HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-05-08; City Council; 2029; Request for preannexation change of zoneI C?TY OF CARLSBAD, CALIF MIA |! x , ,
Agenda Bill Mo. *6 0olj- Date May 8, 1973
Referred .To: CITY COUNCIL ....
Subject: Request by RANCHO LA COSTA(Ayres) for preannexationa3ubmi tted By:
change of zone from County A-l(8) and E-l(A) to R-1-7500, RD-M, P-C
*' and C-l on 1106 acres of land located north of Batiquitos Lagoon • D. flWMTMrl- west of El Camino Real, and approval of E.I.R. #114. COMMISSION
^
" Statement of the Matter
At their regular meeting of April 24, 1973 the Planning Commission cfid hold a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the Final Environmental Impact Report for R.ancho
. La Costa, and a request for preannexational change of zone from County A-T(8) and
E-l(A) to R-1-7500, RD-M, P-C and C-l on 1106 acres of land generally located north
of Batiquitos Lagoon, west of El Camino Real.
• •
.After hearing reports and all persons wishing to speak, the Planning Commission
did deny the request for"preannexational change of zone as shown by Planning Commission
No. 894, attached. The Final E.I.R. was accepted as presented by Staff.
Exhibit
1. Application/certification of ownership.
2. Staff Report dated April 24, 1973 for Preannexational Zone Change #102.
3. Draft'Environmental Impact Report prepared by South Bay Engineering, 2-22-73.(separate)
4. Final Environmental Impact Report #126 prepared by Staff, 4724-73.
5. Letters commenting on E.I.R.'s — **
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 894 Denying request for preannex. chg. of zo«e.
7. Letter of Appeal of Commission denial dated May 1, 1973 fm. South Bay Eng.
8. Report from Planning Commission re: Preannexation Zone request.
Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends denial as per recommendations stated in staff report attached.
AB No. Date: Mav 8. 1973
City Manager's Recommendation
SEE ATTACHED SHEET
Council Action
8-15--.73 TThe public hearing was continued to June 5, 1973 at the request of
the applicant.
6-5-73 The Final EIR was adopted and the appeal of the decision of the
Planning Commission was granted, the matter was referred back to
the Planning Commission for further report, and that the recom-
mendations of the Ad Hoc Committees and Planning Department staff
be taken into consideration.
7-17-73 The report back from the Planning Commission was considered by
the Council. Resolution #3175 was adopted, announcing findings
and decision regarding the zone change, and a first reading was
given Ordinance #9357, granting the change of zones.
8-8-73. Ordinance #9357 was given a second reading and adopted.
-2-
PIZZTCZLJ
-*.A^ v**..'-s .•••*„•- ?•*-.- f sr^iii..!!^^
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
Apparently the concern expressed by the Planning Staff
and Planning Commission regarding the preannexation zoning
request was its prematurity in relation to our General Plan
revision. The applicant wishes to develop the western and
eastern portions of the property adjoining the Occidental
and La Costa developments in the near future. The larger,
central portion of the property is contemplated for development
at a later date, some perhaps as late as the 1990's.
The applicant wishes the entire property placed in a
development zone, believing the PC zone proposed for the bulk
of the property grants the city adequate control. The Planning
Commission desires LC zoning pending General Plan revision.
Their office has discussed the proposed zoning with the
applicant and his engineer. As a result of these discussions,
the applicant has indicated a willingness to modify his
zoning request, with the net result of reducing density.
However, the applicant still desires development zoning placed
on the total area.
My recommendation is a compromise between the Commission
and applicant's position. My suggestion would allow some
initial development in the western and eastern portions
of the property which we could service but defer precise
zoning on the central part of the property pending General
Plan revisions. The various alternate zoning recommenda-
tions are tabulated below for your consideration.
Plan Staff/
Parcel # Ap.pl i cant Plan Com.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
R-l-7,500
R-l-7,500
RDM
RDM
RDM
RDM
RDM
C-l
C-l
PC
PC
PC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
Plan Staff
A1ternate
R-l-7,500
PC
PC
PC
RDM
RDM
RDM
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
Applicant
Revised
RDM
R-l-7,500
R-l-7,500
PC
R-l-7,500
RDM &
R-l-7,500
PC
C-l
PC
PC
PC
PC
City
Mgr.
PC
LC
R-l-7,500
LC
R-l-7,500
RDM &
LC
PC
C-l
LC
LC
LC
LC
Prior to granting specific zoning,testimony should be presented
that the developer has coordinated the proposal with the Carlsbad
Unified School District.
PROOF OF PUBUCAT10H
(20I6.S C.C.F.)
This space is for ths County Clark's Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of San Diego:
I am a citizen of the United State* •:.•-: s i- "Co-
the County aforesaid; I am over tlv- ,.-.:•• o: c. :y
years, and not a party to or mtsro:r--i. r: "•£ -Jc
Entitled matter. I am the pri.-,;iDe; ci.jrk ..- •.-•- -•
Proof of Publication of
•jf the ..The Blade Tribune
a newspaper of general circulation, prinrej vi.nJ pi.o:i;n-3d
daily except Sat. & holloas
Oceansidein the City of .... .
County of San Diego, and whirh rev.-;i:>«-' • oec'~
adjudged a newspaper of genera1 > rc1.^- •, *r.e
Superior Court of the Cour^y i:.* ^>.-,' .. •" ; ' -•'
California, under the date oi March 19 5?
Case Number. 1713^9 ' ---...*
of which the annexed n a u,/ •(.•.! '.•>", '•- • • '<••*• ;"-''
srnaliar indn nonpareil;, hri.- I'^c," L i.u t , •v;"
regular and entire Issue of ..-no new^LMt-e • r'0' , •
uny suppleiinerit ih^ieoi Of rrv3 '•: ' '^-.i-x; .' .",-- :.> WJT:
....Hay.A,....1973
all in the year 19
I certify (or declare) under penalty of parjurv Hiat the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Oceanside
, . . ,California, this day or ; 73
Signature
Lisa Beadles
Free cooies of this blank form may be sei.jred Irom:
CALIFORNIA
NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU, INC.
Since 1934
Legal Advo.'i^inq Clearing i :ou.e
2IO South Spring St., Los Angeles, Calif. 9001 'i
Telephone: 625-214I
Please request GENERA!. Pfcr! .-f \-..'•'.- . - -- •.-.•- -.<-.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Pasta Clipping
of Notice
SECURELY
In This Space
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
CUy Council of the City of Carlsbad
will hold a Public Hearing in the
Council -Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, California, on Tuesday,
May 15, 1973, at 7:30 P.M. to consider
an appeal of the decision of the Plann-
ing Commission in denying a Pre-Annexa-
tlonal Change of Zone from County A-l (8)and t-1 (A) to R-l-7500, RO-H, P-C
and C-l City of Carlsbad Zoning, located
on property located north of Batlquitos
Lagoon and west of El Camino Real, more
particularly described as follows:
All that land in Sections 22, 26, 27,
28 and 35, in Township 12 South, Range
4 West, San .Bernardino Base and Meri-
dian, in the County of San Diego,
State of California and more particu-larly described in application on
file in the office of the City Clerk.
Also being considered for Public Hearing
will be the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTon above described property.
Apellant, fiancho La Costa Ayres,
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
Publish: May 4, 1973
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad
will hold a Public Hearing in the
Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, California, on Tuesday,
May 15, 1973, at 7:30 P.M. to consider
an appeal of the decision of the Plann-
ing Commission in denying a Pre-Annexa-
tional Change of Zone from County A-l (8)
and E-l (A) to R-l-7500, RD-M, P-C
and C-l City of Carlsbad Zoning, located
on property located north of Batiquitos
Lagoon and west of El Camino Real, more
particularly described as follows:
All that land in Sections 22, 26, 27,
28 and 35, in Township 12 South, Range
4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meri-
dian, in the County of San Diego,
State of California and more particu-
larly described in application on
file in the office of the City Clerk.
Also being considered for Public Hearing
will be the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
on above described property. Appellant:
Rancho La Costa/Ayers.
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
Publish: May 4, 1973
MEMORANDUM June 5, 1973
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: RANCHO LA COSTA (DONALD B. AYRES) PRE-ANNEXATION
ZONING SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT.
The Planning Commission, at its April 24, 1973 meeting, heard
the Request for Pre-Annexational Zoning on the Rancho La Costa
(Donald B. Ayres) holdings. The Planning Commission denied the.
applicant's request on the basis that the request was premature in
light of the ongoing program to revise the General Plan. The Com-
mission also felt that although the concept was valid, the timing
of the zoning request, and subsequent development proposals were
ill-timed. There were also questions relating to the availability
of public and school facilities to the 414 acres of property which
the applicant has designated for development (Parcels #1, 2, 3, 5 &
6). Provisions for public service or the availability of school
facilities have not been precisely defined.
