HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-10-16; City Council; 2123-1; Malone CompanyTHE--r:ITY OF CAMSPAD, CALlF()RW,$ ::"'
Agenda Bill No. Zja’3 L -
\r, ’
Date- October 16. 1971
. Refe[-l-cd Jo: CITY COUNCIL - . . . .
Subject: CtiANGE OF?QNE AMD SPECIFIC PLAN -
Completion of Change of.Zone request from R'-3 to C-2,
Submitted By:
: I
i and adoption of a Specific Plan (SP-127) to allow PLANNING COWlISSION
:i for two-story office building, generally located at
the northeast corner of the $ntersection of Oak & Pio Pica. \/f&i
APPLICANT: TtiE MALONE COMPANY, ET-AL /RICK ENGINELRING CO.
* Statement of the Matter - .
On' July 10, 1973 and August 14, 1973 the Planning Commission did hedr a request for
a change of zone from R-3 to C-Z, to alloti construction of a two-story .office building
on property generally located at the north.east'corner of the intersection of Pio
Pio Drive and Oak Av‘enue. At the August 14th meeting the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 943 recommending Denial of the Change ox Zone Change,' and did table
the Specific Plan. : .
on an Appeal; the City Council did hear these requests on September 4, 1973,'and
overruled the Planning Commission by:granting the Appeal.
On September 25, 1973 the Planning Commission'was presented a report outlining the
action taken by the City Council, and did hear again, the request for adoption of
a Specific'Plan (SP-127). The Planning Commiss.ion, after hearing all persons .'
yishing to speak, did adopt Resolution No. 968 recommending to the City Council the
completion of the Change of Zone request; and Resolution No. 969 adopting the
:Specific.Plan and.recommending approval to the City Council of same, subject to the .
conditions l,is.ted hereon. .
Exhibit
1. Certificate of Ownership
2. Staff Report dated September 25, 1973
3. Memo-to City Council from Planning Commission,.dated 8129-73 _
4. Applicant's Exhibit
5 . . Planning Commission Resolution 968 re:Zone Change ('122)', and Planning
Commission Resolution No. 969 approving Specific Plan (127).
h i
6. City Council Resolution No.-8 1c 7 City Council Ordinance N0.36.7
>;,ff ReconTmencfations 'co the City Manager 8. -City Council Res. No.3-9
Staff recommendations are more'clearly outlined in Staff Report and attached
REsolution Nos. 968 a-969. '
‘_ .
l
. . .
.
.
:
. . L .
. . * * *_
. r; No, .
.
. Date: October 16, 1973
. I > . . . .
. . . : . . .
. . . .
. . .
.* -
. . .
. . +\ :
I . . . .
. . - . . . - *_ : : . . . . Citiy Manager's Recommendation
. * - . . . It is my opinipn that the proposed usa.ge is better than.the . existing R3 zoning4 T&e area ,is really not -suitable for residential . use now that a restaurant has been established-in the area. I believe that it iS a-suitable transitian*from the existing zoning. . One factor that should be considered-by the City .Council is traffic * qignalization at Elm and Pib Pbco. I am aware' that the Clty'Council has discussed this problem and know that it exists; It is my.though.t that perhaps a cooperative installation with Malone Company, et-al/ . Rick Engineeri%g.Co:, and Mr; R. 5,. Watson,' alon'g.%ith the Shell Oil Company ahd the-city, might jointly participate in this project. . .
I'conour with-the staf.f comments. . . 1
.
. . .
-; .
i
-. . _. . : L .
. . . -. . . . . . .
.
- . .
.
Resolution #3238..wqs:adopted, announcing findings' and decision
regardin.g the zone than-ge, and a first reading was-given to .
Ordinance #9367, granting a change of zo.ne from R-3 to C-2. .
Resolution #3239.was adopted a,s amekded, adoptibg a specific
plan, deleting the words "and specific floor plans" from
condition #18. , . .
Ordinance No:' 93{7 was *given a second,re'ad.in.g' by-title'only and l '
adopted. . . '. . . .
. 10-16-73 .
*.
. .
. . . .
-. 11-7-73
. . . - .
. . .
.
.
.
. . . .
*. . ’ . . .
. .
. . . . . : . . .
. . .I . . *
. . l . .
.
\
a -2- . .
. . .*
TO:
REPORT ON:
CASE NO:
APPLICANT:
CITY OF CmLsBAD
,PLANNlXG DEPARTXEUT
STAFF REPORT FOR
SEPT%IBER 25, 1973
PLANNING COiQU.SSION
CONSIDERATION OF CHAXGE OF ZONE
CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN
zc - 122
SP - 127
E.C. W%ONE for
The Malone Company, et al 2136 Avenida De La Playa
La Jolla, California 92037
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Background: Tne Planning Commission did consider these matters at a public
hearing on July 10, 1973 and again on' August 14, 1973. The final action takeri
by the Plannin g Conrriission on August l.!+? 1973 was to deny the Change of Zone
request and to table the specific plan. The applicant did subsequently appeal -.. . -. _-__
the Planning Commission denial of the Change of Zone to the City Council. On
September 4, 1973 the City Council did consider the appeal and did overturn
the Planning Commission denial of a Change of Zone from R3 to C-2 by a 4 to 1
.vote .$.nd refer the matter back to the Plarx&ng~ Commission for a study and'report.
Asa part of the City Council referral to the Planfling Commission, the City
Council did indicate that the Civic Center overlay concept should be initiated
by the Pl anning Commission. It seemed to be the feeling of a majority of the
City Council that this area would be appropriateforother than residential uses.
A majority of the City Council indicated that the proposed office b6lding is
an appropriate use, but there is no zone other than the C-2 Zone designation
that would allow the proposed development. It seemed to be the City Council's
opinion that the specific plan approved on this project should include conditions
that limit the potential uses in the sub.ject building to those indicated by the
applicant.
The subject property, a portion of former State Freeway right of way, is
located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Pie Pica Drive and Oak
Avenue. Said property has a frontage on Pio Pica Drive of approximately171
feet and contains approximately 10,120 square feet. ? '. -3. flat ttith
-.’ -4:
several large trees adjacent to Oak Avenue being the main physical feature of
the site. The proposal is to preserve these trees as a part of the landscaping
program.
B. Zonin,? and General Plan:
1. Zonin,~: - Existinn. Propose;il 2 (S.P.)
Adjacent: North C-l East C-2
South R3
.West L-C
2. General Plan: The adopted General Plan indicates the property to
be potential low density residential with from 3 to 7 families per net acre,-
c. Environmental Imoact: The Planning Director has determined that the
proposed development will not have a significant impact on the environment.
Therefore, no additional environmental considerattions will be required.
-D. Development: The applicant indicates that an approximate 8400 square
foot two-story office buildin g will be constructed with an engineering firm
occupy6ng approximately half the
is proposed with 18 spaces being
ordinance requirements exactly.
E. Staff Recommendations: _~. ._~ Regarding the Change of Zone: The City Council at its meeting of
building. A total of 21 parking spaces
located within the building. This meets the
No building elevations were submitted.
September 4, 1973 did approve an appeal o f the Planning Coumission denial of a
change of zone request from R3 to C-2 on the subject property. This action has
-been referred back to the Planning-Commission for study and report. It is staff's
recommendation that the Planning Commission take the folloruing actions:
1.' That it be moved that the Planning ConuTLission report back to the
City Council that the final action of approval of the Change of Zone from R-3 to
C-2 EE TAKEX. Justification is based upon:
a. The influence of the Civic Center development could reasonably
extend along Pio Pica southerly to Oak Avenue. In addition, the impact of the
freeway and the estimated traffic on Pio Pica could effect the subject parcel to
the degree that the site would not be considered appropriate for a residential
activity. A professional office activity, on the other hand, would be less
affected and would also have less of an impact on adjacent residential since the
activity is normally limited to 8 to 5 weekdays and does not have the amcunt of
traffic that would be found with a retail-commercial use such as a restaurant.
b. As a part of the upcoming General Plan Revision and Zoning
0 rc!-*cance Xe vis ion , staff envision s the establishment of a civic center T‘-Y:Y:!.sv
zone concept on all the property surroundti;. the civic center area. A ~iajori-ty
of the restrictions of this ZOY .e will deal xith design and such an application
on the subject property wXl1 further guarantee the compatibility of any development
to the surrounding' development:
c. The existence of cbmmercial zonin g and uses to the north and east
of the subject parcel and its location adjacent to a frontage road of a State ,
freeway are ccnsidered to be sufficient fo r reasons for a finding that the
Present General Plan commitment for the area is not realistic.‘ In that this
&compatibility is part of a larger area of Incompatibility r$hich includes
the.Ciuic Center area and the full length of Pio Pica Drive, Staff would not
recommend a General Plan amendment for just the subject site at this time. Rather,
as a part of the pending total general plan revision, all these inconsistencies
will be eliminated.
d. In many ways, the potential use requested is less intense than
is possible under the existing R-3 Zoning designation which would permit up to
a total of 12 dwelling units on the site.
e. The uses permitted under t'ne proposed C-2 zone district is con-
sidered to be a suitable transition from the existing single-family development
to the east and the freeway activity to the west.
- 2. That the Planning Commission~initi- cte .proceeddngs to begin the
implementation of a Civic Center overl.ay zone for that property between
Highland Drive and the Freeway and between the property, one lot north of Laguna
-Drive to on lot notih of Oak Avenue. Such a zone district may followthe.fol.lok&ng
format:
COMKQJATION DISTRICT -D DESIGN RZVIEW
Intent and Purpose: The intent and purpose of the -D combination district
shall be:
To protect society's investment in the Civic Center, the branch a&ninistrative
centers and the numerous parks, schools and similar public and quasi-public
facilities, by reviewin g the design of all property developments surrounding or
along the approaches to such facilities.
