City of Oceanside - File #: 26-1200

Date	Ver.	Action By	Action	Result	Action Details	Meeting Details	Video
1/28/2026	1	City Council			Not available	Meeting details	Not available

DATE: January 28, 2026

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers

FROM: Development Services Department

TITLE: RESOLUTION UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-P23 CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-P20 APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP (T22-00004), DEVELOPMENT PLAN (D22-00009), AND DENSITY BONUS (DB22-00005) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 83 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON APPROXIMATELY 9.86 ACRES OF A 16.78-ACRE SITE LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF GUAJOME LAKE ROAD (APN: 157-412-15-00), SOUTHEAST OF ALBRIGHT STREET IN THE GUAJOME NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA. FOUR OF THE 83 HOMES (5% OF TOTAL) WOULD BE RESERVED FOR VERY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. - GUAJOME LAKE HOMES PROJECT - APPLICANT: RINCON CAPITOL GROUP, LLC; APPELLANT: JENNIFER JACOBS

RECOMMENDATION

title

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-P23 certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and upholding Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-P20 approving a Tentative Map (T22-00004), Development Plan (D22-00009), and Density Bonus (DB22-00005) to allow for the subdivision of 16.78-acre property into 83 single-family lots (Lots 1-83) for residential purposes and six additional lots (Lots A - F) for a private road, bio-filtration basins, recreational open space, and natural open space, the construction of 83 detached single-family homes and associated site improvements including landscaping and recreational areas and a density bonus for the granting of seven waivers from applicable development standards in order to develop at the density proposed in exchange for setting aside four dwelling units for very-low income households.

body

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

The project site is located in the northeastern portion of Oceanside, just south of SR-76 and consists of a 16.78-acre parcel located on Guajome Lake Road, southeast of Albright Street. Surrounding land uses consist of single-family residential development to the north, south, and east and Guajome Regional Park directly to the west (across Guajome Lake Road). The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Single-Family Detached Residential (SFD-R) and a zoning designation of Single-Family Residential - Scenic Park Overlay - Equestrian Overlay (RS-SP-EQ). The project site (outlined in black) and surrounding area are depicted in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Project Location

The proposed project was first considered by the Planning Commission on August 11, 2025. Following presentations provided by Planning staff and the applicant, the public hearing was opened during which over 30 community members expressed opposition to the project, raising concerns related to impacts to wildlife and the existing habitat, equestrian safety, traffic, and inadequate evacuation capacity. No community members spoke in favor of the project. A number of letters were also submitted in opposition to the project including letters from Preserve Calavera and Chatten-Brown Law Group (on behalf of Preserve Calavera) received on the day of the hearing. After receiving public testimony, the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission then posed a number of questions to the applicant with regard to the required mitigation of land for coastal sage scrub, consistency with the General Plan, Zoning standards, the calculation of baseline density for the project site, application of the Scenic Park Overlay and Equestrian Overlay standards, and the location of private entrances to the proposed development. The Planning Commission also raised concerns with the waiving of Equestrian Overlay standards. A motion to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was made and seconded but failed to pass (Rosales and Morrissey-yes, Balma, Dodds, Anthony and Gonzales - No Redgate- Absent).

Planning Commissioners voting in opposition to certification of the EIR cited the written comments provided by Chatten-Brown Law Group on behalf of Preserve Calavera, the testimony of public speakers questioning the adequacy of the analysis presented in the EIR, concerns with public safety relative to traffic, and the biological sensitivity of the area as the basis for their votes.

On October 13, 2025, the project returned to the Planning Commission for final consideration. Staff included two versions of draft resolutions in the agenda packet. One resolution contained findings to reject certification of the EIR and deny the project; the other contained findings to certify the EIR and approve the project. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-P23 certifying the EIR and No. 2025-P20 approving the project are included as Exhibits to the draft City Council Resolution provided as Attachment 2. The draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-P26 rejecting certification of the EIR, thereby denying the project, is provided as Attachment 7.

