HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-25; City Council; 16807; Church of Jesus Christ - LDS GPA 01-13CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL s
AB# 16,807
MTG. 6-25-02 CITY ATTY. sN DEPT. HD. TITLE:
GPA 01-13 -CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
DEPT. PLN ‘# CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No, 2002-191 , ADOPTING the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and APPROVING General Plan Amendment GPA 01-13.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Reviewed by and
Project Application(s) To be Reviewed - Final at Planning Administrative
Approvals Final at Council Commission
Environmental Review (Mitigated
X General Plan Amendment (GPA 01-
Negative Declaration)
X
13)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 01-04)
X Hillside Development Permit (HDP 01-
X
On May 15, 2002, the Planning Commission approved (5-0) a Conditional Use Permit, and Hillside
Development Permit for a 16,842 square foot church and requisite parking lot on a 6.82-acre parcel
located west of Camino de 10s Coches between Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue. The
Planning Commission also made a recommendation to the City Council to approve a General Plan
Amendment to define the boundaries of designated General Plan open space located within the
property boundaries to coincide with an existing 70’ wide drainage channel and average 50’ habitat
buffer proposed along the drainage channel. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent
with the General Plan Land Use Element provision for land use boundary definitions which states,
“Where boundaries appear to reflect environmental and resource management considerations,
boundaries shall be construed in a manner which is consistent with the considerations that the
boundary reflects.”
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Based on an environmental impact assessment performed by staff in which potentially significant
impacts to water quality. geological resources, and biological resources were identified and
mitigation measures were formulated to reduce the identified impacts, the Planning Director issued a
Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 23, 2002. No comments were received during the public
review period.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impacts to the City associated with the proposed Open Space boundary definition are
anticipated. All required improvements needed to serve the church project would be funded by the
developer.
Ill
Ill
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16,807
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2002-191
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions 5197 and 5198
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 15, 2002
5. Excerpts of Draft Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 15, 2002.
d
1
2
3
4
5
6
i
8
s
1c
11
12
12
14
15
1C
1;
18
IS
2(
21
2;
25
2L
2:
2f
2;
2f
RESOLUTION NO. -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO DEFINE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE OPEN
ON THE WEST SIDE OF CAMINO DE LOS COCHES BETWEEN
SPACE DESIGNATION ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD AND LA COSTA AVENUE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11.
CASE NAME: CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
CASE NO.: GPA 01-13
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on May 15, 2002, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and General Plan Amendment GPA 01-13 to
define the boundaries of the Open Space designation. The Planning Commission adopted
Planning Commission Resolutions No, 5197 and 5198 recommending to the City Council that
they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 25th day of JUNE
2002 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and General Plan 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
and General Plan 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. 5197 and 5198 constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter. 3
1
1
3 -
L
5
t
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are adopted as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5197 on tile
with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
4. The recommendation of the Planning Commission for a General Plan
Amendment, GPA 01-13, as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5198, is hereby
Amendment 98-03 and General Plan Amendment 00-05.
accepted, approved in concept and shall be formally approved in connection with General Plan
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 25th day of JUNE 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT Council Members Kulchin, Finnila
ATTEST: I " RRAIN M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL) /
-2-
lge 2 of 2 of Resolution No. 2002-191
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA: 01-13
draft final 0
Project Name: Church of Jesus Christ - LDS I Related Case File No(s): CUP 01-OWHDP 01-10
PropertylLegal Description(s):
That portion of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map
13524 in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, filed
in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County, October 28,
1984, as File No. 84-403293 of
Official Records, including a portion
of Mission Estancia dedicated on said
Parcel Map.
5
I G.P. Map Designation Change I Approvals 1
A. 223-060-50 I RMlOS I RMlOS I Resolution No: I I I Effective Date:
Property I From: 1 To: I Council Approval Date:
I I Signature:
Attach additional pages if necessary
6
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LDS
GPA 01 -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
EXWIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5197
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO ALLOW A CHURCH ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF CAMINO DE LOS
COCHES BETWEEN RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD AND LA
COSTA AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 11.
CASE NAME: CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
CASE NO.: GPA 01-13/CUP 01-04/HDP 01-10
WHEREAS, The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints, “Developer” and “Owner”, has filed a verified application with the
City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
That portion of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 13524 in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, October
28, 1984, as File No. 84-403293 of Official Records, including a
portion of Mision Estancia dedicated on said Parcel Map.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of May, 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to
Exhibit “ND” dated January 23, 2002, and “PII” dated December 21, 2001,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project, and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
B. The Mitigated 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
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program.
...
..
...
..
..
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5197 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of May, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall, and
White
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Whitton
ABSTAIN: None
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
M~CHAEL J. HOLZM~LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5197 -3-
~ City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: The west side of Camino de 10s Coches and adjacent to the north of
the Stagecoach Community Park in the City’s southeast quadrant.
Project Description: General Plan Amendment to adjust designated open space boundaries
to coincide with the boundaries of the north-south drainage channel
and wetland and riparian habitat existing on the property, and a
conditional use permit to allow a 16,842 square foot churcll and
parking lot on the 6.8 parcel designated for Residential Medium (Rh’l)
density development
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated 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 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4622.
DATED: January 23,2002
CASE NO: GPA 01-13/CUP 01-04/HDP 01-10
CASE NAME: Church of Jesus Christ LDS
PUBLISH DATE: January 23,2002 MICHAEL h“ J. HOL~IL.
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 920087314 (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 - w.ci.carlsbad.ca.us I1 @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASENO: GPAOI-I3/CUP01-04/HDP01-10
DATE December 21,2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Church of Jesus Christ LDS -
2. APPLICANT: Eric Jennines, BSW
3.
CA 92612
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 2201 Duuont Drive. Suite 140. Irvine,
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 14.2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment to adiust desienated open mace
riuarian habitat existine on the urouertv. and a conditional use uermit to allow a 16,842 sauare
boundaries to coincide with the boundaries of the north-south drainace channel and wetland and
foot church and parking lot on the 6.8 parcel designated for Residential Medium density (RM)
development and located on the west side of Camino de 10s Coches and adiacent to the north of
the Staeecoach Community Park in the Citv’s southeast quadrant.
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.
0 Land Use and Planning IXI TransportatiodCiculation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing IXI Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
[XI Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
[XI Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
[XI Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96 14
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
[XI
0
0
0
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) 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 pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
I/ 1 b/OZ
Planning Director%ignbdre Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96 I3
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 mitigat.ion, 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 II”, 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 I+
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EJR 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 U 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 /r
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
Significant Impact
LessThan No
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:,
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
(Source #(s): (#lPgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?(#I:Pgs5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
e) Distupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
om om 0
0 0
III. 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; #4)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4) 0 0 0
0 0 0
om om om c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
d) Seiche. tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#I:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15’ #4)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#4)
5.1-15;#4)
g) Subsidence ofthe land?(#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
0 0
0 0 om 017 0
0 0 0
0 IXI 0
OIXI 00 om
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 ~ 5.2-
11; #5)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11: #5)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e& temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 52-11; #5, #6)
5
0 0 IXIU
0 0 Cla no
Rev. 03/28/96 I6
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11)
f) 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 - 5..2-11)
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)
11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1 -5..2-11)
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-
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture. or temperature. or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
proposal result in:
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.& sharp
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
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)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22) 0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
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)
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
0
b) Locally designated species (e.& heritage trees)?
Significant Significant Impact Potentially Less Than No
Mitigation
Unless Impact - Incorporated 0 om om
0 om
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
fl
0
0
0
om om om
00
om om om
no om
om
om
6 Rev. 03/28/96 I7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation - Incorporated
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? n forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 0 OIXI
Rl n n
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 54-54; #2)
- 5.4-24)
U u U U
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 0 0 o[XI
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs5.12.1-1 -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)
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
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,
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
15)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
services in any of the following areas:
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ()
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
0 a 0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 a 0
0 0 IXI
0 '0 0
0 0 0 a 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 o
[XI [XI IXI 1xI IXI
I Rev. 03/28/96 18
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Significant Potentially
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
Significant Less Than
Impact
Impact
NO
0 0
0 El
[XI a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
9 Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
0 0 0 0
0 [XI 0 0
0 [XI [XI
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)
0
0
0
0
0
0 El
[XI
[XI
0
0 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
I - 5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
10)
10)
XV.RECREATIONAL. 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)
[XI
IXI
0
0
0 0
0 0
[XI El 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 IXI.
El 0 0 0
XVl. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
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?
0 IXI 0 0
8 Rev. 03/28/96 i9
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources), Potentially
Significant
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects.
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0
0
Significant Significant Impact Potentially LessThan No
Incorporated Mitigation Unless Impact
0 om
0
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)@). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The site is a triangular shaped lot located west of the intersection of Camino de 10s Coches and
Via Calendo and north of the Stagecoach Community Park. The site covers approximately 6.82
acres and is bounded on the west by a drainage channel designated as open space and on the east
by Camino de 10s Coches. The property is abutted by multi-family residential development to
the west, Stagecoach Park to the south, and single family development above Camino de 10s
Coches to the east. Although no approved grading permit has been issued by the City of
Carlsbad, the site has been previously disturbed by grading. Topographically, the site is terraced
with two relatively flat pads. An elevation differential of approximately 11 feet exists between
the southern and northern pads within the area to be developed. A descending slope to the level
portion exists adjacent to Camino de 10s Coches. The site descends toward the drainage channel
to the south and west of the level portion. Drainage is accomplished via sheetflow toward a
north-south drainage channel. Vegetation is comprised of disturbed habitat, except in the onsite
drainages, which support approximately .5 acre of Southern Willow Scrub and Freshwater March
vegetation.