To insure compatibility with the development of the Civic Center and other
public institutions.
To conserve and enhance the appearance or architectural tone of areas of
er&sting or potential governmental, cuILtura.l, historical, architectural, scenic,
or tourist interest.
,
Prir,cip< Uses a.& Structrre Permitt?-d: The principal uses and structures
permitted shall be as P--~ pmittecl in the underlying zone if sufficient justification
can be provided and approved by the Plannin, = Commission and City Council that
such uses are compatible with and ancilla-J to the Citic Center, parks, ,
schools or si~5la.r public and guasi-public facilities in the area.
Accessory Uses and Structures PermLtted: As permitted in the underlying
zone.
,
Transitional Uses and Structures Pertitted: As permitted in the underlying
zone.
Uses and Structures Pertitted by Condo 'tional Use Permit Subject to Approval
by the Commission: As permitted in the underlying zone.
Development Standards:
Lot area, min~imum - As required in the underlying zone.
Lot area per dwelling unit, minimum - As required in the underlying zone-
Lot width, minimum - As requjred in the underlying zone.
Front yard, minimum - 10 feet or'as required in the underlying zone, t&richever
is greater. All required front yards shall. be landscaped,
Side yard, minims - 10 feet or as required in the underlying zone, whichever
is greater. All required side yards abutti ng streets shall be landscaped. . . ‘-Rear yard, minimum - As reqwred UI the %nderIying zone.
Building bulk and height limits - As required in the underlying zone.
Lot coverage, maximum - Reserved.
_ Parfring, off-street - Asrequired inYne.underIl.yini: zone.
STgns, onsi-te - As recuired in the underlying zone except as further modified _
by the following specifications for identification signs in the non-residential
zones:
Number, maximum for each buildtig - 1
Area - 1.5 square foot of sign area for each one foot of building floor area
Area, max.Zimum, for a single face sign - 40 square feet.
AILL signs shall be wall signs.
Post signs and roof signs are not pertitted.
Signs may be lighted but shall not be flashing.
All onsite signs shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission,
Special Condikions a-d Procedures: Approval by the Planning Commission.
No permit shall be issued for any building, structure, sign, parking lot or
other development of property, or appurtenances or alterations thereto, except
~I-I single-family residential zon.7 i: ~:.~';Qss pl~l~, _ .-AU. elevations and proposed uses
and signs for buildings or s,;. Y-~:::~, - 1 .:. ,. <fiteraticns thereto have been approved
.- i - : - ! \
by the Planning Corwission.
Site Plan Information Required to be submitted to the Planning CorMssion.
Applications for all building permits concernmg pronerty within this classification
shall not be processed until an application for a precise plan is considered
and approved by the Planning Commission . An application sh-all be submi-tted to .
the Planning Commission containing a plot plan shotring the following information,,
where applicable: . Name and adoress of all persons owning or leasing any or all of the property
proposed to be improved.
Evidence that the applicant for building permit:
Is the owner of the premises involved; or Hss written permission of the
owner or owners to make such application; or, Is or will be the plaintiff
in an action in eminent domain to acquire the premises involved, or
any portion thereof; or, I% the case of a public agency, is negotiating
to acquire a portion of the property involved.
Location of property
Legal description of
Proposed facility or
The lot dimensions.
involved (address or vicinity)
property.
use and/or range of uses.
.- -~--.-Topography, if property is in a-hillside area.
All buildings and structures and their location, elevations, size, height
and proposed uses.
Location and design of recreation areas. .
Yards and spaces between buildings
Walls and fences and their location, height and materials,
Landscaping and sprinkling system, including location, type, and plant
names and proposed disposition of existing trees.
Off-street parking, including the location, number of stalls, dimensions of
the parking facility,,and iinternal circulation system.
Access, pedestrian, vehicular, and service, points of ingress and egress,
and driveway locations and dimensions. .
Signs and their location, size and height.
--Loading,-including-the location, dimensions, number of-berths,:internal
circulation, and means of accessibility to structure or use served.
Lighting, including the location, general nature, and hooding devices, if any.
Street .dedications and improvements.
Location of utilities and trash col?:+.+-on areas.
An appropriate description legend ,and north point.
Plot plan shall be drax:m to an appropriate scale.
Such other data or information as‘ may be requked by the Planning Director.
Regard7inq the Soecifik Plan: TEE ?lanning Commission drid on AuOwt 14, 1973
consider and table a specific plan-on the subject property. Along with the
reconsideration of the rezoning request, staff has brought the specific plan ,
back for the Planning CorrL3ission review. Staff's recommendation is outlined.
belox: Of particular importance Ss recommended condition 110. 19 which does
l3mi.t the range of uses possible.
That the Planntig Coixrksion reco;nrrend to the City Council that the
Specific Plan BX APPFXNED. Justification 5s based upon:
1. Compatibility of the proposed us e to the existing activity and potential
activity dn the area.
2. The size and location of the subject property is ccmH&eredto be
sufficient 'for the proposed development.
I
3. Though not compatible with the preckse 1and use cotitment as presently
outlined 51 the General Plan, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed
development would be compatible ti5.th the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
On at least two previous occasions, an attsqt has been made to revise,the land
-, --Axse ccxktments for3xis total--area. ---Tln_e--~~uer;~P-of-t~ freeway,--the-ec-tivity
on Elm Avenue, Pio Pica, and the Civic Center cannot be mitigated sufficiently
to permit residential activity in this area. Therefore, other types of uses
should be utilized. To determine exactly xhat specific uses wo6Ld be appropriate
for this area is dependent upon commitments made 5n other parts of.the City
which can only be evaluated as part of a ko@ete CIkneral plan revision, Bow-
ever, one premise can be accepted, and tzhat is - activities s&h as Cific Centers
do require certain support facilities in close prtimity. -The proposed office
bu-ilding can reasonable be considered as a support to the civic center..and
would therefore be compatible with the ultimate land -use commitment
for this area as established by the pending General PaZln retiicm.
Conditions of Anprovali Any approval should be subject TV the follotig
conditions :
1. The approval of the specific plan is grznted for the land as-described
in the application and any atta&ments therto, and as shown 00 the pot plan
submitted, labeled Ex-hibit A. The location of all buildings, fences, si,m.,
roadxays, park& areas, landscapkg and other ~acYLities or featvses 5hziU be
located substantially as shown on the plo-t ~?-LL 7.-'-' :L,-.Ied X&..it A1 except ,or unless
indicated otherktise herein.
2. Ufie:js the const-ruction of the sb.hme 01~ facility is commenced not
later thar one year after the date the approval is granted and is diligently
pursued thereafter, this approval will automatically become null and void.
3* Any minor change may be approvYL 04 by the PI!an.ning Director. Any sub-
stantial change will require the filing of an application for an amendment to
be considered by the Planning Commission. I 4. All requirements of any law, ordinance or regulation of the State of
California, City of Carlsbad, and any other governmental entity shall be complied
with.
5. No signs or advertising of any type whatsoever shall be erected or installed
until plans therefore have been approved by the City of Carlsbad. Said signs
shall be incorporated into the design of the building.
6. All areas shown as parkin g areas shall be surfaced xXh asphalti6
concrete and shall be visibly marked outlining indi,vd.dual parking spaces and
traffic flow- Said surfacing and marking shall be completed prior to final inspection
of the structure or structures by the.Building Department. The surface shall
be kept in a reasonable good state of.repair at al.1 times.
7. Prior to obtaining a building permit, and within 30 days thereof, the
applicant shall file with the Secretary of the planning Commission written
.acceptance-of-the conditions -stated-herein.
ft. Compliance with and execution of all conditions listed hereon shall
be necessary, unless otherwise specified, prior to obtaining final building
inspection clearance. Deviation from this requirement shall be permitted only
bY
of
written consent of the Planning Director.
-9. Any mechanical and/or electrical equipment to be located on the roof
the structure shall be screene$ in a manner acceptable to the Planning Director.
-Detailed plans for said screening shall be submitted, in triplicate, to the
Planning Director.
10. AIL lighting shall be arranged to reflect away from adjodning properties
and streets.
-11. An incombustible trash enclosure shall be provided of a size and location
acceptable to the Plannini Director, and said area sh&l. be enclosed with a fence
and/or wall of sufficient height to adequately shield the area. Said fence
and/or wall shall include a solid gate.
. 12. A detailed landscape and sprinkler plan prepared by a landscape
architect, shall be submitted to the Planning Director for consideration and
approval.
.
3-3s prior to final buildtig insp~~ti.~~ clearance, all b.d~~ap7hg s’.l2u.
be tist-fled. Said landscaping shall, at all times, be maintained in a manner
acceptable to the Planning Director.
14, All landscape areas in parking lots shall be enclosed by a railed concrete
curb or low MU. All planters adjacent to the street right-of-way shall be
constructed with weep holes per SpecificatLons of the City Engineer. , 15* All utilities, including electrical, telephone and cable television,
shall be installed underground and/or shall be completely concealed from view.
16. AU public improvements shall be made in conformity with the Subdivision
Ordinance and other City Standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
without cost to the City of Carlsbad and free of all. liens and encumbrances.
17. Pio Pica Drive and Oak Avenue shall be improved in
City s&andards.