After receiving presentations from staff and the applicant, and receiving testimony from the public, the Planning Commission (All member present) voted 5-1-1 (Gonzales - No, Redgate - Abstain) to certify the FEIR and voted 4-2-1 (Anthony, Gonzales No, Redgate Abstain) to approve the project as proposed.

On October 22, 2025, Jennifer Jacobs (Appellant) filed an appeal of the proposed project. Ms. Jacobs appealed the project with the following comment (see Attachment 3):

We are appealing the decisions of the Oceanside Planning Commission made on October 13, 2025 regarding the Guajome Lake Homes project. The Environmental Impact Report for the project is inadequate.

Pursuant to Section 4605 of the Zoning Ordinance (effective July 18, 2025), the City Council may review the entirety of the project on appeal and make its own determinations as to the project’s consistency with applicable policies, rules, and regulations and either deny, approve or conditionally approve the project. The City Council could then consider all aspects of the application beyond what is specifically appealed without giving weight or deference to the underlying Planning Commission decision.

Pursuant to Section 4604 of the Oceanside Zoning Ordinance, an appellant shall specifically state the reasons or justification for an appeal. The Applicant contends that Appellant has not articulated a justification for overturning the Planning Commission decision, and in doing so, has not met the minimum standards for initiating a timely appeal. Appeals are now processed “de novo”, however, the City Council may deny the appeal and affirm the Project if it finds the Appellant failed to properly initiate an appeal by failing to state an adequate or sufficient justification.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

In accordance with CEQA, an EIR was prepared for the proposed project (SCH No: 2022110028) due to potentially significant environmental impacts.

California Public Resources Code § 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur:

(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect:

(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.

Per Public Resources Code section 21081.5, in making the findings required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081, the public agency shall base its findings on substantial evidence in the record.

Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6,(a) When making the findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6,(b) A public agency shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.

The City’s determinations as lead agency are reviewed for abuse of discretion. “‘[A]n agency may abuse its discretion under CEQA either by failing to proceed in the manner CEQA provides or by reaching factual conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence.’ ” (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, 935 (Banning Ranch <https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2041339549&originatingDoc=I83d46b00ad1b11ea93a0cf5da1431849&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=b5900cb3d4784d97bab72efd8a347579&contextData=(sc.Default)>).)

Here, the Draft EIR was made available for public review between November 20, 2024 and January 10, 2025. During the public review period the City received 37 comment letters (including the following state agencies and organizations: Buena Vista Audubon Society, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, County of San Diego, and the San Diego County Archaeological Society). All comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period were evaluated and responded to in the Response to Comments (RTC) section of the Final EIR. Minor revisions were made to the text of the Final EIR. The revisions do not constitute “significant new information” as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the EIR is not required.

As described in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in no impact or less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, traffic and circulation, Tribal Cultural Resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

The Draft EIR identified significant impacts associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and geology and soils. However, the implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level for all identified topic areas.

In accordance with CEQA, an EIR must consider a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The Draft EIR analyzed three project alternatives: No Project (No Build) Alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative, and Townhome (Coastal Sage Scrub Impact Avoidance) Alternative.

The Draft EIR identified the Townhome Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative because it would provide a reduced level of impact in some environmental analysis areas, including biological resources, cultural resources, and geology and soils. The Townhome Alternative would significantly decrease the disturbance area on site from 9.86 acres under the proposed project to 5.98 acres. However, this alternative would introduce 90 town home units. Approximately 2.98 additional acres of open space would be incorporated north of the proposed disturbance limits, maintaining the natural state of the surrounding environment and enhancing the buffer area between development and coastal sage scrub. By preserving a larger portion of the site as open space and avoiding impacts to coastal sage scrub, a regulatory “take” of the federally listed coastal California gnatcatcher would be avoided. As such, no take permits would be required from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Townhome Alternative would meet proposed project objectives with the exception of Objectives 1 and 4, because this alternative would not be consistent with the existing single-family land use and zoning designation of the site and surrounding land uses. Additionally, the alternative would not include any recreational amenities. The Townhome Alternative would also require similar waivers of development standards including minimum lot sizes, setbacks, and removal of the EQ Overlay District. Under this alternative, impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and geology and soils would still remain as less than significant with mitigation incorporated, similar to the proposed project.