The Planning Staff recommendation to the Planning Commission
was to deny the applicant's orginial request, and as an alternative,
approve zoning on a portion of the property's 414 acres with the
balance being placed in the P-C (Planned Community) Zone without
adoption of a Master Plan. The City Manager's recommendation to the
City Council was a similar recommendation with portions of the prop-
erty being placed in the L-C (Limited-Control) Zones instead of in
the P-C Zone. The applicant has agreed with the suggested changes.
Therefore, the Planning Department wishes to make the following
representations:
1. The Master Development Plan is not to be construed as
the Master Plan for the P-C Zone. The Master Development
Plan designates the parcels which the applicant wishes
to place in specific zoning districts. Staff and the
Applicant (Mr. Ayres) fully recognize the necessity of
addtional planning on the larger percentage of his holdings.
This is especially true when the current program of General
Plan Revision is under way. Therefore, as additional plan-
ning information becomes available thru the General Plan
Revision, the Staff and the Applicant may apply requirements
to the subject property which are consistent with the City's
General Plan. Mr. Ayres will then submit a Master Plan for
the P-C Zone when additional information is available.
2. Density as proposed by the Applicant is the same, 5.26 d.u./
acre as currently recommended by the existing General Plan,
if the entire 1100 acres is compared to projected units.
However, the General Plan recommendation is 7 d.u./acre in
the easterly and westerly one-third of the subject property,
MEMO-JUNE 5, 1973
RANCHO LA COSTA -PR
ANNEXATION ZONING
and the middle one-third has a recommended 2 d.u./acre.
The Applicant's proposal, although matching the recom-
mended General Plan density for the 1100 acre parcel,
necessitates General Plan Revision because the General
Plan density (2 d.u./acre) is being exceeded by the
Applicant (4 d.u./acre) in the middle one-third.
3. The stipulation of time in the Environmental Impact Report,
and the Applicant's Supplemental Report (attached) points
to a time frame when an actual population is living, or is
planning to build on the subject property. It is important
to begin the planning process as early as possible. 3-5
years planning and permit approvals are not uncommon when
proposing a development which will be occupied and require
service. Therefore, it only seems reasonable in areas
where service demand is going to be placed, zoning be
assigned to the properties which may be available for de-
velopment at the present time or in the near future, and
that Master Plans and Specific Plans be developed for the
remaining portions,700+ acres, and as additional planning
information becomes available.
The Planing Department would recommend the recommendations as
presented by the Council Ad-Hoc Committee (Vice-Mayor McComas and
Councilman Chase)and concurred with, in principal, by the Applicant,
City Manager and Planning Department, be approved.
The Applicant has submitted a. request for General Plan Amendment
to the Planning Department and this will be processed in the normal manner
oo,
^V A V
Planning Director \ ^
July 12, 1973
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: AYRES PREANNEXATIONAL ZONING REQUEST
On July 10, 1973 the Planning Commission was presented a report which
described the City Council action regarding the subject application. After
presentation by the Planning Director, the Planning Commission submits the
following recommendations to your body for consideration.
In as much as the Ayres holding is premature for the most part, the
Planning Commission is of the opinion that the areas where zoning is requested
are logical. The Planning Commission concurs with the City Council's action,
with one (1) exception. The area requested to be rezoned RD-M on the western
side of the Ayres holdings should be placed in a P-C zone without a Master
Plan. The area on the eastern side of the Ayres holdings should be zoned as
requested, except the zoning boundaries should be coterminous with boundaries
of the proposed Rancho La Cuesta subdivision map.
The Planning Commission would urge the City of Carlsbad to establish
the position that much of Carlsbad is being planned with zones and master plans
in areas where the necessary information is not available, thereby constituting
somewhat premature development. Until such time as the General Plan revision
is completed, additional applications should be discouraged.
DONALD A. AGATEP,\
Planning Director \
t.
0?
THl-
11
II
11
II
11
TWT
11
To T*t- Q.TY
TH*-
Tf+i*
M
c.-/
P-C
ToTAC
"
., ,,)
10 " "
To
or THt-
THfif
A-S j i
AT" /VO do^T" Tc
of-
"TO
of
Or
3.
/r
OF
K
t-O.fr ^
THt
^ ""
-":>'>:£>, , 231^^1
' /- -?V'- X tJ - ---V ^ :~
CW^NV^y^-l-.-AJ '•• N V; \
•- : • V • « -^-?* - •*?^-AV»'-:^^?*V^v//i\^;?,\liri^^if.v?/?>>::-•"• fV--""' --fc :v:--^'fe^%^%:/\ "feS-^/'^ •-. \--5\\\: .. m-. \&^&?&&'^'• \?f%3r':*;- «fe'' v^U-m:/ 7vw^^::'4^:^vU^:
xV-wHJt^-,. - * -?.^\\ • .*•?.: ••.••<*••,\\)!'t \\'/aP.'^ Jw-- ••:;:-.)A :l-i.^^'^r
s o xr T ;nr 23
TEJON PLACE
PALOS VERGES K
CALIFORNIA 90^74
APPROXIMATE")
(21 3t 375-255G 772-1555
ONO L. QUIGLEY R.C.E.LIK1EL^> SEPAPiATa
(213) 375-'2S56 RAYMOND L.OUIGUEY
FRO'M L. A 772-1555 DON AL D E. DAWS ON
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING CORPORATION
3O4 TEJON PLACE
PAL.OS VERDES ESTATES , C A LI FORM IA OO274
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT
TO :,;....
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
RANCHO LA COSTA, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
May 30,;1973
INTRODUCTION
This report provides data to accompany the Master Development
Plan prepared for Rancho La Costa, a limited partnership, owners,"
relative to their 1100- acre annexation to the city of Carlsbad.
The land is variously proposed for zones and densities (see Figure 1)
and this report provides supplemental information as required by :-
Carlsbad Title 21.38.050. .
The Draft Environmental Impact Report of February 22, 1973 also
provides background data relative to the answers provided below. Y
Paragraph numbers below refer to Title 21.38.050 subparagraphS. >A
(1) TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ' '• , .'* ?f-
•The Master Development Plan was prepared on a topographic map
of the area. Because of the large acreage involved, the scale "was
1" = 400' and the topographic map contours were five-foot intervals.
(2) PRELIMINARY REPORT DESCRIBING PROPOSED PROVISIONS FOR STORM •
DRAINAGE. SEWAGE DISPOSAL, HATER SUPPLY AND OTHER UTILITIES
Refer to Draft Environmental Impact Report dated February 22,
1973.
Storm Drainage .
Water will continue to be drained down the canyons to
Batiquitos Lagoon. Except as specially provided in areas to be
maintained in a rural style, drainage will be affected along streets
to catch basins and thence to storm drain pipes or channels.
Hydrology studies will be used as necessary to size pipes or channels,
Sewage Disposal
• Service is established in the western area by Carlsbad Municipal
System and in the eastern area by the Leucadia County Water District.
: .'c^r'>"-••'"<•!*
p^:T'''<::::':\;-
p-c
TOTAL
|IOO±
CDRD-K
&P.U./AC
.j • -v -.• .• .„
'• '"'• ' ••
SMCXV/{n6 PROPOSED ZOHE.5 fi- DIVELUH6 D£O2>ITY
. (AChEAaE5>
\T f
H JC.-iM ?!_ •' f
SOLID L(r\El 5EPAMTES
DASHED UIJIE.^ SEPAPxATE-
The dividing line and terminal line'., are subject of current discus-
sion between R. Hansen, Leucadia; Hunter Cook, City of Carlsbad;
and engineers from South Bay Engineering Corporation. Capacities
to meet the growth schedule of the area are expected to be sufficient.
The areas outside of the annexation to the north which are in the
natural sanitation drainage shed are included in the plans. The trunk
lines along the Batiquitos Lagoon area will generally lie in both,
the proposed San. Diego County Park Area and probably within the
California Coastal Zone Conservation Act "Permit Area".' Application
to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission will be made
as. may be required. • '- •'• i
Water Supply
Carlsbad Municipal Water District is currently supplying this
area. The apparent demand of about 1,800,000 gallons/day which
will be required at ultimate development (20 years) appears to be
within their capacity to supply.
(3) ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
About 30 acres of supportive commercial area are proposed.
This is based on the ASCE guideline of 4-10 acres for a neighbor-
hood shopping center of which one or two may be necessary and por-
tions of a community shopping center which in its entirety would
require 10-30 acres. : • • ' -i • .;• r-f- ^;
ASCE Urban Planning Guide, November 9, 1969.
(4) DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The Master Development Program as outlined here contemplates
the orderly growth and development.of a residential area with such
associated city, institutional and commercial services as are needed
to service the population. It is not expected that the existing
owner, per se, will perform the development. Some portions of the
area may be developed by owner-related groups while the balance
will be performed by independent developers.
Conveyance methods will vary. Initial proposals (see Tract
No. 72-34) are for conventional fee simple single family residences
and duplex condominiums. Subsequent units will be in accordance
with market needs.
