HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-09-14; Planning Commission; Resolution 21837. f. 0 e
I ll PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2183
2
3
4
5
6
7 wit:
8
9
10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY (
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, WCOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONl
CHANGE AND A PREANNEXATIONAL ZONE CHANGE TO DESIGNAT:
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAI
REAL AND ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF LA COSTA AV:
APPLICANT: HPI DEVELOPMENT
CASE NO.: ZC-267
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property
The south half of Section 27 and the southeast quart'
the southeast quarter of Section 28, and Lots 2 and
Section 33, all in Township 12 South, Range 4 West,
Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Diego, Sta
California, according to official plat thereof;
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Together with the northwest quarter of the northwest
quarter and Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Section 34, Townsh
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, accord
official plat thereof;
Together with Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of S
34, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, according to United States Government Surv shown on the Map of said survey as lying within the ,
Marsh and Slough.
The south half of the south half of the southwest qu
of the northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 12
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County
Diego, according to United States Government Survey
approved April 21, 1890.
Portions of the northeast half of Section 32, Townsh
South, Range 4 West; Portions of the south half of S
33, Township 12 South, Range 4 West; portions of the northwest quarter of Section 33, Township 12 South, West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San
State of California, according to official plat
thereof.
as shown on Exhibit "B", dated September 14, 1983, attached a
incorporated herein has been filed with the City of Carlsbad,
referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as
28 provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
I
7. ', ll 0 9
1
2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 14th day
3
4
5
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 6
7
8
9
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Zone Change; and
NQW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plannin
10 I1 Commission as follows:
11 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
12 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public heari
the Commission recommends APPROVAL of ZC-267, as shown o
Exhibit "D", dated September 14, 1983, based on the foll 13 findings and subject to the following conditions.
14 11 Findings :
15
16
17
18
19
1) The project is consistent with the City's General Plan s
the proposed residential densities are within the densit ranges specified for the properties as indicated on the
Land Use Element of the General Plan.
2) The sites are physically suitable for the types and dens
of the development since the sites are adequate in size
shape to accomodate development as proposed. I
2o I1 3) The project is consistent with all City public facility
icies and ordinances since:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
a) The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appr
condition to this project, insured that the final ma not be approved unless the City Council finds that s service is available to serve the project. In addit the Planning Commission has added a condition that a shall be placed on the final map that building permi not be issued for the project unless the City Engine determines that sewer service is available, and buil cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is sa that the requirements of the public facilities eleme
the general plan have been met insofar as they apply sewer service for this project.
28 PC RES0 NO. 21 83 2.
I. I/ 1. 0 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
4)
5)
6)
7)
b) School fees will be paid to ensure the availability
school facilities in the San Dieguito, Encinitas Uni
Carlsbad school districts.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding
land uses and is compatible with the general plan for re
stated in the staff report.
The zone change of Parcel AG to P-C (Planned Community) 1
not cause any significant environmental impacts and a ne1
declaration has been issued by the Land Use Planning Man on August 29, 1983 and approved by the Planning Commissil September 14, 1983.
The zone change of Parcel AH to 0-S (Open Space) will no
cause any significant environmental impacts and a negati
declaration has been issued by the Land Use Planning Man on August 29, 1983 and approved by the Planning Commissi, September 14, 1983.
That all significant environmental issues have been miti! 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:
14 11 A. Land Use
15
16
17
18
19
20
Impact: Removal of the existing County zoning
requirements on agricultural, floodplain and biologic 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
21
22
23
24
25
26
Impact: Annexation and future development of the sit
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 shc
be mitigated at the master plan level. It is also
anticipated that the Coastal Commission will require
preservation of agricultural lands during the coastal
permit process.
27 //// I1
28 //// /I PC RES0 NO. 2183 3.
7. '. I/ 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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 spel projects which necessitate these improvements.
8 I1 D. Biological Resources
9
X0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Impact: No direct impacts will occur from the projec
However indirect effects could be caused by the remo. 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 ti 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 1 lagoon as open space. When development plans are ap] special grading requirements may be necessary to pro' these areas from urban runoff and sedimentation.
l8 /I F. Air Quality
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
Impact: Full buildout of the project would result ir
emissions approximately 4 to 5 times greater than prc
by RAQS resulting in a significant adverse impact.
Mitigation: Air quality is a regional problem and RI
places emphasis on developing cities. Various mitigz measures such as rideshare and transit programs shoul 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.
25 I1 G. Cultural Resources
26
27
28
Impact: The proposed project would not have a direct impact on cultural resources, however, 23 potentially
significant sites were found on the property and coul
impacted at the time of development.
Mitigation: A testing program, as identified in the wlll be utilized to determine significance prior to t grading of any site. Further mitigation may be neces based on the results of the testing.
11°C RES0 NO. 2183 4.
I ” I/ 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
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.
I. Noise
Impact: Noise created by additional traffic from th
project along major corridors could have adverse imp
on devleopments located too close to these corridors
Mitigation: At the master plan and specific develop plan stage special setbacks should be utilized to mi possible noise impacts from passing traffic.
l2 /I J. Growth Inducement
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Impact: Development of the Green Valley area could considered to potentially be growth inducing because agricultural land would be sandwiched between existi
commercial uses to the south and Green Valley. Mitigation: Specific development concepts for the G. Valley area are not known at this time. The City ha adopted a Combination District for this area which contains Office, Commercial and Residential uses, T1
location of these uses will be determined at the mas
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 1
south.
20 8) The applicant has agreed to pay a public facilities fee,
Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be
22 available concurrent with need as required by the genera:
plan.
23 Conditions: 21L 24
25
26
27
2a
1) This project is approved on the express condition that tl applicant shall pay a public facilities fee as required 1
City Council Policy No, 17, dated April 2, 1982, on file the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, and according to the agreement executed by the applicant for
payment of said fee, a copy of that agreement, dated Sept
7, 1983, is on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. If said fee is not paid as promisei
this application will not be consistent with the general and approval on this project shall be voided. 1 C RES0 NO. 2183 5.
. (I +, .. e e
P
2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
3 Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held
4
wit: 5
the 14th day of September, 1983, by the following vote, to
6
7
AYES : Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Romboti:
Marcus, Lyttleton, Farrow, Friestedt and Raw1 ins.
8
9
NOES: None.
ABSENT : None.
10
11
ABSTAIN: None.
I.z il 13
14 ATTEST :
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI( ~ ~~
15
MICHAEL J. MLZ"PL,LER
16 LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER I1 17
18
19
20 I
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 2183 6.