1. Ensure both visual and functional compatibility with other nearby land uses.

2. Provide new, high-quality for-sale residential units on an infill development site.

3. Maximize affordable and market-rate housing opportunities on a site that can be served by existing utilities, services, transit, and street access.

4. Provide new market-rate and affordable housing on a site that is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Housing Element, Zoning Ordinance, and affordable housing objectives, as well as the state Density Bonus Law, to help satisfy the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment current and future demand for housing.

5. Preserve the riparian corridor in the northern portion of the project site.

While the Townhome Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative, the Townhome Alternative conflicts with existing General Plan land use and zoning and would introduce a multi-family housing product and higher density in an area characterized by the detached single-family homes. As documented in the response to comments by the CA Department of Fish & Wildlife, the proposed project would adequately mitigate the loss of habitat by creating 6.64 acres of coastal sage scrub at the Quarry Creek mitigation site.

The Final EIR, including the Response to Comments and the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) is provided as Attachment 4.

Staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that with the implementation of project conditions and mitigation measures contained within the MMRP, no significant impacts are anticipated. Therefore, the Planning Commission voted to certify the FEIR with the Findings of Fact and MMRP.

The Appellant contests the adequacy of the FEIR. Prior to the Planning Commission’s project approval, the Appellant had submitted a number of comments on the project EIR, including the loss of coastal sage scrub, the presence of various bird species on the site and impact to their habitat, the movement of wildlife in the surrounding area, visual impacts, water quality, air quality and traffic impacts from the project. All comments were addressed in the FEIR Response to Comments (RTC).

Through follow up emails to staff the Appellant raised additional concerns that were not addressed in the initial RTC provided to the Planning Commission with regard to inconsistencies between the Biological Resources Report and the Fuel Modification Zones (FMZs) of the Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The error regarding the exhibits was later corrected in the FEIR after the first Planning Commission hearing. As explained in the Planning Commission staff report of October 13, 2025, the project site remains outside of the statutorily designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ); therefore, an FPP is not required. A FPP was conservatively and voluntarily prepared in case CAL FIRE’s fire severity map (updated in May 2025) eventually changed the site’s designation. The project’s location outside of the VHFHSZ also means FMZs and enhanced ignition resistant construction standards provided in Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (CBC) are not required. However, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to implement those code-exceeding measures outlined in the FPP, including enhanced ignition-resistant construction standards provided in Chapter 7A of the CBC, FMZs, and home hardening mitigation measures where defensible space is limited. There is additional public testimony from the Planning Commission hearing and written comments of various stakeholders and interested parties that raise other CEQA-related project concerns. Staff addressed only the specific broad point of appeal here but the City Council has the full project record before them.

Project Description: The proposed project requires three (3) separate entitlements: Tentative Map, Development Plan, and Density Bonus to allow the subdivision of 16.78 acres and construction of 83 single-family homes, with four of the units set aside as affordable units pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL).

Tentative Map (T22-00004) is a request for the subdivision of 83 single-family lots (Lots 1-83) for residential purposes and six additional lots (Lots A - F) for a private road, bio-filtration basins, recreational open space, and natural open space on a 16.78-acre site. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 2,464 to 5,390 square feet with an average lot size of approximately 3,200 square feet.

Development Plan (D22-00009) is a request to allow the development of 83 detached single-family homes and associated site improvements including landscaping and recreational areas. The development footprint would encompass approximately 9.86 acres of the 16.78-acre site with the remaining 6.92 acres to be designated as open space.

Site Plan: The project is designed with a private loop road extending around the interior of the site. Two separate access drives would connect the subdivision to Guajome Lake Road. Each single-family lot would front the private access road. The project would feature a centralized recreational open space area totaling approximately 35,151 square feet. All residential lots would also have private backyards.