Current plans do not envision the creation of "Homes
Association" groups. Accordingly, landscaping, open spaces and
parks are initially expected to be dedicated to the city and so
maintained or will be privately held. As market conditions or
developer preference change, a different approach may be contem-
plated.
(5) TENTATIVE TIME SCHEDULE
As specified in Title 21.38,050 (5) a tentative time schedule
is shown in Figure 2 which shows the "approximate date by which each
unit of development shall be completed". This estimate i.s based on
physical completion of the projects. It is, of course, subject to
considerable variation. Final occupancy of residential areas or
lot subdivisions may be many years later. Often lots are held as
investments or are passed along in families. Environmental Impact
Report Chart, Figure 2 relates to land occupancy.
(5) TENTATIVE TIME SCHEDULE (continued)
The attached chart Figure 2 relates to one possible project
phasing completion plan in terms of-subdivisi on. It should be
emphasized that the development process from inception to complet-
ion may take several years. Hence, beginning dates on project
areas precede completion by such a time period.
The development unit in reality is an area with only an
approximate boundary.
Development Unit Completion Year
A 1974
B 1976
C 1980
4213} 375-2556
'FROM L. A. "772-1555
RAYMON D L. QUIGLEY
DONALD E. DAWSON
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING CORPORATION
3O4 TEJON PLACE
PALQS VERGES ESTATES, CALIFORN IA 9O274 x—_^ / _
May 1, 1973
Honorable City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Gentlemen :
Pursuant to Section 21.52.080 of Title 21, the City of Carlsbad
Zoning Ordinance, we respectfully appeal the decision of the
Carlsbad City Planning Commission on Zone Change No. 102 heard
at the April 24th meeting of the Planning Commission. That decision
was a complete denial of any pre-annexational zonina.
Zone Change No. 102 was filed by Rancho
ational Zone Change from County A-l (8)
RD-M, P-C and C-l on approximately 1100
north of the Batiquitos Lagoon and west
La Costa for pre-annex-
and E-l (A) to R-l (7,500)
acres generally located
of El Camino Real. This
Zone Change was requested in conjunction with (a) annexation of
the 1100 acres, (b) a draft Environmental Impact Report covering
the area and (c) a Master Development Plan for the property.
This project has been in planning and design since early
its conception. The City of Carlsbad staff have been
the planning of Rancho La Costa for over one and one
1970 at
involved with
half years.
The pre-annexation zoning requested was based upon the above
mentioned planning. At this stage, two developments are in the
design phase; one being located at the eastern end of the property
(parcels 2, 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the attached sketch), the other at the
northwestern end (parcels 1 and 3). In these two areas, sufficient
information is available to request a specific zoning of RD-M,
C-l and R-l (7,500) for the proposed eastern development (Tentative
Tract No. C.T. 72-34) and a specific zoning of R-l (7,500) and
RD-M for the specifically proposed development at the northwestern
portion of the property.
While specific zoning is now requested for the two areas subject to
early development (as discussed above), the major portion of the
property would be best served by placing it in P-C zone. This would
allow great latitude in residential planning for the area, in which
variety and atmosphere could result. The concept of P-C zoning is the
encouragement and enhancement of neighborhood growth.
SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING JRPORATION
CIVIL & CONSULTING ENGINEERS
May 1, 1973
Re: Zone Change No. 102
Page 2
Discussion with the City of Carlsbad planning staff both prior
to and subsequent to the April 24, 1973 commission meeting
indicates that they concur with this request (excluding C-l zoning
on the east). The staff recommendation to the Planning Commission
was :
"The Planning Commission should consider the alternative of:
1. Allowing the RD-M Zone as proposed on parcels 5,6 & 7
[Tentative Tract No. C.T. 72-34] to occur. Services are
potentially available in the vicinity of the developed
portion of La Costa.
2. Allow the R-l-7500 parcel (parcel 1) of Exhibit "A" to
develop, provided provisions for all public services can
be made in conjunction with the adjoining Occidental
Petroleum holdings and the Alta Mira development. The
balance of the property outside of the identified parcels
1,5,6 & 7 be placed into the P-C zone to allow for coherent
and comprehensive planning in conjunction with the existing
program to revise the General Plan".
In light of the study and planning for this project over the past
two years; in light of acceptance of Environmental Impact Statement
No. 114 covering the planning of this project and in light of the
City of Carlsbad Planning Department staff recommendation, we
respectfully appeal the City of Carlsbad City Council to grant:
1. Zoning of R-l (7,500) on parcel 2, RD-M on parcels 5,6 and
7 and C-l on parcel 8 of the attached sketch.
2. Zoning of R-l (7,500) on parcel 1 and RD-M on parcel 3 of
the attached sketch.
3. Zoning of P-C on parcels 4,9,10,11 and 12 (being the
remainder of the Rancho La Costa annexation) of the
attached sketch.
Very truly yours ,
SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING CORPORATION
)onald E. Dawson
Vice President
DED:st
Enclosure
rnvfcSX^
v--." ".•-' - ' i"" ' /— *
JZ£~£.^ ,-Oki.^L-
TOTAL.noo+
nv, :)--'<5-^
-H, A ' / -M-
;' pTr A'. /(. i " *- •/*/
t>,,.A.;.7^sJ v r
S PROPOSED
3O4 TpJON
PAL5>8 VE«O€S ESTATESAPPfSOXIMATTE-7)
SOLID LIKt 5EPAftATE5
»inT. DAMMED tUIE^ SEPAhATE. rVUMC»EP£D 2DHE
CITY
OF
CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ANALYSIS
FOR
APRIL 24, 1973
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
PREANNEXATIONAL ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. ZC-102
DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION
The Applicant, RANCHO LA COSTA, a limited partnership, is
requesting a preannexation zone change from San Diego County
A-l (8) and E-l (A) to the City of Carlsbad Zones R-l (7500)
RD-M, P-C and C-l, on 1121+ acres of land area, generally located
north of Batiquitos Lagoon and west of El Camino Real. The
subject property has been presented to LAFCO for annexation
(Ref. South Carlsbad Annex No. 1.15". Applicant has submitted
the following zone change request:
Zone Density No. of Acres
P-C
R-l-7500
RD-M
C-l
Sub-Total
S.D.G. & E. Easements
675
136
258
20
1089
32
1121 +Acres
The applicant has supported his zone change request by the following
statements:
1. SUCH a zone change is warranted because "the property
is suitable for residential purposes in accordance with the General
Plan."
2. SUCH a zone change will be in the interest of furtherance
of public welfare because "most of the land is now unusable for other
purposes".
3. THE permitted uses in this proposed reelassification
will not be detrimental in any way to surrounding properties because
"surrounding properties are, in general, vacant."
4. THE property in this application is more suitable
ANALYSIS/Ranr^" a Costa-Ayres
April 24, 19, 'Page 2
for the proposed zone because "this land, except for small portions,
is not suitable for agriculture because of soil and terrain".
5. THE adopted General Plan of the City of Carlsbad recognizes
the property described herein for "residential and commercial"
use of land.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The property under consideration consists of 1121 + acres of land
area, located north of Batiquitos Lagoon and west of that portion of
Carlsbad known as La Costa. The property is currently in the County
of San Diego and is presently utilized for agrarian purposes. The
Terrian is hilly with the majority of the ridges following a north-
south direction, with extreme slope conditions describing three
rajrttural drainage channels across the subject property.
DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
1. Land Use - The surrounding land use to the north is agri-
cultural and industrial, to the west is agricultural, to the south
is the Batiquitos Lagoon, which is proposed for a San Diego County
Regional Park. To the east of the subject property in Rancho La Costa
is a combination of low and medium density residential uses and com-
mercial development.
2- Zoning - The property directly to the north is zoned County
E-l(A), the property to the south and west zoned A-l(8)and to the
east is zoned R-l-(7500), RD-M and C-2 (the La Costa Country Club).
ZONING REVIEW
The applicant proposes to place portions of the property in to actual
developmental zones (RD-M, R-l-7500 & C-2) and the balance of the
property into P-C without Master Plan. It should be noted that by
placing some 414 acres into developable zones, the applicant, or sub-
sequent property owner, need only file a tentative map to start a
developmental program. Development could conceivably occur in a di-
verse and incoherent manner. The balance of the property, 675 acres,
would be placed into the Planned Community (P-C) without a Master Plan
The Master Plan is proposed to be prepared within one year of zoning
approval, and would also allow the City adequate time to assess the
proposed General Plan Revision and the applicability of that revision
to the proposed development.
It is likely that a portion, approximately 100 acres adjacent to El
Camino Real, could develop within the immediate future because the
potential availability of service exists in the developed portions of
La Costa. A second but marginal parcel which could also develop is
that portion of property adjoining the existing City boundary to the
ANALYSIS/Rancho ( ^sta-Ayres
.April 24, 1973
Page 3
west and adjacent to the Occidental Petroleum Land & Development
Co. holdings, and adjacent to Alta Mira, which is currently under
construction. The balance of the property should be placed in a
P-C zone and included in the Master Plan.
