The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1981-01-20; City Council; 6490; General Plan Land Use Element AmendmentsCITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO: INITIAL DEPT. HD. DATE: DEPARTMENT: JANUARY 20. 1981 CTY. ATTY PLANNING CTY. MGR. SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENTS CASE NOS: GPA-55(B-E) and GPA-57(A-E) STATEMENT OF THE MATTER: General Plan Amendments 55- (B-E) and 57 (A-E) are comprised of nine separate appli- cations for nine different locations in Carlsbad. GPA-55(B-E) was heard by the Planning Commission on November 5th, and GPA-57(A-E) was heard on December 17, 1980. The two General Plan Amendment groups are being combined so that only one of the city's three yearly amendments to the Land Use Element is utilized. The Attorney's Office will prepare the action of the Council in one resolution. This hearing will also include a proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan (under GPA-55(C)) to delete a secondary arterial, and an appeal of GPA-57(C) which was denied by the Planning Commission. For more information please see the memo to the City Manager dated December 30, 1980. Environmental Review ; The Planning Director has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendments will have no significant impacts on the environment and has issued negative or conditional negative declarations. Fiscal Impact There will be no direct fiscal impact to the city from the approval of GPA-55 or GPA-57. EXHIBITS 1. Memorandum to City Manager dated December 30, 1980 2. Planning Commission Resolution Nos: 1730, 1744 and 1745 RECOyiMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council direct the Attorney's Office to prepare documents recommending APPROVAL of GPA'S-55(B,C,D&E) and GPA-57(A,B,D&E), and DENIAL of GPA-57(C) . Council Action; 1-20-81 Council directed theCity Attorney to prepare documents approving 55(B), 55(C), 55(D), 55(E), 57(B), 57(D), and 57 (E), and denying 57(A) and 57(C). MEMORANDUM DATE: December 30, 1980 TO: Frank Aleshire, City Manager FROM: James Hagaman, Director of Planning SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN GPA 55(B-E) AND GPA 57 (A-E) ______ General Plan Amendments GPA-55(B-E) and GPA-57(A-E) include nine separate applications. The important aspects of each application, and a recommendation is given below. Location maps are attached. If more information is desired by the Council they may refer to the Planning Commission staff reports attached to the agenda bill. GPA-55(B), Ukegawa, This is a request to amend the Land Use Element from Non-Residential Reserve to Planned Industrial (PI) on property located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road southwest of Palomar Airport. The developer has indi- cated that the Planned Industrial designation is appropriate for the site because the property is flat, it abutts exist- ing PI areas, and is located in an area designated for non- residential uses. Staff concurs with this analysis. The only issue on this amendment is whether or not a change to Planned Industrial is premature. Staff does not feel a change from the Non-Residential Reserve is premature because the property to the east is already designated Industrial and the Signal Landmark Property, on the other side of Palomar Airport Road, may be redesignated Industrial (see GPA 57-E). The Planning Commission is recommending approval. A Specific Plan will be required before development can occur. GPA-55(C), O'Hara, This is a request to amend the Circu- lation Element of the General Plan to delete future San Francisco Peak Road. The applicant is also requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to change 50 acres along El Camino Real (Sunny Creek Road area) from Residential Low-Medium Density (0-4 du/acre) to a Combination District comprised of Community Commercial, High Density Residential and Professional and Related Commercial. A traffic study has shown that there is little need for San Francisco Peak Road as there are no plans for its extension into Oceanside. Major issues regarding the combination district include the visual impacts to El Camino Real, the appropriateness of this land use for the proposed location (noise impacts, circulation) and the affect on the sur- rounding area. Staff feels this use is appropriate because of the need for more commercial and office uses in this area created by the close proximity of the airport, and the Koll Research Center. Also, noise generated from El Camino Real would be a nuisance to single family development. Other problems such as aesthetic impacts can be mitigated through the specific plan required for this site. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the above requests. The Commission denied without prejudice several other proposed changes to the Land Use and Circulation Elements (see Exhibit B to PC Resolution No. 1730) and they were not appealed. Staff supports the recommendation of the Planning Commission. GPA-55(D), Mola, A request to change approximately 10 acres from Residential Medium Density (RM) to Community Commercial (C) for property located on the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road. The property meets the criteria outlined in the General Plan for the Community Commercial designation. The only substantial issue was the effect on the Seaport Development to the south as there was some opposition from the Seaport Homeowner's Association. Staff does not see a major impact on this area as most of the ingress and egress will be from El Camino Real. Staff does feel that the Q-Overlay zone should be utilized for this property to ensure access from Dove Lane and minimize other potential problems. The Planning Commission felt this was a good location for commercial property because it is located on the corner of a prime and a major arterial. The commission recommends approval, and staff supports this recommendation. GPA-55(E), Whitney, A request to amend the Land Use Element from Planned Industrial (PI) to Travel Service (TS) for approximately 2^ acres on the west side of Paseo del Norte, just south of Hadley's Orchards. Staff felt that the site was appropriate for the proposed use (hotel), based on location and surrounding uses, but recommended denial at the Planning Commission meeting because of a past Council reso- lution No. 5014. The resolution stated that the subject property is not suitable for Travel Service activities because of past odor problems at the Encina treatment plant. The Planning Commission felt that the treatment plant is no longer a major problem and recommended approval. The appli- cant has submitted an odor study (attached) which indicates that the chances of the treatment plant being a nuisance in the future are minimal. Staff supports approval of the General Plan Amendment. GPA-57(A), Sandy, A request to amend the Land Use Element from Residential Medium Density (RM-4-10 du/ac) to Profes- sional and Related Commercial (RC) for 7.9 acres located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Elm Avenue. Staff feels that the "O" designation, which is primarily office uses, is the best use for the site. The physical nature of the site orients it toward existing office use to -2- the north. It is separated from surrounding residential uses by a steep bank to the east. The site is heavily impacted from noise generated from El Camino Real. Office uses on this site would also act as a transition area between El Camino Real and residential uses to the east. A traffic study was completed for this site and indicated that office uses would not be detrimental to circulation on El Camino Real if properly mitigated. The only major issue regarding the proposed change in land use is whether office uses would be an extension of the strip commercial to the north along El Camino Real. During the hearings for the Plaza South development (Handyman, Carl's Jr. etc.) it was indicated that office use may be appropriate as a buffer to the south. Staff concurs and feels that the subject property should utilize the Q-Overlay zone. This would allow the city to keep access on El Camino Real to a minimum for the subject property and would allow special setbacks and landscaping to avoid any appearance of strip commercial. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Staff is in agreement. GPA 57(B) , La Costa Land Company, Request to amend the Land Use Element from Neighborhood Commercial (N) to Resi- dential Medium High Density (RMH, 10-20 du/acre) on 1.5 acres between Centella Street and Rancho Santa Fe Road, just south of Levante Street. The site is physically suitable for the RMH designation because the site abutts other areas with this designation. A project with similar density has been constructed on adjacent property. The uses (apartments or condominiums) allowed by this designation would also act as a transition between the commercial area to the north and the single family residences to the south. The reduction in size of the existing commercial (N) area from 6.08 acres to 4.58 acres should not affect its vi- ability as a commercial site. The Land Use Element states that areas designated Neighborhood Commercial may range in size from 2 to 10 acres. The Planning Commission recommends approval and staff concurs. GPA-57(C), Kevane (APPEAL) Request to amend the Land Use Element from Residential Low- Medium Density (RLM 0-4 du/acre) to Residential Medium Density (RM 4-10 du/acre) for 2.3 acres located on the east side of El Camino Real between Chestnut Avenue and Tamarack Avenue. Staff has a number of concerns about increasing the density on the proposed site. The topography of the site limits the building area to the flat portion on the east end of the property. This is the area that abutts existing single family residences. An increase in density would also increase noise and traffic. -3- Access to the site is also very poor. There is no access on to local streets. Access occurs directly onto El Camino Real. Existing city policy would allow no median break at this property which creates a right-turn-in, right-turn-out situation. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this amendment for the above reasons. The applicant is appealing because he feels that a specific plan approved by the Council in 1973 is still valid. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed Specific Plan No. 137 and has determined that it has expired. Staff is recommending denial of GPA-57(C). GPA-57(D), Vallas, Request to change the Land Use Element from Governmental Facilities (G) to Recreation Commercial (RC) for property located on the southwest corner of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. The General Plan contains very little discussion regarding the Recreation Commercial (RC) category. The designation is intended for those com- mercial activities which are primarily recreational in nature. Uses include golf, tennis, horse and boating faci- lities; motels and restaurants. The General Plan provides no guidelines for site size or location, however. The appli- cant is proposing a small motel and an Olympic golf course (similar to a driving range) to be developed on this site. The site is located under a clear zone for Palomar Airport. The airport manager has indicated that the proposed use is a good use for the property because there will be no structures in the clear zone area, only grass. Staff feels that the designation proposed is appropriate for the site because it would allow uses compatible with the clear zone and because other possible problems, such as traffic impacts, can be mitigated in the specific plan which is required for the site. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment and staff concurs. GPA-57(E), Signal Landmark, Request to amend the Land Use Element from Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) to Planned In- dustrial (PI) on 333 acres located on the west and south sides of Palomar Aiport. The Non-Residential Reserve classification holds areas of land in reserve for future non-residential uses. The Land Use Element states that the burden of proof to reclassify these areas rests with the developer or owner. The developer is indicating that a light industrial park is the most appropriate use for this site because other uses are less compatible with the airport than industrial uses. The applicant has indicated that the property is adjacent to other industrial uses and therefore compatible. Also, the NRR indicates that future land use for this area will be -4- non-residential for which industrial use qualifies. Staff concurs with the applicant's justification. The proposed industrial park would be consistent with existing and future uses in the area and would be less impacted by the airport than other non-residential uses. It is anticipated that the specific plan required for this property will ensure proper access to the site, standards for development, and an overall high quality industrial park, The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval. Attachments Location Maps, all sites. Planning Commission Staff Reports (Memo to City Manager on GPA-55(C)). Odor Study (GPA-55(E) Legal Determination (GPA-57(C) JCH:CG:ar 1/12/81 —5— ATS CASE UKE.G STAFF REPORT DATE: November 5, 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: GPA-55(B) - UKEGAWA - Request to amend the Land Use Element from Non-Residential Reserve to Plan- ned Industrial. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND ! The applicant is proposing that the Land Use Element of ! the General Plan be amended to change the designation ! from Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) to Planned Indust- | rial (PI) for property located on the south side of ' Palomar Airport Road just east of Laurel Tree Lane I (see attached map). The Carlsbad General Plan shows | this area as being in the Palomar Airport influence ! area which requires the submittal of a specific plan I before development can occur on the site. The property is relatively flat, currently vacant, and has been used for agricultural uses in the past. The property is in the Coastal Zone and is also currently in the County. \ Annexation to the City will be necessary before devel- I opment can occur. : I II. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Is a land use change from NRR premature at this time? 2) Is the proposed designation appropriate for the site? Discussion The Land Use Element of the General Plan states that various interim uses should be utilized in the Non- Residential Reserve until the ultimate land use char- acter can be established. It is staffs feeling that development of permanent uses on the site is somewhat premature because there is no development in the immediate vicinity. Staff does not feel that this precludes changing the general plan for the site. There are appropriate controls (ie. specific plan) governing the site which could assure timely processing. Staff feels that the Planned Industrial designation is an appropriate land use category given the proposed use. Agricultural and industrial uses are consistant with the provisions of the Non-Residential Reserve category. The Planned Industrial designation refines the NRR designation to provide uses within this category, The general plan states that the NRR area shall ulti- mately be used for non-residential uses