9 Rev. 03/28/96 do
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. Land Use and Planning
The project includes a General Plan Amendment to adjust the open space designation to coincide
with the drainage area on the site. The General Plan Map, which shows generalized boundaries
of constrained lands and presently designated open space, identifies an approximate 200’ wide
open space area along the drainage channel. The project’s storm drainage study and biological
analysis delineates the drainage channel and associated wetland vegetation. The proposed open
space boundary includes a habitat buffer on each side of the channel 70 wide drainage easement.
Therefore, the actual open space exists within a drainage comdor that includes the creek and
adjacent wetland habitat. This adjustment to reflect the boundaries of the sensitive biological
resources as open space is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan Land Use and Open
Space Elements.
Chapter 21.42 of the Zoning Ordinance permits churches in residentially designated areas upon
approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). The CUP requires compatibility findings with the
surrounding neighborhood. The project is consistent with and not detrimental to surrounding
development in that the proposed site abuts another community facility, Stagecoach Community
Park, to the south, is separated from multi-family residences to the west by a drainage channel,
and is separated from single family residential development to the east by Camino de Los
Coches, a secondary arterial roadway and a significant grade separation. Additionally, direct
access to the site is provided from the north and south by circulation arterial roadways (Camino
de Los Coches and La Costa Avenue via Rancho Santa Fe Road) thereby avoiding the use of
local residential streets for access. The proposed 16,842 square foot church is single story with
a 60’ high steeple which results in minimal (5.67%) building coverage. An 193 space parking lot
to serve the project is proposed to satisfy the projects parking demand and avoid on-street
parking, and with the exception of Sundays or daydnights of assembly, the church would
generate approximately the same number of average daily trips (ADT) that a multi-family
residential development would generate. The proposed small scale, traditional architectural style
is consistent with surrounding residential development. Landscaping to screen the parlung lot
and a required lighting plan to avoid light spillage onto adjacent sites will reduce visual impacts.
The 60’ high steeple is an architectural protrusion typically associated with churches and
permitted by the zoning ordinance. The steeple height is consistent with the height of adjacent
single family development to the east due to the higher pad elevations of single family
residences.
11. GEOLOGY
According to the “Report of Geotechnical Investigation” prepared for the project by Southern
California Soil & Testing, Inc., “the main geotechnical conditions encountered that will affect
the development of the site are the presence of non-uniform, potentially compressible and
expansive fill and colluvial soils extending to significant depths beneath planned final grades.
High groundwater levels, particularly along the drainage channel, also are a concern. The
undocumented fill soils that extend to depths of 5 to more than 15 feet below the ground surface
are highly variable in consistency and compressibility. Some of the colluvial soils underlying
the fill soils are also compressible and most of the colluvial and some of the fill soils are highly
expansive. These materials are not suitable in their existing condition for support of structures
and other settlement-sensitive improvements. The report concludes that removal and
replacement of the compressible soils with suitable materials will be needed if structures are to
be supported on shallow foundations. As an alternative, deep foundations can be used for
10 Rev. 03/28/96
support of structures.
The current plan calls for 107,023 cubic yards of import to construct the proposed development
due to the necessary remedial work which would necessitate over 5,000 truck loads of soil to be
imported to the site via the existing roadways.
Mjtigation
Due to the site’s proximity to existing residential development, the deep foundation alternative
shall be used along with all other recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical investigation
report as mitigation to avoid to the maximum extent possible the necessity for excessive import
andor export of soil. The deep foundation alternative would reduce the amount of remedial
grading necessary thereby reducing the grading quantities to approximately 42,000 cubic yards
of import Additionally, mitigation to reduce noise impacts resulting from the import of soil
shall include a restriction on the hours of operation to between 9:OO a.m. to 3:OO p.m. Monday
through Friday.
Stormwater from the site currently drains directly into the creek (unnamed tributary of Encinitas
Creek) located along the property’s western boundary. The site has been previously disturbed by
unauthorized grading and there is no existing storm water management system. The proposed
JDS Church project will result in 3.23 acres or 47.4% of the site being developed with
impervious surfaces. The development of the site will create an increase in pollutants discharged
in storm water. These include oxygen demand, sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, and oil and
grease. Many of these pollutants collect on roof and pavement surfaces, and are transported in
the “first flush” of rainfall.
The project proposes that runoff from controlled drainage areas will drain into five catch basins
and be discharged into the creek through underground storm sewers. A 24” RCP storm drain
will be installed by connecting to the existing 24” RCP to divert drainage into the creek. The
preliminary Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) prepared for the project by BSW
International indicates that sediment, the primary contaminant resulting from the grading
operation, will be controlled by numerous structural and non-structural devices as well as Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for construction activities. Specifically, during construction,
some of the BMP measures that will be implemented include the installation of stormceptors to
remove pollutants and sediments, directing runoff through vegetated areas, developing and
enhancing vegetation and wildlife habitat areas along the existing drainage channel, protecting
the drainage channel from erosion by seedng, vegetation and rip-rap, and controlling storm
water discharge velocities by using energy dissipators. Compliance with the City’s Grading and
Erosion Control Ordinance through the implementation of erosion control measures specified in
the SWPP will avoid excessive sedimentation from the site being released into the creek.
Mitieation
Compliance with the SWPP for Construction Activity and installation of pollution control
devices as identified on the project Grading and Drainage Plan.
V. Air Ouality
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EJR which analyzed the impacts which will result
11 Rev. 03/28/96 aa
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 Ovemding Considerations” for
air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” applies to all projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MER
This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. 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
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 fighway 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.
12 Rev. 03/28/96 23
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 Ovemding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Ovemding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MER. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A MEIR 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 MER remains adequate to
review later projects.
VII. Biological Resources
The majority of the site (6.05) acres is highly disturbed and virtually devoid of native vegetation.
The site does contain jurisdictional wetland and riparian habitat consisting of about .5 acre of
Southern Willow Scrub and Freshwater Marsh vegetation with some isolated Coast Live Oaks
and Willow trees within two drainages that flow off-site to the south. These areas have defined
channels, to which the obligate and facultative wetland vegetation is restricted. In some
instances, willows occur high on the banks of the north-south channel, outside the area of
hydrologic influence and hydric soils. The limit of the US. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps)
jurisdiction is the upper edge of channel banks of both drainages. Lengths of these features are
380 feet of the shorter, east west channel and 840 feet of the longer, north-south channel. The
jurisdictional areas of these are 4,560 square feet and 10,080 square feet, respectively. This
results in a total of 0.34 acre (14,640 square feet) of wetland habitat. The associated Willows
outside the Corps jurisdictional area constitute an additional jurisdiction area under the
California Department of Fish and Game, adding an additional 0.16 acre. This results in a total
habitat area of riparian vegetation of 0.5 acre. The on-site drainage course continues offsite to
the west, however, the habitats on the site are virtually landlocked by Camino de Los Coches on
the south and surrounding existing development.
A small isolated patch (approximately 25 individuals) of Southwestern Spiny Rush is located on
the site, however, due to its small size and isolation, it is not considered significant and
mitigation is not recommended.
As designed, the project would impact approximately .13 acre of Southern Willow Scrub
vegetation (300 feet of channel) and 4.95 acres of disturbed habitat. The loss of disturbed habitat
is not considered significant because of the low habitat value. However, the loss of 0.13 acre of
Southern Willow Scrub is considered significant unless mitigated.
A minor change in the original grading plan was made to widen the existing stream course on the
northwestern and southwestern portions of the site that allows the creation of treatment and
13 Rev. 03/28/96 614
mitigation wetlands to expand wetland area for filtering and capture of the first flush runoff from
the site.
Mitigation for impacts to the jurisdictional drainages would involve excavation of upland areas
adjacent to the north-south channel to allow for a widening of the floodway and increase in
wetland habitat. In concert with the new habitat areas, the discharge sites from the parking lot
would be directed so that low flows are treated by the associated wetland vegetation.
The impacts to jurisdictional areas are as follows:
Type of Impact
North-South Channel Widening and 300’/0.13 acre East-West Channel
mtigation for impact Area of Impact
(Wetlands and CDFG) Augmentation as follows:
13,000 sq. ftJ0.3 acre wetland creation on
south side
4,800 sq. ftlO.11 acre wetland creation on
north side
Total: .41 acre wetland creation
See attached Figure 3 for location of
proposed channel widening and wetland
augmentation.
Permits and/or agreements for disturbance of jurisdictional areas will be obtained prior to
grading from the Corps and the California Department of Fish and Game.
XIV. Cultural Resources
The project is located within the southeastern portion of the La Costa Master Plan area. Previous
archaeological studies have been performed over the entire area. Although several
archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project are recorded, none have been identified at the
proposed project location. Cultural resource surveys were not required due the previous
archaeological studies performed in the area, the relatively small area of the site proposed for
development (approximately 5 acres), and the previous disturbance of the site by undocumented
grading.
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, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MER 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. “LDS Meeting House-Cardiff 1 & 2 Site, Carlsbad, California, Biotic Resources
Assessment” prepared by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.
3. “Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints Meeting House Camino De Los Coches at Via Calendo, Carlsbad, California”,
prepared by Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc.
14 Rev. 03/28/96 J5
4. ‘‘Traffic Impact Analysis - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Meeting
5. “Storm Drainage Study Report for LDS Church, City of Carlsbad, State of California”,
6. “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
House”, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
prepared by Mark Thompson, PE.