AFFECTS ON THE GENERAL PLAN
The adopted General Plan designates the subject property for a com-
bination of Estate and Low-Density Residential, and a small portion
of Neighborhood Commercial and Tourist-Resort Land uses. The appli-
cants' proposal is consistent with the existing goals and provisions
of the GeneraL Plan, whereas the PC zoning district is the tool that
provides both the City and the developer the flexibility to establish
interrelated land uses during the conceptual planning phases, and
during General Plan Revision.
A point of clarification must be made at this time. Annexations have
historically combined the functions of zone change and master plan
adoption, however, each process requires a distinct action on behalf
of the City, and the dovetailing process occurs at the master plan
stage. It is the intent of the Planning Department to separate these
functions to provide adequate time for the developer to prepare a
master plan for the entire 1121+ acres. The recent revision of the
P-C zoning ordinance provides for Master and Specific Plans to be
placed on the property within one year of assigning the zoning de-
signations. Albeit, the applicant has indicated a density of four
(4) dwelling units per acre on the P-C portion of this zone change
request, and the General Plan recognizes that particular area for a
maximum density of two (2) units per acre, we need not consider the
density proposal at this point in time. The Master Plan requirement
of the P-C zone will establish, among other things, the acceptable
density provision. Therefore, in view of the permitted uses of the
requested zoning districts as applied to the land use designations of
the General Plan, the Planning Department finds that they are con-
sistent with the goals and objectives expounded therein.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATION
The applicant has submitted the required Environmental Assessment.
Zoning districts other than P-C would provide the potential for a
significant change in the environment, if the physical configuration
of the lot would permit the development of the permitted uses con-
tained in the zoning district. The P-C zone itself requires that a
master plan be filed on the property within one year from the time of
grafting the zone. The filing of the master plan on the P-C portion
of the proposed annexation will require an additional in-depth Environ-
mental Impact Report which addresses itself to specific circumstances
(grading, density, traffic flow, etc.) of the proposed development.
The same approach will be taken with the R-l, RD-M and C-l portions
in that, at the time of the required subdivision (to permit feasible
development) an in-depth environmental review will be initiated.
ANALYSIS/Rancho 'a, "osta-Ayres
April 24, 1973Page 4
After placing the requested zoning on the property it is difficult
to significantly develop the property without either obtaining a
grading permit or subdividing the land. Each of these City entitle-
ments requires that an Environmental Impact Report be submitted. It
is at this point in time that an adequate and meaningful Environ-
mental Assessment can be made. A direct correlation of the benefit
derived to the amount of negative expenditures, is difficult to
ascertain at the zone change stage. At this instant, we can be
assured that if the property develops, some types of City services
will be required. However, the scope and scale of such services
would only be speculation, based on the maximum potential of the
zoning district.
The problem that confronts the Planning Department is one of gathering
sufficient evidence to make an adequate determination. It is quite
evident that the development of this 1121+ acres will have a substantial
effect. However, definitive proposals for development must be pre-
sented in order to assess its absolute environmental impact.
The Planning Commission should be aware that the applicant has agreed
to prepare a Master Plan of development for the entire 1121+ acres,
and will submit the additional Environmental Impact Information at
that time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department recommends the Planning Commission deny the
request for zone change as submitted in this application for the
following reasons:
a. The pending development of 414 acres of real property could
adversely effect the City's ability to provide adequate service.
b. The City is currently developing its General Plan Revision
to be consistent with State Law, and decisions on the absolute pro-
visions of land use should not be considered until the recommendations
of that revision program are available.
The Planning Commission should consider the alternative of:
1. Allowing the RD-M Zone as proposed on parcels 5,6, & 7 to
occur. Services are potentially available in the vicinity of the
developed portion of La Costa.
2. Allow the R-l-7500 parcel (parcel 1} of Exhibit "A" to de-
velop, provided provisions for all public services can be made in con-
junction with the adjoining Occidental Petroleum holdings and the Alta
Mira development. The balance of the property outside of the identi-
fied parcels 1,5,6, & 7 be placed into the P-C Zone to allow for co-
herent and comprehensive planning in conjunction with the existing
program to revise the General Plan.
DONALD A. AGATEP,^\
Planning Director
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ANALYSIS FOR
APRIL 24, 1973
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #126 (Ayres)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The limited partnership of Rancho La Costa (DONALD B. AYRES) is proposing to
annex some 1106+ acres of its holdings to the City of Carlsbad. The property
is generally located between El Camino Real and Lagoon Lane, and northerly of
the Batia'jitos Lagoon. The partnership submitted an annexation request to
LAFCO under "South Carlsbad Annexation 1.15" On December 4, 1972 LAFCO
consented to the applicants' request for annexation.
The applicant has been working with this staff since the spring of 1972 to
develop and prepare for the Planning Commission a program which will allow
for the orderly and logical assimilation of the subject 1100+ acres into the
City of Carlsbad.
The impacts as presented in the draft report concern the effects of the
proposed annexation and zone change upon all facets of the environment as
required by Carlsbad's Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972. The
report addresses, to a great extent, the definition of and the potential
impacts upon the natural environments of flora, fauna, topography, hydrology
and to some extent, the impacts of the proposed action upon Public Services.
There was discussion in the Environmental Impact Statement which was submitted
for the proposed "El Camino Glens" development, regarding the potential of
an Urban Hucleas forming in the vicinity of La Costa. That nucleus was reviewed
as separate and distinct physically, economically, socially and culturally
from the centeral core of the presently acknowledged and older, portion of Carlsbad.
The annexation of, and the development of the subject 1100+ acres represents an
extension of that theory in that the proposed property is, by Draft E.I.R.
definition, a residential and residential oriented commercial development.(Ref:
Pg. 5 of Draft EIR). Therefore, the major impetus of the significant Environmental
Impact would be one of assessing the potential of developing 1100+ acres of land,
including 5988 dwelling units, and the relationship of that development to the
surrounding lands, and the relation of both to the balance of governmental re-
sponsibilities in serving "urban" portions and outer "suburban" portions of
Carlsbad.
The aspects of the departmental analysis which therefore deserve the greatest
amount of emphasis are:
1. the impact on government for providing service.
2. the impact on the General Plan.
ACCEPTABILITY OF THE DRAFT REPORT:
The Draft Report for "Rancho La Costa (Donald 8. Ayres) has been determined to
meet the requirements of the Carlsbad Environmental Impact Ordinance of 1972.
The report as submitted did consider all aspects of, and the potential impacts of,
the proposed development upon the natural environment. As outlined above, the
major emphasis will be placed upon the requirements levied upon the City for
service (water, sewer, schools, administration, etc) and the ability of the Planning
Process through the General Plan to satisfy those requirements.
FINAL REPORT:
1. Project Description: A synopsis of the project description as presented in
the Draft Report, pages 1-15, indicates a development that will ultimately (20 yrs)
provide:
P-C 675 acres 3000 d.u.
RD-M 258 acres 2308 d.u.
R-1-7500 136 acres 680 d.u.
comm'l 20 acres
1089 acres 5988 d.u.
Average d.u./acre = 5.6
The proposed project represents an approximate ultimate population (15,500) about
equal to the existing City population of 17,250. Assuming the time frame re-
presented in the Draft E.I.R., absorbtion into the City will not occur for at
least a minimum of 20 years (pages 12-14 of Draft EIR). Additional information
relating to the project description is contained in the Draft EIR.
2. Environmental Setting Without the Project: The background information
presented above in conjunction with information contained in the Draft EIR
provide an adequate basis for discussion of the Environmental setting for the
purposes of this report. (Ref pgs. 16-32) Additional note should be taken to
page 31 which suggests soil suitabilities of orchard, row crops and pasture on
77% of the project property and 23% suitability of watershed. The statement
that there are no known faults in the region (Page 32) is questionable since
the County of San Diego and the Integrated Regional Environmental Management
Regent (IREM) has identified a fault trace or a crustal shift along the southern
shore of the Batiquitos Lagoon. This structural anomaly is in ths process of
Page 3.
being assessed by Lanpman and Associates in conjunction with the preparation o^
the Geologic Hazards portion of the General Plan, Therefore, any extention
of the i:fault tract" which has a north/south orientation, to the north or south,
is not known at this time.
3, Indenity Environmental Impacts: The Draft EIR (Pgs. 33-48) identify the
basic environmental impacts. Additional discussion is warranted on the impacts
of the proposed project upon Governmental Service and upon the General Plan.
The ensuing remarks address these impacts - in a general way - with the intent
being to insure that any decision-making body has sufficient information to
adequately assess the proposed action.
