Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-02-05; City Council; 2286; Assembly Bill 1301 Recommendations for the Ponto Area from Planning Commission meeting of January 8, 1974, , ' .... Date THE CJ-TY OF cAraspAo, CALIFOW\ 'B ,.,, • Referred .To: CITY COUNCIL- .'' ._ .... /// Assembly Bill 1301 Recornmendations for the Ponto Area PLANNING -COMMISSION from Planninn Commission meeting of January 8, 1974. •' Statement of the..Ma_t_tgr ." " ..' Pursuant to-the requirements of A/B 130T which requir.es consistence of zoning and general Plans, the Planning Commission recommendation is to rezone the subject property -in the Ponto area from M (Industrial) and C-M (Heavy Commercial & Liaht Industrial). to RO-,M . (Residential-Multiple), thereby.complying with land, use recommendation of medium-density residential" with 21-47 d.u./acre. During the Planning Commission Public-Hear'inq there was substantial opposition from the affected property owners in^that they-wished the • Planning Commission to amend the General Plan, vice, rezone the subiect property. The .General Plan would have ..to be amended to reflect Heavy Commercial/Industrial Uses to ensure consistency of zoning and General Plan Land Use. ' ''.-••• t ., ' ' ...The General. Plan Land Use Committee recommended to the Planning Commission-:to'rezone the property to <RD-M and-thereby", ensure-, consistency of-zoning- and General; Plan" land use. .Exhibit - " . .-.-"'-- 1. Land Use Committee Recommendations, dated Nov. 30, T973 -2. Memo referring to Environmental -Impact Requirements oer AB-1301 .. 3. Staff'Report dated January 4, 1974 re: "Ponto (Area #2)., with attachments 4. Planning.-Commi.ssion Resolution No. 1032, with, Exhibit "A"^ attached." 2-19-74 ' " . " ... ....'"• '• 1. Resolution No:. 2. Ordinance No. Staff Reconi-Tiendat: ions to City Manager Staff would recommend that the City Council view the proposed rezoninq as a lonq-term response to ootential land uses which are likely to occur alonq Carlsbad Blvd. and the coast. Inasmuch as the existing land uses in the Ponto area are'normall.y not comnetative with ocean front .land use; activities, a lonq range land use assessment is. necessary. Therefore, the Staff is of the opinion that rezoninq- the property as recommended by the Planning Commissl'on. is necessary to carry out the intent of the City 'of Carlsbad General Plan. ' A-B No. Date: February 5, 1974 City Manager's Recommendation Because this was advertised the Council will be holding a public hearing on two alternates. The first is the rezoning of the property to conform to the Ge'neral Plan. This has been recommended by the Planning Commission. If the Council is in agreement they should approve the zone change and instruct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents. Secondly, this public hearing will also serve, if the Council determines that the General Plan should be amended to conform to the existing zoning. If the Council feels that the General Plan should be amended, the item should be referred back to the Planning Commission for report. After the Planning Commission's report the item will then be held until other General Plan revisions are made. 2-19-74 Consistent with Council action at the February 5, 1974 meeting, it is recommended that the resolution be adopted and the ordinance introduced. Council Action 2-5-74 The Council agreed that subject property be rezoned RD-M to conform to the General Plan and instructed the City Attorney to draft the necessary documents. 2-19-74 Resolution No. 3359 was adopted. Ordinance No. 9382 was introduced for a first reading. 3-6-74 Ordinance No. 9382 was given a second reading and adopted. -2- O M E M 0 R A II D U M o November 30, 1973 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:- PLANNING DIRECTOR AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE COMMITTEE SUBJECT: LAND USE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS RE: AB-1301 The General Plan Land Use Committee at its meeting of November 6, 1973, recommended the following course of action be taken to insure compliance with the requirements of AB 1301. A portion of the 1301 requirements mandate that General Plan Land Use recommendations and underlying zoning be consistent with each other. That is to say, if the General Plan has designated an area Low Density Residential (3-7 d.u./acre), the underlying zoning should then be a zone which will im- plement that recommendation, i.e. R-l-7500 or a zone with equal or more re- strictive developmental control, P-C a density of 7 or less. There are several interpretations of how the conformity may occur: 1. when a land-use and zoning conflict occur, the City has two immediate options: (a) amend the General Plan to conform to zoning, and (b) amend the zoning to conform to the General Plan Land. Use recommendations. 