Saints Meeting House, Carlsbad, California”, prepared by BSW International.
15 Rev. 03/28/96 ad
LIST OF MlTIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Geological Mitigation
Due to the site’s proximity to existing residential development, the deep foundation alternative
shall be used along with all other recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical investigation
report as mitigation to avoid to the maximum .extent possible the necessity for excessive import
and/or export of soil. The deep foundation alternative would reduce the amount of remedial
grading necessary thereby reducing the grading quantities to approximately 42,000 cubic yards
of import. Additionally, mitigation to reduce nuisance impacts resulting from the import of soil
shall include a restriction on the hours of operation to between 9:OO a.m. to 3:OO p.m. Monday
through Friday.
Water Oualitv Mitigation
Compliance with the “SWPPfor Construction Activity of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints Meeting House, Carlsbad, CA, and installation of pollution control devices as identified
on the project (CUP 01-04) Grading and Drainage Plan.
Biological Mitigation
Type of Impact
Elimination of East-
West Drainage Channel
Area of Impact
300’/0.13 acre
wetlands and riparian
habitat
~~~~ Mitigation for impact
North-South Channel Widening and
Augmentation as follows:
13,000 sq. ftJ0.3 acre wetland augmentation on
south side
north side
4,800 sq. ft/O. 11 acre augmentation on
Total: .41 acre wetland augmentation
See attached Figure 3 for location of proposed
wetland augmentation.
16 Rev. 03/28/96 J-?
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
17 Rev. 03/28/96 28
I 3 r
a i
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 2
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 2
n II I
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5198
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP
OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED WEST OF CAMINO DE LOS COCHES BETWEEN
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD AND LA COSTA AVENUE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11
CASE NO: GPA 01-13
WHEREAS, The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints, “Developer” and “Owner”, has filed a verified application with the
City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
CASE NAME: CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
That portion of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 13524 in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, October
28,1984, as File No. 84-403293 of Official Records, including a
portion of Mision Estancia dedicated on said Parcel Map.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “GPA 01-13” dated May 15, 2002, attached hereto and on
file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS - GPA 01-
13, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of May, 2002, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
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 General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
la
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the
APPROVES CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST
the following findings:
public hearing, the Commission
? - LDS - GPA 01-13, based on
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the project including the proposed General Plan
amendment to define the boundaries of the OS designation, as conditioned herein, is
in conformance with the Land Use and Open Space Elements of the City’s General
Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated May 15,2002 including, but not
limited to the following:
The proposed open space boundary is consistent with the Land Use Element in that
it coincides with the drainage channel and wetland habitat existing on the property
which is the intended open space boundary.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of May, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall, and
White
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Whitton
ABSTAIN: None
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PC RES0 NO. 5198 -2- 33
EXMBIT 4 The Gity of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. @
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 15,2002 Project Planner: Anne Hysong
SUBJECT: GPA 01-IYCUP 01-04/HDP 01-10 -CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS -
Request for a general plan amendment to define designated open space
boundaries, and a conditional use permit, and hillside development permit to
allow the development of a church on property located on the west side of
Camino de 10s Coches between Stage Coach Park and La Costa Avenue in Local
Facilities Management Zone 11.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5197
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5198
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment GPA 00-13 and ADOPT
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5199 and 5200 APPROVING Conditional Use Permit
CUP 01-04 and Hillside Development Permit HDP 01-10 based on the findings and subject to
the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
This project entails a conditional use permit and hillside development permit to allow a 16,842
square foot church and parking lot on the 6.82 acre parcel designated for Residential Medium
density (RM) development and Open Space (OS). The parcel is located within the boundaries of
the original La Costa Master Plan and is adjacent to Stage Coach Community Park to the south
and single and multiple family development to the north, east and west in the southeast quadrant
of the City. The project also requires a General Plan Amendment to define designated open space
boundaries to coincide with the boundaries of a north-south drainage channeVwetland riparian
habitat existing on the property. As designed and conditioned, the project is consistent with all
applicable standards and policies and the necessary findings to approve the project can be made.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project site is an undeveloped, but previously disturbed, 6.82 acre infill parcel located west
of the intersection of Camino de 10s Coches and Via Calendo and north of Stage Coach
Community Park. The site, which is designated by the General Plan for Residential Medium
(RM) density development and Open Space (OS) and zoned Planned Community (P-C), is
located within the boundaries of the original La Costa Master Plan. The Master Plan identifies
the site as Planning Area SE 10 and designates it for multi-family residential development. The
property is abutted by multi-family residential development to the north and west, Stagecoach
Park to the south, and single family development above Camino de 10s Coches to the east.
GPA 01-13/CUP 01-04/HDP 01-10- CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
May 15,2002
Topographically, the site descends slightly to split level pads from Camino de 10s Coches. The
split level pads are separated by a 15’ - 20’ manufactured slope. The site contains two
drainages; an east-west channel that flows into a more prominent north-south drainage channel.
A descending slope separates the level pads from the north-south drainage channel located along
the western boundary of the property. Although the majority of the site is devoid of native
vegetation, the onsite drainages support approximately .5 acre of southern willow scrub and
freshwater marsh vegetation. The proposed project would eliminate the east-west drainage area
and disturb the associated wetland vegetation.
The project includes a request for approval of a General Plan amendment, conditional use permit
and hillside development permit to enable the construction of a 16,842 square foot church and
requisite parking. The proposed General Plan amendment is necessary to define designated open
space boundaries to coincide with the north-south drainage area on the site.
The General Plan Map, which shows generalized boundaries of designated open space, identifies
an approximate 200’ wide open space area along the drainage channel. The project’s drainage
study and biological analysis delineate the boundaries of the drainage area and associated
wetland vegetation within an existing onsite 70’ wide drainage easement located along the
western boundary of the property. The drainage easement is bounded to the west by an existing
condominium project approved and developed in the 1980s.
The proposed open space is within the boundaries of the project site and includes an average 50’
wide habitat buffer to the east of the 70’ wide drainage channel for a total average open space
width of 120’ as shown on Exhibit “GPA 01-13”. It is assumed that a portion of the open space
shown on the General Plan Map is within the adjacent property boundary to the west of the
drainage channel.
Proposed development within the average 50’ wide buffer adjacent to the drainage channel
includes 3:l and 2: 1 manufactured slopes with rip-rap at various locations to prevent soil erosion
and wetland revegetation areas. The wetland revegetation is required as mitigation for project
impacts to wetland habitats located within the east-west drainage channel.
Chapter 21.42 of the Zoning Ordinance permits churches in any residentially designated area
upon approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). The proposed site abuts another conditional
use to the south (Stage Coach Community Park) and is separated from multi-family residences to
the west by a 70’ wide drainage channel and to the east by Camino de 10s Coches, a secondary
arterial roadway. Access to the site is provided f?om the north and south by circulation arterial
roadways (Camino de 10s Coches via La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road). The
proposed Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Church (LDS) consists of a 16,842 square foot, 28’
high, single story structure with a 32’ high steeple for a total of height of 60’. The proposed
floor plan identifies a 254 seat chapel, a cultural center, meeting rooms, and offices. The
development also includes a 189 space landscaped parking lot with two points of ingress and
egress from Camino de 10s Coches.
The proposed grading scheme requires 42,000 cubic yards of remedial grading to remove and
replace undocumented fill soils that extend 5’ to 15’ below the ground surface. To minimize the
amount of import required, deep foundations will be used to provide adequate support for the
33’
GPA 01-13/CUP 01-04/HDP 01-10 -CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
May 15,2002
proposed structure. Because the site contains a 15’ or greater elevation differential and greater
than 15% slope, a hillside development permit is required.
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards, and policies:
A. General Plan
B. La Costa Master Plan
C. Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance)
1. Chapters 21.24121.44 - RD-M ZoneParking Ordinance
2. Chapters 21.42 -Conditional Uses
3. Chapter 21.90 - Hillside Development Regulations
D. Growth Management
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of
the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A. General Plan
The project is consistent with the following elements of the General Plan as indicated by the
following table:
ELEMENT
Land Use
GENERAL PLA
USE, CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR
PROGRAM
Desirnation: MOS -
Provide for a sufficient
diversity of land uses so that
schools, parks, churches, and
commercial centers are
available in close proximity to
each resident of the City.
Boundary Definition: Where
boundaries appear to reflect
environmental and resource
management considerations,
boundaries shall be construed
in a manner which is consistent
with the considerations that the
boundary reflects.
COMPLIANCE
PROPOSED I COMPLY
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints
Yes
Open Space boundary reflects the
70’ wide drainage channel
Yes*
easement and an average 50’
wide habitat buffer.
36
GPA 01-13/CUP 01-04/HDP 01-10 -CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
May 15,2002
ELEMENT
Circulation
Open Space
Public Safety
GENERAL PLAN CO
USE, CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR
PROGRAM
Require new development to
dedicate and improve all
roadways and drainage
facilities necessary to serve
development.
Identify existing open space
for protection management and
potential enhancement to
maintain and if possible,
increase its value as wildlife
habitat.
Review new development
proposals to consider
emergency access, fire hydrant
locations, and fire flow
requirements.
IPLIANCE, continued
PROPOSED
The project is served by existing
circulation arterial roadways and
drainage facilities required for the
project will be improved.
Define existing open space
boundaries to incorporate a 70’
wide natural drainage easement
and an average 50’ wide habitat
buffer.
Project has two points of ingress
and egress, buildings are required
to be sprinklered, and the
necessary hydrant locations are
provided.