These impacts are usually described as "macro" or larger scale problems which
lie beyond the specific project site and may only be mitigated by an adequate
planning process, and through comprehensive agency coordination. They are
specific in nature but pertain to long-range cumulative impacts which the City
must deal with through some form of advanced planning process which identifies
and adheres to an objective set of Goals and Policies.
a. Impact on Governmental Systems
The Draft EIR (Pages 38-47) addresses the impacts upon those functions
normally identified as being the responsibility of the jurisdictional body. The
requirement to deliver services to the projectural population of 15,000 individuals
places a great burden upon the local governmental entity,especially if the pro-
posed development is to have residential identity. The City does not have at
the present time viable courses of action which would allow the provision of school
facilities. This is evidenced by recent attempts by the Carlsbad Unified School
District to pass "tax over-ride and/or Bond issued" . The subject property is
completely within the jurisdictional boundaries of the District. Road systems
are basically identified on the City's existing General Plan, however, it is
desirous to comprehensively plan the major circulation network so as to maximize
efficiency and minimize the unnecessary natural system impact which has been vogue
in the past. This is especially true for grading and location.
The requirements to provide Governmental Administration have, at this
point, been identified but programs or plans have not yet been refined to enable
this "second urban nucleus" to progress in an orderly manner.
To this point, discussion has centered around the total concept of the
proposed development. It is important to consider what the impact of a "developing"
zone versus a "non-developing" or holding_zone, is going to be upon the existing
ability of the City to provide service. The applicant proposes to develop parcels
1 and 2 as R-l-7,500; parcels 3 - 7 as RD-M (Ref Pg. 10 & Fig. 1). In the City,
these zones require approval of Tentative Maps in order for development to occur.
The threat of immediate development then is dependent upon housing market con-
siderations, availability of sewer, water, schools, police and fire protection.
It would be assumed that in order for development to occur, the City would con-
ceivably have the capacity to meet those demands. As already noted, the Carlsbad
School District is overcrowded, and the Leucadia County Water District Sewer
capacity is at threshold level. Any development which would occur on the
western boundary of the property site, would of necessity require pumping due
west into the existing system or would gravity feed to a new line along the
southern perimeter which is not completely designed. On the other hand, the
"non-developing" zone may be defined as Planned Community (P-C) zone without
approval of a comprehensive master plan, pursuant to requirements of the P-C
Ord. as revised. The property owner has expressed his desire to properly
assess and prepare a Master Plan within the one (1) year time frame as allowed
under Ordinance. Therefore, emminent development could not take place without
first having the advantage of the current program to revise the General Plan.
b. Ijnpact upon the General Plan : Specific consideration should be given
to the program currently underway that will revise the existing General Plan and
at the same time, add the state mandated elements of "Geologic Hazards",
Open Space, Conservation, etc.
Development of the subject property prior to the adoption of these elements would
preclude the consideration of the factors defined by law as components of these
elements, and may result in the unnecessary depletion of natural resources.
Although basic circulation and density recommendations are contained within the
existing General Plan, the proposed development does represent alternative
circulation routes and density patterns which should have the benefit of the
G.P. Revisions' recommendations.
Another General Plan impact often under emphasized by Planners and decision-
makers alike is the more generalized relationship between service demands of
the existing inner-city and those of the high/new growth areas on the urbanized
periphery.
If for example, concentration of capital expenditures in peripheral growth areas
are made disporportionately and at the expenses of Capital Improvement demands in
the inner city, the improvement of the quality of the inner city's environment
may be underemphasized and therefore represent a significant depreciation of the
existing City's environment. Planning then involves the necessary and logical
coordination of both responsibilities for the benefit of the entire population,
as that population may now exist or at it may exist in the future. Development
then should only occur at such time as Capital Improvement Programs are developed
as part of the General Plan Revision. ' .
It should be noted, that there are areas within the project site which could
develop in the immediate future and may not significantly effect the City's
ability to provide service (Parcels 5 & 6 as identified on Pg. 10 & in Fig. 1 and
to a lesser degree Parcel #1)
4. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided Should The Proposal
Be Implemented.
The Draft EIR lists the result of urbanization on the project site and In
the general vicinity will:
1. create a loss of visual open spaces.
2. cause a disappearance of the rural atmosphere prevalent in the area.
3. increase traffic flow.
It should also be noted that increased populations increase proportionately
the absolute demand for schools, sewer, government, etc.
5. Mitigation Measures To Minimize Any Significant Impacts:
Mitigation is the proposed action a property owner, developer or legislative
body can take to minimize or erradicate the adverse aspects of a proposed de-
velopment. The Draft EIR on Page 49 addresses some of the mitigating measures.
As an adjunct to those mentioned in the Draft report, the City by law, must
offer mitigation:
a. The draft EIR on Pg. 51 outlines the tax levies placed on the subject
property for the last 15 years and measures that requirement against revenues
generated. Historically, agricultural lands have been assessed proportionate
to "highest and best" use philosophy, which thru time would ultimately lead to
urbanization because surrounding development has forced transition to urban
(residential £ commercial) land uses. This is known fact in the Santa Clara
Valley, San Luis Rey Valley, San Fernando Valley and other like urbanized areas
where property value was identified in economic terms. Therefore, the connotation
of "highest and best" become an economic one. In principle however, "highest
and best" should relate to social, political and economic consideration. Therefore,
because possibly of the lack of a program to plan for agriculture as a resource
or viable land use, property value was placed disporportionate to actual economic
rent derived under reasonable circumstances, thereby forcing thru time,development.
As a mitigative measure, the City could and should develop implementable programs
which through the General Plan process allow for agriculture, open spaces and
the conservation of natural resources at they may be defined.
b. The suggestion that P-C could be used on a portion is realistic and a
desirious way in which to develop. Consideration should be given to utilizing
the P-C concept on the entire parcel of 1100+ acres. This approach offers the
City the ability to coherently plan for growth by absolute review, through the
Master Plan, and then Specific Plan/Tentative Map stages. This would be in
contrast to the proposal of employing "developing zones" which would have the
capacity of imrnenent development by approval of a Tentative Map.
6. A1ternatiyes to the Proposed Action : In addition to the utilization of
the P-C concept as previously outlined alternatives are presented on Pgs. 50-52
of the Draft E.I.R.
7. The Relationship between the Local Short-Term uses of Man's Environment and
the Maintenance & enhancement of Long-Term Quality:
The Draft EIR states the short-term as 100 years and then implies the
long-term as being 100-200 years. This assessment is subjective and not realistic
in that the lav; (California Environmental Quality Act of 1970) stipulates
" special attention should be given to impacts which narrow the range of
beneficial uses of the environment or pose long-term risks to health, welfare
or safety . . . ." By only assessing the long-term effects as residentially
derived, choices in the future, long-term, may be precluded".
If development is allowed to proceed without prior consideration of the
preservation of resources, the impacted relationships to governmental services
or to General Plans, present or future, the choice of alternatives by future
generations would be precluded.
8. The Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Activity Upon the Neighborhood
and/or Community.
The growth inducing impacts, contrary to those identified on Page 54 of
the Draft EIR, are those impacts created by this project which are part of the
larger trend in converting non-urban areas to urbanized communities/neighborhoods.
The effect on the community is basically that of increasing a second "urban
nucleus" within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City. That nucleus evolving
around the La Costa area and more generally in the area south of Palomar Airport
Road.
9. Agencies Contacted and Presented With The Draft EIR For Comment:
1. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
2. San Diego Coast Regional Commission
3. County Parks and Recreation Department
4. State Fish and Game Department
5. Agriculture Department
6. Corps of Engineers
The combination of the Draft EIR prepared for Rancho La Costa (Donald B. Ayres)
by South Bay Engineering Corporation, and the foregoing report as submitted by
the Planning Department, represent the Final Impact Report for Rancho La Costa
and meets the requirements of the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ord. of 1972
(Ord. 1158). The Final Report on the proposed annexation and zone change re-
presents only the basic, generalized information necessary to make an adequate
decision. As each phase develops within the subject property, additional
information will be necessary to address specific developmental proposals as
they relate to this report and as they relate to the additional requirements
of grading, design and specific demand of public services.
The Department recommends that this document, Draft E.I.R. and Departmental
Analysis, be accepted as sufficient to meet the requirements of Ordinance 1158.
DONALD A. AGATEP,
Planning Director
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
REGION ?
350 Golden Shore
Long Beach, California
April 16, 1973
Mr. James D. King
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. King:
Thank you for the opportunity to reviev; and submit comments
on your Draft Environmental Impact Report of the Rancho La
Costa Annexation. Our review has revealed that certain aspects
of the project will be of concern to us in protecting the fish
and wildlife resources of Batiquitos Lagoon.
Discussions on page 33 which relate to silting of the lagoon
and storm runoff to the lagoon containing fertilizer and pest-
icides are inaccurate. We feel that construction activities
ivhieh denude steep sandstone slopes would cause heavy siltation
to occur in the lagoon. It is also presumptuous to state that
the effect occurring from. fertilizers and pesticides will be
minor if it is actually unknown. We foresee potential problems
from the drainage of water from this area during and after
grading and construction activities. Every effort should be
made to reduce siltation caused by construction activities.