Figure 2: Site Plan

The northernmost 6.92 acres of the site would be maintained as open space with a 50-foot-wide biological buffer and a 50-foot-wide planning buffer from the southern edge of the existing riparian forest and existing southern willow riparian forest as recommended by the Draft Subarea Plan. Based on the elevation change, the slope at the northwest portion of the site requires the creation of a manufactured slope extending into the planning buffer. A private sewer lift station would be constructed on the project site as well. Moreover, the Water Utilities Department has required under Condition of Approval 159 that the lift station has sufficient redundant measures including dual pumps that will each handle estimated peak sewer flows, back-up power supply, emergency by-pass connection for portable pump, alarm systems, and high-water alarms.

Site Improvements: The proposed subdivision would include the installation of full site improvements along the Guajome Lake Road project frontage and the interior private street. Road improvements would include 40-foot curb to curb improvements including a 5.5-foot-wide parkway and a 4.5-foot-wide sidewalk along the project frontage. The internal private road would be 28-32 feet wide with 5-foot-wide sidewalks.

The proposed development would also construct off-site improvements, including paving an approximately 200-foot-long section of Guajome Lake Road between the project boundary and Albright Street.

Some have questioned the future of the remaining dirt portion of Guajome Lake Road and whether that portion should be paved. Staff considered the existing costs for maintaining the dirt portion of Guajome Lake Road, specifically from Albright to the County line. Because the maintenance is handled by City staff (as opposed to contracted out) and the City has its own equipment, the monthly cost for Public Works staff to conduct its grading of these unpaved dirt areas is $1,500 per month. Conversely, staff researched the approximate cost to pave the remaining portions of Guajome Lake Road based on the following assumptions:

• Two 12-foot lanes with 6 feet shoulders on each side for emergency passing

• Curb and gutter on both sides of the road

• 5-foot wide sidewalk on both sides on the road

• Potential costs associated with stormwater containment and/or treatment are not included here and are dependent on the final design (e.g., with or without curbs).

• No soft costs included (e.g. Project Managing, Construction Managing, Inspection, permitting or plan review costs, no surveying or design fees)

Per these assumptions, the estimated cost of construction would be:

Asphalt
Length (ft)	Width (ft)	Area (ft2)	Cost per ft2	Cost
800	36	28800	$ 15.00	$ 432,000.00


Curb & Gutter

Length (ft)	Sides	Cost per ft		Cost
800	2	$ 125.00		$ 200,000.00


Sidewalk

Length (ft)	Width (ft)	Area (ft2)	Cost per ft2	Cost
800	10	8000	$ 30.00	$ 240,000.00

			Sub-Total	$ 872,000.00

			Contingency	$ 218,000.00

			Total	$ 1,090,000.00

Paving the remaining portion of Guajome Lake Road would provide an enhanced second point of access to the immediate area and would also improve air quality by eliminating vehicle travel on the unpaved road which generates significant amounts of dust. The existing unpaved road is estimated to have an average daily trip (ADT) amount of 1,166 ADT. By paving the remaining section of unpaved roadway, there is a potential that completion of the roadway improvements could draw an increased amount of cut-through traffic to the area and degrade the level of service during weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the road being used as a cut-through between SR 76, Melrose Drive and Santa Fe Avenue.

The project will include the construction of a 3-inch sewer force main that would connect to the existing public sewer at the intersection of Old Ranch Road and Guajome Lake Road. Such improvements would occur within the existing right-of-way and would avoid any impacts to adjacent properties or Guajome Regional Park. No additional off-site paving is planned to occur on Guajome Lake Road to the southeast of the project site. However, the project, as a condition of approval, would install traffic calming features within the street right-of-way, such as speed cushions, and signage, in coordination with the City Traffic Engineer. Such improvements would be installed along the project frontage or within the vicinity of the project.

Density Bonus (DB22-00005) represents a request by the applicant for increased density and allowances under State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) by reserving five percent of the housing units as affordable to very-low income households. This reservation entitles the applicant to a density bonus of 20 percent as well as unlimited development waivers and one (1) incentive/concession pursuant to Government Code 65915.