such as agri- cultural, commercial, industrial and recreational uses. The physical nature of the site also lends itself to these types of uses. The property is flat (flood plain) with a ridge running behind the property to the south. The ridge acts as a natural buffer to the property from residential uses to the south. A potential problem for the property owner exists in that preliminary work on the Local Coastal Program (LCP) has indicated that this area will be designated agricultural by the Coastal Commission. This is not really a City problem as agriculture is an appropriate use for industrial property, It is normally considered to be an interim use, however. Environmental concerns such as traffic,, drainage, and archaeology will be addressed at the time a specific plan is processed for the property. Ill, RECQMMEMDM!1OH. It is recommended that the Planning Coraraission adopt Resolution No. , recommending to the Council that they APPROVE GPA-55(B). ATTACHMENTS Location Map CGrar N/RR -to PC H-B ' 1 L Li -..L.'.-i- i•'pi' """ !T<7'i< 'ti I '- \ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GPA-55(B) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, January 20, 1981, to consider approval of the following amendment to the General Plan: GPA-55(B): A request for amendment to the Land Use Element to change the designation from Non-Residential Reserve to Planned Industrial on property located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road, east of Laurel Tree Lane, more particularly described as: A portion of Lot G of Map 823, Rancho Agua Hedionda. APPLICANT: UKEGAWA PUBLISH: JANUARY 10, 1981 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL Barnicx>at & O'Grady, Inc. 221 Vfest E. Street Encinitas, CA. 92024 2. 212-040-19 Robert B. Kelly 1603 Tustin Avenue Costa Masa, CA. 92627 3. 212-040-30 Harry D. Sparkes 181 E. 18th Street Costa Mesa, CA. 92627 4. 212-040-29 BCS Program Ir-2 1303 Avocado Street Newport Beach, CA. 92660 5. 212-040-22 Vista Loroa Investments P.O. Box 1185 Carlsbad, CA. 92008 6. 212-040-34 Edwin H.~Frazee Mabel G~. Frazee P.O. Box 1091 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 7. 212-040-38 Richard C. Kelly Robert P. Kelly P.O. Box 175 Carlsbad, CA. 92008 8. 212-041-04 Richard C. Kelly Robert P. Kelly P.O. Box 175 Carlsbad, CA. 92008 9. 212-030-03 Barton & J. Borovinsky C/o Paul G. Mast (y&°$ 1450 N. Tustin Avenue S-110 Santa Ana, CA.9S3C 1200 ELM AVENUE BlW-vvJl4 • TELEPHONE: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Pf N?§2^ Fl (714) 438-5535 Office of the City Clerk Citp of Cartebab December 9, 1980 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the following items will not be scheduled for a public hearing before the Carlsbad City Council on Tuesday, December 16, 1980, due to legal requirements for advertising: 1. General Plan Amendment (GPA-55(B)), to the Land Use Element, changing the designation from Non-Residential Reserve to Planned Industrial on property located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road, east of Laurel Tree Lane. Applicant: UKEGAWA 2. GPA-55(C)), to the Circulation Element by deleting San Francisco Peak Road; and to change approximately 50 acres from Low-Medium Density Residential to a Combination District, including High Density Residential and Professional and Related Commercial for property generally located along the north side of El Camino Real, southeast of the future extension of College Boulevard. Applicant: O'HARA 3. GPA-55(D)), to the Land Use Element changing the designation from Residential Medium Density to Community Commercial on property generally located on the northwest corner of Alga Road and El Camino Real. Applicant: MOLA 4. GPA-55(E), to the Land Use Element changing the designation from Planned Industrial to Travel Service on property located on the west side of Paseo del Norte, approximately 1000 feet south of Palomar Airport Road. Applicant: WHITNEY These items will be scheduled for a public hearing in January, 1981, and when the specific date has been determined, you will receive Notice.• If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Department, 438-5591. ^NITA D.1 MURPffiT, )eputy City Clerk CASE NO. APPLICANT MEMORANDUM DATE: November 26, 1980 TO: City Manager FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: GPA-55(C) - O'HARA - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from RLM to a Combination District, and delete a secondary arterial from the Circulation Element. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan by deleting future San Francisco Peak Road. The proposed arterial is located east of El Camino Real between Palomar Airport Road and future College Boule- vard. A request is also included to amend the Land Use Element from Residential Low-Medium Density (0-4 du/ac) to a Com- bination District comprised of Residential High Density, Community Commercial and Professional and Related Commercial for 50 acres located on the east side of El Camino Real just south of future College Boulevard. The above requests are what the Council will be hearing on December 16. The applicant's original proposal, prior to the Planning Commission hearing, was as follows: ^ 1. To amend the Circulation Element by deleting future Los Manos Way and San Francisco Peak Road as secondary arterials. 