COMPLY
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
*The General Plan Map identifies an approximate 200’ wide open space area surrounding a
drainage channel located along the western property boundary as shown on Exhibit “A”. The La
Costa Master Plan Open Space Map designates an approximate 50’ - 100’ wide open space
surrounding the drainage channel. The relevant subdivision maps for the area identify an
approximately 100’ wide drainage easement that was originally recorded in 1980 over a parcel
that was later subdivided into 4 parcels by MS 650. MS 650 identifies the property to the west of
the LDS Church site and the LDS Church site as Parcels 3 and 4. Parcel 3 was later subdivided
by CT 84-7 and a condominium project was constructed. CT 84-7 resulted in the vacation of all
but 11.39’ of the portion of the total 100’ wide drainage easement existing on Parcel 3. A 70’
wide drainage easement was recorded on Parcel 4. The proposed open space on the LDS Church
site (Parcel 4) reflects the 70’ wide drainage channel easement and an average 50’ wide habitat
buffer that is consistent with the boundaries of the actual drainage charmellwetland habitat
resource existing on the property.
B. La Costa Master Plan
The project site is known as Planning Area SE 10 of the La Costa Master Plan. Planning Area
SE 10 is designated by the Master Plan for a minimum of 40 multiple family units to be designed
in accordance with the RD-M zoning standards and processed in accordance with Chapter 21.06
- Qualified Overlay Zone. The Master Plan requires that development “shall insure
compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods particularly regarding the placement of open spaces,
selection and location of landscaping material, continuity of pedestrian and bike paths, siting of
structures for view opportunities and architectural harmony.” Conditional uses, such as the
proposed church, are regulated by Chapter 21.42 - Conditional Uses, of the Zoning Ordinance
unless otherwise specified by the applicable Master Plan. Since church uses are not addressed by
the La Costa Master Plan, a conditional use permit for the proposed LDS Church development is
37
GPA 01-13/CUP 01-04MDP 01-10 -CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
May 15,2002
Paee 5
being processed in accordance with Chapter 21.42. The conditional use permit will ensure the
project’s compliance with the RD-M zone development standards and the applicable
compatibility provisions of the La Costa Master Plan. The project is consistent with
compatibility provisions of the Master Plan as indicated by the following table:
LA COSTA MASTER PLAN C
Compatibility Provision
Open Spaces
Landscaping
Siting of structures for view opportunities
Architectural harmony
MPATIBILITY PROVISIONS
Preservation of open space around three sides
of the development will separate the church
from the adjacent residential and Stage Coach
Park land uses.
Native and ornamental landscaping is provided
around perimeter of development area to buffer
and screen development from adjacent land
uses.
The proposed structure, which is centrally
located on the lot, occupies only 5.67% of the
site; therefore, existing views will not be
significantly reduced due to the proposed
development.
The proposed colonialheritage architectural
style is compatible with respect to height,
design, and building materials with
surrounding residential development. The
proposed church steeple is a single
architectural protrusion associated with church
uses that is approximately the same height as
the light standards on the adjacent ball field
and approximately the height of adjacent single
family residences located along Sitio Baya to
the east of Camino de 10s Coches.
Compliance
~~~~
C1. RD-M ZondParking Ordinance
The La Costa Master Plan requires consistency with the RD-M zone standards as indicated by
the following table:
RD-M ZONE STANDARDS
Standard Comply Provided Requirement Uses Yes LDS Church Single Family/
Multiple Family Units
Conditional Uses
(Churches) as
permitted by Chapter
21.42 of the Zoning
Ordinance
38
GPA 01-IYCUP 01-04/HDP 01-10 -CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
May 15,2002
RD-M ZONE STANDARDS, continued
Standard Comply Provided Requirement
Setbacks:
65’ Minimum 20’ Front:
Yes
Side:
15’
375’1285’
Rear:
Yes 28’ - Single Story 35’ Maximum Height
Minimum 25’ from 10’
open space boundary
Height protrusions per
height protrusion Zoning Ordinance
allowed architectural Chapter 21.46 of the
32’ High Steeple is an
Building Coverage Yes 5.67% 60% Maximum
The parking requirement for churches is based on total square footage or number of seats,
whichever results in a greater parking requirement. The parking requirement for the LDS church
is shown on the following table.
PARKING STANDARDS
Proposed Use Parking Spaces Parking Standard
Required
Chapel One space per five
2,498 square feeV254 seats seats 51 spaces
Public AssemblyMeeting Rooms One space per five
4,036 square feeV356 seats seats I 116 maces I
Offices - 3,765 square feet
189 Spaces TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED:
186 SDaces TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENT:
19 spaces One space/250 square
feet =19 spaces
C2. Conditional Uses
Churches are encouraged in all residential zones by the General Plan, and they are permitted in
any zone by Chapter 21.42 of the Zoning Ordinance with approval of a conditional use permit
(CUP). The CUP requires findings that the 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 site is located within an established single and multi-family residential area where no other
churches currently exist. The site is not detrimental to surrounding residential uses due to its
proposed location. The proposed church parking lot, which is located adjacent to a Stage Coach
39
GPA 01-13/CLJF’ 01-04kIDP 01-10 -CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
Mav 15,2002
Park ball field, avoids conflicts typically associated with noise and lighting resulting from both
uses. There is a significant horizontal and vertical separation from single family residences to
the east due to the 84’ wide Camino de 10s Coches right-of-way and adjacent 25+’ high slope
that separates single family residences from the roadway. An average 120’ wide drainage
channel and buffer that extends along the entire western property line separates the site from
multi-family development to the west. The proposed small scale, colonialheritage architectural
style is compatible with development in the surrounding area. The proposed steeple is an allowed
architectural protrusion that is typically associated with religious structures and its height is
consistent with adjacent ballfield light standards and residential structures located along Sitio
Baya.
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 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 5.67% when 60% is allowed and all setbacks are well above the
minimum required.
All 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. The proposed development will preserve a significant landscape buffer around the
development by providing 32% of the site as ornamental landscape coverage in addition to
wetland revegetation adjacent to the drainage channel within the north and southeastern areas of
the site. On-site lighting will be designed to avoid light spillage onto adjacent properties. The
street system serving the proposed use consists of circulation arterial roadways that are adequate
to properly handle the projected 750 trips on days of assembly and 250 trips on non-assembly
days.
C3. Hillside Development Regulations
A Hillside Development Permit is required for the project because the site contains slopes of 15
percent and greater with elevation differentials greater than 15 feet. The project consists of a
grading design to create a landform that is consistent with the City’s Hillside Development
Regulations. As shown on the following table, the proposed project is consistent with the
applicable Hillside Development regulations for development of steep slopes, slope height,
grading volumes, and slope screening.
STANDARD COMPLIANCE
Development prohibited on 40%+ Slopes 1 No on-site slopes meet this criterion
Exceeding 10,000 Square Feet
Grading Volumes: Acceptable - 7,999 cubic I 6,161 cubic yarddacre
ydacre
Slope Height: 40 Feet Maximum
Landscaping consists of a combination of trees, Slope Screening:
Slope Height: 15 Feet
Landscaping ofmanufactured slopes consistent
slopes. with the City’s Landscape Manual
shrubs, -and groundcover on all perimeter
YO
GPA 01-13/CW 01-04lHDP 01-10 -CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
May 15,2002
Page 8
D. Growth Management
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
V. ENVIRONMENTAL. REVIEW
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a
potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project
falls within the scope of the City’s MEIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan update (EIR 93-
01) certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement of Ovemding Considerations was
adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic circulation. MEIRs may not be used to
review projects if certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later
project except under certain circumstances. 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. 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. All feasible mitigation measures identified by the MEIR which are
appropriate to this project havebeen incorporated into the project.
Potentially significant environmental impacts were identified for water quality, biological
resources, and geological resources. The developer has agreed to mitigation measures to reduce
identified impacts to below a level of significance in accordance with CEQA. In consideration
of the foregoing, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project
on January 23,2002. No comments were received during the 30 day public review.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5197 (Neg Dec)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5198 (GPA)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5199 (CW)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5200 (HDP)
GPA 01-13/CUP 01-04/HDP 01-10 - CHLTRCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
May 15,2002
5. Location Map
6. Background Data Sheet
7. Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
8. Disclosure Statement
9. Reduced Exhibits
10. Exhibits “A” - “L” dated May 15,2002
AH:cs:mh
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: GPA 00-13/CUP 01-04/HDP 01-10
CASE NAME: Church of Jesus Christ - LDS
APPLICANT: BSW International
REQUEST AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment to define designated open space
boundaries to coincide with the boundaries of the north-south drainage channel and wetland and
riparian habitat existing on the propertv. and a conditional use permit and hillside development
permit to allow a 16.842 square foot church and parking lot on a 6.8 acre parcel located on the
west side of Camino de 10s Coches between Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue in the
southeast quadrant in Local Facilities Management Zone 11.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 13524 in the Citv of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego Countv, October 28. 1984. as File No. 84-403293 of Official Records. including a
portion of Mission Estancia dedicated on said Parcel Map.
