO BOX 100 SACRAMENTO CA 95801 SANDAG-LAND USE COMMISS NAN VALERIO STE 800 401 "B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 USDA - RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT 4169 430 "G" ST DAVIS CA 95616 CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCIES STE 131 1 1416 9TH ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD REGION (9) SAN DIEGO STE 0 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 REEDEMER BY THE SEA LUTHERAN CHURCH 6355 CORTE DEL ABET0 #lo0 CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, SPR 350 GOLDEN SHORE LONG BEACH CA 90802 NATIONAL OCEANIC &ATMOSPHERIC ADMIN OCRM,55MC4 NIORM - 3 1305 EAST-WEST HWY SILVER SPRING MD 20910 OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS PO BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO CA 93044 SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION & DEVMT COMMISSION BILL TRAVIS STE 2600 50 CALIFORNIA ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 11-4704 STATE LANDS COMMISSION DWIGHT SANDERS STE 1005 I 100 HOWE AV ' SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202 U S BUREAU OF LAND MGMT STE RM W1834 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 MID-PACIFIC REGION U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE 2800 COTAGE WAY STE W-2605 SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1888 d DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIR STE 350 901 MARKET ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STE 400 61 1 RYAN PLAZA DR ARLINGTON TX 7601 1-4005 DEPARTMENT OF FISH &GAME ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIV P 0 BOX 944246 SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460 DEPARTMENT OF FOOD &AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIR COORD RM 100 P 0 BOX 944246 1220 N ST SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVE 450 GOLDEN GATE AV DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REG ADMlN SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RM 5504 1120 N ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEPUTY ATORNEY GENERAL RM 700 IIOWESTAST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COMM CHUCK NAJARIAN 1516 NINTH ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 CALTRANS DISTRICT 11 BILL FIGGE MAIL ST 50 P 0 BOX 85406 SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG PO BOX 92007 LOSANGELES CA 90009 BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8 REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD STE 100 91 74 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS RONALD M JAEGER 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY PATRICIA W NEAL DEPUTY SEC HOUSING CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK STE 2450 SUPERINTENDENT 1901 SPINNAKER DR 980 NINTH ST SAN BUENA VENTURA CA 93001 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 COASTAL CONSERVANCY STE 1100 1330 BROADWAY OAKLAND CA 94612 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE GARY RESOURCE CONSER STE 102 2121-C SECOND ST DAVIS CA 95616 COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CHAIRMAN 722 JACKSON PL NW WASHINGTON DC 20006 ~ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LOS ANGELES DlST ENGINEER PO BOX 271 1 LOS ANGELES CA 90053 COASTAL CONSERVANCY RICHARD RETECKI STE 1100 1330 BROADWAY OAKLAND CA 94612 DALElDONNA SCHREIBER 7163 ARGONAUTA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 FLOYD ASHBY 416 LA COSTA AV ENClNlTAS CA 92024 GEORGE BOLTON 6583 BLACKRAIL RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 LAKESHORE GARDENS 7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS BILL McLEAN CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN IAMB 1446 DEVLIN DR LOSANGELES CA 90069 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC KIM BLESSANT 101 ASH STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101- COUNTY OF SD SUPERVISOR BILL HORN ART DANELL RM 335 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 S D CO PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT JAON VOKAC 5201 RUFFIN ROAD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 ST€ B-5 LANlKAl LANE PARK SHARP SPACE 3 6550 PONTO DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 STATE LANDS COMMISSION MARY GRIGGS STE 100 S 100 HOWE AV SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202 PERRY A LAMB 890 MERE POINT RD BRUNSWICK ME 04011 CRA PRESIDENT 5200 EL CAMINO REAL LEE ANDERSON CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE JAN SOBEL 5620 PASEO DEL NORTE CARLSBAD CA 92008 REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD 91 74 SKY PARK CT ST€ 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 CITY OF ENClNlTAS COM DEV DEPT 505 S VULCAN AV ENClNlTAS CA 92024 SANDAG-EXEC DIRECTOR KENNETH E SULZER STE 800 1 ST INT'L PLAZA 401 "B ST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 LESLIE ESPOSITO 1893 AMELFI DR ENClNlTAS CA 92024 