Loading...
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-