18. Prior to the issuance of any perrzts, all exterior
and specific floor plans shall be submitted to the Planning
consideration and approval.
accordance with
building elevations
Director for
19. The range of uses for the proposed development shall be limited to
those uses normally found in a professional office building and related use.
----Attachcd.~~aterials:- In-addition to--area maps ,--pfease~-find-enclosed support-materials
submitted by Nz. Rick which attempts to describe the proposed activities in the
subject development. Also those segments of the Planning Commission minutes of
July 10 and August 14 and City Council minutes of'september 4, which deal with
this matter.
5520 FRlARS ROAD . SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNiA 33110
TECCF’XONE . ARE+. CODE 714 . 291-.0707 .’
city Planning Commission. :
CXty of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
.
July 27, i973
EE.CEpq-EC
- JJL 3 0 133 . - . . . :‘: .
Carlsbad, California 92008
.
Attention: Mr. Don Agatep .
c,l-l-Y OF CARLSE;19
F,fanning Departrr;ent
RE: E. C. MALONE COMPAhW’S APPLICATION FOR REZONE
ZONE CASE NO. 122, SPECIFIC PUX NO. 127
Gentlemen:’ I
The undersigned, ‘ori‘behalf of the a@plicant. ‘E. C .-.Nalok Company,
wishes to state that the sole ptirpos e and riced for the application for
C-2 rather than C-l commercial zon e in this application is to permit
the operation of a blueprinting and plan reproduction service on the
-premises. . .
WBR:lms
. .--yo r’s truly, 4. 4
W/J LD. J ~.A--- 2’ z--Y-/ iiliam 3 R&V -
//
i? I !’ \ f
t \*..
5G20 FRif,l?S ROAD * s A N DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 32110
TELEPtlOE4E . AREA CODE 73.4 . 291.0707 . .
c ,’
Td Mr. Xii?:? Zandcr, P1anning Ez;mrtrncnt
. . . .
The City of Carlr;loacl _- -__- . _ .I
A.20 @X 3 ra.AX~ wp
Carisb,?cI, Cali.iornin 92oou -
WE f\RE SEND!h!G YOU 3 Att7~hed 0 Under se‘paratc cover via- fhe following items:
D Sflop drav:ings D Prir~:s : Cl Plans El SampJcs 0 Specificztions
U Copy of letter JJ Chnr!ge or&r Kl I
Dated-__-
I I
._ . f A.--L’L...
t .
--- ---Tf-iESE ARE TRANSMITTEO as checked tAow:
0 For approval a far Cllcckin~ 0 Resubmit -copies for approval
0 For your use 0 Approved 2s submitted !J Design only, not for construction . .
’ ICI As requested q Approved as noted Cl Return corrected prints
D For review ar;d comment U Returned for corrections 0
0 For Your Action e f
I
_- .^..... .- ^I_-
- --_ .-... __...-_ ll__._l_
cow IO __ -- ~ :I r?,- . 3ic!=/lms I. /
. . -( -i
.
bo>~~jUl~. clinicr ;n d rcm.rch com~lcxc~, or ~dj.~ccnt to major conccnlrrtion of comn-zlrchl
LCIlYIliCL . . . ._ . . r ,_ PEF’.‘ll-I-UI USES . . . .
or i~~ii:ro~cn~<~t PT prtion th~r<~l, A.+11 be .C~CCIC~. nlrcrc.! (I‘ cr:hq:cJ. wc dl~lI any pcmiscs ‘lx urcd cxccp; In: on: 01 II,OTC ~1 LhC f:?:i*;;,;l,‘; 1?“‘;‘3’i”
1. Ib~::t~x5~ 2~1 p1~4~,,i,rt4l 'o!ilrc 515~s. S,trh ~IICI nay include ~c~o~t.xntr. aclwrtirinq agcncici, 2:il1:tccIs. .ILi’.rC<?l. .-~~:i::.tctc~rs .!qsclu:r. tn.:~t:~~rs. fln~ri.ul i:sr:x:ultnrlr. inw:~t~Cc
wcrxic,. *:‘zLIL.. ( --I CI~~IICI (no ~~~-:rr:i,:l~: p3;icn:,), phot&~>lrhcrr. 1~31 CSQIC L:c!:crr. xcuri:icx h;.=,kcrs. ,J:\C~L~II ai:d &?h~ n::Gr. 2. ‘I t;c io!:.~r,;a:r tv~.:r :XIC: ax:J scrvicc~ nr.>vislc<: :tv:y nie. I~~c+tcd co tiic urnF la1 or
-..
pcctni\cr 2s J use tip t15:s Isr:rd *n ;*2r.xSc.lph ‘.kI.I..’ and F:OW!C.i rt,c cornbincd s;ro,r l!oor
arc3. @! L!i Ydch LI’CI ,!b.*:t rat>: CR<<<J L’S :crtc,,r of t!,c cun,bi:icJ iross floor zicx o( tlx UXI . .
pztmittr\! rndcr fura;r.I!‘~k “l:,l.” csirr~r.,: 00 1::~ S.II~IC Ial or yccmixs: 1
I. f,dc~rc~s~n~~. sccrctui3l x1.1 ~c!c~hori: 2nrssrrin; xrviccz. . . ? . b. ‘.:c;i.x st :I..I.:;.:IC i.21 dtsl4ay a:d rcrvicc. c. I)iaftic; awl b!ucp:ia;t rcrr-ices. ._ . : -. . .
d. Kkctronic II2f.l proccstin~. trbul;l:ing and record &ping xrricci. . . . . - . .f I -: C. f.:cc:icrI rp;~!~.t:lcr vlrr. f. Olficc ftur~iturc 2nd cquipmnL ¶nIcl : . . : ..-;.. .I :.. . :. __- .- _ a; - ..’ -. g. 133,arnticicl. * h. r:cscauranrr -. . .‘--I. ,.. . .:‘. .,I
I. -I-r.,\rl tJlm~US.’ .: : ‘T.. _ I -.* ;.: .. . . ; : 5. hpartrlrcntl .-. -_ -. ._ . . ; ;- ‘?-. - . 1
4. l-~t,nr unions (tin hiril;c 1;1!ls! and trade ~swxia!iom. . : 5. f.lcdknI, dental, biolo.:icrl 2nd S-Roy LI~J~AIG~~CS. ef c -1 -._. _ -.) * -: .* . :
:. .f’ . a
6. I’siu.dlc clubs, fr.lirrr.ll or4,2~l;23tiOn5 2nd IOC!::CS. 7. Pub!i: utility r:ictric aubrl2tioor, pr rc~~.~latcrr and conwnunic>t~wns cqui?:ncnt fuildin;$ dc~c)o;xd in accordrncc v:i;h L~~Aiiv,g and Lwdrcrpin; #IU zpptOv<Cd Ly the BOJnl 0: E.rcl,ir<;i”l~l F.c.i:w. 6. An\- o:hrr UCI ~I,Ic!L ~t,c H~nnini: Counni\:ioo nz~y find IO bc rfnsi!xr ia chxlr:cr to
fhc UIcJ. i:lcFttidirr~ acccsmry US-:%. ew~ntrntcd icl tt,il section aa:d cus;is:ctt: wfih IIX purpose
rnd inlrs;f ol this Z,)IK. 1 hc aL’uptcd rcmluiion rm!~ti~li@+f~r.~~~S~U be filed i:l the crficc t)f,t~x City Clerk.
i .;..
. : *
. . ._
._ a. .
.:
. . .
!
. -. c . . .
. :
l .
.
, .
. . . . . . . .
. .- _ __._ .__ .- _. _....-._.- .I.. . . I T 7. . .._ . . ._._ ...*--d*.‘.MT.-:’ . . ,, _ . .--- :;a . . . . . .
. .
. (’
_, t . .’ . .
._ - . r _... . . :_ .
.
. . . . . . * . . . . : *
. .
.;- . . . :
. . . . . ..- -. : . _. . ‘. * -. \ i I . .
,.-\ t r. .. .
*-:- . _-.... .,-. :‘, -__. _ . .
-8 1 :
L
;.
\
-. . . . * .
I
,
!
- t’
. CI
August 1‘1, 1973 ,
TV OF CAhSh3AD
.
There rJhs furtirer discussion regarding the overlay for
the Civic Centor. and recommendation for this area in tt current General Plan, al.so, if there had .been any dis-
cussion with the Consultants for th? Getteral Plan Re- vision with regard to this area. .
At this time F,!r. Burford asked for clarification on twc
points in the current General 'Plan, the R-l nrovision
for this area and if this was theIcurrent.recommendatic
Commissioner Forman then moved for denial of the appfi-
cation for the reasons outl'in ed in the Staff report, The-motion,carried.
(c) .pI@. PICD AND ELM AVENUE STUDY - Planning depart. --------------_----------------------------------------
The report was made-by Mr. Aqateo and considerable di!
cussion followed. Special concern was expressed hy tl Commision that they had not been presented this report
earli'er and most especially, piror to their denial of the previous aoplication as they felt the report had i
direct bearing on the area.
Chairman Dominquez acknowledqed riceipt of the reoort and it was suggested by Comm;ssioner that it should br
the subject of .one of the Commission's adjourned .meet.
It was then moved that this discussion take place at a iater meetinq.
(d). Continued CASE NOS. ZC-123 and SP-126 - ReauesE ..-_ for a Change of Lone and Adoofion of-SoecTfic-Vi;
for a Commercial and Professional-Center - ROnER' L. \!ATSOX - Portion Lots 17-24 Block 86 and Port.
