HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 2578.. .. II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
:lo;
e 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2578
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM L-C , LIMITED CONTROL TO P-M, PLANNED
INDUSTRIAL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: COLLEGE BUSINESS PARK
CASE NO. : ZC-331
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to
wit:
Parcels 1 through 4 of Parcel Map No. 6331, in the County
of San Diego, State of California filed in the Office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County, September 8,
1977 as File No. 77-369645 of Official Records,
:11
:12
13
14
15
p
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of
16 September, 1986 and on the 1st day of October, 1986, hold a duly
17 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said
18 request; and
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as
rovided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
19 I WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
20 considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
21
following findings and subject to the following conditions: 27
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, 26
A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 25
Commission as follows: 24
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 23
relating to the Zone Change; and 22
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
the Commission recommends APPROVAL of ZC-331, based on the
28 M//
I
*.
II 0 0 I
1 Findings :
2 consistent with the PI (Planned Industrial) designation for this property as established by the Land Use Element of .the
1) That the zone change to P-M (Planned Industrial) is
3 General Plan.
4 2) That the subject lots are adequate in size and shape to accommodate uses permitted in the zone, as discussed in the 5 staff report. I 6
7
3) That the zoning would not adversely impact surrounding
properties, as discussed in the staff report.
8 accommodate any increase in traffic generated by the zone, as
9 discussed in the staff report.
4) That the street system serving the project is adequate to
5) The project is consistent with all City public facility pol- :Lo icies and ordinances since:
11
:12
:13
14
15
16
a) The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this zone change, ensured
building permits will not be issued for the project unless
the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project
unless sewer service remains available, and ?ne Planning
Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the
Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
I?!!
b) All necessary public improvements have been provided or ~ will be required as conditions of approval.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
c) The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition 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 available concurrent with need as required by the
General Plan.
6) An EIR was prepared for this property when it was annexed to
' the City. This EIR 81-9 was certified by the City Council on September 21, 1982. The EIK identified a number of potentially significant impacts created by the project and
possible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a
level of insignificance. These mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the Specific Plan (SP-199) for the property,
and in some cases, the project has been revised to reduce all
impacts to a level of insignificance. The specific findings
for the Planning Commission on each identified impact are attached as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference.
PC RES0 NO. 2578 -2 -
28
ll 0 *
1
2
3
4
Conditions :
1) This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final
5 I1 map. 1
6
7
a
9
10
. It1
:t 2
:L3
114
'1 c;
2) This project is also approved under the express condition that the applicant pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on April 22, 1986 and any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to
implement a growth management system or facilities and
improvement plan and to fulfill the subdivider's agreement to
pay the public facilities fee dated September 18, 1986 and the
agreement to pay the Growth Management Fee dated September 10,
1986, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk and are
incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project shall be void.
3) Approval is granted for the attached ordinance, attached as
~
Exhibit "Y'l dated September 17, 1986, incorporated by
reference and on file in the Planning Department.
PASSED, APPROVED .AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
.L u
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 1st day of October, 1986, by the following vote, to wit:
16
:17
:I8 AYES : Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners: Marcus, Schramm and Hall.
:19 1 NOES : Commissioners: McFadden and McBane.
20 ABSENT: Commissioner Holmes.
<21 ABSTAIN : None.
22
23
24
$'?J 1 fi% 8 %Ij.. c ,~ y& w& fie
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
-
25 11 ATTEST: .
26
MICHAEL J . ZMILm 27 PLANNING DIETOR
28 PC €U?,SO NO. 2578 -3-
I. m e SEPTEMBER Y, 1Ytlb
An annexation Environmental Impact Report (EIR 81-9) was
certified for this property on September 21, 1982, The
following items constitute the Planning Commission environmental
findings for this project. The mitigation measures listed
below have been incorporated into the proposed project over this
property which reduce the identified impacts to insignficant
levels.
A. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
Impact: The project by itself, will not result in
significant impacts to the traffic circulation
system. However, traffic generated by approved
and planned projects in the area will result in
cumulative significant impacts to the circulation
system.
Mitigation: The proposed project will construct College
Boulevard across the property and widen Palomar
Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road adjacent to
the property boundaries. The project will also
signalize the intersections of Palomar Airport
Road and Hidden Valley Road, contribute 50% of
the cost of signalizing the intersection of
Palomar Airport Road and College Boulevard, and
participate in the City's bridge and thoroughfare
district. Implementation of these measures will
adequately mitigate all proportionate project
traffic impacts.
B. LAND USE
Impact: Adverse impacts to land use include (1 1 compatibility with the proposed Macario Canyon
Park, ( 2 1 potentially significant crash hazard
and noise impacts associated with Palomar Airport
and (3) non-compliance with Mello I1 Local
coastal Program resource preservation policies.
Mitigation: Compatibility impacts associated with Macario
Canyon Park have been mitigated through
provisions of Specific Plan 199 which require
that all industrial lots adjacent to Macario
Canyon Park be fully landscaped along their
perimeters. Potential noise and crash hazard
impacts from Palomar Airport have been mitigated
by conditioning through the Specific Plan that
structures upon lots 19, 22, 23, and 24 be
e. a e
restricted to certain uses and lot coverages as
follows:
a) Warehouses - maximum 75% lot coverage
b) Offices - maximum 35% lot coverage
No storage or manufacture of explosives or highly
flammable materials will be allowed on these
lots. The Planning Director must approve all
uses proposed on these lots. These provisions
will adequately mitigate the identified land use
impacts. Special construction measures have also
been incorporated to mitigate internal noise to
acceptable levels.
The project as proposed has been redesigned to
come into compliance with slope and resource
preservation policies of the Mello I1 Local
Coastal Program policies.
C. AIR QUALITY
Impact: Development of the property with industrial uses
will result in an incremental addition to the
regional emission of air pollutants.
Mitigation: Project specific air quality impacts can be
mitigated through the implementation of various
air quality strategies including the use of
carpools, mass transit and other industrial
energy conservation measures as stated in the
RAQS. Effective long term mitigation can only be -
accomplished on a regional basis.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would
impact several areas of sensitive coastal sage
scrub habitat located across the property. This
impact would be significant in that it would
continue to reduce regionally this sensitive
wildlife habitat which is located within the
coastal zone.
Mitigation: The tentative map has been redesigned to maintain a 4.1 acre area of coastal sage scrub habitat in
open space. Otherwise the project is in
compliance with all Local Coastal Program
sensitive resource policies.
-2-
PI a e
E, TOPOGRAPHY AND VISUAL AESTETICS
Impact: Impacts to landform will result from grading of
the site into manufactured pads and slopes.
These visual impacts will be significant to auto
traffic along Palomar Airport Road.
Mitigation: The tentative map has been designed to avoid large
manufactured slopes along Palomar Airport Road.
The slopes that will exist along Palomar Airport
Road have been reduced to a maximum gradient of
3:l to soften their appearance. The other
manufactured slopes along College Boulevard and
throughout the center of the property have been
undulated from 2:l to 3:l to accomplish this same
affect, In addition these slopes will be fully
landscaped to mitigate visual impacts of
development .
F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact: Project implementation will result in increased
runoff, sediment load and altered chemical
content of runoff.
Mitigation: These impacts will be mitigated through the
incorporation of detention basins and drainage
facilities to control runoff, In addition, a
maintenance program to remove debris from paved
surfaces will be implemented to reduce chemical
contaminants associated with runoff.
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact: Development of the property could be impacted by
potential hazards resulting from unstable soils,
secondary seismic effects and erosion,
Mitigation: A detailed soils study will be submitted with
grading plans. At that time specific mitigations
will be recommended relative to any soils impacts
identified.
-3-