No construction should commence' prior to or during rainfall
months. After the area has been developed, the potential for
increased storm runoff will exist.
We recommend that adequate safeguards be implemented to prevent
wildlife habitat , particularly the aquatic ecosystem, from
being harmed by the proposed development.
Robert D. Montgomery
Regional Manager
Region 5
cc: Chief of Operations
WAS - Region 5
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
COS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 271 1
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9OO53
SPLED-E 19 April 1973
-Mr. Michael C. Zander
Assistant Planner
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Zander:
This is in response to your letter of 2 April 1973 in which you requested
Corps of Engineers comments on the draft environmental impact report for
Rancho La Costa Annexation, Carlsbad, California.
The proposed plan does not conflict with existing or authorized plans
of the Corps of Engineers. Therefore, we have no comment to make
regarding the report.
Any development that would eventually encroach on Batiquitos Lagoon
should be coordinated with this office to determine whether a Department
of the Army permit would be required. Mr. Walter S. Boyle, Chief,
Waterways Control Section, Operations Branch, telephone (213) 688-5607,
should be contacted.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft
statement.
Sincerely yours,
^GARTH A. FUQUAY
Incl w/d \** Chief, Engineering Division
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 894
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
29
30
31
32
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A REQUEST
FOR A PREANNEXATIONAL CHANGE OF ZONE FROM SAN DIEGO COUNTY
A-l(8) and E-l(A) TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ZONES (R-l-7500)
RD-M, P-C and C-l, ON 1121+ ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED
NORTH OF BATIQUITOS LAGOON AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL,
FILED BY RANCHO LA COSTA.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 24th day of April, 1973
hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a preannexational change
of zone application filed by RANCHO LA COSTA, from County Zoning A-l(8)
and E-l(A) to City of Carlsbad zoning R-l(7500) RD-M, P-C and C-l, on
1121+ acres of land generally located north of Batiquitos Lagoon and west
of El Camino Real, more particularly described as:
All that land in Sections 22, 26, 27, 28 and 35,
in Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino
Base and Meridian, in the County of San Diego,
State of California, AND,
WHEREAS said applicant has complied with the requirements of the "City
of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972", and presented an
Environmental Impact Report at a duly noticed public hearing held on April
24, 1973, and said report was accepted as presented; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist which
make the dental of a preannexational change of zone necessary to carry out
the provisions and general purpose of Title 21:
1. the pending development of 414 acres of real property could
adversely effect the City's ability to provide adequate
service.
2. the City is currently developing its General Plan Revision
to be consistent with State Law, and decisions on the absolute
provisions of land use should not be considered until the
recommendations of that provision program are available.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Carlsbad that it does hereby recommend denial to the City Council of the
requested preannexational change of zone and adoption of an amendment to Title
21 on said property from A-l(8) and E-l(A) to City zoning R-l-7500, RD-M,
P-C and C-l.
XX
-1-
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
29
30
31
32
PASStD, APPROVED AND ADOPTED AT a regular meeting of the City Planning
Commission, held on the 24th day of April, 1973, by the following vote, to wit;
AYES: NONE
NOES: Commissioners Little, Forman, Norman and Palmateer
ABSEMT: Commissioners Dominguez, Dewhurst and Jose.
ROBERT T. LITTLE,
Chairman Pro-Tempore
ATTEST:
.DONALD A. AGATEP,
Secretary.
-2-
-^-''* """^'
\A^'/^
p" ^ -*?;.T .'..--••! .^•-- ?:;T}
H'-'-r-gH ^*'^^^-} -.^;,Y^--''rv ^uTD^'^ ^T^^^V fc^^'Vxi^ |r,_^^ -\->—<,^::-^sn jt-'^a.^^n * i* ~*^3»g £0^:^a-'J-?r-i->! C o-4i v o
Theddors G. Schoppe (H. Gault)
ll.Q 3, I^rookhurst Street ' (
Anaheim', CA 92804
Theddore G. Schoppe (Roberson)
710 S. Brookhurst Street
Anaheim, CA 92804
Jack & Patricia A. Sudduth
Base Little Creek
Norfolk, VA 23501
Robert F. S Cheryl Kevane
4405 Alamo Drive
San Diego, CA 92115
Robert C. & Bona W. Stillman
580 "G" Street
Brawley, CA 92227
Robert L. Downs Et Al
380 Union Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
Gordon D. & Mary J. 01ton
P. O. Box 496
Redondo Beach, CA 91777
Eunice Larson
8244 Bainbridge Solon Road
Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022
William Casselman
4937 Oakwood Avenue
La Canada, CA 91011
Marguerite M. Wood
c/o Marguerite Jack
Box 396
Del Mar, CA 92014
Ronald L. & Mary K. Roesch
1166 Las Pulgas Place
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
George R. & Audra C. Ferrey
615 Mar Vista Drive
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Dean & Jeanne Martin
c/o Palomar Street Venture
9350 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Robert L. & Nina Whitney
2236 Winrock Avenue
Altadena, CA 91001
Alieene M. Hudson
9929 Young Dr., Apt. B
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Hugo J. Hanson
210 Roundtree Way
San Rafael, CA 94902
Ethel E. Swenson Et Al
c/o Ethel Bryant
14356 Cerecita Dr.
E. Whittier, CA 90604
Batiquitos II - 20
c/o Byron F. White
2330 1st National Bank Bldg.
San Diego, CA 92101
Paul W. & Joan M. Dunn
Patrick W. & Lorraine C. Sweeney
Donald B. s Doris Dunn
530 Broadway, Suite 1030
San Diego, CA 92101
Cal-Pacific Properties, Inc.
c/o R. K. Miller
5359 Chelsea Street
La Jolla, CA 92037
Elgie Powers
12411 Pasadena Street
Whittier, CA 90601
Mary E. Bressi
6670 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92008
A L J Enterprises No. 1
2^00 Nrw/ajo Road
Bl-Cajdn, CA 92020
Gilbert & Mollie Epstein
436- Van Nuys Blvd. ([if3
Van Nuys, CA 91401
Marshall & Beatrice E. Goldbej
( 260 E. Chestnut, Apt. 4704
Chicago, Illinois 62521
Henry & Kitty Lichtenstein
713 N. June Street
Los Angeles, CA 90038
Irvin s Barbara Zeavin
7080 Hollywood Blvd., No. 1107
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Mortimer C. & Agatha Winski
104 Valentine Court
Michigan City, Ind. 46360
Stanley s Marian J. Praver
10639 Lindamere Dr.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Rancho La Costa, Inc.
Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Antoinette Cullen
La Costa Villa 29
Carlsbad, CA 92008
C. A. Larsen Construction Co.
3040 Hancock Street
San Diego, CA 92110
Karl H. S Olga Landes
315 W. 70th Street
New York, N. Y. 10023
Alfred J. & Sophia M. Natkin
9402 Endicott
Houston, Texas 77035
Thomas A. & Joan C. Read
2301 Portsmouth
Houston, Texas 77006
St. John Knits
8541 Lankersheim Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
R. Philip & Geraldine C. Smith
7184 Estrella De Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Moe S Anne R. Kaplan
c/o M. S. Click, CPA
405 N. Camden Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Robert M. & Alice A. Salvarezza
110 Braemar Drive
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Ralph & La Vernea Blomquist
2170 Century Park E. Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90667
Gordon R. Ledingham
3795 - 30th Street
San Diego, CA 92104
Charles A. & Willa M. Babbitt
3924 Palos Verdes Drive North
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
Marjorie A. Wells
c/o Daniel Wells
7204 Estrella De Mar
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Irwin Adler
141 E. 56 reet
Norman D. & Enid Rom
9355 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Stephen & Dorothy M. Hays
7210 Estrella De Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Irwin S. & Lucille L. Neiman
221 - 140th Street N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
C. M. Waters
P. O. Drawer 5697
Alexandria, LA 71301
M. B. Dalitz
c/o J. A. Donnelley, Esq.
2655 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103
Albert & Mildred Carmosino
6240 S. Ivy Street
Englewood, CO 80110
Samuel N. & Rebecca Wolf
7185 D, Estrella De' Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Robert E., Jr. & Marie Gray
8541 Lankersheim Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
John S. & Lorna W. Brittan
4640 Hollywood Blvd.
Hollywood, CA 90028
William B. & Geraldine Randall
2035 Playa Road
Rancho La Costa, 0k-
Hans s Jetta Zimmerman
2013/Po'C-M Top Drive
'u,' Hawaii 96822
Allyn D. Fortier
.>. O. Box 816
Encinitas, CA 92024
Serapio F. Alvarez
c/o Evangeline Lopez
308 Jacaranda Street
Orange, CA 92667
Alvin S Beatrice Broido
7228 Estrella De Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
La Costa Land Co.