Tract 115 - South side of Elm Avenue, between Pit Pica Drive and Highland Drive - From R-1-7500
(Single Family) and C-l (Neiqhborhood Commercial: -40 C-2.)General.Commercial) -------^----_-_-_--_---------------------------------.
The Staff report was qiven by Mr. Zander. The report considered environmental impact reauirements and dis-
cussed the proposed zone change with a recommendation by Staff for approval. Further discussion was made OI
the request for adotpion of a Specific Plan for the 91 fessiona?/comm. complex and Staff recommended aporova‘
ased on the conditions contained in their report, . .
Hr. Robert i!atson advised the Commission tha*t he was
preseqt to answer any questions they might have reqarc his application. The public hearing.closed at 9:00 wi out any publjc comment. '
Discussion by the Commission foflowed and it was the.
decision that this was not an appropriate use of the property as it was not in conformance with the Genera' Plan. A motion was made to.this'effect and-the .mbtiol carried for denial. of the.zone change: . . -‘--x-
'he request for adoption of a Specific Plan WCS tab-led s plans were based on the approval of Zone Change. . .
e) Continued - CASE FlOi. ZC-122 and-SP-127 - Reoues
for-Chanqe of Zone and Gdoption of Soecffic'P1.a
MflTTO?l AYES
NOES .
;
SYwiroN
AYES NOES
7
. .
MOTION
AYES
NOES
. . . r-
* .
I
- _ . ._ -_ ..-. - _ __.
August14, 1973 . -, ('
CITY OF CrnrAdAD
(4)
for Professional Offices ana Retail Commercial Property - THE MALONE COMPANY - parcel "A" on Par
-Map No, 7;6 City of CArlsbad - East.of Pio Pica D between Oak Street and Elm Avenue - From R-3
(Multiple Family Residential) to C-2 (General - Commercial)
Mr. Williams gave the Staff report. Environmental Imp considerations were discussed and it was the recommend tion of staff that the change of zone should be aonrov
The request for adoption of a Specific Plan was recom-
mended to be approved as a compatible use to both the existing and potential activity of the area, and subje
to the conditions outlined in their report.
The'Commission again discussed the need for completion of the Civic Center Overlay including the Pio Pica and
Elm Study. There were also questions as to why the
applicant did not request R-P (Residential-Profession zoning instead of C-2. --.
Mr. Bill Rick, kick Engineering Co., 509 Elm AVen;e,
advised the Commissjon of his presence to answer any questions. The pub?ic..hearing closed at 9:35 without public comment.... . . -..
A short discussion by the Commission led to their de-
cision that the proposed use was not in conformance wi the General Plan and motion was made to deny the zone -change. -The Motion- carried. --- . . -.
The request for adoption of a Specific'Plan was tabled
as plans were based on the approval of Zone Change.
. . . Chairman Dominguet called for a recess at 9:45 P.M..
All those present at -the-time of recess -were again present when the meeting reconvened.
') CASE NOS. EIS-147 and ZC -116 - Request for accep ante of Final E.I.R. and Change of Zone for Resi- dential Development - LA COSTA LAND COMPANY -
(iiortheast Annexation) - Portions Sections 19, 29
and 30 - North and South of Alga Road between El Fverte Street and Ranch@ Santa Fe Road - From
(County) A-3-8 to P-C (Planned Community) --------------------_______^L___________--------------
Hr. Zander'made the Staffreport on pre-annexational
zone change and request for acceptance of Final E.I.R.
for that portion of original La Costa Annexationwhich was-excluded by LAFCO at the request of the City of San Marcos. The exclusion was made because a deier- mination had not been as to where the boundary line be tween the City of Carlsbad and the City of San Marcos
should be. It has non been decided that everything east of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road would annex to San Marcos
Mr. Zander advised that not all of the annexation was designated on the current General Plan and that P-C
was the appropriate zone.' He also advised that since: no development plans were being presented at this tine that the total impact of the expected development coul
rrot be properly assessed. StafF WJS, thcreforc, rccom- mending that each phase of dcvclopncni he evaluated at the time application is made. Staff's recomncndati
was for approval of the impact inforr;lation,'.:hi~l: had
been subnitted,as beiyg adequate and ncet.' g,:_I >-.z-
c 1
r
I
at
a e, .
C,
aa)
.. ._-
COMMSSLGNERS
10JT ON \YES
{OES -.--
.
-6 . L- _ *- 7r , /,.&- - , -- \ .,. -m--.-L- ---. -___
0; ‘/
-_ -: .C
I I ;-- CT-i-?’ CJAyyjl, ;I> i;‘j~~;.~,~!~,.~~~:~~
-3-
sc;Jtcs:bct~ :;, !973 -7 -..
I
-.~-,.-r-*.-.r.,..-o-M-^-----.-~-r~r----~~. c':
k,;;{ (Cl k<lc??d,~ --L ' Kill G2122 2 To consider the Environ
1;12nt,il ii;:pac t ltep',i‘t arid J. r2aYjU2St for pre -anne>:ation
zo:;e Cfl2i;~2 f!.ori~ CO!lllt)f ?>-3-s t0 City Of CArlStt;d P-C
(Planned Co.~:munity) on propert;, generally 1oci:tcd on the florttl and South sides of Alga P.oad betk!een El Fuert
St. artd I?‘incho Santa Fe Road. Applicant: La Casta Land
Tile Planning Director explained a request for pre-annes
tion change o-f zone-has been made since this portion of
land \;as left out of the original La Costa annexation
due to a boundary difference between the City of Carls- bad and San ilarcos. Following several meetings k!ith
La Costa,pncJ the Cities of Carlsbad and San Marcos, the
proper boundaries were determined.
blrs. Janson, resident of ileado~::larl: in San ilarcos in-
quired if the proposed annexation t!ould have any affect
on a draining center from the San i4arcos ?!ater District
vrhich she has been opposing. It was. determined by the Council the sliver of land is adjacent to Keadowlark.
Krs. Janson explained if the land is to be developed
for a Planned Community, i't would allow her more levera
in opposing the draining center. .-: A.,... . .--
The Public Hearing was closed and lengthy discussion
ensued by the Council, specifically with regard to
sewage facilities. -.
A motion was made that the Environmental Impact Report be accepted with an amendment rcflectiog that the pro-
perty ok!ners -be--put an- -notice--that--the-ares--wi-~ l---hwe.-
to be sewered through the San Narcos Ilater District.
The follo;qing Resolution vas adopted and subsequent
Ordinance given a first reading by title only kiith fur-
ther reading waived:
Re'soluiion No. 3203. A RkOLUTION OF THE CITY C&T:CIL
GTE ClTY OF CARLSGISD, C,?LIFOR!lIA, A!::!OU?iCIi<G FIi!DIizG
ArID DECISION Or! A PREAi!i!EXATIO?~ C!iA:':GE GF ZOlii FR0I.I
SF\11 DIEGO COUi!TY A-1-8 TO CITY OF CARLSakD P-C (Planned Community), OFI PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE !!EST SIDE OF
RA>lCi!O Sf,,;ITk FE ROAD, SOL!TH OF RAiiCHO CARRILLO, AEli)
i:OP,JH kI!D SOUTH OF Lk COSTA, _ -. -
. .
Ordinance No. 9361. Aii ORDII4AIICE OF THE CITY COUllCIL
OF THE CITY (3F CARLSBAD, CALIFOR;4IA, A>iEl!DII!G TITLE 21
OF TIIE 14U;!ICIP:1L CODE EY GR!\I!TI:!G A PREA~!I?EXATIO:I CHA;:G OF ZOiiE FRO;4 COUiiTY A-l- 8 TO CITY OF CARLSB.clD P-C
(Planned Community) 0;: PROPERTY LOCATED Oil T!!E WEST SID
OF RAilClIO SAFITA FE ROAD, SOUTH OF LA COSTA, COiiSiSTIKG
0.F A?PROXIl!ATELY 717 ACRES: .
cl131 (d) Aqenda Bill 2723.: To ;onsSder an Fapp2a7 of
the decision-he PiaaniKConaission in denying a
request for zone change frOi:i R-3 t0 C-2 t0 iItl!OS tlek'Q70
ment of professional office and retail cor:ll:ior-cial on property gonerally located 011 tfle East.sicle of Pio .
Pica bet\lecn Oak St. and Eli.: Avenue. Appellant: Th c
;idlOllF! COi:lpdny . . :
The: Clerk annc:;nc?d Iloticcs of Publication arc on fife ! . ,-i rqo C.O:‘t’?S?Oiiriilrt::C hat il?c?rl t’eCc ivc,;.
:o.
Hot i on
AYPS
-Ifaes ._.
?,! 0 t i 0 n
Ryes 1'!oes
riot i on
Ayes [foes
.
<-a i.- I * . . . . . . .
-...-_
Stop ic,,!Lor 4, 1973 ".-.?..-- .-----Z-.-C .
-[jj(J p.j<:ii;;ji]g ;iii'cCtur CJa'in 3 staff I*eport and :rith Cou:
ci 1 ;2r;,isSiOr: disc!lss::d the a~plicaiiun by :ialo:~e Co.
d ;i 11 r. ;1 R '? T t : . ilatson (l.gnd;! Dill +212ii) in his report
5 i n C t‘ ii 2 s t a t c: c!