APN 223-060-50 Acres: Proposed No. of LotslUnits: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RM/OS
Density Allowed: 4 - 8 DU/AC Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: P-C Proposed Zone: P-C
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning
Site P-c
North P-C
South P-C
East P-c
West P-C
General Plan Current Land Use RM/os VACANT
RM MULTI-FAMILY
os STAGE COACH PARK
RLM SINGLE FAMILY
~
RM MULTI-FAMILY
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Encinitas Union Elem and San Diemito Union Hieh School Water District:
Olivenhain Municipal Water District Sewer District: Leucadia Countv Water District
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued Januarv 23, 2002
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: GPA 00-13/CUP 01-04iHDP 01-10 - CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST -
LDS
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 11 GENERAL PLAN: RM
ZONING: P-C
DEVELOPERS NAME: CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
ADDRESS: % BSW INTERNATIONAL, 2201 DUPONT DRIVE. SUITE 140. IRVNE, CA
92612
QUANTITY OF LAND USEBEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 16.842 SO. FT.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: UNKNOWN
PHONE NO.: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 223-060-50
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 2.3 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A
Drainage: Demand in CFS = 26.09
Fire:
Open Space:
Schools:
Sewer:
Identify Drainage Basin = ' D
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 750 ADT
(Identify Trip Distribution on site pian)
Served by Fire Station No. = 6
Acreage Provided = 1.04
N/A
Demands in EDU 2.3 EDU
:d on site plan)
Demand in GPD = 505
(Identify trunk line(s) impacte
Water:
This project is 34 units below the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance,
~ City of Carlsbad
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. Commisslon 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:
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city
Person is defmed as “Any individual, fum, co-parmersbip, joint venhue, association, social club, fraternal
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.”
provided below.
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
1.
2.
APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL’ names and addresses of persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comoration or uartnershb, 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 comoration. include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person &\c 2s- ,A <%\ , SV- Corp/Partm h~td h~
Title -/XU\-C Title
Address ZZoi wm Address * i+- -s?i.l ,*s, u3 9lG 1% 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 (ie,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
cornoration 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 comoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.) -WGw e?”’&& r\-\b,& &\ug uf
Persoam CorpPart “AT -..;<& ,x*! cnrr. %\\e
Titl-Lsct w\ tad. TitleTks CLQ~CK 0&.k5& q~6r SF UAL”
Address ‘“cb &+a -> ’Qm a%\c#iddress % ’G %G=W~&WLG
ci“4 of - cHiubY OF
,
205b’tA. M\LCS a-N -T Labs c.LT’l\ur QA\50
?m% 3.a
cro”T, cp 9 \?\ (
I
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 @
4 3-
3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (I) or (2) above is a nonurofit organlzarion or a must. 1151 rhr
names and addresses of ANy person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
or anization or as!rustee or benefici of tk.
Non F'rofitTrust's\*a.,b W &Sf- %Won Profiflrust
Title a~ MrA s..,n% 'T* cw;u*t 65 &C==.us cv.g,5r Title
Address Address
=s C& .~4=+. wy<o.SC, B ,fi'pe J1; TWG c*,W OF- iltim5r0F "- "'"1
.-
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
Yes Po 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 howledge.
Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicableldate
Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSUFiE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 46
Y7
tt
" I- ' ,nu '
r-
Q
i
Ei
L r
Planning Commission Minutes May 15,2002 DRAFT F&PW 5
6. GPA 01-131CUP 01-04/HDP 01-10 -CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS - Request for General
Plan Amendment to define designated open space boundaries, and a Conditional Use permit, and
side of Camino de 10s Coches between Stage Coach Park and La Costa Avenue in Local
Hillside Development Permit to allow the development of a church on property located on the west
Facilities Management Zone1 1.
Mr. Wayne introduced the last item on the agenda
Jane Mobaldi pointed out this is a General Plan Amendment that requires 4 votes for approval, a majority
of the decision making body. Chairperson Trigas asked the applicant if he would like to proceed or wait
until there was a full Commission, The applicant wished to proceed with the item.
Anne Hysong, Associate Planner, stated that the item is a request for approval of a church facility on a
6.82 acre parcel located west of Camino de 10s Coches between Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa
Avenue just north of Stagecoach Community Park. The applicant is requesting recommendation of
approval for a General Plan Amendment to define the boundaries of open space to coincide with the
boundaries of existing drainage and a mitigated negative declaration. She said they are also requesting
Planning approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Hillside Development Permit to allow grading and
construction of the church facility. She added that churches are allowed by the Zoning Ordinance in any
zone upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
of native vegetation except within two drainages. The east-west drainage flows into a more prominent
Ms. Hysong described the site as an undeveloped, but previouslydisturbed, split level parcel that is devoid
on-site drainages support approximately one acre of sensitive wetland vegetation and the project will
north-south drainage for which a 70-foot wide drainage easement has been previously dedicated. These
result in the loss of the east-west drainage channel.
Ms. Hysong stated the proposed development is separated from multi-family development to the west by
the drainage channel, and it is separated from single family development to the east by Camino de 10s
Coches and a 25-30 foot high slope.
Ms. Hysong said the project consists of a 16.842 square foot church and requisite parking lot. The church
is a single story 28 foot high structure with a 32 foot high steeple. The floor plan consists of a chapel with
254 seats, a cultural center, meeting rooms, and offices. Access to the site is provided from both the
north and south by circulation arterial roadways, that is Camino de 10s Coches via Rancho Santa Fe Road
and La Costa Avenue. The project has two access driveways from Camino de 10s Coches.
Ms. Hysong stated that the property is designated by the General Plan for Residential Medium Density
land use and open space. The proposed General Plan Amendment to define open space boundaries is
consistent with the General Plan land use element, which allows for boundary definition where open space
boundaries appear to reflect environmental considerations. The environmental considerations for this
project are the drainages, particularly the north-south drainage easement.
wide draining easement and an average 50 foot wide habitat buffer for a total average open space width
Ms. Hysong stated that the proposed average 120 foot wide open space accounts for the existing 70 foot
of 120 feet. This is consistent with the approximately 100 foot wide open space shown on the original La
Costa Master Plan Open Space map. The property is zoned Planned Community and designated by the
the RD-M zone standards. The Conditional Uses chapter of the City Zoning Ordinance is also applicable.
La Costa Master Plan as Planning Area SE-10 which calls for multi-family development in accordance with
The site is also subject to the City's Hillside Development Regulations. The project is consistent with the
La Costa Master Plan. It is compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods, particularly regarding placement
The structure is sited so as not to obstruct view opportunities and the proposed traditional colonial
of open space around the facility. Landscaping around the entire perimeter of the project is proposed.
architecture is compatible with the neighborhood.
Ms. Hysong said the project is consistent with findings required by the RD-M zone and the Conditional Use
Ordinance. Churches are permitted conditional uses, and the project far exceeds the minimum RD-M
zone development standards for setbacks and is well below the maximum building coverage and
Planning Commission Minutes May 15,2002 Page 17
maximum building height, with the exception of a 60 foot high steeple, which is an architectural protrusion.
Architectural protrusions can exceed the maximum building height of 35 feet.
Ms. Hysong stated that parking is provided in compliance with the City's parking standard for public
assembly uses. The proposed substantial horizontal and vertical separation avoids potential detrimental
impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. The site and circulation arterial street system are adequate to
accommodate the project.
Ms. Hysong added that the project complies with the applicable hillside regulations; the proposed grading
volumes are within the acceptable range, manufactured slopes are below the maximum height allowed,
and landscape screening of slopes is proposed. Environmental mitigation required for the project to reduce potentially significant impacts consists of compliance with the water quality BMPs already designed
into the project to filter pollutants from the parking lot before they enter into the drainage channel. The
project must also be consistent with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The use of deep
foundations are required due to expansive soils and a limitation on the hours, between 9:00 a.m. and 3:OO
p.m., during which soils can be transported to and from the site to reduce impacts to the neighborhood.
Four tenths of an acre of wetland revegetation is required along the north-south drainage channel within
the proposed open space to mitigate the loss of wetland impacts. Ms. Hysong concluded her presentation
stating that the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 23, 2002 and no
comments were received during the 30-day public review period.
Commissioner Segall said he read in the Staff Report that the steeple is no higher than the lights in Stage
Coach Park and asked her to elaborate on that. Ms. Hysong replied she was told by the Park &
the same height as the light standards.
Recreation Department that those light standards are between 50 and 70 feet high so it's approximately
Commissioner Baker asked what the typical limitation is on architectural protrusions. Ms. Hysong replied
there is no limitation, it's allowed to exceed the building height. If the zone has no limitations, it's at the
standard and painted white. Ms. Hysong replied that it is painted white, but did not know if the steeple is
Planning Commission's and Council's discretion. Commissioner Baker asked if it was wider than a light
wider than at the top of the light standard where all the lights are, but said it probably is not.
Chairperson Trigas asked if the lights in the steeple look as obvious driving along the road. Ms. Hysong
said she drove by the site and the light standards in the park were very visible in her opinion.
Commissioner Segall said Stagecoach Park is contiguous with this property and asked if there is a
possibility to have parking spillover from one lot to the other. Ms. Hysong pointed out where the field is in
that both Stagecoach Park and the church are managed and if there were a spillover problem he thought
relation to the church parking lot and said the two sites are separated by a slope. Mr. Wayne commented
the church would do something.
Applicant Leo Garcia, a full-time employee of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 626
Baseline Road, Claremont, CA 91 71 1, stated that they were present to ask for approval of the project as
presented. He stated a lot has gone into the design and the local membership has been waiting a long
time for the church to appropriate funds for this meeting house. There were delays due to environmental
sensitivity of the area so they have spent a lot of time trying to comply with and mitigate the conditions that
are required.