2. If the General Plan recommends a land-use, the City must have in the Zoning Ordinance, zones which may be employed to implement the Land Use Recommendation, eg., if the Land Use Recommendation is medium density residential (22-47 d.u./acre) then even though the zoning is not consistent, there must be a zone in the zoning ordinance which can be employed for implementation. 3. A third interpretation is if the Land-Use permits a use which does not irrevocably commit the property to a higher, long-term use, then the consistency can be made, eg., if the General Plan designates an area for Industrial use, and the underlying zoning is less than Industrial, the. plan and zoning are consistent. Less than'Industrial use in this case is commercial, residential, agriculture, etc. 6 AB-1301 Page 2. The Staff has reviewed the existing General Plan and has identified five (5) areas of conflict: 1. The area zoned C-M, M., and P-M, north and northeast of the Palomar Airport. The General Plan recommends Low Density Residential (3-7 .d.u./acre). 2. Ponto, where the General Plan indicates Medium-Density Residential,, and the zoning is M and C-H. • , 3. The lands fronting on Pio Pico between Tamarack and Elm Avenue are zoned R-3, C-l and C-2. The General Plan recommendation is Low-Density Residential (3-7 d.u./acre). 4* State Street between the intersection of State Street and Carlsbad Blvd., south to the eastward extension of Cedar Avenue where the property Is zoned C-M (Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial), and the General Plan recommends highway related commercial uses, eg., drive-in business, automotive sales and service, commercial recreation, commercial services. Although the C-M zoning allows for the implementation of this land-use recommendation, the additional industrial uses of the zone exceed the land use recommendation. . ' 5. The property southerly of Oak Avenue to the line connecting Walnut Avenue between the A.T. and S.F. R/R right-of-way and Tyler Street, Is currently zoned H (Industrial). The General Plan . indicates-medium density residential (22-48 d.u./acre}.; After an analysts of' the five inconsistent areas, the Land Use Committee and the Planning Department offer the following recommendations for con- sideration: Area #1 - The General. Plan should be amended to reflect the zoning CM (Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial) currently stipulated on the north and northeast sides of Palomar Airport. Consideration should also be given to the fact that the City recently approved an applir- cation (Cabot, Cabot & Forbes) for a 335-f acre industrial park on the south side of the airport. C.P.O., the Airport Land Use Committee and San Diego County are currently developing studies which consider non-residential land uses on lands bordering the airport. The current land use recommendation of low-density .residential (2-7 d.u./ac.) is not a realistic land use consideration. Therefore, alternative land use which is non-residential in nature should be encouraged. Although the potential acreages involved will exceed the standard requirement for land committed to industrial use, the significance of the airport and its present and future function, the relationship of the topography surrounding the airport, adds to the logic of amending the General Plan. O Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City a General Plan amendment which would provide for Planned Industrial land uses, research activities, hotel/motel, restaurants. Area #2 - The Planning Commission has two alternatives if the City is to insure consistency of General Plans and Zoning: 1. Recommend and reclassify in zone from C-M to RD-M "(Residential ' Density-Multiple). The reclassification would allow the 'existing General Plan land use recommendation to be implemented. If the re- classification were to occur, potential non-conforming land uses would have five years in which to cease operation of the existing use. A majority of the land in the Ponto area is now developed by land uses which can only locate in the C-M or M (Industrial) Zones. Therefore, this course of action my be impractical. Only if the City were to make concessions by extending the time allowed for converting or ceasing the existing (non-conforming) land use from five years to a possible ten years would this alternative be feasible. The time extnesion would have to'be accomplished by Ordinance Amendment. 2. The Second Alternative is to amend the General Plan to be consistent with existing zoning. The amendment to Industrial land use should be accompanied by a policy which would encourage new developments occuring in the Ponto area to be less intense than the current uses. This process qouls encourage a natural transition to occur without causing unnecessary hardships to existing property owners. • The Planning Department is of the opinion that over the long term, 5-10. years, a reelassrf\cat\on would be the appropriate course of action. However, immediate land use requirements'iri the Ponto .area are minimal. The Lusk Residential application is the only active application wouth of Palomar Airport Road, west of the-A.T.&.S.F. Railroad Right-of-Way. If the Lusk appli- cation is an indication of future considerations, 5-10 years for transition is a realistic one., and therefore, a General Plan amendment would.not be un- realistic. If the General Plan is to be reviewed on a yearly basis, the Ponto Area should be closely monitored to insure proper direction. ' 'Area tf3: Pio Pico - from Tamarack Avenue to Elm Avenue. The Staff lias'recommended to the Planning Commission in' the past, that a General Plan amendment was needed. In. December of 1971, the Staff sent out questionnaires to residents in the general area soliciting their opinions on the problem of potential development. The zoning R-3 and General Plan recommendation of low-density (3-7 d.u./acre) did not match. Developmental programs were not including substantial residential units, but were providing for motel units (E-Z 8 and qnother now under construction). There are currently five (5) vacant parcels on Pio Pico which are zoned R-3, one of which, a freeway remnant, is less than 6000 sq. ft. The other -4 are on corners and would have the developmental potential for other than residential. The 1971 study indicated the potential for professional facilities, medical/dental offices and complimentary neighborhood commercial uses, i.e.(grocery store, cleaners). Property aj^L the easterly side of EurekajU: 2 fronting Holiday Park, 'is preclonnn^^iy zoned R-l, hov/ever, therelP-- 3 parcels'zonsd R-3. The Land Use Committee, consistent with" the;" ]971 Staff Report, recommend that: (a) The General Plan be amended for properties fronting Pio Pico : between Elm Avenue and Tamarack Avenue, to allow land uses which would include motels, professional facilities, medical/ dental offices, and appropriate freeway related commercial land uses. The land use amendment would indicate freeway related activities as defined by the Land! fee Element of the existing Revised General Plan. Land use on properties fronting Eureka Place would be amended to provide for low-medium density residential land uses (0-10 d.u./ac,) . (b) that lots now zoned'R-3 and fronting Eureka PI. between Basswood Avenue and Chestnut Avenue be rezoned to RD-M with a maximum allowable residential density of 10 d.u./acre. (c) that lots backing up to the previously mentioned areas be developed in accordance with P-C (Planned Community) concepts and allow densities of 7 d.u./acre. Area $4: The committee recommends the General Plan be changed to conform to existing zoning (C-M), and in addition that a Policy Plan be adopted which would require new developments to adhere to commercial service and commercial use rather than intensifying industrial uses. Hopefully, the policy would encourage a transition to occur and • ultimately'upgrade the general area. The General Plan Land Use recommendation would then indicate Commercial/Light Manufacturing with a policy provision for Land-Use transition.- Recent City Council and Planning Commission actions (Peachy Reese' request for rezoning R-P to C-M) have indicated the desire to limit an expansion of the C-M zone and institute- programs which would allow a transition to .commercial/professional use. Studies completed as a part of Inner-City Report (Duncan-Jones Consultants) also re- commended a transition program. • • Area #5: The recommendation to again amend the General Plan to meet the zoning provision (M) has a basis, existing development and the likelihood of immediate or near future change. 70%+ of the laud is currently being used for Industrial purposes: • " a. Aircraft parts manufacture b. United Parcel c. A-l Auto dismantling (CUP) d. San Diego Pipe and Supplies. • It can be assumed that the next phase of development will be other than the existing uses. There are also housing units scattered through the area. Limited access, small parcels (less than 1 acre) make it impractical to assume a continued Industrial posture. As in the case of State Street, the committee is recommending,a policy plan be prepared which would limit future development, and would encourage a more rapid transition. A Resolution of Intention approved by the City over two years ago changed several acres of M (Industrial) zoning to RD-M, in an effort to expedite the transition. However, more recent attempts have not been as successful. In summary, the Land Use Committee has taken positive action to bring the General Plan and Zoning into conformance with each other. Their actions were based upon developmental pressures on the one hand, but they also considered the stability of improvement and existing land use. Respectfully submitted, DDNALD A.nAGATEP,Planning Director o MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: " PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REQUIREMENTS RE: 'AB 1301 of theAccording to the Guidelines for Implementation California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, a . project requiring an E.I.R. should be defined as "the whole of an action, resulting in physical impact on the environ- ment, directly or ultimately," including "enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption of local General Plans or elements thereof." - The City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance provides the option that- the Planning Director may determine that a project will have a nonsignificant effect on the environment, thereby eliminating the consequent need for the preparation of a complete and comprehensive E.I.R. In evaluating the potential impacts of the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments designed to meet the requirements of AB-1301, staff feels that a determination of nonsignificanee is justifiable. However, since the State Guidelines for CEQA indicate that such an activity'is' within the range of environmental impact requirements, staff" feels that some discussion of environmental impacts of the proposed zoning and General Plan amendments is warranted. The following discussion, therefore, would attempt todo the following: - Meet the intent of CEQA by addressing t'he environ- mental impacts, alternatives ar.d mitigating features of the proposed amendments; ' *.- Justify the conclusion of nonsignificanee by showing how the proposed amendments will minimize the potential adverse environmental_impacts by strength- ening the tools of land use control and environ- mental protection (i.e. the General Plan and .ZoningOrdinance); - Provide additional evaluation and discussion of the proposed amendments. o_nm e n t a 1 Imp a c t s_ : The -a^rached chart describe_ _ -the proposed changes in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In all instances, evaluation of the amendments shov/s a ben?-. ficial net impact on the environment. B. Adverse Impacts; which Could Not Be Avoided: None. C. Mi t igation Measures: In a sense, the amendments themselves are mitigative measures which would protect the areas in" question from future adverse impacts, promote the general health, safety and vrelfare of the citizenry, and legitimize the City's recourse to protect environmental quality by conforming to AB-1301. D. A11 e rn a t i v e s: Briefly summarized and^ evaluated, the alternatives to the proposed amendments are: 1. No amendments: AB-1301 requirements. This would be in violation of 2. To change the zoning in areas #1, #3>'#4* and #5 - this alternative is undesirable because it would: a) Adversely affect existing (and proposed) .. land uses by increasing the potential" for conflicting land uses; . b) It would degrade higher land uses by imposing potentially offensive uses. 3- To change the General Plan" for the Ponto Area to conform to the' zoning: Application is now on file for resi- . ' dential development of this area. The land use committee felt that this area provided certain amenities -which would lend to residential or transitional uses. •E- Summary; The determination of a "nonsignificant" effect on the environment for the proposed General Plan 'and Zoning Amendments is justified because: - 1. The proposed amendments would have a net bene- ficial effect on the environment. . . 2. The proposed amendments vrould strengthen the City's recourse to maintain environmental quality. -2- COe-f. 5 CO CO .0. .04oft; PH o CO EHo<3 0, SM oft; M O -P Ofl o CO CD -H O PH 13H . ' PL, £-1 n ^5 E-t O<{ Pu Jg M EH W 5S EH £3 Oft EH M *: W E-t M ^ 15 •rl • Gi ^ "^j !> -P , • rH -H ' ' ' 3 M c~i O P! O 13 £: CO rH -P <!) 2. -p P; 03 o C vH P 0 • • O) h-3 £• CO i-H ,13 «3j t3 fn cd O M P! O -H -H O 0 6' £H ^ME +3 Sj Cc< cd -p co W -H 3 cd S 0 5 t3 CO '-pej & -H S in ff) £H H -H cd _fs0 -,p; co •<D p! H • O O Cd •H Pi CO -P O • A Cd -H CQ -P 13 "P 0 fi -H CQto '<u *o 3 tJ E| tJ 0 € Cd H<D o cd O O bO-rl X <" Pi fc. CO JH «rl -P £ CQ •tD.fi 0 pl fi Cd rH Td O rH rH Pi N3 CL< Cd -H ^O 0 X. .*!-) bO+a H fn P3 P! cd 0 0 -H P! .H fio p! as o -p O rH fn cd O N ft 0 fn -*> 6 hO >> Q -P! P! o o co Cd -H -H O 0 rH -P rH CQ P+ CQ O 0 Pt •H P-i ti3 f-H ><! cd COcd 0 • f-i o & ' * ^ T\co ,3 S o >P! -P i o ^o «H o P! <y • C5 fe:x_. CO CQ •P CM CO O CO ^ tJ -P -P P! cd f* K! -P O ?Hto 2: o _/ ^•^O ! ^^V^H -H- ^^ -p CQ':<u -p i^io .erf >>p<^l" • £• fn T3•H cd. p! . 0 cct !>s Pi rH rH 0 t! rH CQ P! cd f-i cd -H 0 -p . , K" Q P!13 CQ <b. . cd 0 "d . • ? . •' • J ^ •." • ' ' . • •, ^' ' ... •' " •• • .'. cd •.-•". 0 - CO 0 H cd •rl f^ -P CQ £} •CJpj •rl P!cd . r*H . 43 ^E • pc"| "*st* CJ Xcy i S ^Hk CQ rH -H ' ^V I 0 -H ?-. ' . ^ CQ Cd 0 ^H rH ^i -P • t) cd o •'..•' "H 0 Cd CQ >i -P ,£,' Cw 0 • • ' ' • H ' P? -P- 0 CQ . 1 rH 0 Pi 3 • Cd 'Cj O Cd h-5S-H-PStH . <$ f-r CQ cd M O 0 -P ^ -H O CH JM P! PI • f-i M . 0 cd -p' "fti ^3 ^ cj 03 W H O cd -d ^l 2; p> rH "-a cd -d P=^ O rH id O P! PQ ^ Cd 0 P-i »ri s. - •P S CQ ' fl ^ -SJ .<a i -H - f4 CO H -CJ t-H ' i^ p) cd 0 cd •3 -r) ri 6 -H-o PS 0 -P•H P; co PI CQ , 0 tj 0 ' • •H CQ C5 Pi 'O • cd 0 -HTJ • <D g ta PJ rrj ,Ej Q CO cd 0 EH O ^( rH CQ 0 2 0 !>> <M • SH -P • O ClOrH i-T P! cd P! CQ • - • . 'fe^ -H -H Cd fl • O 0 {-i H 0 • I> ^1 -p PU TJ • .-•'.. ._...,.. . . . . 14 P! . . ••- - ' •CJ ^ -H " - '00, • .;•a ^ tJ • rH .O 13 0 ?3 rH P! rCj ' • • O.H cd CQ ' ^: cd -H , 0 rH fi 09 £ ,0 • ... cd 0 O cd rH to N -P. ' • . CW 2 1 CQ .S 0 cdH -P Ocd o 0 >» ^ r, 0 & rH Cd . 0 H -P- +3 ......fi CM pj 0 . co 0 P! 0 ,cj •O fH -H fn -P *-P -P1 co fi -d P> CO pj p)fc 0 cd -p . 0 ^ CQ rH -P ^ 0 >> 0 cd ^! • EH ft O 0 S £ ' - . • . . •*.••' ... . . . " • • .. :'•'-•''''. ' ' ' . • » . . ' . ' '• ... _ . . .. ' ' ': • • ' • V ' . . '• . • - •••.'•. ' . ' . - * "..'-. • • - ' • •' . * " • •• ••.'.., • • ' •••':'." « • " ''•'".'. . . - ' * •'"••• •*'•:' .-•/..' . ' • ' ' o January 4, 1974 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AB-1301 - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PONTO (AREA NO. 2.) The Planning Commission continued the subject recommendation from its regularly scheduled meeting of December 11, 1973 for the purposes of advertizing a proposed General Plan Amendment in addition to a proposed rezoning. The General Plan Land Use Committee made a recommendation to insure AB-1301 conformity, by reclassifying the existing Heavy Commercial-Limi ted Industrial (C-M) and Industrial (M) zones to Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) zone. The Committee decision was based upon: (1) the existing General Plan Land Use designation of medium density residential (22-47 d.u./acre): (2) the desire to encourage transition from industrial uses along the coast line to residential land uses. During public hearings, residents and property owners expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed rezoning indicating that substantial investment had been made on property and they didn't feel the City had the right to reclassify when opposition from affected individuals was evident. The property owners also had questions relating to existing and future uses once the rezoning had been accomplished. Section 21.48.060 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code provides a property owner 35-40 years maximum (depending on building construction) during which to remove or alter existing structures and land uses. Therefore, the property owners in the Ponto area would be allowed 35 years to conform to the uses permitted in the RD-M or other zone, and to amortize their investments. The Planning Commission indicated an alternative to the proposed rezoning.