10&l in 'tile '
they l&e:e LIp:,t*oXiiilatelJj t/l2 SZ!::E ar:d same vicinitg. Fu!-tiler, he cxplaixed 3. c - 2 z ,- y -i >I - y, ?, s riot restrictive. enough and a C-T zone :ias
JO0 reStrictive for the u;cs intended by the aoplicants
2nd k/hat is really needed is an t!X!elldZ2rlt to lihs-‘ zoning
Ordiil;;nce y:hicli !:ou:ci Cre;lt2 d zon2' to ;7CCO!3OdJte the
types oi buSinesscs being applied for at this tin;e.
i:r. \lilliam f!i.ck, partner', represcntifig himelf and the
applicant infctned the Council the C-Z zone \!as appliec
for to accomoc!atc 'a blueprinting office and it seemed
the most logical zoning for such a purpose.
Kathleen Harrison, a resident of Ann Crive, Carlsbad,
stated she vas in opposition to any type of connercial building east of the freeHay.
The Nayor declared th'e Public Hearing closed.
Discussion was held as to the-best use of the subject
property, the fact that it was adjacent to the freeway and in the vicinity of the Civic Center and it xas egre
Eo;!>e Council that a C-2 zone was the best use of the
.
A notion k~as made. to grat!t the -ap.peal of 'FJalone
Cma~any and the matter retllrbed to the PTanniog_C-i~IR~.s~ _... . sTc(n-io-r- rep07T. _ . .~ .-.- -- ---- .---
[lT3] (e) Aocnda Dill ?2124. To consider an appeal
of the decision of the Planning Comission in denying a request for a zone charge fro!a.z-l-7500 and C-1 to
C-Z (General Conmercial), and adoption of a specific
plan- art Property general-ly located on-the-South side .' of Elin Avenue between Pio Pica Dr. and Highland Drive..
Appellant: Robert 1. Hatson, General Partner
The C?erk announced Notices of Publication are un file
and no correspondence had been received.
The Planning Director inforcsd the Council the subject
appeal k;as almost identical to that of Kalone Company. and it was his feeling that the Planning Connission, in
denying the rrequcst, probably d?/elled on the circula- tion of traffic and on Resolutiofi iaos. 606 and 607, passed by the Planhing Coanission denying a zone change
on E 1 cl .%v en 2 e io r a ba n !: . He further sta-ted tr:o-thil;ds of the busihcss proposed to be conducted kiill be devote to comercial use and the r=l cl.,ainder would be profession
USE. ,
':rs. CEC! Carlson, 3390 hdaus St:, Cdrlsbad, stated she ;jas interested in a cosm:lniiy centre an:i auditoriun 2ncl
icquirfd a5 to the zoning required for such arse.
'.I )- . R 0 !I 2 r t !,I a t s 0 fi > ap:,cl'1311t, ihfo~~c~ed the Council thcr
1 r? i; b? c ii no c-2 zoned pr02f?t*ty i!vaili Table ii; ti;Q last
twin yccI:s ia th:: ctlii:~I'J II i t:/
t -i ! : ;
and st::trld the par!:ir!g fa-ci1
‘3:“' 1 It r',xf:c ';$ OT - ?I:(: City gp<j;;:;,j::i.. [y!;,.L';,s!r. 9 1 i: :. ZL ,1 : r. :: ii <‘ i ;' c : r. 2 r: J/ f. )-, I f f i 2 C. ? !; 'j 2 ': t. ; 0 ii d 1 i' i ,J pica
::!ri I- ;r,; j!T[S !l',r.y- C:ii!;jp,t -',J it!;:, a.Ji:.;jl.q.,l I, !! Ci :.! a,;; ).~#~p,.<J
!.,;, s 1: I/,. :,:;I: ! L,>.'/ . :. :' ,.: i i- ; ;J ;' '_ : i' I‘;] ! !: ,G
j .:: f,.:..' ,,i ', :,.a *II .. i ', i:‘!, <' :> 19 .: ,*,: . .',I m
.
'lotion
92s __
'lO2S
c
I I . i ! i ! : , , : I :
I I I
c ,
: I i “.
;,I F , _ IO! iJ 2 ,G, I j 3 ij t,! -___ %. !i ‘9 :j s t 7c -‘3 2973
-
TO: CITY COlj!!CiL
F R 0 ?I : p [ A q y 1 >i G c (3 pi ,!fj 1 s s 1 0 pi
SUBJECT: PLANNIIIG CO~~l?4ISSIO~I ACTTi)PI 9Pl APPLiCATI0?lS OF
THE YAL.O?!E CO. (RICK E~iGi'~lEERI?G CO.) CASE i'iil.ZC-122 %
ROBEET L. VATSON (COLOUdL F-lAL!- LTD.) CASE $lO.ZC-121
The Planning Commission heard the subject applications July IO,1973
and continued th&ir decision to August 14, 1973 after a motion to
table the applications,unti? the General Plan revjsion was presented
to the City,had ended in a tie vote of the six commissioners present,
Motions to deny the Change of Zone requests were approved by a 4-3
vote and the two Specific Plans !A/ere tabled b:y a 4-3 vote. The
decisions to deny the applications were based upon the incomoatibility
of the land uses proposed to the General Plan, and inadequate circu-
lation. The discussion had as a basis the following prior actions
or prior studies:
1. The City Council and Planning Commission Resolutions 6r36 and
607 in 1969 denied an application on Elm Avenue for rezoning from
R-l to C-l and Adoption of a Specific Plan (Oceanside National Rank).
The basis for denial was -
a. That the proposed reclassification would constitute spot
zoning of commercial in a residential area.
b. That the proposed use may generate a severe traffic problem
on Elm Avenue, which is a major boulevard in the Cit.v and will
carry increased traffic in the future.
2. The Pie Pica Lan‘d Use Amendment initiated by the Staff in
late 1971, earl,y 1972, recommended a Specific Area Plan for the area
generally between Elm Avenue and Tamarack Avenue, and between Pie
Pica Drive and Adams Street. The proposed plan would have -
a. Limited residential densities to 20 du/ac. or less. s
b. Specified land uses which could have been emploved ad.jacent
to a freeway, and which would be compatible with the surroundinq
residential neighborhoods.
This program was never taken to public hearing because the
Planning Commission felt it should be incorporated into the existing
General Plan revision-program.
3. The Cit!y Council in Ma!/ of 1972 imposed a 3 months mori-
toriun on any reclassification in the vicinity of City Hall until
such time as a "Civic Center Overlay" Study and accompanying zoning
recommendations could be presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council. The purpose of the 13verlay Study was to assess the
requirements of C
. . . I ” / I . -2 ;: L 1> .I I, , / : ~~~,~,tJ .$uqust 29, 1973 i?ac;a 2
i",y Hall expans+n an d at the szr:;? time recommend
land uses 2nd zorlifl~ fcr the surrsunding properti25. To date,
that study has not been acconplis?ed, and the Plz.r;ning Cofmission
was of the opinion again that the decision on the ;;lalone-Rick and
Natson applications should be he;: in abe:jance, or denied, until
such time as a viable Civic Cent?? Stud,;! can be accomplished. This
study would, of necessity, be a p.2rtion of the General Plan Land
USS Amendment recommendations.
An additional concern addressed the Cit.y's existing commercial
commitment to the do:+/ntown, and the imnact of the proposed commercial
applications to that commitment.
The Commfssion was in basic agreement that land uses other than
residential should be employed adjacent to City Mall (i.e.professionall
However, because of the lack of a defined Civic Center Circulation
and Land Use Plan, and the inability of existing zoning ordinances
to curb the development of unplanned commercial activities in the'
Civic Center area, denial was an appropriate course of action. Until
such plans, programs and ordinances are developed, any activity east
of the freeway, and adjacent to the Civic Center Comp!ex, should not
be considered.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Director
MEMORANDUM August 29, 1973
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON APPLICATIONS OF
THE MALONE CO. (RICK ENGINEERING CO..) CASE NO.ZC-122 &
ROBERT L. WATSON (COLONIAL MALL LTD.) CASE NO.ZC-121
The Planning Commission heard the subject applications July lr),1973
and continued their decision to Auqust 14, 1973 after a motion to
table the applications,until the General Plan revision was presented
to the City,had ended in a tie vote of the six commissioners n-resent.
Motions to deny the Chanqe of Zone requests were approved by a 4-3
vote and the two Specific Plans were tabled by a 4-3 vote. The
decisions to deny the applications were based upon the incompatibility
of the land uses proposed to the General Plan, and inadequate circu-
lation. The discussion had as a basis the following prior actions
or prior studies:
1. The City Council and Planning Commission Resolutions 606 and
607 in 1969 denied an application on Elm Avenue for rezoninq from
R-l to C-l and Adoption of a Specific Plan (Oceanside National Rank).
The basis for denial was -
a. That the proposed reclassification would constitute spot
zoning of commercial in a residential area. ,
b. That the pronosed use may generate a severe traffic nroblem
on Elm Avenue, which is a major boulevard in the City and will
carry increased traffic in the future.
2. The Pio Pica Land Use Amendment initiated by the Staff in
late 1971, early 1972, recommended a Specific Area Plan for the area
generally between Elm Avenue.and Tamarack Avenue, and between Pio
Pica Drive and Adams Street. The proposed plan would have -
a. Limited residential densities to 20 du/ac. or less.
b. Specified land uses which could have been employed ad.jacent
to a freeway, and which would be compatible with the surroundinq
residen.tial neighborhoods.
This program was never taken to public hearing because the
Planning Commission felt it should be incorporated into the existinq
General Plan revision program.
3. The City Council in May of 1972 imposed a 3 months mori-
torium on any reclassification in the vicinity of City Hall until
such time as a "Civic Center Overlay" Study and accompanying zoning
recommendations could be presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council. The purpose of the Overlay Study was to assess the
.