Commissioner Baker asked if the height of the steeple is negotiable. Mr. Garcia said they are not inclined
to change it. He indicated that the steeple is very small in scale to the rest of the building. The church spent several years trying to come up with a steeple that would. be an emblem and an image of the church
that would not be obtrusive and yet still stand out so that people could identify with it. He said if the height
was reduced it would look quite stumpy and it is really quite small in comparison to the roofline.
of events and how often it would stay illuminated past 1O:OO p.m. Mr. Garcia said he did not know how
Commissioner White wanted to know what sort of illumination is intended for the steeple and for what type
this came up because normally they do not illuminate the steeples. If there is any illumination, it would be
very low intensity, maybe 40 watts, and it would not spill onto the parking lot or even the roof. Regarding
special events, Mr. Garcia said they do not decorate their buildings for Christmas or Easter.
53
Planning Commission Minutes May 15,2002 Page 18
Commissioner White asked what the normal days and hours of assembly are. Mr. Garcia said they
basically use the building on Sundays for worship services and this particular building will house two
congregations. They try to keep the congregations small and their own members are the lay clergy. The
congregations meet in three-hour blocks. He approximated that one would meet from 9:00 am to 12:OO
pm and the other from 1:00 pm to 4:OO pm. If they overlap, which they try to discourage, one would come
in at 9:00 and leave at 12:OO and the other one would probably come in around 11 :00 and leave at 2:OO. Other functions associated with the building include youth activities normally held on Tuesdays and
Wednesdays. One youth group would meet on Tuesday evenings from about 7:30 to 9:00 and the other
on Wednesdays from about 7:30 to 9:OO. This would happen at least twice or mostly three times a month.
The building would not be used at all on Mondays or during the day except for the people from the
would have an activity once a month from about 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. There will be social activities on a
preventive maintenance office who come in once or twice a week to clean. The Women's Organization
Friday or Saturday night usually once a month, very seldom twice a month, and those usually run until
but normally the social activities would run until 11:OO or 12:OO at night, but are not held that much.
11:OO p.m. or so. Something like a New Year's Eve dance for the kids would probably run until midnight,
Chairperson Trigas asked Mr. Garcia if he would object if the illumination was removed and replaced by
something more suitable. Mr. Garcia replied that he would not object at all, and suggested they could limit
the lighting to "if needed" although the plans don't have it. He added the wattage could be limited to three
fixtures of 40 watts each.
Chairperson Trigas asked if the architectural design was typical for their church and if it had a religious
significance, specifically in the roof which has a flat elevation all the way across with very little break. Mr.
Garcia responded that the architecture follows the function of the building. The sanctuary is under the
steeple portion where they have the general assembly of the families. Behind the sanctuary is the cultural
hall and that's where the young people usually have their events. In order to isolate that from noise, they
put all the teaching stations and offices around those two areas to try to mitigate any noise inside the
to try to break up the rectangular aspect of the building. In the past, architects have tried to put their own
building. That's why they have a fairly rectangular footprint on the building. The entry is more prominent
emblem to represent it, so a few years ago they came out with a standard plan. In the standard plan they
imprint on the buildings and when the leadership of the church traveled they found no consistent theme or
tried to provide for different areas of the United States. They gave the local church leaders an option of four different styles and they try to pick the one that most closely fits the community. The church is trying
to keep it as standard as possible so that whether it3 in a very affluent area or in a very low income the
church can say we are all equal, we are all the same.
Chairperson Trigas opened public testimony.
Ron Gregory, 3532 Sitio Baya, Carlsbad, pointed out the approximate location of his address on the map
directly across the street from his house. He wanted to make it clear that he is not against the
and stated that Sitio Baya runs parallel to Camino de 10s Coches. He said the proposed structure will be
development and is confident that the church will be a good neighbor and maintain their property. He said he didn't see in the Staff Report where consideration was given to the overall impact of all the other
development going in this area. He said his property would probably be the most impacted by this
development and the specific issues he wanted to address were the steeple and traffic. Although he was
happy there were no plans to illuminate the steeple, he said it's somewhat of a misnomer that the steeple
height is the same as the light standards for the park because the light standards around the ball fields are
football fields away from the existing homes. The location of the proposed church and steeple, as it relates
to his home, is only about 100 feet and will be directly in view from the rear of his home upstairs. He said they have provided adequate parking for the proposed use, but is concerned that as the church becomes
operational, cars will be parking along the street because it's easier to get to the structure from the street
than from the parking lot. He wanted the Commission to understand that every time a car goes up and down Camino de 10s Coches it impacts the use and enjoyment of his backyard because of the noise. He
was concerned that now cars may be parking along there, stopping, starting, and accelerating literally right
outside his back door. He mentioned that the Staff Report indicates that on assembly days traffic will be
three times what it would be if it were a multi-family residential project, which is what it is currently zoned
for. From what he heard, the building is going to be in use almost every day of the week and all day on
Sundays. He felt that the proposed use would have a quadrupling of traffic versus what he has now with
the empty lot. He said a potential solution for this would be to require the church to deposit funds in an escrow account that can be used by homeowners for a sound wall, if necessary.
Planning Commission Minutes May 15,2002 Page I9
Daniel Ryan, 3521 Sitio Baya, Carlsbad. stated he did not have much objection to the project. He said he
was under a false assumption that the facilities are used by the kids before they go to school in the
morning. He said if it‘s used in the mornings the problem is La Costa Canyon High School kids go in right
there at 7:30 -7:45 and the street is lined up three blocks to get into the school parking lot. If the church is
being used at the same time there will be double the amount of cars and they can’t get out of the
development now when the kids go to school. He said the problem in the morning would be his only objection and he thought the church would be a much better neighbor than an 89 unit family complex.
looking at the parking lot from her home. She was concerned about what kind of sound buffer or Elaine Woskow. 3516 Sitio Baya, Carlsbad, stated that from her best recollection they would probably be
landscaping would be between the parking lot and the street she would be looking out on. She was also
concerned about the noise and lights from events at night that last later than 1O:OO p.m. as well as the
traffic in the morning. She said she doesn’t particularly care about seeing a steeple out her window but
realizes that goes along with the church and was okay with it since it is not being illuminated.
Mr. Garcia stated he was under strict instructions from headquarters not to mislead in any way, shape or
form and said the seminary is a legitimate concern. He said some of their high school students attend a
religious class on school days for about 45 minutes. Some are dropped off by their parents and then walk
to school, and some drive to school. The impact would depend on how many of their kids attend high
school and are willing to get up at 5:OO a.m. to attend a 45-minute religious class on school days. He
thought the average trips would be about 10-1 5.
would be willing to build walls on anyone’s property because the traffic on the street would not always be
Regarding the noise issue, Mr. Garcia said they could plant trees on the parkway but didn’t think they
from their facility. He said when he mentioned social activities he wanted to overstate that issue. There will not be noise from inside the building because it was designed so it would not spill. Dances for the kids
would not be every weekend, sometimes once a month, occasionally maybe twice a month. He said there would certainly be a New Year’s Eve dance and probably a graduation dance.
There is a considerable slope to get to the building and it‘s quite a wide parkway. He said it would be a lot
Mr. Garcia said he visited the site personally and didn’t think parking on the street would be a problem.
safer and easier to walk to the meeting house from the parking lot.
Commissioner White asked if most of the high school students attending seminar go to La Costa Canyon
High School and would be contributing to the traffic anyway. Mr. Garcia replied they all go to La Costa
Canyon. He said one of the positive things is that the kids get out of seminary early and get to the high
school early and can find a parking space.
Mr. Garcia said he was told the ordinance does not allow parking on the street. Chairperson Trigas said
Staff would clarify that.
Commissioner White asked if they have adult supervision at their dances, her main concern being
children making noise out in the parking lot at 11:OO pm. Mr. Garcia replied they are supervised by
several adults. They do not allow any youth or children activity whatsoever without adult supervision.
Chairperson Trigas closed public testimony.
Mr. Wojcik stated that in regard to parking on the street, it was his understanding that parking was not
allowed on Camino de 10s Coches, but the resident probably know for sure. As far as the traffic, on
Sundays there will be roughly 3 times the amount of average daily traffic that there would be for a
traffic congestion is normally during the morning and evening peak hours. The only morning traffic would residential project there, however, the average daily traffic is typically not the problem. The problem with
be 10-20 cars for the seminary use and the residential type use would generate approximately 28 peak
hour trips in the morning. There is generally no problem with congestion on Sundays so the estimated
750 trips doesn’t translate into traffic impact in the City‘s experience.
Ms. Hysong stated the project is located along a circulation arterial roadway and residential projects that
are located along circulation arterial roadways are reviewed prior to their approval for noise impacts based
on certain noise projections from traffic. She said she assumes that Mr. Gregory’s project was already
Planning Commission Minutes May 15,2002 Page 20
reviewed prior to its construction and noise was assumed not to exceed 60 decibels, which is the City
standard. She said Mr. Gregory‘s project is significantly separated by a 25-30 foot high slope from the
roadway so the noise abatement is most likely taken care of by that slope. She said she’s not sure if any
fencing is provided at the rear of his yard but if noise impacts had exceeded the standard then they would
have constructed a wall. Because the traffic impacts of this project don’t exceed what was projected, they
wouldn’t envision that any noise abatement is required for this project.
Commissioner Segall asked if it was correct that it could be addressed with the CUP if the levels
consideration because it‘s along a circulation arterial roadway.
exceeded the standard. Ms. Hysong said that it could but Staff believes it has already been taken it into
taking place in the area as Mr. Gregory questioned. Mr. Wojcik said he thought that statement regarded
Commissioner Baker asked if there was any consideration given to all the cumulative development that‘s
traffic impacts, and peak hour traffic volumes are going to be less than a residential project that would be
there. When this area was originally developed, the traffic report would have analyzed that project as
the City’s Master EIR also taking a look at the traffic impacts. He said to the best of his knowledge neither having the residential medium density, so the traffic impacts would already have been analyzed as well as
one showed any unmitigatable impacts to the intersection or roadways in that area.