As provided in Table 2 below, the proposed project would reserve 5 percent of the total number of units allowed under the base density (74 units) and is entitled to a 20 percent density bonus, resulting in 15 additional units for a project total of 83 dwelling units. Four of the dwelling units would be reserved as affordable to very-low income households. Base density was calculated by multiplying the allowable density in the RS District (5.9 du/acre) not by the gross acreage of 16.78 acres but by the net developable acreage of 12.45 acres as defined in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Although the project uses the net developable area of 12.45 acres to calculate base density it will only develop 9.86 acres of the property and dedicate 6.92 acres to open space (9.86 ac + 6.92 ac = 16.78 ac). Staff does note however, that a recent Department of Housing and Community Development memorandum clarified that density calculations under SDBL shall be calculated based on gross site acreage (16.78 acres), regardless of whether the land is considered undevelopable (i.e., habitat, steep slope). Using the gross acreage, the base density would be 100 units.

Table 2

SDBL entitles projects to certain number of incentives or concessions and provides for waivers from development standards that would physically preclude the project at the density proposed. The granting of waivers does not reduce the number of incentives allowed on a project, and the number of waivers that may be requested and granted is unlimited.

Incentives/Concessions: None requested

Waivers: In order to accommodate the project as proposed and as allowed under State Law, the developer claims that the project cannot physically comply with all applicable development standards for the Residential Single-Family (RS) Zone. The applicant has thus requested waivers from the following development standards pursuant to State Law:

1. Reduced lot sizes

2. Reduction in lot width

3. Increased lot depth to width ratio

4. Reduction of building setbacks

5. Increased lot coverage percentage

6. Increased retaining wall heights

7. Equestrian development standards waived

The following table is provided to illustrate the development standards applicable to the project and to identify the standards proposed to be waived as a part of the Density Bonus application:

Table 1: Development Standards*

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD	RS DISTRICT STANDARD SP OVERLAY STANDARD	PROJECT	NOTES
Lot Size (sf) (OZO Sec 1050)	6,000 sf (min)	Lots Range From: 2,464 - 5,390 sf	SDBL Waiver
Lot Width (OZO Sec 1050)	65 feet (min)	Lot Widths Range From: 32ft - 59ft	SDBL Waiver
Maximum Lot Coverage	45% (max)	Coverage Ranges From: 20% - 54%	SDBL Waiver
Lot Depth to Width Ratio (OZO Sec 1050(F))	2.5 : 1	Various lots will exceed standard up to a ratio of 3.7:1	SDBL Waiver.
Building Setbacks: Front Side Corner Side Rear	20 ft (min) 7.5 ft (min) 10 ft (min) 15 ft (min)	F: 6 - 20 ft S: 3 - 7.5 ft CS: 6 - 10 ft R: 5 - 15 ft	SDBL Waiver
Building Height (OZO Sec 1050)	25 ft (max)	25 ft	Complies with Code
Parking (OZO Sec 3103)	2-car garage per single-family homes < 2,500 sf.	2-car garages provided for each home	Complies with Code
Landscaping (OZO Sec 1040(T))	Minimum 50% of yard adjoining street shall be planting or landscape.	Landscaped front yard areas provided for each lot.	Complies with Code
Fences and Walls (OZO Sec 3040(D))	Maximum height of a fence or wall, including retaining walls shall be 6’. Retaining walls over 4’ in height shall be planted and irrigated.	Retaining walls are not plantable / irrigated with wall sections exceeding 6’ in height: • Exterior Facing - up to 9’ • Interior Facing - up to 12.1’ • Interior SW Basin - up to 10’ *Decorative vinyl fencing up to 6’ high and ornamental iron fencing up to 5’ high may be added to the top of residential lots and basin walls, respectively.	SDBL Waiver
Usable Open Space (OZO Sec 1040(Q))	Total useable space shall be at least 300 sf per unit (300 * 83 = 24,900 sf)	Common Open Space (35,151 sf) and Rear Yard areas for each lot provide usable open space greatly exceeding minimum sf.	Complies with Code
Equestrian Overlay District (OZO Article 28)	7,200 square foot horse yard Or 2,500 square feet of common horse area per unit Lots to provide a public equestrian trail a minimum of ten feet in width. Architectural style should be reflective of country and rural atmosphere Thirty-foot buffer where the project abuts non-equestrian residential properties	Project lots are not designed to meet equestrian development regulations, The design of project is consistent with other residential subdivisions on Guajome Lake Road that were developed prior to the adoption of the Equestrian Overlay District.	SDBL Waiver.