Costa Del Mar Btii«t.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Raul C. & Maria Mendivil
1045 Gladys Avenue
San Gabriel, CA 94110
Neil S Miriam Rosenstein
708 N. Canon Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Rancho La Costa
Drawer A
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Harold Thompson
P. O. Box 576
Carlsbad, CA 92008
John W. Cunningham
7234 Estrella De Mar
Carlsbad, CA 92008
David B. Thompson
P. 0. Box 576
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Robert Landers
7240 Estrella De Mar
Carlsbad, CA 92008
John C. Lyman
Route 1, Box 398
Encinitas, CA 92024
Harold 5 Dorothy Thompson
P. O. Box 576
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Sidney & Esther Gillman
2069 Playa Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Alie
Occidental Petroleum Land
& Development
c/o Occidental Petroleum Corp.
5000 Stockdale Highway
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Charles J. & Alice M. Kramer
P. O. Box 117
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Robert E. S Evelyn M. Weidner
537 Ocean View Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Tabaj:a Sho Et Al
2096^ Alta Vista Drive
Vista, CA 92083
Albert K. & Polly R. Smith
11224 Memorial Drive
Houstonr Texas 77024
George A. Hillebrecht, Inc.
Route 1, Box 641
Escondido, CA 92025
James I. & Mary I. Kuromi Et Al
2819 Fletcher Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90039
Edward M. & Ellandra Rose
605 N. Sierra Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Jean L. Kraus
c/o Marshall Setterlund
511 First Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
Andrew S Christa McReynolds
2316 Calle Chiquita Street
La Jolla, CA 92037
Robert P. Benfield
P. 0. Box 389
San Pedro, CA 90733
James R. S Jean L. Owen
c/o Marshall Setterlund
511 First Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
Albert P. & Marion R. Graff
P. O. Box 674
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92C67
Richard M. & Marilee Hawkins
2009 Victoria Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Graham M. s Edith A. Kraus
P. O. Box 74
Graeagle, CA 96103
Emma G. Hoppe
11901 Sunset Blvd., Apt. 211
Los Angeles, CA 90049
RESOLUTION NO. 3175
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
29
30
31
32
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS
AND DECISION REGARDING CHANGE OF ZONE FROM
L-C (LIMITED CONTROL) TO RD-M, R-l-7500, AND
P-C, FOR 1106 ACRES OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD,EAST OF 1-5, AND
WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL.
WHEREAS, ON April 24, 1973, a duly advertised Public Hearing was held
before the Planning Commission in a manner prescribed by law, to consider
a preannexational change in zone from San Diego County A-l(8) and E-l(A),
to City of Carlsbad zoning C-l, RD-M, R-l-7500 and P-C, on property generally
located south of Palomar Airport Road, east of 1-5 and west of El Camino Real,
described as Exhibit "A", attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said hearing, the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad, adopted Resolution No. 894 recommending Denial
of zone change which is herewith referred to, and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the
"City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972", and an
Environmental Impact Report was filed and discussed at a duly noticed public
hearing held by the Planning Commission, and was approved as presented;,and
WHEREAS, on June 5, 1973, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
held a public hearing on the appeal of said Denial, received all recommendations
and heard all persons interested in or opposed to the proposed change of
zone and indicated their intent to grant said appeal and referred the matter
back to the Planning Commission for report; and,
WHEREAS, on July 2, 1973 the subject property, also known as "South
Carlsbad Annexation No. 1.15" was annexed to the City of Carlsbad and zoned
L-C (Limited Control) pursuant to the requirements in the Carlsbad Zoning
Ordinance, and;
WHEREAS, on July 10, 1973 the Planning Commission was presented a
report describing City Council action regarding the Ayres Preannexational
zoning request and submitted the following findings to the City Council for
their consideration:
-1-
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
29
30
31
32
WHEREAS, the area requested to be rezoned RD-M on the western side
of the Ayres holdings should be placed in a P-C zone without a Master Plan.
The area on the eastern side of the Ayres holdings should be zoned as
*
requested, except the zoning boundaries should be coterminous with boundaries
of the proposed Rancho La Cuesta subdivision map, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission would urge the City of Carlsbad to
establish the position that much of Carlsbad is being planned with zones and
Master Plans in areas where the necessary information is not available, thereby
constituting somewhat premature development. Until such time as the General
Plan revision is completed, additional applications should be discouraged, and,
WHEREAS, notwithstanding, the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad grant the zoning on subject property for the
following reasons:
1. It designates potential zoning and densities for a large
area of our undeveloped land, thereby providing some positive
basis for planning circulation patterns in this and nearby
areas.
2. It will create some positive positions for use in finalizing
the General Plan which is now under consideration by our City.
3. Through coordination with the developer regarding
construction schedules, it will assist in the projection of
future budgets in the service areas - fire, police, maintenance
personnel and equipment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ctty Council of the City of
Carlsbad as follows: »*
1. That the above recitations are. true and correct.
2. That the City Council finds that the zone change described
herein,
(a) is consistent with the General Plan as it applies
to contiguous properties within the City of Carlsbad.
(bj[ is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
Plan, and,
That the approval of the proposed change of zone classi-
fication is necessary to carry out the general purpose of Title 21 of the
Municipal Code.
3. That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad intends to
adopt an ordinance to effectuate the proposed change of zone, as follows:
-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
29
30
31
32
' Parcel 1 (RD-M, 8 DU/AC). The westerly half of the north-
easterly quarter of Section 27, T12S-R4M."
1 Parcel 2 (R-l-7500, 5 DU/AC). Land in Section 26, T12S-R4W
lying between the 100'easement to San Diego Gas and Electric
Company per Document 49841 recorded April 16, 1954 and th,e
150' easement to San Diego Gas and Electric Company in
Document 145345 recorded October-15, 1953 in Book 6301 page
162 and north-westerly of a line between the intersection of
the northerly line of the 150' easement to San Dieqo Gas
and Electric Company recorded in Document 145345 October 16,
1953 in Book 6301 page 16.2 with the north-south centerline
of the south-westerly quarter of Section 26 and the inter-
section of the north-south centerline of Section 26 with the
southerly line of the 100' easement to San Diego Gas and
Electric Company per Document 49841 recorded April 16, 1954.
Parcel 3 (R-l-7500, 5 DU/AC). The northerly half of the
south-easterly quarter of Section 27, T12S-R4H.
Parcel 4 (P-C, no M.P.). Annexed land in Sections 27 and 22
T12S-R4W lying northerly of the 100' easement to San Diego
Gas and Electric Company per Document 49341 recorded April
16, 1954 which crosses this land in a north-westerly -
south-easterly line, excluding therefrom land zoned C-l.
Parcel 5 (R-l-7500, 5 DU/AC). Annexed land in the easterly
half of the south-westerly quarter of Section 26 south-
easterly of a line between the intersection of the northerly
line of the 150' easement to San Diego Gas and Electric
Company recorded in Document 145345 October 16, 1953 in Book
6301 page 162 with the north-south centerline of the south-
westerly quarter of Section 26 and the intersection of the
north-south centerline of Section 26 with the southerly line
of the 100' easement to San Diego Gas and Electric Company
' per Document 49S41 recorded April 16, 1954.
I Parcel 6 (RD-M, 8 DU/AC). Annexed land in the westerly half
j of the south-easterly quarter of Section 26 lying west of
i El Camino Real and south of the 100' easement to San Dieao
| Gas, and Electric Company per Document 49841 recorded Aprili 16, •- 19 5 4.
I
• Parcel 7 (P-C, no M.P.). Annexed land in the easterly half
| of Section 35, T1,2S-R4W lying west of El Camino Real.
j Parcel 8 (C-l). Annexed land in Section 26, T12S-R4H lying
. north-easterly of the south-westerly line of the 100' ease-
ment to San Diego Gas and Electric Company per Document
49841 recorded April 16, 1954 abd westerly of El Camino Real.
Parcel 9 (P-C, no M.P., combined with £4). A parcel of land
700' X 400" lying 700" along the north-south line of the
easterly quarter of Section 22, T12S-R4W and extending 400'
easterly from said line, the 700' being bisected by the
centerline of the proposed 102- collector road proposed for
this area.
Parcel 10 (P-C, no M.P.). Annexed land in Section 22 and 27,
T12S-R4W lying southerly of the northerly line of the 100'
casement to San Diego Gas and Electric Company per Document
49841 recorded April 16, 1954.
Parcel 11 (P-C, no H.P.). Annexed land in the westerly half
Of the south-westerly quarter of section 26 lying southerly
of the northern line of the 150' easement to San Dieqo Gas
and Electric Company recorded October 16, 1953 in Book 6301
page 162.