Commissioner Baker said she understood his question was that it wasn’t this project but it was several
analyzed for traffic in the Traffic Impact Report for the entire area. This is one of the La Costa Master
projects happening concurrently in that area. Mr. Wojcik replied that that area would have already been
Plan areas so it would have been done on an area-wide basis, not on individual subdivisions. The Master
EIR done several years ago also took another look at all the major intersections and circulation roads.
anticipation that if they wanted to illuminate the steeple at some point in the future, it would be restricted
Regarding the lighting issue, Ms. Hysong stated that Staff put in the condition regarding illumination in
similar to other churches so that illumination could not occur past 1O:OO p.m. except on special holidays.
If the applicant does not desire lighting in the steeple, a condition stating there will be no illumination in the
steeple may be appropriate.
Chairperson Trigas wanted to clarify whether or not cars can park on Camino de 10s Coches and if they
took the noise level based on anticipated noise from the church and determined that this home is less
than 60 decibels.
Ms. Hysong explained that based on traffic projections for circulation arterial roadways they look at noise impacts from existing and future traffic and make a determination as to whether or not adjacent residential
structures back farther or build walls, berms, or something to reduce noise impacts. This existing
projects are going to be impacted beyond the 60 decibel threshold. If it is, then they either set the
development was determined, before its construction, not to be impacted by other existing or future
would cause those noise levels to exceed the standard.
projected noise levels from traffic. This project isn’t increasing the traffic on this street to the extent that it
Chairperson Trigas asked if it does for some reason, is there a process for the homeowner to question it
and ask it to be tested. Mr. Wayne responded that he thinks we’re headed in the opposite direction of the
Council policies right now because prior to the Noise Element being adopted in 1994, there was a Council
and a Planning Commission adopted policy dealing with noise. He said Ms. Hysong is correct; the project
in question is new enough to deal with the noise issue so if it was not constructed with sound attenuation it
didn’t need it and that‘s with projected traffic to buildout. All of the arterials in the city have noise contour lines based upon traffic volumes and this one obviously didn’t need it and was not conditioned because if
the outside noise is loud enough and exceeds the 60 decibel threshold they have to do all sorts of things
such as mechanical ventilation, get balconies for recreational area, etc. and this isn’t the case in this
project. It was the City Council’s policy not to retrofit and require retrofitting of these projects, so there is
really no process.
Wojcik was checking it out.
Chairperson Trigas asked if the road is a non-issue because they can’t park on it. Ms. Hysong said Mr.
Commissioner Segall said he has parked on the street in front of the park when there are special events
there and didn’t recall any signage contiguous with the park, but didn’t know if there were restrictions
Planning Commission Minutes May 15,2002 Page 21
further up. Mr. Wayne said one of the requirements for bona fide special events is to bag the signs. Mr.
Gregory said there are no signs. Chairperson Trigas said if there are no signs then they can‘t enforce it.
Commissioner Segall said he had a change on page 4 of Resolution 5199, condition #7. He said there is
San Dieguito Union High School District.
no Carlsbad Municipal School District and thought it would probably be Encinitas Union Elementary and
condition to preclude hours of operation for the church. She said there are other churches in the
In regard to the hours of operation brought up by Mrs. Woskow, Ms. Hysong said she hadn’t included a
community that aren’t restricted during evening hours so that would be up to the Commission’s discretion
if they wanted to impose a condition.
DISCUSSION
wants to be consistent in the hours of operation. If there are too many abuses where it goes beyond 1O:OO
Commissioner Segall stated he likes the project and the steeple and would support not illuminating it and
pm and it‘s disruptive to the neighborhood there is a vehicle with the CUP to come through the process to
change it if it becomes a problem in the future. He said it doesn’t sound like there would be a problem
and he supports the project.
Chairperson Trigas asked Mr. Wojcik if he got clarification on the road. Mr. Wojcik said the Police
Department doesn’t know either and all officers were out on call so they couldn’t go by and check. He
said they have the traffic report done by Kimberly Horn and Associates in which they talk about the
existing traffic conditions and Camino de 10s Coches has bike lanes on both sides of the street and
parking is not permitted. The only exception he’s aware of is for special events like Jazz in the Park. His
recollection is that it is typically posted as no parking.
there are no signs.
Commissioner Segall said he would be willing to go with the people who live in the neighborhood who say
would they have Traffic post signs to remedy it. Mr. Wojcik replied that is correct.
Chairperson Trigas asked if there is an assumption that it is in the ordinance and it was just an oversight,
Commissioner Segall mentioned signs could be posted contiguous with Mr. Gregory’s property, in
particular, and asked if that is a condition they could add or is that something separate to deal with.
Commissioner Baker said they can’t single out a residence. Commissioner Segall said he was talking
about contiguous on that side of the street. Chairperson Trigas said it would have to be something that
was already established and she assumed that signs would only be up if it were established.
Commissioner Baker said perhaps there was no reason to have signs because nothing has ever been
there.
Commissioner Baker suggested that perhaps the church would be willing to plant landscaping that would
wants to be a good neighbor and asked Mr. Garcia for his input.
make it inhospitable for anyone to walk through there. Chairperson Trigas said she assumes the church
Mr. Garcia showed a picture of the road with a bike lane and diagonal lines indicating there is no parking.
He didn’t think they should condition it for no parking contiguous with Mr. Gregory’s property because then
his relatives wouldn’t be able to park there. His house is on Sitio Baya, which is a side street, and didn’t think they should do that. He said if they want to restrict parking, and it appears it‘s already restricted, they
should do it on Camino de 10s Coches. He said the lines indicate to him that they cannot encroach on the
bike lane to park. Chairperson Trigas said that‘s probably the reason there’s no sign there because
there‘s a bike lane and there’s nowhere to park.
have somebody across the street who you don’t want parking on that street, it‘s a public street and allows Mr. Wojcik added that if there is public parking allowed on the street, then it‘s allowed. If you happen to
for public parking, so he didn’t see how they could condition a particular use not to be able to park cars on
a public street if public parking is allowed. He said if you don’t want parking on the street, get rid of the
parking on the entire street.
57
Planning Commission Minutes May 15,2002 Page 22
Chairperson Trigas said she would assume they would encourage the congregants to park in the parking
that, but they would much prefer that if there's no parking, decide that there's no parking and they would
lot unless there is a rare occasion when there is an overflow. Mr. Garcia said they would be glad to do
be glad to have the City post no parking signs. If parking is allowed he said they would encourage their
parishioners not to park there but he didn't think he could guarantee it.
Ms. Mobaldi mentioned it's not appropriate for the Planning Commissioners to make a regulation or a
condition regarding parking. That's really in the purview of the Traffic Safety Commission and if people
feel there should be no parking in an area where there currently is parking, that's processed through them.
As Commissioner Segall pointed out, this is a CUP and if it really became a problem, residents have an
opportunity to complain to the Planning Department and they can review the CUP and add conditions if
appropriate.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5197 recommending
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5198
recommending approval of General Plan Amendment GPA 00-13 and adopt
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5199 and 5200 approving Conditional Use
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including a change to Permit CUP 01-04 and Hillside Development Permit HDP 01-10 based on the
and San Dieguito High School and also take out the illumination of the steeple.
Resolution 5199 to change Carlsbad Municipal School District to Encinitas Union
DISCUSSION
Chairperson Trigas commented they have a clarification on the school district and to remove the
illumination section.
Mr. Wayne asked if they were removing Condition No. 12 or replacing It with another condition that says
you can't illuminate.
Commissioner Segall said his intention was to change the verbiage so that you cannot illuminate.
Mr. Wayne said it would just be a simple wording change. He said they couldn't delete it; it would have to
be replaced with another condition stating it can't be illuminated.
Commissioner White said she could support the project and thought the church would be a good
neighbor.
Commissioner Heineman said he feels it's a good project and would support it
Commissioner Baker said she supports the project but has a problem with the height of the steeple.
Chairperson Trigas said she also has a problem with the height of the steeple but will go with the project.
She stated she was not thrilled with the architectural design, especially the flat roof with minimal break, but
would not oppose it on that basis.
MOTION MODIFICATION
ACTION: To change Condition No. 12 in Resolution 5199 to state there will be no illumination of the steeple allowed.
VOTE: AYES: 5-0-0 Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall, and White
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
58
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 201 1 C.C.P.)
~ . . .-
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
/4h%mfd b -/%?a
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
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,
CASEFiLEGPA01-13
CASE NAME CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
CITY OF CARLS0AD
PUBLISH: June 14,2002
CiNCOUNCiL
JUNE 14,2002
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perj
the foregoing is true and correct.
Datedat San Marcos CS
this 17TH
of June, 2002
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
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, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, June 25, 2002, to consider adopting the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a General Plan
Amendment to define designated open space boundaries, to allow the development of
a church on property located on the west side of Camino de 10s Coches between Stage
Coach Park and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 11 and more
particularly described as:
That portion of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 13524 in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
October 28, 1984, as File No. 84-403293 of Official Records,
including a portion of Mision Estancia dedicated on said
Parcel Map.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after June 21, 2002.
If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4622.