2. To amend the Land Use Element in the following manner: Change approximately 25 acres from Low-Medium Density Residential (RLM) to a Combination Dis- trict including High Density Residential (RH), Community Commercial (C) and Professional and Related Commercial (0) for property generally located at the northeast and southeast corners of El Camino Real and the future extension of College Blvd. Change approximately 25 acres from Low-Medium Density Residential to a Combination District including High Density Residential and Profes- sional and Related Commercial for property gen- erally located along the north side of El Camino Real, east of the future extension of College Blvd. Change approximately 53 acres from Non-Residential Reserve to Professional and Related Commercial for property generally located along the southwest side of El Camino Real, approximately 4,000 feet north of Palomar Airport Road. Change approximately 270 acres from Low-Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential for property generally located east of the future extension of College Blvd., west of Squire's Dam. The Planning Commission denied a number of these requests without prejudice (see P.C. Res. #1730) because it was felt that further land use and traffic analysis was necessary before these amendments could be approved. Staff concurs with this position. The Planning Commission has since passed a Resolution of Intention to consider a General Plan Amendment for this area following a detailed traffic study. The proposed combination district being considered by the Council will require the processing of a specific plan before development can occur. The specific plan is a result of that area being part of the airport influence area defined by the General Plan. DISCUSSION Circulation: The City's Engineering Department has indicated that San Francisco Peak Road can be deleted from the Circula- tion Element for two reasons. The first reason is that the Oceanside General Plan shows no extension of San Francisco Peak Road into that City. The second reason is that general plan densities proposed for that area do not provide enough units for a secondary arterial to be needed. The Planning Staff concurs with this recommendation. Land Use: The area on the east side of El Camino Real just south of College Boulevard is probably more appropriate for higher density, office and commercial uses than it is for low density residential. This area is heavily influenced by the airport and by surrounding industrial uses. Heavy noise generated by high traffic volumes anticipated for El Camino Real and College would make office and commercial uses more appropriate for abutting these prime arterials. Higher density residential uses would be appropriate near commercial and office uses. A specific plan, required for the site would ensure the precise and proper locations of the various land uses. Staff does not feel that this amendment will encourage a "strip-commercial" type of development because no access will be allowed on El Camino Real. The developer is pro- posing a frontage road to connect College Boulevard to the Beckman, Koll area to the south. -2- Staff also feels that the Koll "Research Center" and the airport industrial base are creating a peripheral effect on adjacent areas. Property in this area along El Camino Real is receiving pressure to develop as higher value uses such as office and commercial. The peripheral pressure doesn't necessitate strip commercial for El Camino Real. The Council will have to decide the ultimate boundaries of uses related to the industry around the airport, however. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements as recommended by the Planning Commission. JCH:CG:jt attachments: 1) Existing General Plan 2) General Plan as requested by applicant 3) General Plan as recommended by P.C. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN GPA-55(C) GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AS PROPOSED BY APPLICANT TO P.C. GPA-55(C) •^F - Conbination District coirprised of RH/O/C GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AS RECOMMENDED BY P.C. RLM P.C. RECOMMENDED DELETION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GPA-55(C) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold c public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, January 20, 1981, to consider the approval of the following amendment to the General Plan: GPA-55(C): A request to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan by deleting San Francisco Peak Road. These proposed arterials are shown east of El Camino Real between Palomar Airport Road and future College Boulevard. A request is also included to amend the Land Use Element as follows: To change approximately 50 acres from Low-Medium Density Residential to a Combination District including High Density Residential and Professional and Related Commercial for property generally