Malone & Watson Memo pw;s; 29, .1973 s
requirements of City Hall expansion and at the same time recommend
land uses and zoning for the surrounding properties. To date,
that study has no t been accomplished, and the Planning Commissibn
was of the opinion again that the decision on the Malone-Rick and.
Watson applications should be held in abeyance, or denied, until
such time as a viable Civic Cente.r Study can be accomplished. This
study would, of necessity, be a portion of the General Plan Land
Use Amendment recommendations.
An additional concern addressed the Cit.y's existing commercial
commitment to the downtown, and the impact of the proposed commercial
applications to that commitment. 1
The Commission was in basic agreement that land uses other than
residential should be employed ad.jacent to City clall (i.e.professional).
However, because of the lack of a defined Civic Center Circulation
and Land Use Plan, and the inability of existing zoning ordinances
to curb the development of unplanned commercial activities in the
Civic Center area, denial was an appropriate course of action. Until
such plans, programs and ordinances are developed, any activity east
of the freeway, and adjacent to the Civic Center Complex, should not
be considered.
,Respectfully submjtted,
I
z
:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3 11 ;
12’ ‘.. r “.. 13
’ \ 14
j 3-15
:* t ” \., 16
?e ‘) “Y 17
3 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
- x5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
I- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOUTION NO: 968
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PROPGSED GRANTING OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM
R-3 to C-Z (ZC-122) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF OAK AVENUE A:ID
PI0 PICO DRIVE, BE COMPLETED.
THE MALONE COMPANY, ET AL.
WHEREAS, on July'lO, 1973 and August 14, 1973, /duly advertised Public
Hearingald before the Planning Commission to consider a request for a
change of zone from R-3 to C-2, to allow construction of a two-story office
building, on property generally located at the north east corner of the inter-
section of Pio Pica Drive and Oak Avenue, and more particularly described as:
Parcel "A" of Parcel Map No. 716, filed in the Office of the Recorder of San Diego
County, State of California; and,
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said hearing on August 14, 1973, the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad adopted Resolution No. 943, recommending
Denial of the zone change; and,
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 ihdicated their intent to grant said appeal, and referred- the matter
back to the Planning Commission for report; and,
WHEREAS, on September 25, 1973 the Planning Commission was presented a
report describing,City Council Action regarding The Malone Company request for
Change of Zone. LL/I
NOW, THEREFORE, ihe Planning Commission recommends the City Council of .
the City of Carlsbad to grant-the change of zone from R-3 to C-2, for the
following reasons:
1. The influence of the Civic Center development could reasonably extend along Pio Pica southerly to Oak Avenue. In addition, the
impact of the +reeway and the estimated traffic on Pio Pica could effect th-': ?c1 *.arce? to the degree that the site would not
be co"- 'r+l for a residential activity. A professio offjc. .!.er hand would be less dffected and wcu'l
a? - ' on adjacent residential property, sine
t. 'ted to S-5.weekdays and does not h:.j? ]
i '?P found with a retail-ccmne:-I.:::! '
. 1 i
'2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.13
14
15
16
17
sa
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
". ; 31
32
.
2. As a part of the upcoming General Plan Revision and Zoning
Ordinance Revision, staff envisions the establishment of a civic
center overlay zone concept on all the property surrounding the' civic center area. A majority of the restrictions of this zone
will deal with design and such an application on the subject property
will further guarantee the compatibility of any development to the
surrounding development.
3. The existence of commercial zoning and uses to the north and east
of the subject parcel and its location adjacent to a frontage road of a State freeway are considered to be sufficient for reasons for a finding that .the present General plan commitment for the area is not
real istic. In that this incompatibility is part of a larger area of incompatibility which includes the Civic Center area and the full
length of Pio Pica Drive, Staff would not recommend a General-Plan amendment for just the subject site at this time. Rather, as a part of the pending total general plan revision, all these inconsistencies
will be eliminated. \
4. In many'ways, the potential use requested is less intense than
is possible under the existing R-3 Zoning designation which would
permit up to a total of 12 dwelling units on the site.
5. The uses permitted under the proposed C-2 zone district is con-
sidered to be a suitable transition from the existing single-family development to the east and the freeway activity to the west.
ALSO, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission informs the City Council that .,. '. .' . . _ . . -, .-
they have directed Staff to prepare-a Civic Center Overlay Zone District for
that property generally between Highland Drive and the Freeway and between
Las Flores and Tamarack, to be brought to the Planning Commission no later
than December 31, 1973.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of September, 1973, by the following
vote, to-wit;
AYES: Commissioners Dominguez, Jose, Fonnan, Casler, Wrench and Little
NOES: None
ABSENT:Commissioner Palmateer. .
ATTEST:
E. W. DOMINGUEZ, . Chairman
. -. .= :. ..--._
DONALD A. AGATE?. '--. _... : -
Secretary
Ii -i- . .
3
;
I
4
f
i
v r
4
4
It
1:
1:
1:
14
1;
5
1'
s
1
21
2,
2,
2
2'
2
2
2
2;
2'
31 .s 3:
3.
L’
!
5,
L
j ,
5
7 \I
3 a
3 c
3 f
1
i
3
4
= c
6 b
71
8' a
9 F
'a
l F
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
0
1
2I
PLANNING CCMMISSION P'LUTION NO. 969
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH ITS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL,
APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-127) TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTCON OF A T!40-STORY OFFICE BUILDING ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
PI0 PICO BETWEEN OAK AND ELM AVENUE.
E. C. MALONE, for THE MALONE COMPANY, ET AL
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad did receive a
rerified application from THE MALONE COMPANY, ET AL, requesting approval of
I Specific Plan (SP-127) to allow construction of a two-story office building
,n property generally located on the east side of Pio Pica between Oak and Elm
ivenue, and more particularly described as:
Parcel "A" as shown on Parcel Map No. 716, filed
in the Office of the Recorder of San Diego County,
State of California.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does consider this application has complie
rith the requirements of the "City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinanc
If 1972" and the Planning Director has declared that the proposed development
/ould have a "non-significant" impact on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed public hearing,
nd upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all
bersons who desired to be heard, said Commission did f i
nd reasons to exist which make the recommendation for
plan necessary to carry out the provisions and.general
- 1. Compatibility of the proposed use to the potential activity in the area-
nd the following facts
approval of this Specific
purpose of Ordinance 9060
existing activity and
2. The size and location of the subject property is co&idered to
be sufficient for the proposed development.
3. Though.not compatible with the precise land use commitment as presently outlined in the General Plan, Staff is of the opinion that
the proposed development would be compatible with the goals and ob- jectives of the General Plan. On at least two previous occasions, an attempt has been made to revise the land use commitments for this tota
area. The influence of the freeway, the activity on Elm Avenue, Pio Pica, and the Civic Center can not be mitigated sufficiently to permit
residential activity in this area. Therefore, other types of uses
should be utilized.. To determine exactly what specific uses would be appropriate for this area is dp"Or:..'?r: upon commitments made in 0th parts of the City which c;lr '-q?'? ,J.... \ced as part of ,a complete General Plan revision. . . . * ..tti*.,if." can be accepted, and that
is - activities sucI'1 , ,;J r*.t certain support
Facilities in cio:;' , I q(.s /' _s- building can
1
2
z
4
5
E
'i
E
5
1(
13
1:
1;
11
l!
It
1';
I{
l!
2(
2:
21
2;
21
2!
2t
2:
2t
21
3(
" i_-.. I. 3:
,< '( ./ ‘
-
be considered as a support to the civic center and would therefore be compatible with the ultimate land use commitment for this area
as established by the pending General Plan revision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad that it does hereby recommend,to the City Council the adoption of a
Specific Plan, subject to the following conditions:
1. The approval of the specific plan is granted for the land
as described in the application and any attachments thereto, and as
shown on the plot plan submitted, labeled Exhibit A. The location of all buildings, fences, signs, roadways, parking areas, landscaping
and other facilities or features shall be located substantially as shown on the plot plan labeled Exhibit A, except or unless indicated
otherwise herein.
2. Unless the construction of the structure or facility is commenced not later than one year after the date the approval is granted
and is diligently pursued thereafter, this approval will automaticall) become null and void.
3. Any minor change may be approved by the Planning Director. Any
substantial change will require the filing of an application for an amendment to be considered by the Planning Commission.
4. All requirements of any law, ordinance or regulation of the State of California, City of Carlsbad, and any other governmental
entity shall be complied with.
5. No signs or advertising of any type whatsoever shall be erected or installed until plans therefore have been approved by the City
of Carlsbad. Said signs shall be incorporated into the design of
the: building.
6. All areas shown as parking areas shall be surfaced with asphaltic
concrete and shall be visibly marked outlining individual parking spaces and traffic flow. Said surfacing and marking shall be complete
prior to final inspection of the structure or structures by the Building Department. The surface shall be kept in a reasonable
good state of repair at all times.
7. Prior to obtaining a building permit, and within 30 days thereof,
the Applicant shall file with the Secretary of the Planning Cornnissior written acceptance of the conditions stated herein.
8. Compliance with and execution of all conditions listed hereon shal be necessary, unless otherwise specified, prior to obtaining final building inspection clearance. Deviation from this requirement shall
be permitted only by written consent of the Planning Director.
9. Any mechanical and/or electrical equipment to be located on the
roof of the structure shall be screened in a manner acceptable to the Planning Director. Detailed plans for said screening shall be submitted, in triplicate, to the Planning Director.