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program andlor the General Plan Amendment 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,
I200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 01-13
CASE NAME: CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
PUBLISH: June 14,2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LDS
GPA 01-1 3
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, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, June 25, 2002, to consider adopting the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a General Plan
Amendment to define designated open space boundaries, to allow the development of
a church on property located on the west side of Camino de 10s Coches between Stage
Coach Park and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 11 and more
particularly described as:
That portion of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 13524 in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
October 28, 1984, as File No. 84-403293 of Official Records,
including a portion of Mision Estancia dedicated on said
Parcel Map.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after June 21, 2002.
If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4622.
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program andlor the General Plan Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 01-13
CASE NAME: CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
PUBLISH: June 14,2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LDS
GPA 01 -1 3
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, at 6:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], 2002, to consider a request for a General Plan Amendment to define
designated open space boundaries, to allow the development of a church on property located
on the west side of Camino de 10s Coches between Stage Coach Park and La Costa Avenue in
Local Facilities Management Zone 11 and more particularly described as:
That portion of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 13524 in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, October 28,
1984, as File No. 84-403293 of Official Records, .including a
portion of Mision Estancia dedicated on said Parcel Map.
OK
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after [DATE]. If you have any
questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment 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 at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 01-13
CASE NAME: CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
PUBLISH: [DATE]
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
' CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DlST
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OLIVENHAIN WATER DlST
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST
701 ENClNlTAS BLVD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
VALLECITOS WATER DlST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SD COUNTY PLANNING CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100 STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD 9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401' B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RICK HALLENBACK
BSW INTERNATIONAL STE 140
2201 DUPUNT DR
IRVINE CA 92612
LEO GARCIA
PMB 323
2058 NO MILLS AVE CLAREMONT CA 91711
DWAYNE BRECHTEL
ATTORNEY AT LAW CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
ANNE HYSONG
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKSKOMMUNITY
SERVICES STE 102
462 STEVENS AVE
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
dtppoth Fq@S(@eetsTM 8.
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE
C/O AD VALOREM TAX DEPT
720 E WISCONSIN AVE
MILWAUKEE WI 53202
SjaqE? SSSip?;'
ORTlZ DEBBIE D
3463 CAMlNlTO SIERRA #303
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NORTHWESTERN MUTU
53202
KIM CHONG+YUNGHEE
3534 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROY FREDERICK L+MARY N, ROY
SOLANA BEACH CA
129 S NARD0 AVE
92075
CHADWICK VINCE+MOLLY A
3536 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RAYMOND GISELA M TRUST 9-14-90 3538 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AGNEW MARC H+VALERIE
3540 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARCIA ALFRED0 E+BLANCA A
3542 SlTlO BAYA CARLSBAD CA 92009
MlNNlCK MICHAEL+CHRISTINE
3544 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAMS CRAIG M+ELIZABETH A 3546 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCHUSSLER ANN M. SCHUSSLER
3548 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STOWE MARTIN D+MARY J
3550 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MCAMIS FAMILY TRUST 03-09-92
3552 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WEBS STEVEN J+SUSAN P
3554 SlTlO BAYA CARLSBAD CA 92009
KONOSKE VINCENT C+CAROL A
3551 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KESSLER LARRY+SUSAN J
3549 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GRAVES VICTOR R+KATHLEEN A
3547 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DIETOR ALAN F+PENNE A
3543 CALLE GAVANZO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROACH MARK A
3534 CALLE GAVANZO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SURIAN KENNETH J+SANDRA P 3536 CALLE GAVANZO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WIRTH ROBERT M+DEBRA G
3540 CALLE GAVANZO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HENDRY STEPHEN M+DEBORAH L
3543 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MEHTA MUKESH+HINA
3538 CALLE GAVANZO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CROCE GEORGE D+FLORENCE D TRS
3541 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOZADA CARL+CECILIA
3539 SlTlO BAYA CARLSBAD CA 92009
HACKER DANIEL H+JODY L
3537 SlTlO BAYA CARLSBAD CA 92009
ZlALClTA MARIO M+CLAVEL M
CARLSBAD CA
P 0 BOX 130235
9201 3
CURRY PETER D+DORA P
3535 SlTlO BAYA CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERTS LARRY D+DIANA K
3514 SlTlO BAYA CARLSBAD CA 92009
sjaor: ssa:?p+setemrYitjp;
CORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP
CHURCH
LDS CHURCH TAX ADMIN #543-2588
50 E NORTH TEMPLE
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150
hs ,&%oth Fe&FSheetsTM
MAG PROPERTIES
3838 CAMINO DEL RIO N #222
SAN DIEGO CA 921 08
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC AGENCY
c'
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC AGENCY
BENNETT KlPP V+ANN M 7913 CORTE CARDO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KARSON JACK L JR+ROBIN J
351 1 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NASSlRl FERIEDOON
C/O MINOOEE
P 0 BOX 927797 SAN DIEGO CA 92192
SALLEE HAROLD W+ANN K
7911 AVENIDA DIESTRO CARLSBAD CA 92009
KAMP NANCY J
7916 TERRAZA DISOMA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEE SHU-TSO+MOLLY K TRS
2227 LA AMATISTA RD
DEL MAR CA 92014
REAL ESTATE COLLATERAL
C/O CORPORATE FACILITIES DEPT
770 N WOOD DALE RD K
WOOD DALE IL 60191
FERMANIAN GEORGE A, STONE
C/O SO CAL DEV 915 CAMINO DEL MAR #200
DEL MAR CA 92014
YOUNG GREGORY S+COLEEN W
TRS
791 7 CORTE CARDO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KlDDlE R J+CAROLYN G
3515 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AL-SHEIKH WAJIH A+NUHA B
P 0 BOX 489
DELANO CA 93216
POURIAN ELLEN
CARLSBAD CA
7915 AVENIDA DIESTRO
92009
LOPEZ ROBERT J+BROWNE VICKI J
7912 TERRAZA DISOMA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NOCELLA LIVING TRUST
'CARLSBAD CA
791 1 TERRAZA DISOMA
92009
DAUGHHETEE DOROTHY F TR 3480 SlTlO BAYA . ~~- ~ CARLSBAD CA 92009
~~
DESOTO EMILIO+MARIA T 1993 CRILLY JOSEPH
3506 SlTlO BAYA 3508 SlTlO BAYA _"_ -. . .- -~ ... .
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ..~. .~ ~
AVERYm :.: Address Labels
ClTWOF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC AGENCY
-
PIKE STEPHEN H TR
7915 CORTE CARDO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARON FAMILY TRUST 07-30-92
3513 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PIERCE RAYMOND F+LEANNE M
7916 AVENIDA DIESTRO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ASHRAFI HASSAN J A+AKHAVAN
2368 AMITY ST
OZRA
SAN DIEGO CA 92109
BULLEIT JACQUES L+KATHARIN K
7914 TERRAZA DISOMA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KIRK PAUL C+JEAN C
3476 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBADCA 92009
MCGHEE JAMES R+VIRGINIA E
3504 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STECKER JEFFERY M+KIMBERLY K
3510 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
&mth Fee&heetsTM
I WOSKOW MORRIS H+ELAINE
3516 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANKENEY KEVIN G+PATRICIA S
3522 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HELDOORN WILLIAM R+GERTRUDE
E
WOODLAND HILLS CA 91367
23925 FRIAR ST
GIN KARL K C+SUE L
7916 VIA CALLENDO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WOOD WILLIAM D+VIRGINIA G
7915 VIA CALLENDO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RYAN DANIEL F+KAREN M
3521 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KNUDSON KAREN J LIVING TRUST 7914 CORTE CARDO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
YIN GANWEI GARY+DENG DANCHEN LEVY DONALD J. GROSSFELD
3518 SlTlO BAYA EILEFN ~~
CARLSBAD CA 92009 3570 SlTlO BAYA .
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TOMCIK JAMES D+DEBRA L GREGORY RON D+MICHELLE L
3530 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
3532 SlTlO BAYA
KELLEY MICHAEL P+CATHERINE B HALL-HUNT FAMILY TRUST 05-20-00
3531 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
7914 VIA CALLENDO
BARTH DAVID S+SUSAN C SCOTT CHUCK W+NADIA B
7918 VIA CALLENDO
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
7917 VIA CALLENDO
WALKER DAVID A+DARLENE R
7913 VIA CALLENDO
RICE ROGER K 3523 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
FOSTER GARY M+JUDITH C INGRANDE FRANK+MASHELL
3519 SlTlO BAYA 3517 SlTlO BAYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
YAMOUT KHALED+MARTINEZ- CLARK BRIAN F+JULIE B YAMOUT
7916 CORTE CARDO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
7918 CORTE CARDO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
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, at 6:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], 2002, to consider a request for a General Plan Amendment to define
designated open space boundaries, to allow the development of a church on property located
on the west side of Camino de 10s Coches between Stage Coach Park and La Costa Avenue in
Local Facilities Management Zone 11 and more particularly described as:
That portion of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 13524 in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, October 28,
1984, as File No. 84-403293 of Official Records, .including a
portion of Mision Estancia dedicated on said Parcel Map.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after [DATE]. If you have any
questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment 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 at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 01-13
CASE NAME: CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
PUBLISH: [DATE]
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LDS
GPA 01 -1 3
I
-n
s
1
,"I .,
j ... .. .
c, S W c, v)
m 0-
c 0 (3
m
0 w
U i) W
-5
v)
U
0-
i, W
0 0-
& 3
Q) u m d
v)
S W Q 0
W S ti= W v
0 c,
c, s E
E
m S
4
S
t:
m L)
c 0 v a
m m
a
OW