ANTHONY & DICKY BONS 25709 HILLCREST AV ESCONDIDO CA 92026-8650 U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE JOHN MARTIN 2730 LOKER AV WEST CARLSBAD CA 92008 TABATA FARMS PO BOX 1338 CARLSBAD CA 92018-1338 SIERRA CLUB S D CHAPTER CRAIG ADAMS 3820 RAY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 CYRIUMARY GIBSON LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702 12142 ARGYLE DR SCOTT E MUSINSKI JAMES A & IVY CAMPBELL STEPHEN W BONEY 1580 MARTINGALE CT 1584 MARTIXGALE CT 1588 MARTINGALE CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-4035 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4035 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4035 LEOTA BROWN PELLIGRINO GARY G & LC'ENGAS GATES DAYBREAK COMMUNITY CHUR 1592 MARTINGALE CT 1596 MARTINGALE CT 6354 CORTE DEL ABET0 A CARLSBAD CA 92009-4035 CARLSBAD Ci'l 9 2 0 0 9 - 4 .':' 3 5 CARLSBAD CA 92009-1409 MOORE GUY S JR EST OF NOBORU & EWLYN TABATT. MOORE GUY 6602 BLACK RAIL RD PO BOX 94:1 CARLSBAD CA 92009-2603 CARLSBAD (:A 92018-0943 A D J HOLDINGS L L C BREHM-AVIARA I11 DEVELO DAYBREAK COMMUNITY CHUR 622 E MISSION RD 5770 OBERLIJY DR 7333 CALLE DE FUENTES SAN MARCOS CA 92069-1902 SAN DIEGO CA 92121-1723 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7609 RICAHRD A RUSSELL IAN & RABEE MCDONALI? DALE V THERIOT 6615 FIONA PL 6611 FIONA PL 6607 FIONA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4046 CARLSBAD C?. 92009-4046 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4046 CARL W GEHRING AVIARA SEKENATA LLC AVIARA SERENAT 6603 FIONA PL 19800 MACARTHUR BLVD 75 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4046 IRVINE CA 92612 RYLAND HOMES OF CALIFOR RYLAND HOMITS 0 5740 FLEET ST 200 5740 F 200 CARLSBAD CA 92008-4704 C>~ 92008-4"04 / 5740 FLE 7 5740 FLEE"' -OR 5740 FL 200 CA 92008-4704 CARL (:A 92008-47j04 D CA 92008-4704 7 5740 FL RYLAND 5740 /OR FLE HOMES R/ 5740 FLE CAR CA 92008-4704 CAR CI. 92008-4.704 CAR CA 92008-4704 MICHAEL E HOLMSTROM 6609 SIT10 CEDRELA CARLSBAD CA 92009-3504 GEORGE R BOLTON CARLSBAD CA 92009-2804 6519 EL CAMINO REAL VLADIMIR POTASHOV CARLSBAD CA 92009-4036 1597 MARTINGALE CT TODD L & CINDY PENICK 1585 MARTINGALE CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-4036 DANA H & ANN JOHNSON CARLSBAD CA 92009-4032 1570 MARITIME DR SCOTT D & STACIE WILSON CARLSBAD CA 92009-4032 1582 MARITIME DR HW & THUY LE THANH CARLSBAD CA 92009-4032 1594 MARITIME DR ALBERT & AGNES VARRIN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4033 1595 MARITIME DR LOUIS R & GLORIA RASPA CARLSBAD CA 92009-4033 1583 MARITIME DR TR RUSH CARLSBAD CA 92009-4028 6494 FAIRWATER PL MICHAEL J CARDOSA WILLIAM R LYNN 6579 BLACK RAIL RD 6575 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CE. 92009-2602 MOUNTAIN EMPI 92009-2602 GEORGE R BC,LTON NORMAN G GALLAGHER 6583 BLACK RAIL RD 1252 PALMA VISTA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-2602 ESCONDIDO CA 92025-7570 JAMES M MIT?HELL ZENON M JAVIER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4336 1593 MART:NGALE CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-4036 1589 MARTINGALE CT JORGE T & J.ANET KEMENY TARUM SON1 1581 MARTINGALE CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-4036 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4036 1577 MARTINGALE CT STANLEY THO:mS JOSEPH M NILAND CARLSBAD CI\. 92 0 0 9 - 4 0 3 2 1574 MAR1T:rME DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-4032 1578 MARITIME DR ROBERT T Ci KAREN HUNG MICHAEL A & KYM TEDESCO 1586 MARITIME DR 1590 MARITIME DR CARLSBAD Cj4 92009-4032 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4032 ALAN FRITZ TROY D & ANN BUSS 1598 MARITIPE DR 1599 MARITIME DR CARLSBAD CA 92 0 0 9 - 4 :? 3 2 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4033 JEANNETTE M CROBARGER MARK & DEBBIE RODRIGUEZ CARLSBAD (:A 92009-4cJ33 1591 MARI'.;IRE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-4033 1587 MARITIME DR JAMES M COFiSOLE J D & LIBBY MUCH 1579 MARITI:.!E DR 1575 MARITIME DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-4033 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4033 THOMAS A H0,INGER STEPHEN W BONEY CARLSBAD CE 92009-4028 64 98 FAIRWA'l'ER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4034 1517 MARTINGALE CT Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template For 5160@ CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST 801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENClNlTAS CA 92024 SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DlST OLIVENHAIN WATER DlST 701 ENClNlTAS BLVD 1960 LA COSTA AVE 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER CHRISTER WESTMAN CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 VALLECITOS WATER DlST 788 SAN MARCOS BLVD SAN MARCOS CA 92069 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 THOMAS & JANET MASS 2851 TORRY CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT