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"