HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-03-19; City Council; 3034; Consideration of Environmental Impact ReportT H L*CITY O F CARLSBAD,
U,'—-.
CALIFORNIA
Agenda Bill No.^f^Y"Date: March 19. 1Q74. '"
•Referred To : .City Council
Subject: Consideration nf an Fnvi vnnmon ta 1 Fmn^r-H DQnn^bmitt^-J?^- ,
TABLED: *
creation of the.Design .Review Zone District,
and the establishment of a policy regarding development
in the Civic Center area. Case Nos. C-10 and ZCA-56
.ing Comm.
Statement of the
CENTER
Matter
OVERLAY)
As a result of
Center prepared ,b,y the Planning Department
does recommend the following:
a special study on tne Civic
sta'ff, the Planning Commission
1 By Resolution No. 1048 , dated February 26, 1974, the Planning
Commission does recommend that the City Council create the Design
Review Zone District to be- utilized in- the Civic Center' area as
outlined In Exhibit A-Case No. ICA-56 . • As a part of this re-
commendation the Planning Commission requests that the City Council
certify. E.I .R. No. C-10.
By Resolution No. 1Q4? ,
Commission does recommend
establish development standards
dated February 26, 1974, the Planning
that the City Council adapt a'policy co
for the Civic Center are'a.
Exhibit
1.
• 2.
3
4,
5
Staff Report for January 8, 1974
Staff Report .for February 26, 1974
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Memorandum from City Manager dated March 14, 1973.
1047
staff Recommendations to the 'City Manager
That the City Council implement the recommendations of the
Planning Commiss-ion
mm
AS No.Sate- March 19, 1974
City Manager's Racommendatj.on
Council'Action
3-19-74 It was agreed this matter be tabled, as the matter was prematurely
advertised. .
— 2 —
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT FOR
JANUARY 8, 1974
TO: .PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT ON: SPECIAL STUDY FOR THE CIVIC CENTER AREA
I- BACKGROUND-PURPOSE
The Planning Commission directed the planning staff in September
to prepare a special study on a possible overlay zone and rezoning
of the properties in the vicinity of the Civic Center. Stimulus for
the special study came in part from several applications for commer-
cial and professional rezonings in an area which, prior to construc-
tion of the Civic Center complex, was exclusively single family
residential.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CIVIC CENTER OVERLAY ZONE
A. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action^
1. Project Description: The proposed action is to design
an overlay zone and change of zone to further define land
uses which, will be compatible with the Civic Center area.
The study area includes that area from one lot north of Laguna
Drive to approximately one lot north of Elm Avenue and from
the freeway east to Highland Drive. Current zoning and land
use of the project area is shown on exhibits A and B. The
proposed overlay zone is shown on exhibit c.
2. Environmental Setting Without the Project: Without the
project, the land use in the Civic Center region is guided
solely by zoning and the General Plan designation of low
density residential use, with from 2-7 d.u. per net acre.
A crucial land use problem has arisen because of the location
of the Civic Center. Governmental centers are ideally
located in the hob of business and professional activities
of a city. The Carlsbad Civic Center is located on the
fringe of the downtown area, on the east side of Interstate 5,
with several commercial parcels located adjacent to the
freeway (a service station, the Uayside Inn'). The remainder
of the study area is either existing single family, residen-
tial, governmental, or proposed office/professional type uses.
3. Environmental Impacts: : The environmental impacts of
the project will emanate from the conversion of Elm
Avenue from low density residential use to office/
professional, or medium density residential use. Impacts
which can be expected are as follows:
a. Increased traffic on ElmAvenue east of the freeway
b. Increased noise levels from traffic
c. Alteration of water flow and percolation as a result
of the increase in impenetrable surfaces which will
accompany structures and paved parking areas.
d. The aesthetic impact of office/professional structures
or medium density residetnial structures on adjacent
single family residential area.
e. The detraction from office/professional uses in the
; downtown area.-
4. Environmental Impacts Which 'Cannot be Avoided
a. Those associated with automobile traffic: As long
as private cars will be used to provide transporta-
tion to the uses anticipated with the rezoning/
overlay,the associated impacts of increased auto-
mobile emissions, paved parking areas, increased
traffic and noise will be unavoidable.
5. Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Impact
a. The overlay zone should include the requirement that
the property lines of governmental , or office/pro-
fessional uses fronting on residential property
shall be:
(1) Bordered by an attract!vesvtew obscuring
masonry wall which is acceptable to the
Planning Director
(2) Landscaped with a minimum 10' buffer of trees
or bushes adjacent to the wall. This buffer
shall not be included as part of the required
parking area landscaping.
b. In order to preserve the residential character of
Oak Avenue, all access/egress to property fronting
on the south side of Elm Avenue shall be limited
to Elm Avenue.
c. Parking areas shall be located to the rear of the
properties along Elm in order to minimize the visual
impact from Elm Avenue, and assure that structures
will be located away from residential areas.
-2-
d. Fc,~ i Titles allowed in the Civ.- Center area will
be types which do not generate large amounts of
traffic, . •
e. Facilities allowed in the R-P al.ong the south side
of Elm Avenue will be restricted to those which are
ancillary to the Civic Center (e.g., law offices,
engineering or planning firms, contractors offices,
architects, real estate brokers, financial centers).
This will minimize traffic generated by those users
who frequently have business in City Hall.
f. Buildings along Elm Avenue shall be low profile
with rough aggregate/masonry treatment, which would
harmonize with the contemporary style of the Civic
Center complex. Landscaping shall be extensive,
utilizing earth mounds and screening vegetation.
B. Alternatives to the Proposed Overlay
1. No overlay zone - Existing Zoning: Single family resi-
dential use is less than optimum along Elm Avenue because
. of traffic activity? noise and aesthetic impacts associated
with the public facilities and commercial properties.
Without the overlay zone, there are no assurances for
buffering single family residences from adverse impacts.
2. No overlay zone - Commercial Zoning: Further commercial
zoning along Elm north of 1-5 is not desirable because:
(1) Commercial zoning would detract from the CBD
(2) Such zoning would not be necessary for the
ancillary uses suggested
(3) Commercial zoning allows more intensive uses
and would increase the adverse effect on ad-
jacent residences.
3. No overlay zone - Residential/Professional Zoning: The
R-P zoning without the overlay zone, does not define
whether residential or professional use is desirable.
There would be no special controls for design^land-
scaping, moderate intensity uses, and ancillary facilities,
4. No overlay zone - Civic Center Expansion Area to. be Kept
as Single Family Residential: The Civic Center complex
was originally planned for expansion in two areas: along
the north side of Laguna Drive and adjacent to the fire
station to the east on Elm Avenue. The existing facility
is already operating beyond capacity and some form of
expansion would seem inevitable at this point. Expansion
of the present site would seem to be logical because of
the need for coordination of municipal services and inter-
dependence of the various agencies.
5. Special Civic Center Zone - A special zone classification
for_properties near the Civic Center would not allow as
strict controls on specific uses as the proposed underlying
zone combined with the design review. Varying intensities
cannot be allocated through a singular zone designation.
-3- .
C. Relationship Between Local Snort-term Use and Long-term
Productivity: The Civic Center study area has been subject
to several recent requests for commercial zoning. The short
term effect of the proposed overlay zone would be to limit
commercial zoning to the present zoning near the freeway on
the south side of Elm. The long term effect would, essen-
tially, be to diminish the intensity of uses as they go
east on Elm. Another long term effect would be to ensure
that the low density residential areas surrounding the
study area would be protected from the adverse impacts
associated with more intensive uses (i.e., traffic, noise,
congestion, visual impact).
D. Any Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved
in The Proposed Action Should ItBe Implemented: The overlay
zone would make a commitment to maintaining the low density
residential character of the area east of the freeway. Staff
believes that this commitment is the most beneficial alter-
native available in maintaining environmental quality in the
area. In that,the area is presently substantially developed
and that it is heavily impacted by the freeway, the critical environmental
impacts are the cumulative effects of land use commitments in this area.
E. Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Activity: Given the
limited area which is directly affected by the overlay zone,
the growth inducing impact would be negligible. Single
family residences might be eliminated by Civic Center ex-
pansion, but this would appear to be offset by the area to
be designated as medium density residential.
F. Summary: Environmentally, this study will have little impact.
The true impacts will occur as a result of the ultimate
development. Because of the existence of the Civic Center,
the freeway, the existence of the circulation system, and
the existing development, staff believes that the range of
impacts is limited to the visual impact of the ultimate
development and increased traffic.
III. SPECIAL STUDY
»
Staff feels that special land use controls are necessary for the
Civic Center area for several reasons. First, the very presence
of the Civic Center complex has contributed to pressures to
extend commercial and professional uses east of the freeway.
Governmental centers have traditionally been located at the center
of business and commercial activity. To allow the Carlsbad
Civic Center to fall into this pattern would effect the economic
viability of the existing CBD and negatively impact the single
family residential neighborhoods.
-4-
Another source of pressure for raore intensive uses in the
Civic Center area is its accessibility from 1-5 and Elm
Avenue. If left to piecemeal rezonings east of the freeway,
an extension of the Elm Avenue strip commercial could result.
Given these pressures, staff established a series of values and
assumptions on which the proposed zone changes and overlay zone
are based:
* The 1-5 freeway is the natural boundary for the downtown
area
* The single family residential character of the area east of
1-5 should be preserved and protected.
* Land uses should decrease in their intensity as they move
east along Elm Avenue
* The Civic Center complex is already operating beyond capacity
and room for expansion should be considered
* Any commercial and professional type uses proposed on the
south side of Elm should be low profile and ancillary to
the Civic Center
* Elm Avenue is not a desirable street for single family
residential use because of traffic volume and the impact of
commercial and governmental uses
* Design controls are necessary to preserve the character of
the area and ensure architectural harmony
* Landscaping is needed to buffer more intensive uses
* The substantial commitment of public funds for the development
of the Civic Center does require that special controls be
implemented to guarantee compatibility of development adjacent
to the Civic Center.
Transformed into conceptual form, these values are represented on
Exhibit C (Civic Center Overlay Zone). There are two areas,
presently in single family use, which have been designated as
Civic Center expansion area. The first of these is northern
side of Laguna Drive adjacent to the Civic Center. When the
Civic Center was originally designed, -this area was designated
for future expansion. Assuming that expansion would best be
carried out contiguous to the existing facility, this area
appears to be the logical choice for Civic Center expansion. It
is adjacent to the existing complex and is not separated by a
major roadway. Also, Laguna could be converted to a cul de sac
to prevent any traffic impact on residential areas.
-5-
The second expansion area is adjacent to the existing fire
station on the south, side of Elm Avenue. This expansion area
is for a proposed public safety complex (police station, fire
station, and civil defense).
The parcels currently zoned commercial at the corner of Elm and
Pio Pico would maintain that designation. The remaining parcels
have been suggested for "transitional" use, i.e., uses of
decreasing intensity proceeding east on Elm.
The overlay zone superimposes land use controls which address
the unique land use (PROBLEMS) of the Civic Center area. These
controls are aimed at:
1. Limiting intensity and specific allowable uses
2. Requiring landscaping buffer for all uses within the
study area abutting single family residences
3. Establishing design controls.
In order to implement these necessary controls, staff is recom-
mending that three actions be taken.
1. First, 1s the creation and implementation of a design
review zone. This would be applied to all the property
within the study area. The proposed zone is as follows:
COMBINATION DISTRICT - D DESIGN REVIEW
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 administrative centers and the numerous parks, schools
and similar public and quasi-public facilities, by reviewing 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 and architectural quality
of areas of existing or potential governmental, cultural, his-
torical, architectural, scenic, or tourist interest.
To preserve the high quality of existing residential areas
surrounding the Civic Center.
Principal Uses and Structure Permitted: The principal uses
and structures permitted shall be as permitted in the underlying
zone if sufficient justification can be provided and approved
by the Planning Commission and City Council that such uses are
compatible with and ancillary to the Ci<Hc Center, parks, schools
or similar public and quasi-public facilities in the area.
-6-
Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted: As permitted in
the underlying zone.
Transitional Uses and Structures Permitted: As permitted in
the underlyi ng zone.
Uses and Structures Permitted by Conditional Use Permit
Subject to Approval by the CommissiorT: As permi tted in the
underlying zone.
Development Standards:
Lot area, minimum - as required in the underlying zone.
Lot area per dwelling unit, minimum - As required in the
underlying zone.
Lot width, minimum - As required in the underlying zone.
Front yard, minimum - 10 feet or as required in the underlying
zone, whichever is greater. All required front yards shall be
landscaped.
Side yard, minimum - 10 feet or as required in the underlying
zone, whichever is greater. All required side yards abutting
streets shall be landscaped.
Rear yard, minimum - As required in the underlying zone.
Building bulk and; height limits - As required in the underlying
zone.
Lot coverage, maximum - Reserved.
Parking, off-street - As required in the underlying zone.
Signs, onsite - As required in the underlying zone except as
further modified by the following specifications for identification
signs in the non-residential zones:
Number, maximum for each building - 1
Area - 1.5 square foot of sign area for each one foot of
building floor area
Area, maximum, for a single face sigh - 40 square feet
All signs shall be wall signs.
Post signs and roof signs are not permitted.
Signs may be lighted but shall not be flashing.
All onsite signs shall be subject to the approval of the
Planning Commission.
Special Conditions and 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 in single-family residential zones,
unless plans, elevations and proposed uses and signs for buildings
or structures or alterations thereto have been approved by the
Planning Commission.
-7-
Site Plan Information Required to be submitted to the
Planning Commission. Applications for all building permits
concerning property within this classification shall not be
processed until an application for a precise plan is con-
sidered and approved by tfee Planning Commission. An application
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission containing a plot
plan showing the following information, where applicable:
Name and address 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 has written
permission of the owner or owners to make such appli-
cation; or, Is or will be the plaintiff in an action
in eminent domain to acquire the premises involved,
or any portion thereof; or, In the case of a public
agency, is negotiating to acquire a portion of the
property involved.
Location of property involved (address or vicinity)
Legal description of property.
Proposed facility or use and/or range of uses.
The lot dimensions.
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 internal circulation
system.
Access, pedestrian, vehicular, and service, points of ingress
and egress, and driveway locations and dimensions.
Signs and their location, size and height.
-8-
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 collection areas.
2. In order to further implement the Design Review Zone,
staff would recommend that the Planning Commission
adopt the following policy which establishes design
standards to be followed:
p.c. POLICY NO. ^^
WHEREAS, the P.C. believes that the substantial commitment by
the Public in the creation of the Civic Center requires that adjacent
development be compatible with this commitment; and
WHEREAS, the P.C. has recommended and the City Council has
created a Design Review Zone District to be applied to the Civic
Center area; and
WHEREAS, the P.C. believes that it would be of benefit to future
developers in the Civic Center area to have some design standards to
guide any development that might occur in the Civic Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the P.C. of the City of Carlsbad
that it does hereby adopt the following standards of development for
that area known"as the "Civic Center Area":
1. The consolidation and maximization of area to be
developed shall be encouraged.
2. The architectural design of any development shall
be of low profile and harmonious with the Civic
Center complex. Buildings shall be designed with
exteriors utilizing subdued earthtones and rough
aggregate masonry materials. The emphasis shall
be placed upon the utilization of natural materials
and compatibility of any development to the terrain
and surrounding land uses.
3. Along all property lines abutting the extremeties of
the Civic Center study area there shall be provided
a wall and landscape system which will adequately
buffer the adjacent single family residential develop-
ment. Said landscape area shall be a minimum of 10 ft,
in width and moundings shall be implemented wherever
possible.
-9-
(4.) For all new development along Elm Avenue, the design
of the project shall be such that the parking is
located to the rear of the property. Every effort
shall be made to limit the number of access points
to Elm Avenue.
(5.) Those areas designated appropriate for commercial
and/or professional office shall limit uses to those
which are considered ancillary to tire Civic Centercomplex.
(6.) No direct access shall be permitted to Oak Avenue.
(7.) Any development shall conform to all P.C. and C.C.
policies regarding development.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the P.C. of the City of Carlsbad this the
_day of ____> 1974, by the following vote, to wit:
3. Vfhen staff began the initial consideration of the Civic
Center; we were of the opinion that by the implementation
of an overlay zone compatibility of development would be
guaranteed. However, as the study progressed it became
apparent that good planning practices dictate that
specific land use commitments should occur so that all the
parameters for development within the Civic Center area could
be provided. Therefore, staff has prepared some alter-
native land use designations for those properties which
are most influenced by the Civic Center activity. It
is the opinion of the staff that other land beyond these
parcels could remain unaffected by the Civic Center if
the proposed overlay zone and P.C. Policy were implemented.
The two areas of potential rezoning are the two parcels
east of Elm Avenue south of the City Fire Station and
those parcels north of the Fire Station on both sides of
Elm Avenue.
Exhibits D and E represent the two alternatives proposed for
these properties.
The first alternative indicates that:
1. That two lots west of the fire station would be desig-
nated R-P.
2. That property east of the Civic Center and north of Elm
Avenue and that portion of the Ellsworth property adjacent
to Elm Avenue would be designated RD-M at 10 d.u.'s per acre.
The second alternative indicates that:
1. Those two lots west of the fire;station be designated
C-l (neighborhood commercial).
-10-
2. That property east 'of the Civic Center and north
of Elm Avenue and that portion of the Ellsworth
property adjacent to Elm Avenue, would be designated
R-P.
It is felt that either of these alternatives would make for a
smooth transition from the Civic Center activity to the adjacent
single family residential development. Staff believes that the
Ellsworth property is no't appropriate for a more intense commercial
activity because such an allocation would seem to ex-tend the impact
of the Civic Center further east along Elm Avenue. With a RD-M or
R-P designation of this property, the transition from the Civic Center
activity to single family residential could occur within the Ellsworth
property.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
This study in its present state is the result of the evaluation
of the Civic Center that has occurred in a number of forms-over the
last five years. If the Planning Commission concurs with some or
all the recommendations outlined herein, staff would recommend that
the Planning Commission initiate a public hearing on February 12,1974
to consider acceptance of the final EIR, adoption of the Design Review
overlay zone, adoption of P.C. Policy No. 12, and possible rezonings
of specific properties in the Civic Center area to conform to one of
the alternatives shown on Exhibit D or E.
All property owners within the Civic Center will be notified of your
consideration of this special study and their input may require further
elaboration on certain areas of this report.
In addition, the public hearing on February 12, 1974, will permit
further public input.
- 11 -
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT FOR
February 26, 1974
PLANNING COMMISSION
TO:
REPORT ON: CONSIDERATION OF CIVIC CENTER STUDY
CONSIDERATION OF ZONE CODE AMENDMENT.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED POLICY
CASE NOS. C-1Q
2CA-56
Policy No. 12
I. These matters were considered and continued at the
Planning Commission Meeting of February 13, 1974. At said
meeting, the Planning.Commission did act upon the E.I.R. pre-
pared by staff and then action was to recommend to the City
Council that they certify the E.I.R. These three items were
continued to permit staff to review all the city records to
see if the precise boundaries of the potential civic center
expansion area could be established. After review of said
records,staff found that:
1. Beginning with the first General Plan for
Carlsbad in 1957 entitled, "Community Develop-
ment Plan,"and consistently up to the present,
those lots just north of Laguna Drive have
been indicated as potential expansion area.
The reports and studies leading to the adoption
. of the latest General Plan which ocurred from
v 1964-1967 did discuss the present civic center
site and the adopted land use map does depict
the civic center as extending northerly of
Stratford Lane. However, the text of the
adoptive General Plan indicates the civic center
area as being bounded by Pio Pico, Elmwood Avenue
and both s.ides of Laguna Drive (see attached).
If the public were just to view the land use map,
they could construe that the ultimate civic center
area would extend northerly along Elmwood Avenue.
This is a problem that results from using such a
large scale base map as the land use map.
2. In early 1972, a moritorium on building in the
civic center area was established by the City
Council and staff was directed to prepare a study
and report regarding the civic center area land
use, by July 1, 1972. Several alternatives were
evaluated by staff, and the Planning Commission
did review.one alternative which showed the
potential expansion areas as shown in the attach-
ments of this staff report. No official action
-1-
•was taken was taken on this study by the City
Council.
While the determination of any expansion of the,
civic center can only be addressed after a precise
space analysis, staff deemed it appropriate to
establish as a part of this study those areas
into which expansion could occur. The size and
precise location of the expansion has yet to be
determined. All the indications are that any
expansion onto the property north of Laguna Drive
would be in the form of parking areas with any build-
ing expansion occurring within the present civic
center complex. If expansion were to occur adjacen-t
to the Fire Station in the form of a police complex,
the existing civic center buildings would have
available floor area to house some additional
personnel. Thus, the space needs could be met in
several ways and it was not the purpose of this
study to depict precisely the amount and location
of any expansion, other than to indicate generally
those areas which have previously shown as expansion
areas .
Rather than to cloud the issue, the Planning Commission
may want to ignore the potential expansion areas
for this civic center and to just consider the
appropriate land use designation for these areas.
An R-l designation for both areas is considered
appropriate for the following reasons:
1. The present civic center activity is oriented
such that it does not greatly effect these
areas.
2. The property is of sufficient size to
permit development and still be able to
mitigate the impacts of the freeway, Pio
Pico, and Elm Avenue. No justification
seems apparent to allow the conversion
of this property along the north side of
Laguna Drive ana the back portion of the
lots along Oak Avenue to a more intense
activity such as multiple residential or
professional office. Generally the
adverse impact of Pio Pico, the Freeway,
and Elm Avenue appear to be mitigated by
the resulting adverse impact of such
development on the adjacent established
single family development.
11. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
A. , On the E.I.R., the Planning Commission has already
-2-
made a recommendation on the E.I.R. No further
action is required on this item.
B. ON THE CIVIC CENTER STUDY: That it be moved that the
Planning Commission initiate a Resolution of Intention
to hold a public hearing on April 9, 1974 to consider
a General Plan Amendment to consider implementation
of Alteration No. 2 which shows the transitional lots
as either R-P or C-l. Justification is based upon the
fact that these land use designations do adequately
mitigate the impacts of the civic center activity to
the adjacent established residential areas.
C* On ZCA-56 ;T.hat it be moved that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council that the Design Review
Combination District be created to be utilized in the
civic center area. In addition, that the Planning
Commission direct the staff to prepare a program
for holding public hearings to establish the " D
Combination District" on those properties within the
civic center area. Said program is to be presented
to the Planning Commission upon the creation of this
zone district by the City Council.
D- ON THE PROPOSED POLICY; That it be moved that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
that they adopt a policy dealing with development
standards for property within the civic center, area.
III. DISCUSSION OF THE SPECIAL STUDY
A. Staff.feels that special land use controls are
necessary for the Civic Center area fro several
reasons. First, the very presence of the Civic
Center complex has contributed to pressures to extend
commercial and professional u-ses east of the freeway.