Parcel 12 (P-C. no M.P.).
of Section 35.Annexed land in the westerly half
-3—
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
29
30
31
32
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City
Counci7 held on the ]7tn fay Of july, 1973, by the following vote,
to wit;
AYES: Councilmen Dunne, McComas, Lewis, Chase and Frazee
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
AVID M. DUNNE, Mayor
ATTEST:
MARWRW E. ADAMS, (
CITY cl/ERK
(SEAL)
-4-
. EXHIBIT "A" - Page 1.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
All that land in Sections 22, 25,' 27, 28 and 35,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino
Base and Meridian, in the County of San Diego,
State of California, described as follows:
(1) Beginning at the ,intersection of the north line
of the south half of Section 26, T12S-R4W with
the easterly line of Road Survey No. 1800-1
(El Camino Rea-1) on file in the County Engineer's
Office of said County;
(2) thence westerly along said north line to the
east line of Section 27, T12S-R4VI;
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
"thence northerly along the east line of
Sections 27 and 22, T12S-R4H to the southerly
boundary of Rancho Agua Hedionda as said
southerly boundary was established May 5,
1913, by decree of the Superior Court of the
State of California in and for San Diego County
in that certain action no. 16830 entitled
Kelly Investment Company, a corporation vs.
Clarence Dayton Hillman and Bessie Olive Hillman;
thence westerly along said southerly .boundary
to its intersection with the west line of Lot 1,
Section 22, T12S-R4W according to the U.S.
Government Survey of Lot 1 approved April 21, 1890;
thence southerly along said west line and the
west line of the southeast quarter of the southeast
quarter of Section 22, T12S-R4U and southerly alorrg
the west line of the east half of the northeast
quarter of Section 27, T12S-R4W to the northeast
corner of the southwest quarter of the northeast
quarter;
thence westerly along the north line of said
southwest quarter of the northeast quartar and
the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter
to the east line of the west half of the northwest
quarter of said Section 27;
thence northerly along
line of Section 27;
aid east line to th*e north
thence westerly along the north line of said
Section 27 to the northv;est corner of said
Section 27, T12S-R4W;
-5-
EXHIBIT "A" Page 2.
1
2
3
4
(9) thence southerly along the west line of said
5 Section 27 to the northeast corner of the southeast
quarter of Section 28, T12S-R4W;
6
(10) thence westerly along the north line of said
southeast quarter to the east line of the west
half of the northeast quarter of said Section 28,
8 T12S-R4W;
(11) thence northerly along said east line .to the north
line'of said Section 28;
9
10
11
(12) thence westerly along said north line to the north
12 and south center line of said Section 28;
13 (13) thence southerly along said center line to the
north line of the south half of the southeast quarter
of said Section 28;
(14) thence easterly along said north line to the west
line of said Section 27;
17 (15) thence Southerly along said west line to the south
line of said Section 27;
l fi (16) thence easterly along said south line to th.e west
i line of said Section 35;
20 (17) thence southerly along said west line to the south
line of the north 20 acres of Lot 1 of said Section 35;
21
(18) thence easterly along said south line to the east
22 line of said Lot 1;
23 (19) thence southerly along east line to the south
line of Lot 2 of said Section 35;
24
(20) thence North 60° East and South 82° 51' 38" East
25 along said south line of Lot 2 and along its easterly
prolongation to the easterly line of said Road26 Survey No. 1800-1 (El Camino Real);
27 (21) thence northerly along said easterly lin.e to the
point of beginning.
29
30
31
-6-
1!
2!I
3!
4
5!
6 I
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
ORDINANCE NO. 9357
AM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE 3Y
GRANTING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM L-C (LIMITED CONTROL)
TO C-l, RD-M, R-l-7500 and P-C ON 1100+ ACRES OF LAND
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, EAST
OF 1-5 AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL (Ayres)
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
I ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The generally described real property as desig-
nated in Exhibit A is granted a change of zone from L-C (Limited
Control) to C-l, RD-M, R-l-7,500, and P-C, more particularly
described as follows:
Parcel 1 (RD-M, 8 DU/AC). The westerly half of the north-
easterly quarter of Section 28, T12S-R4W.
Parcel 2 (R-l-7500, 5 DU/AC). Land in Section 26, T12S-R4W
lying between the 100'easement to San Diego Gas and Electric
Company per Document 49841 recorded April 16, 1954 and the
150' easement to San Diego Gas and Electric Company in
Document 145345 recorded October 16, 1953 in Book 6301 page
162 and north-westerly of a line between the intersection of
the northerly line of the 150' easement to San Diego Gas
and Electric Company recorded in Document 145345 October 16,
1953 in Book 6301 page 162 with the north-south centerline
of the south-westerly quarter of Section 26 and the inter-
section of the north-south centerline of Section 26 with the
southerly line of the 100' easement to San Diego Gas and
Electric Company per Document 49841 recorded April 16, 1954.
Parcel 3 (R-l-7500, 5 DU/AC). The northerly half of
south-easterly quarter of Section 28, T12S-R4W.
the
Parcel 4 (P-C, no M.P.). Annexed land in Sections 27 and 22
T12S-R4W lying northerly of the 100' easement to San Diego
Gas and Electric Company per Document 49841 recorded April
16, 1954 which crosses this land in a north-westerly
south-easterly line, excluding therefrom land zoned C-l.
Parcel 5 (R-
half of the
easterly of
line of the
Company reco
6301 oage 16
westerly qua
north-south
of the 100'
per Document
1-7500, 5 DU/AC). Annexed land in the easterly
south-westerly quarter of Section 26 south-
a line between the intersection of the northerly
150' easement to San Diego Gas and Electric
rded in Document 145345 October 16, 1953 in Book
2 with the north-south centerline of the south-
rter of Section 26 and the intersection of the
centerline of Section 26 with the southerly line
easement to San Diego Gas and Electric Company
49341 recorded April 15, 1954.
XX
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Parcel 6 (RD-M, 8 DU/AC). Annexed land in the westerly half
of the south-easterly quarter of Section 26 lying west of
El Camino Real and south of the 100' easement to San Diego
Gas and Electric Company per Document 49841 recorded April
16, 1954.
Parcel 7 (P-C, no M.P.). Annexed land in the easterly half
of Section 35, T12S-R4W lying west of El Camino Real.
Parcel 8 (C-l). Annexed land in Section 26, T12S-R4W lying
north-easterly of the south-westerly line of the 100' ease-
ment to San Diego Gas and Electric Company per Document
49841 recorded April 16, 1954 abd westerly of El Camino Real.
Parcel 9 (P-C, no M.P., combined with #4). A parcel of land
700' X 400" lying 700" along the north-south line of the
easterly quarter of Section 22, T12S-R4W and extending 400'
easterly from said line, the 700' being bisected by the
centerline of the proposed 102- collector road proposed for
this area.
Parcel 10 (P-C, no M.P.). Annexed land in Section 22 and 27,
T12S-R4W lying southerly of the northerly line of the 100'
easement to San Diego Gas and Electric Company per Document
49841 recorded April 16, 1954.
Parcel 11 (P-C, no M.P.). Annexed land in the westerly half
of the south-westerly quarter of section 26 lying southerly
of the northern line of the 150' easement to San Diego Gas
and Electric Company recorded October 16, 1953 in Book 6301
page 162.
Parcel 12 (P-C, no M.P.). Annexed land in the westerly half
of Section 35.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30
days after its adoption and the City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this ordinance and cause ft to be published at least
once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen (15) days afterits
adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsba
City Council held on the 17TH day of July 1973, and
an adjournedthereafter PASSED AMD ADOPTED at/ regular meeting of said City
Council held on the 8th day of August 1973, by the followin
vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmen Dunne, McComas, Lewis, Chase and Frazee
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
XX
i
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
29
30
31
32
DAVID M. DUNNE, Mayor
ATTEST:
I
MARQftRBJTE. ADAMS T City Clerk"
(seal)
NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF
THE CITY OF 'CARLSBAD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Cham-
bers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California on Tuesday, Septem-
ber 4, 1973, at 7:30 P. M., to consider an application submitted
by RANCHO LA COSTA, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Donald B. Ayers, Gen-
eral Partner, in accordance with Title 21 of the Carlsbad Mu-
nicipal Code to amend the General Plan, Land Use Portion, of the
City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. To change existing residential estate low density
(0-2 d.u./ac.) residential low density (3-7 d.u./ac.) tourist
resort and neighborhood commercial (more specifically outlined
in Exhibit B on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Depart-
ment) to:
Residential low density (0-5 d.u./ac.) and residential
medium density (0-10 d.u./ac.) and more specifically outlined
in Exhibit A on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Depart-
ment.
All (approximately 1100 plus or minus acres) property
generally located between El Camino Real and Interstate-5,
northerly of the Batiquitos Lagoon and generally south of
Palomar Airport Road being:
Those portions of land in Sections 22, 26, 27,
28 and 35 in Township 12 South, Range 4 West,
San Bernardino Base & Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of Cali-
fornia, and more particularly described on file
in the City of CaHsbad Planning Department.
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
PUBLISH: August 23, 1973