'j rI cl.1 ) 'ighting shall be arranged to reflect away from adjoini! i,! .:i;erl '1~: .ncj streets. : : I ._ .' - _. -. _ ..:. ?.X . 1 ; -- I
xx' j
!
i
2
3
.4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12:
13
14
15
16
17
S8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
7 '1 !k.f
:'. ',
-
11. An incombustible trash enclosure shall be provided of a size and location acceptable to the Planning Director, and said area
shall be enclosed with a fence and/or wall of sufficient height to
adequately shield the area. Said fence and/or wall shall include a solid gate.
12. A detailed landscape,and sprinkler plan prepared by a landscape
architect, shall be submitted to the Planning Director for con- sideration and approval.
13. Prior to final building inspection clearance, all landscaping shall be installed. Said landscaping shall, at all times, be
maintained in a manner acceptable to the Planning Director.
14. All landscape areas in parking lots shall be enclosed by a railed concrete curb or low wall. All planters adjacent to the street
right-of-way shall be constructed with weep holes per specifications of the City Engineer.
15. All utilities, including electrical, telephone and cable televisi
shall be installed underground and/or shall be completely concealed
from view.
16. All public improvements shall be made in conformity with the
Subdivision Ordinance and other City Standards, to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer, without cost to the City of Carlsbad and free of all liens and encumbrances.
17. Pio Pica Drive and Oak Avenue shall be improved in accordance with City standards.
18. Prior to the issuance of any permits, all exterior building, elevations and specific floor plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Director for.consideration and approval.
19, The range of uses for the proposed development shall be limited to those uses normally found in a professional office building and
related use.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Planning
Commissjon of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 25th day of September, 1973, .
by the following vote, to wit;
AYES: Commissioners Dominguez, Jose, Forman, Casler, Wrench, & Little
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commis;ioner Palmateer
ATTEST: E. W. DOMINGUEZ, Chairman
/, s;: :: [-~‘$~~j-~-&TEP, ‘...I
, ;‘c:.f-ret:r- ., ,I
:!
.- -. .
-3-
RESOLUTION NO. 3238
1
E
s
1C
11
12
1:
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 ON A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-3 to C-2 (ZC-122) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
OAK AVENUE AND PI0 PICO DRIVE. APPLICANT: THE MALONE COMPANY, ET AL.
WHEREAS, on July 10, 1973 and August 14, 1973 duly adver-
tised Public Hearings were held before the Planning Commission
to consider a request for a change of zone from R-3 to C-2 to
allow construction of a two-story office building on property
generally located at the northeast corner of the intersection
of Pie Pica Drive and Oak Avenue, and more particularly de-
scribed as:
Parcef"A" of Parcel Map No. 716, filed
in the Office of the Recorder of San
Diego County, State of California; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said hearing on August 14,
1973, the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad adopted
Resdlutlon No. 943, recommending Denial of the zone change; and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 1973, the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, held a public hearing on the appeal of said
Denial,' recefved 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
ma-tter- back to the Planning Commission for report; and,
WHEREAS, on September 25, 1973 the Planning Commission was
presented a report describing City Council Action regarding the
Malone Company request for Change of Zone; and at the conclu-
sion of said presentation adopted Resolution No. 968 recommend-
ing said Zone Change herein referred to and made a part hereof,
and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the require-
ments of the "City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection
Ordinance of 1972" and the Planning Director has determined
that the project will not have any significant effect on
the environment;
. ---- .__... -_ ,- ..__ I-
-.
-,
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
2e
29
3c
33
32
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission contained
in the aforementioned Resolution No. 968 constitute the findings
of the Carlsbad City Council.
3. That the approval of the proposed change of zane
classification is necessary to carry out the general purpose of
Title 21 of the Municipal Code.
4. That the City of Carlsbad City Council intends to
adopt an ordinance to effectuate the proposed change of zone.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council on the 16th day of October , 1973, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: C.ouncilmen Dunne, McComas, Chase and Frazee.
'. NOES: Councilman Lewis.
ABSENT: None.
ATTEST: kqii.#d~@&,
MAR A T E. ADAMS, City Clerk
(Seal)
- --, y.- :_- -TX -7.-L ,
L .-?
1
5
e
‘i
1C
11
1:
II
2:
2;
2:
2L
2!
2t
2’;
21
2!
3(
3:
3:
RESOLUTION NO.3239
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND DECISION AND ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-127) TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PLO PICO BETWEEN OAK AND ELM -- AVENUE. APPLICANT: E. C. MALONE FOR THE MALONE COMPANY, ET AL
WHEREAS, on September 25, 1973, a duly advertised Public
Hearing was held before the Carlsbad City Planning Commission
in the manner prescribed by law to consider the adoption of
Specific Plan (SP-127) to allow for development of a two-story
office building on property generally located on the east side
of Pio Pica between Oak and Elm Avenue, and more particularly
described as:
Parcel "A" as shown on Parcel Map No. 716, filed in the Office of the Recorder of San Diego County, State of California.
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said hearing said Commission
adopted ResolutFon No. 969 which is herewith referred to and made
a part hereof recommending approval of said plan; and
WHEREAS, on October 16 9 1973, the City Counci
held a duly advertised public hearing and received all recom-
mendations and heard all persons interested in or opposed to
the proposed Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements
of the "City of Carlsbad Environment&l Protection Ordinance of
1972" and has been declared to have a non-significant impact on
the environment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A. That the above recitations are true and correct.
3. That the findings of the Planning Commission as set
forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 966 constitute the
findings of the City Council.
/// /i/
1 C. That the approval of the proposed Specific Plan is
2 necessary to carry out the general purpose of Title 21 of the
3 Carlsbad Municipal Code.
4 D. That Specific Plan (SP-127) recommended by Planning
5 Commission Resolution No. 969 is hereby approved subject to
6 the following conditions:
7
8
9
10
'1. The approval of the specific plan is granted for the land as described in the application and any attach- ments thereto, and as shown on the plot plan submitted, labeled Exhibit A. The location of all buildings, fences, signs, roadways, parking areas, landscaping and other facilities or features shall be located sub- stantially as shown on the plot plan labeled Exhibit A, except or unless indicated otherwise herein. 11
12 2. Unless the construction of the structure or facility is commenced not later than one year after the date the approval is granted and is diligently pursued thereafter this approval will automatically become null and void.
3. Any minor change may be approved by the Planning Director. Any substantial change will require the filing
i of an application for an amendment to be considered by the Planning Commission,
4. All requirements of any law, ordinance or regulation of the State of California, City of Carlsbad, and any other governmental entity shall be complied with.
5. No signs or advertising of any type whatsoever shall be erected or installed until plans therefore have been approved by the City of Carlsbad. Said signs shall be incorporated into the design of the building.
2;
22
24
25
26
27
2E
29
3c
31
32
6. All areas shown as parking areas shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete and shall be visibly marked out- lining individual parking spaces and traffic flow. Said surfacing and marking shall be completed prior to final inspection of the structure or structures by the Building Department. The surface shall be kept in a reasonable good state of repair at all times.
7. Prior to obtaining a building permit, and within 30 days thereof, the Applicant shall file with the Secretary of the Planning Commission written acceptance of the conditions stated herein.
8. Compliance with and execution of all conditions listed hereon shall be necessary, unless otherwise specified, prior to obtaining final building inspection clearance. Deviation from this requirement shall be permitted only by written consent of the Planning Director.
//i’ /// /// ///
-2-
._. .__
.-
j,,,‘,, .*:;.,... : ~ ’ ,_- ,..- .~ , jj’ ,‘; c ::.‘- .: L.‘ ; , _.. I<rw&,;.%A:?. , I_ ,. ; :&++;i.&&e’;~
. _-, -wc-> .,._ -- __.__.__ _x -I_.. i_...e_._. _--s-.. .~ . , -- .I.-j_;j. _ “W..W “.
. .:,p.. ., *
,~_ I.“..sw”* _
- ,.*..-> . _-.-. - ~~. -*?-;.:- us’m--+>-M- 1. .r-.--- i*.-.. . + .* i :. ._=_ ,._< ~ 1_ .^. -_ _ ._ _-
_ :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
9. Any mechanical and/or electrical equipment to be located on the roof of the structure shall be screened in a manner acceptable to the Planning Director. Detailed plans for said screening shall be submitted, in triplicate, to the Planning Director.
10. Ali lighting shall be arranged to reflect away from adjoining properties and streets.
II. An incombustible trash enclosure shall be provided of a size and location acceptable to the Planning Director, and said area shall be enclosed with a fence and/or wall of sufficient height t.o adequately shield the area. Said fence and/or wall shall include a solid gate.
12< A detailed landscape and sprinkler plan prepared by a landscape architect, shall be submitted to the Planning Director for consideration and approval.
13. Prior to final building inspection clearance, all landscaping shall be installed. at all times, Said landscaping shall, be maintained in a manner acceptable to the Planning Director.
14. All landscape areas in parking lots shall be enclosed by a railed concrete curb or low wall. All planters adjacent to the street right-of-way shall be constructed with weep boles per specifications of the City Engineer.
.15. All utilities, including electrical, telephone and cable television shall be installed underground and/or shall be completely concealed from view.
16. All public imorovements shall be made in conformity with the Subdivision Ordinance and other City Standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, without cost to the City of Carlsbad and free of all liens and encumbrances.
17. Pio Pica Drive and Oak Avenue shall be improved in accordance with City Standards.
18. Prior to the issuance of any permits, all exterior building elevations shall be subm3tted to the Planning
Director.for consideration and approval. ~
lg. The range of uses for the proposed development shall be limited to those uses normally found in a professional office building and related use,
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council on the 16th day of
by the following vote, to wit:
/i/
///
///
October , 1973,
///
///
/// *
--. +..- ..-. L..Z---..
