The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-09-14; Planning Commission; Resolution 2182T a 3. 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 9 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2182 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SPH INFLUENCE AMENDMENT AND A STANDARD AMENDMENT TO THE USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO DESIGNATE VARIOUS PROPERTIES FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND/OR OFFICE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE. APPLICANT: HPI DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. : GPA/LU 83-1 5 WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to General Plan eesignation for certain property located, as sho Exhibits A and C, dated September 14, 1983 attached and incor herein, have been filed with the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified applications constitute a req for amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municip Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 14th da September, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescr by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all perso desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plannin Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. R) That in view of the findings made and considering the applicable law, the decision of the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of GPA/LU 83-15, as shown on Exhibit dated September 14, 1983. Findings: 1) The subject property is physically suitable for developm permitted in the respective land use designations, as discussed in the staff report. 0 0 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 1 I I 2) The uses allowed in the proposed land use designations w compatible with surrounding land uses and with the other elements of the General Plan. 3) The uses allowed in the proposed land use designations w compatible with future land uses, as discussed in the st report. 4) That all significant environmental issues have been niti or the project has been changed so as to mitigate these impacts, or social or economic factors exist which overr these impacts as described below: A. Land Use Impact: Removal of the existing. County zoning requirements on agricultural, floodplain and biologi sensitive areas creates a potential adverse impact. Mitigation: Impacts on land use will be mitigated b requiring the applicant to master plan the property. master plan will provide restrictions on the develop of sensitive areas. The City is also adopting the Floodplain Overlay zone on sensitive riparian areas. B. Agriculture Impact: Annexation and future development of the si without some preservation of agricultural land would significant impact based on County and State agency policies. Mitigation: The City of Carlsbad has no exclusively agricultural general plan designation. Through the required master plan, however, the City can require preservatiion of agricultural areas. This impact sh be mitigated at the master plan level. It is also anticipated that the Coastal Commission will require preservation of agricultural lands during the coasta permit process. C. Traffic Impact: Two of the six affected intersections and possibly four of the six affected intersections coul significantly impacted from the proposed general pla amendment and annexation. Mitigation: All roadways should be constructed to t planned width. Additional traffic studies should be as specific projects become known within the project boundaries. Mitigation measures identified in these studies should become conditions of approval for spe projects which necessitate these improvements. //// PC RES0 NO. 2182 2. a 0 0 3. 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 D. Biological Resources Impact: No direct impacts will occur from the proje However indirect effects could be caused by the rem0 County zoning on the floodplain and lagoon areas. Mitigation: The City is placing the Floodplain Over zone on the sensitive riparian areas and has zoned t lagoon areas as open space. E. Hydrology/Water Quality Impact: There will be no direct effects on hydrolog water quality from the proposed project, however, in or future impacts could occur with development. Mitigation: The City has placed the Floodplain Over zone on the Encinitas Creek area and has designated lagoon as open space. When development plans are ap special grading requirements may be necessary to pro these areas from urban runoff and sedimentation. F. Air Quality Impact: Full buildout of the project would result i emissions approximately 4 to 5 times greater than pr by RAQS resulting in a significant adverse impact. Mitigation: Air quality is a regional problem and R -asis on developing cities. Various mitig measures such as rideshare and transit programs shou included in the master plan. Additionally, the need provide diverse housing and commercial facilities in City of Carlsbad overrides this impact. Finally, effective long term mitigation must be on a regional basis. G. Cultural Resources Impact: The proposed project would not have a direc impact on cultural resources, however, 23 potential1 significant sites were found on the property and cou impacted at the time of development. Mitigation: A testing program, as identified in the will be utilized to determine significance prior to grading of any site. Further mitigation may be nece based on the results of the testing. H. Visual Quality/Aesthetics Impact: No direct impacts would be created by the project. Future development under the proposed designations could have a visual impact on the north of the lagoon and the Green Valley core. Mitigation: Mitigation will have to occur at the ma plan and at specific project levels. Mitigation cou include specific siting of developments, preservatio specific areas, clustering development and special landscaping requirements. PC RESO NO. 2182 3. .I * 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 I. Noise Impact: Noise created by additional traffic from thc prolect along major corridors could have adverse imp; on devleopments located too close to these corridors, Mitigation: At the master plan and specific developn plan stage special setbacks should be utilized to mit possible noise impacts from passing traffic. _. 611 3. Growth Inducement 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Impact: consider aqricult Development of the Green Valley area could 1 ed to potentially be growth inducing because ural land would be sandwiched between existir commercial uses to the south and Green Valley. Mitigation: Specific development concepts for the Gr Valley area are not known at this time. The City has adopted a Combination District for this area which contains office, commercial and residential uses. Tt location of these uses will be determined at the mast plan level. Portions of the Green Valley site could specially treated or phased under the master plan to encourage preservation of the agricultural areas to t south. 14 5) The applicant has agreed to pay a public facilities fee F as required by the general plan. that public facilities will be available concurrent with 16 contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to 15 agreement dated September 7, 1983. Performance of that 17 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of 18 the 14th day of September, 1983, by the following vote, to wit 19 Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held I 20 21 AYES : Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Rornbotis Marcus, Lyttleton, Farrow, Friestedt and Rawlins. 22 /I NOES : None1 23 11 ABSENT : None . 24 25 26 ABSTAIN: None. Aad CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairm( CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSIO; 27 J~ATTEST: 28 MICHAEL J. MLZmLER LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER PC RES0 NO. 2182 4.