- Amend the General Plan to land uses which are less intense than those now allowed by industrial zoning, i.e., commercial, multi-family combination, and also rezone portions of the subject property to Commercial instead of the existing C-M or M zone. This alternative would allow for higher density residential activities as well as allow for supportive commercial service. The Staff is of the opinion that prior to making a definitive land use or zoning decision for Ponto, adequate land use analysis be made for commercial, multiple- family residential uses. This analysis would be made in conjunction with the land- use revision to the General Plan now under way. o However, if the Commission so desires, the General Plan should be amended to reflect the desired commercial, residential land uses, simultaneously requesting the Staff to conduct appropriate land use/zoning studies. A second course of action is to recommend to the City Council an amendment to the General Plan reflecting Commercial/Industrial land use instead of the medium density residential (22-47 •d.'u./acre) land use and instruct staff to initiate a program which will ultimately lead to less intense industrial uses and would encourage more appropriate Ocean front development. Recornmendatton.: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council a General Plan Tand use amendment from medium density residential (22-47 d^.u./acre) to commercial-industrial land use and request the City Council to initiate appropriate studies which would lead to the development of less intense commercial/ industrial land use and would encourage land use which is more compatible with a identified natural resource, the beach and Pacific Ocean. DONALD A. ABATER, Planning Director -2- o o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1032 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM M (INDUSTRIAL) AND C-M (HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO RD-M (RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MUL- TIPLE), THUS ENSURING CONSISTENCY OF THE ZONING WITH THE LAND USE COMMITMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, FOR AREA NO. 2, KNOWN AS THE PONTO AREA. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 8th day January, 1974, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amending the Land Use portion of the General Plan to change the Land Use commitment from medium density residential to light industrial to comply with State Law, 12 which requires consistency of Land Use recommendations and 13 zoning for Area No. 2 known as the Ponto Area, and more 14 particularly described as: 15 A Portion of Lot 4, Section 29, T12S, R4W, 16 San Diego County Assessor's Parcel No. 4, 5, 6, 17 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 21, 24-30, 34 and 35 of 18 Book 214, Page 16. 19 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did also hold a Public 20 Hearing to consider a change of Zone from M (Industrial) and 21 C-M (Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial) to RD-M(Residential- 22|Multiple) with 21 to 47 dwelling units per acre, for Area No. 2 23 known as the Ponto Area, as shown on Exhibit "A" attached; and, 24 WHEREAS, either action has met the requirements of the 25 pity of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972 26 |nd has been declared to have a "Non-Significant" impact on the 27 enviornment. 28 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission upon hearing and consider- 29 30 31 32 ing the testimony and arguments of all persons who desired to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist which require that the proposed Land Use Ammendment not occur and that the proposed rezoning is o 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 necessary to carry out the provisions and general purpose of Title 2: 1. Would be in conformance with the General Plan Commitment. 2. Would bring this area into conformance with the uses in the surrounding areas with regard to rezoning 3. This rezoning would meet the intent of Assembly Bill 1301. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, that it does recommend to the City Council that the proposed Land Use Amtnendment not be approved but that an ammendment to Title 21 for a change of Zone from M and C-M to RD-M be approved for the above described area. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 8th day of January, 1974, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Dominguez, Forman, Jose, Caslet, Wrench NOES: Commissioner Little ABSENT: Commissioner Palmateer. E, w. DOMINGUEZ, Chairman ATTEST: DOMLDA. AGATEP, Secretary .EXHIBIT "A" LEGEND AUTO WRECKING. DOC KENNELS, \ REFUSE TRUCKS* SERVICE . YARD ' ~r. CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT APPLICANT A.8.1301 REQUIREMENTS/PER GEN. PLAN CASE NO AREA flJO 2 (EXISTING LAND USE DATE NOV 3 O.I 973 . ' - EXHIBIT "A"