- _.
1
2
3
4
5
e
7
E
5
1C
11
1;
II
9 14
5 Q 15 l+t$ 8 -" Q: p - gg$z 1E
S>fO IkULL ;:3< 17
I-> ;Gi 1E
55 cf
?
; 15
ci 2c
21
2:
21
211
25
2t
2;
2E
2I
3(
31
3E
.
- -- ..-. :2-c _-.. -.~l-pl : --&._
-
- .- .’
AYES: Councilmen Dunne, McComas, Chase and Frazee.
NOES: Councilman Lewis.
ABSENT: Ilone.
ATTEST:
(Seal)
-4-
v. . . , i_ ;:,.. J&:2.*’ ~. 9
. I
ORDINANCE NO. 9367
1
2
3
4
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21
OF THE.MUNICIPAL.CODE BY GRANTING A CHANGE OF
ZONE FROM R-3 TO C-2 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTER- SECTION OF OAK AVENUE AN'D PI0 PICO DRIVE. APPLICANT: THE MALONE COMPANY, ET AL.
5 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California
6 does ordain as follows:
7 The following described real property is.granted a
8' change of zone from R-3 to C-2:
9
10
11
Parcel "A" of Parcel Map No. 716, filed in the Office of the Recorder of San Diego County, State of California.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty
12 (30,) days after its adoption and the City Clerk shall certify
13 tdthe adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published
at least once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen (15) days 8 14
9 fi% 8 8 15
9o . 8;;;: a 16
$;g CJ 3 u* 0 $2 17
t-N
i#$ 18
I: ‘5 a
c
$ IL9
ij 20
21
after its. adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the1 ay of October 9
1973, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting
of said City Council held on the 7th day of November *
1973, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Cmn. Dunne, McComas, Chase and Frazee.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 I
NOES: Cmn. Lewis. .
ABSENT: None.
DAVID M. DUNNE, Mayor
ATTEST:
32
October 9, 1973
Carlsbad City Council 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
As a property owner and one interested in the general welfare of Carlsbad, I would like to express my approval of the plan to allow development on property for commercial/professional use, which will be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for October 16, 1973 at 7:30 p.m.
Very truly yours,
p? ld@h
M. W. BONDY
r'JOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIilG
IlOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad, California, will hold a Public Hearing on October
16, 1973, at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm
Avenue, Carlsbad, California, to consider adoption of a Specific-
Plan to allow development of professional office and retail
commercial property generally located on the east side of Pio
Pica Drive between Oak Street and Elm Avenue, and more particularly
described as follows:
Parcel "A" as shown on Parcel Map No.
716, filed January 20, 1972, in the
Office of the Recorder of San Diego
County, State of California.
Said application being submitted by The Malone Company, in
accordnace with Section 21.52.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code.
CARLSBAD CITY COUI'ICIL
Publish: October 4, 1973
‘
Affidavit of Publication
: i
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss i County of San Diego ’ , i. Patricia Manning . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.- _... - . . . . -..-.-...-...---.. P .--..-.-._.. "._.__ . . . ..( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..__.__....._._ _ ._.."......................... says that she is the Principal Clerk
of The Carlsbad Journal, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the
City of Carlsbad, County of Saln Diego. a%,,State of California, and that the notice of which the A
annexed is a true copy, was published .-...-.. --..A.. times 4th in said newspaper, commencing on the . .._ _ ..__..
day of act. . . . .._._...___...._...........__..__..__........_ _ --.“.........-....... * A.D. 19 ?.., namely on the following dates:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC J REARING
NOTICE Is HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the1 City of Carl&ad, California, nil1 hold a Public Hearing on October 16,1973, at 7:30P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carl&ad, Califo~i’uia, to consider adop- tion of a Specific Plantoallow development of profess*1 office and retail commercial
property generally locatql ou the east side of Pio Pica Drive between Oak Street aod Elm
Avenue, aud more particularlyl described as follows:
Parcel “A” as shown on Parcel Map No. 716, filed Jauuary 20, 1972, in the Of- fide of the Recorder of San Diego County, State of Cali- fornia.
Said application being sub- mitted by The M,alone Com- pany, in accordance with Sec- tion 21.?2.030 of the Carls- bad Muuicipal Code.
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
pub: October 4, 1973. ,. ‘, I .
,. .e
,.
/I ./ legal Decree No. I72342
ii.,. ~--.. __. -.-.
.-_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fkt,4,.19.73 . . ..-.-........-....- - --....-....-.. - . ..- -.-. .
............ ..__..................................” ....................................... .“. ... . ...........
............ ..” . ...“. . ..“......................” ........ ..e....- .... -.e.-.-...----.- ..-..
. .._.._...._...._......... _ . .._.........._.._._..............”....-..........“.......... ” . . . . -....--C
Signed at Carlsbad, California this . . !?.! . . . . . .._.. L *day of .._..._._.. Uc.L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-..........-...... 19 ..?a
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is true and correct.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .._ . ..__..... . . . . . . . . . .._..._._........__......~......... _ . . . . . ..I. I
Principal Clerk
.“.’ ; .’ : ,, c I
..- .~
:*
I .
.’ * 5
I - I.
‘_
. ..* ‘-’ . . c
..’ : ,:
. ,: : :;
.- . . . -. _ -,__ .___. -hr. .w ..-_ :-.A.*-.- :.._ _ . y .__ -..... . .I : -“--.-u__\
b
800 Prospect Manor L--,-I. - --c-r I__. _--, -.-.--,* _- ._.^
South Pasadena, Ca 91030 I,.
:
(1
4 .i
~ . . 7. 3
, --- . . _ ,k r I ,.. .,t- z ,rr:...<“z.. - I-i a;
I .’ . -: I. ~~$:-;;.$&~
)?I “‘1 ,-;.) ;s.r
.:i : ,, 1 _.. $j.,$ k*z;,*;j
r .’ 2,) *ii ‘, . .“%a :. c;‘, ,._l.
,. I .I
* ,\. ,. 1 -. ;’ . .,
-. . p 2:. ,; .:;.I.-. : ; _. .%... , L ^ ,..: .;
- . .
: ; .- ‘.__ . ..:
,_ _. ..“... . . ._ : -.. . . -. . . . . :. _ - ,- . . . . . _. :. , :F_r. .:‘:‘. . ..~. . ,, .- . . _ .._., ,../.> .:;.. :,&..n-,.: ..J .-’ . . .-a i: .sZ.. a. ,..C:..~.‘.YI. ‘.c..:c’ .:*,.1 k
‘. /,
Carlsbad City Council 1200 Elm-Avenue Carlsbad, California
!n.
- :, ,. . . ,,.I b : * .-4.
‘.
.,., ,’ . . . . .‘&
‘..
I I-
,i’
..-.%L
‘.
r,,
.*.
“i
i!
,.&
A’;’
v;i
8.W
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
ss
l
. . . . _... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-_.._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i atri.G;.i.k..,mad~ ..---.-.--...-...--....-....., . . . . . . . . . says that she is the Principal Clerk
of The Carlsbad Journal, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, and State of California, and that the notice of which the
annexed is a true copy, was published . . . . . -- . . . . . times in said newspaper, commencing on the . .._ ?..
day of ____. ___ ___.___. _ _...... UQY... __.... _ . . ..--..-......-....---‘-‘) A.D. 19 ‘?X..., namely on the following dates:
ORDINANCE NO. 9367 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY GRANTING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-3 TO C-Z ON
PROPERTYGENERALLYLGCATEDATTHE
NORTHEASTCORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF OAK AVENUE AND PI0 PICO DRIVE. APPLICANT:
,THE MALONE COMPANY, ET AL;
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California
does ordain as follows,:
The following described real property is granted a
,change of zone from R-3 to C-2:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rs6v,.xT,~~~ . ..-....-.--....-....-.. ----“-)I
.._....._............................................ _._-....- . . ..-____..._.. I .._.--- -.--.-.-.
Parcel “A” of Parcel’MapNo. 716, filedin the Office
of the Recorder of San Diego County, State of Californis.
EFFECTIVE. DATE: This ordinance shall be ef-
fective thirty (30) days after its adoption and the City
Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in the Carl&ad
Journal within fifteen (i5) days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meet-
ing of the Carl&ad City Council held on the 16th day.
of October, 1973, and thereafter PASSED AND ADGPT-
ED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the
7th day ofNovember, 1973, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Cmn. Dunne, McComas, Chase and Frazee.
NOES: Cmn. Lewis ABSENT: None.
/s/ David M. Dunne
DAVID. M.. DUNNE, Mayor ATTEST:
/s/ Margaret E. Adams
MARGARET E. ADAMS, City Clerk (Seal)
Pub: Nov. 15, 1$13.
Legal Decree No. 172342
__.._..._.... - . .._ I . . .._......................--....... -.- . . .._....-.............---------.-..
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..-..........................-..........-.... - . . . . - . . . . . . . . ..-.._. - ._.-..._-....-....-_....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,....- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . -.-..- . . . . _...--..-..-,
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..~._..” . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . .._...._....... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-....-...........
_........__......_................................-................-.......... - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ..-. “_.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~.................~................ - . . ..-......_... - . . . . . . . . ..-.... - ._..- -“.
Signed at Carlsbad, California this 15 . . . ..-....-..
day of . ..___...._~__ ;r6v ._.........................~..........~ _ . . ..I I 9 . . . 73 I hereby declare l under penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is true and correct. ,-?