Governmental centers have traditionally been located
at the center of business and commercial activity. To
allow the Carlsba.d Civic Center to fall into this pattern
would effect the economic viability of the existing
CBD arid negatively impact the single family residential
neighborhoods.
Another source of pressure for more intensive uses
in the Civic Center area is its accessibility from
1-5 and Elm Avenue. If left to piecemeal rezonings
east of the freeway, an extension of the Elm Avenue
strip commercial could result.
Given these pressures, Staff established a series of
values and assumptions on which the proposed zone
changes and overlay zone are based:
* The 1-5 freeway is the natural boundary for the
downtown area.
-3-
* The single family residential character of
the area east of 1-5 should be preserved and
protected.
* Land uses should decrease in their intensity
as they move east along Elm Avenue.
* The Civic Center complex is already operating
beyond capacity and room for expansion should
be considered.
* Elm Avenue is not a desirable street for single
family residential use because of traffic
volume and the impact of commercial and govern-
mental uses.
* Design controls are necessary to preserve the
character of the area and ensure archi-
tectural, harmony.
* Landscaping is needed to buffer more intensive
uses.
* The substantial commitment of public funds for
the development of the Civic Center does require
that special controls be implemented to guarantee
compatibility of development adjacent to the
Civic Center
Transformed into conceptual form, these values are
represented on Exhibit C (Civic Center Overlay
Zone). There are two areas, presently in single
family use, which have been designated as Civic
Center expansion area. The first of these is
northern side of Laguna Drive adjacent to the
Civic Center. When the "Civic Center was originally
designed, this area was designated for future ex-
pansion. Assuming that expansion would best be
carried out contiguous to the existing facility,
this area appears to be the logical choice for
Civic Center expansion. It is adjacent to the
existing complex and is not separated by a major
roadway. Also, Laguna could be converted to a cul
de sac to prevent any traffic impact on residential
areas.
The second expansion area is adjacent to the
existing fire station on the south side of Elm
Avenue. This expansion area is for a proposed
public safety complex (police station, fire station,
and civil defense.)
.4.
.The parcels currently zoned commercial at the
corner of Elm and Pio Pico would maintain that
designation. The remaining parcels have been
suggested for "transitional" use, i.e., uses
of decreasing intensity proceeding east on Elm.
The overlay zone superimposes land use controls
which address the unique land use (PROBLEMS) of
the Civic Center area. These controls are aimed
at:
1. First, is the creation and implementation
of a design review zone. This would be
applied to all the property within the
study area. The proposed zone is outlined
below.
2. In order to further implement the Design
Review Zone, staff would recommend that
the Planning Commission adopt the following
policy which establishes design standards
to be followed.
3. When staff began the initial consideration
of the Civic Center; we were of the opinion
that by the implementation of an overlay
zone compatibility of development would
be guaranteed. However, as the study
progressed it became apparent that .good
planning practices dictate that specific
land use commitments should occur so that
all the parameters for development within
the Civic Center area could be provided.
Therefore, staff has prepared some alternatives
land use designations for those properties
which are most influenced by the Civic Center
activity. It is the opinion of the staff that
other land beyond these parcels could remain
unaffected by the Civic Center if the pro-
posed overlay zone and P.C. Policy were
implemented. The two areas of potential
rezoning are the two parcels east of Elm
Avenue south of the City Fire Station and
those parcels north of the Fire Station on
both sides of Elm Avenue,
Exhibits D and E represent the two alternatives pro-
posed for these properties.
The first alternative indicates that:
1. That two lots west of the fire station be
designated R-p (.professional office)
and two lots west designated RD-M on both
sides of Elm Avenue
-5-
. • 2. That property .\west of" the Fire Station would
be designated C-l, and that property
north of Elm Avenue and that portion of
the Ellsworth property adjacent to Elm
Avenue would be designated R-P.
It is felt that either of these alternatives would
make for a smooth transition from the Civic
Center activity to the adjacent single family
residential development. Staff believes that the
Ellsworth property is not appropriate for a more
intense commercial activity because such an
allocation would seem to extend the impact of
the Civic Center further along Elm Avenue. With
a RD-M or R-P designation of this property, the
transition from the Civic Center activity to
single family residential could occur within
the Ellsworth property.
DISCUSSION OF ZCA-56: In order to establish the
Design Review Combination District, it is re-
commended that the Planning Commission recommend
that the City Council adopt the following Ordinance:
-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
32
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1047
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF A POLICY
ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE
CIVIC CENTER AREA.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes that the substantial
commitment by the Public in the creation of the Civic Center re-
quires that adjacent development to compatible with this commitment;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning. Commission has recommended and the City
Council Fras created a Design Review Zone District, which is suitable
for application .to the Civic^Center area.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes that it would be of
benefit to future developers in the Civic Center area to have
some design standards to guide any development that might occur
in the Civic Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Carlsbad that it does recommend to the City Council tha-
the following standards be adopted for development in that area
known as the "Civic Center Area":
1. The consolidation-of small parcels, and maximiza-
tion of laVge areas to be developed, shall be encouraged.
(dJL
2. The architectural design of any development
shall be of low profile and harmonious with
the Civic Center complex. Buildings shall
be designed with exteriors utilizing subdued
eartKtones and rough aggregate masonry
materials. The emphasis shall be placed upon
the utilization of natural materials and com-
patibility of any development to the terrain
and surrounding land uses.
3. Along all property lines abutting the ex-
tremeties of the Civic Center study area
there shall be provided a wall and landscape
system which will adequately buffer the
adjacent single family residential develop-
ment. Said landscape area shall be a minimum
, of 10 ft. in width and moundings shall be30 implemented wherever possible.
31 1 " For all new development along Elm Avenue,
the design of the project shall be such
that the parking is located to the rear.
ancillary to the Civic Center complex.
5
6. No direct access shall be permitted to Oak Avenue
and C.C. policies regarding development.
8
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the P.C. of the City of Carlsbad this the
26th day of February, 1274, by the following vote, to wit:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
of the property. Every effort shall be made
to limit the number of access points to Elm
Avenue..
Those areas designated appropriate for
commercial and/or professional office shall
limit uses to those which are considered -
on Highland Drive.
7. Any development shall conform to all P.C.
AYES: Commissioners Little, Forman, Casler, Wrench,
Domi nguez and Jose
NOES: None .
MARY CASLER
Chai rman
ATTEST:
DUNALD A. AGATEP,23 Secretary
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
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
- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1048
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL, THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 21
OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING THE DESIGN
REVIEW ZONE. CASE NO. ZCA-56
WHEREAS, pursuant to provisions of Title 21 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad,
California did hold a duly noticed Public Hearing on January 8,
1974 and continued said Public Hearing to February 13, 1974, and
then to February 25, 1974, to consider Amendments to Title 21
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, to create the Design Review Zone
and;
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing held on the 26th of February,
1974, upon hearing testimony, and arguments if any, of all persons
wishing to speak, the Commission did find the following facts and
reasons to exist which make the approval of this Amendment appro-
| priate:
1. To insure compatibility of development with the
civic center and other public institutions.
WHEREAS, as a part of this action the Planning Commission
does recommend that the City Council certify the E.I.R. (Case No.
C-10) as complying to the City of Carlsbad Environmental Guide-
lines, and,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby recommend to the
City Council an Amendment to Title 21 as outlined in Exhibit "A",
attached hereto, and made a part hereof, be enacted into law, for
the reasons stated above.
NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED staff is directed, that if the
City Council elects, to create the Design Review Zone District,
to prepare a program for holding public hearings to establish said
zone designation on those properties within the civic center area.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
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
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission, held on the 26th day of
February, 1974, by the following vote, to wit;
AYES: Commissioners Little, Forman, Casler, Wranch,
Dominguez and Jose
NOES: None
MARY CASLER
Chairman
ATTEST:
DONALD A. AGATEP,
Secretary