*SDBL: State Density Bonus Law

Staff’s recommendation for approval of the proposed project currently stands and there have been no new specific issues raised in filed appeal for staff to address. The findings of fact which formed the basis of staff’s decision to support the project are included in Planning Commission Resolution 2025-P16. Staff found the proposed project to be consistent with the SFD land use designation and the many General Plan policies regarding infill development and the production of affordable housing. SDBL allows the project to deviate from certain standards of the Zoning Ordinance unless the project would result in “objective, identified written public health or safety standards.” As proposed, the project would not result as such and therefore is compliant with the Zoning Ordinance and State law. Detailed analysis of the proposed project can be found in the July 14, 2025 Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 4).

FISCAL IMPACT

The proposed project would be required to annex into Zone B of the Citywide Public Safety Community Facilities District (CFD No. 2022-1) to mitigate costs to public services including police and fire protection.

COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE REPORT

The proposed project was first considered by the Planning Commission on August 11, 2025. Following presentations provided by Planning staff and the applicant, the public hearing was opened during which over 30 community members expressed opposition to the project, raising concerns including impacts to wildlife and the existing habitat, equestrian safety, traffic, and inadequate evacuation capacity. No community members spoke in favor of the project. A number of letters were also submitted in opposition to the project including letters from Preserve Calavera and Chatten-Brown Law Group (on behalf of Preserve Calavera) received on the day of the hearing. After receiving public testimony, the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission followed up with questions to the applicant with regard to the environmental mitigation of land for coastal sage scrub, consistency with the General Plan, Zoning standards, the calculation of baseline density for the project site, application of the Scenic Park Overlay and Equestrian Overlay standards and the location of private entrances to the proposed development. The Planning Commission also raised concerns with the waiving of Equestrian Overlay standards. A motion to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was made and seconded but failed to pass by a vote of 4 to 2.

The Commissioners voting against certification of the EIR cited as the basis for their votes the written comments provided by Chatten-Brown Law Group on behalf of Preserve Calavera, the testimony of public speakers questioning the adequacy of the analysis presented in the EIR, concerns with public safety relative to traffic, and the biological sensitivity of the area.

On October 13, 2025 the project returned to the Planning Commission with findings for both resolutions to either reject certification of the EIR and deny the project but also to certify the EIR and approve the project.

After receiving presentations from staff and the applicant, and receiving testimony from the public, the Planning Commission voted 5-1-1 (Gonzales No, Redgate Abstain) to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and voted 4-2-1 (Anthony, Gonzales No, Redgate Abstain) to approve the project as proposed.

On October 22, 2025, Jennifer Jacobs filed a timely appeal of the proposed project. Ms. Jacobs appealed the project with the following comment (see Attachment 3):

We are appealing the decisions of the Oceanside Planning Commission made on October 13, 2025 regarding the Guajome Lake Homes project. The Environmental Impact Report for the project is inadequate.

CITY ATTORNEY’S ANALYSIS

The City Council is authorized to hold a public hearing on this matter. Consideration of the matter should be based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing as well as the Planning Commission record. After conducting the public hearing, the Council shall affirm, modify or deny the project. The supporting documents have been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

end

Prepared by: Manuel Baeza, Principal Planner

Reviewed by: Darlene Nicandro, Development Services Director

Submitted by: Jonathan Borrego, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Staff Report

2. Resolution with Exhibits A and B

3. October 22, 2025 Appeal by Jennifer Jacobs

4. Final Environmental Impact Report Documents

5. August 11, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report Packet

6. October 13, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report Packet

7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-P26