located along the north side of El Camino Real, southeast of the future extension of College Blvd. The above properties are more particularly described as: Portion of Lot B, portion of Lot E, of Map 823, Rancho Agua Hedionda APPLICANT: O'HARA PUBLISH: JANUARY 10, 1981 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL Allan 0. Kelly P.O. Box 1065 CarlsSacTT-'CA 92008 William A, Kolly P.O. Box 463 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Western land & Dev. Co. 5200 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Sunset Hills Ltd. c/o 17-11 Corp. 369 San Miguel Dr., #305 Newport Beach, CA 92660 H.E. Gribble 3130 Sunny Creek Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad 48 46 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 Henry Yada 5538 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dorothy Ebright 5855 Los Monas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92003 Beckman Instruments, Inc. 2400 Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92o34 S.W. Daniels, Jr. 2725 Jefferson Blvd. Carlsbad, CA 92008 California First Bank P.O. Box 109 San Diego, CA 92112 Ralph Wrisley 690 Elm Ave., Ste. 203 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Robert Delorm 2421 Dunstan St. Oceanside, CA 92054. Jerald White 3531 Ridgecrest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 James C. Hagaman. 5320 El Casiino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Russell W. Grosse 5850 Sunny Creek Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 Title Insurance & Trust Co, HA 409 c/o J.M. Gessleman P.O. Box 1150 San Diego, CA 92112 San Diego County 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92101 Richard Kelly 5200 El Camino Real 'Carlsbad, CA 92008 Kenneth Lawson 2816 Sunny Creek Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 Timothy Barlow 3004 Sunny Creek Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 Martha Pillsbury 4429 Ohio St. San Diego, CA 92116 Gerald Frankel 1365 Regal Row Dallas, TX 75247 Jakob Wersching 30772 Vis La Cresta St. Palos Verdes, CA 90274 Raymond Higley 1823 Hartwright Rd. Vista, CA 92083 Robert Kelly 2770 Sunny Creek Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008 MOt-f-'- Dorothy' Sandlin 1103 Bel Air Place Los Angeles, CA 90024 Ross Barber 5392 El Cairdno Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Banning Cantarini P.O. Box 53? Carlsbad, CA 92008 Sunny Greek Associates 1164- Crystal Lane El Cajon, CA 92020 Hiroshi Kato 3250 Sunny Creek Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008 William Miholich 744- Marsolan Ave. Solana Beach, CA 92075 Gordon Fox 1500 Via Area Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274- Japatul Corp. P.O. Box 84-9 San Diego, CA 92112. N.V. Ivar c/o Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 2029 Century Place East #4000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Noboru Taba-ta P.O. Box 94-3 Carlsbad,. CA.92008 /-/ 4^*^ f% /?"*CAS STAFF REPORT DATE: November 5, 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: GPA-55 (D) - MOLA - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Residential Medium Density (RM) to Community Commercial (C) . I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to change the Land Use Element from Residential Medium Density (RM) to Com- munity Commercial on property located on the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road (see map atta- ched) . The proposed parcel is 10.23 acres in size and is currently vacant. A conditional negative declaration (log #726) was issued for this application which requires the developer to submit biological, archaeological, and drainage reports prior to any grading on the site. The property is currently in the County and will require annexation to the City. II. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Is the proposed commercial designation appropriate for the site? 2) Should commercial uses be allowed on both the northwest and southwest corners of El Camino Real and Alga? Discussion The General Plan states that the Community Commercial category should be 6 to 12 acres in size. The uses could include a wide range of facilities for retail trade, convenience goods, services and professional offices. Specific uses could include markets, rest- aurants, movie theaters and banks. Easy access to a relatively large area and population is required with location generally occuring at the intersection of two arterials. The applicants property meets all of the criteria mentioned above. The property is 10.23 acres in size, is located at the intersection of El Camino Real (Prime Arterial) and Alga (Major Arterial) , and has access to a large and growing population. For these reasons, staff feels the Community Commercial land use designation is appropriate for the site. There was some question whether commercial uses are needed at both the northwest and southwest corners of El Camino Real and Alga as the southwest corner is al- ready designated as Neighborhood Commercial. Staff decided not to initiate an amendment to delete the Com- mercial on the southwest corner because the La Costa ecomonic report indicated that more commercial could be supported in this area. It was presumed that the market place would dictate the viability of that site. Staff does feel that the north side is the best of the two sites for commercial uses, primarily for traffic reasons. III. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. , recommending that the City Council APPROVE GPA-55(D). ATTACHMENT Location Map CG: jt .'ALGA fSOAD c Vionlfj/ Map I' = A<? (Exis <p^«[£: V'=2 C £\vJ2 X VJ^( oI D ' r-i ^3o. PLAN AMENDM&HT fc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GPA-55(D) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, January 20, 1981, to consider approval of the following amendment to the General Plan: GPA-55(D): A request to amend the Land Use Element from Residential Medium Density to Community Commercial on property generally located on the northwest corner of Alga Road and El Camino Real, more particularly described as: Portion of West 1/2, Northeast 1/4, Section 26, Township 125, Range 4 West. APPLICANT: MOLA PUBLISH: JANUARY 10, 1981 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL ry 1t^.r-VU. ^c\e. : i"=20 tf V Beverly N, Griffiths C/0 Henry S. Rowen 2 Wisteria Way Atherton, CA 9**025 Hugo J. Hanson 210 Round tree Way San Rafael, CA 9^903 Walter J. & Wanda i. Frandse; 500 Camino De Orchtda Encinitas, CA 9202*1 Hola Development *H7 Main Street Huntlngton Beach, CA 926*18 Glen F. & Evelyn \. Sei.bert ;! 7003 Mimosa Drive Carlsbad, Ca 92008 ; The Trustees of Central State Peter M. Martin! (P/F) Pension Fund Southeast £ Southwest Areas j 8550 W. Bryn Avenue | ChLca.go, [LL 60631 I'i Newport Shores Builders Corp. P.O Box A I Huntington Beach, CA 926^8 '•• (Henry J. Matson Ml £ June Mae Matson) 7005 Mimosa Drive .Caxlsbad, CA 92008 Marilyn J. Avolese 700*1 Mimosa Drive Carlsbad^ CA 92008 Randell & Sandra Moersch 7006 Mimosa Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Fred L. & Sharon Rogers 7022 Fern Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ted £ Kristin Sarnborn 702*1 Fern Place Carlsbad, CA_-::9200S Donald B. Ayres, Jr. P.O Box A Huntington Beach, CA 926*»8 Herbert & Shelly Dodel1 C/0 Dodel1 & Stark 1033 Gayley Avenue #200 Los Angeles, CA 9002*f JX L!11ian Rosener 1901- B Alga Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mark E. & Carole A. Rosenstock, Jr. 1901 - C Alga Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 R.S.D. Inc' P.O Box 895 Laramie, Wyoming 8207C Robert L. £ Jennie Kuir 1901 - E Alga Road Carlsbad, CA 92003 Roy £ Sonja Abrams A310 Tarn 0 Shanter Lane Tarzana, CA 91356 Avery J. £ Patricia G. Stone 3*t*»1 West Grand Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60651 Rose M. Katz Robert M. Katz IS W. 785 Avenue La Tours Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 Alder £ Phlaine S.-Johnson 131 Fourth Avenue Two Harbors, MN 55616 XIA ~ tan t CASE RCAQ Vw //-«.Trf MoTE-L. \ STAFF REPORT DATE: November 5, 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: GPA-55(E) - WHITNEY (CALIFORNIA 6 MOTELS) - Request to change the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Planned Industrial (PI) to Travel Service (TS). I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element from Planned Industrial (PI) to Travel Service (TS) on approximately 2.3 acres located on the west side of Paseo del Norte just east of Interstate 5 and just south of Hadleys Orchards (see attached map). A nega- tive declaration was issued (log #767) for the site because of its location and because of previous grading. The subject property in this application is part of Specific Plan SP-23A which was approved in 1972. Basically SP-23A implements the provisions of the P-M zone on M zoned property. There is some question as to the neces- sity of an amendment to the Specific Plan for a commercial use in this area. In April of 1977, the City Council (Resolution No. 5014) denied a similar request, which included the subject pro- perty, to change the General Plan from PI to TS. It appears from the minutes that the Council was ready to approve the request but the applicant requested denial. The minutes include a discussion of the odor emitted from the Encina Treatment Plant. The area adjacent to the north (Hadley's and Denny's) is currently designated TS. II. ANALYSIS Major Planning Issues 1) Is the proposed designation appropriate for the site? 2) Would the elimination of this property from the areas PI designation decrease the viability of development of the remaining PI properties? Discussion The applicant is ultimately planning to build a 149 unit motel on the subject property. The Travel Service (TS) designation in the Land Use Element states that Travel Service areas, including motels, should be oriented to- ward serving the traveling public. These uses should be accessible to interregional traffic, but they need not have direct roadway access if their location is easily identifiable. Staff feels that the site meets the above locational criteria and because the area immediately to the north is also designated TSf the site is appropriate for the proposed designation. It is doubtful that the deletion of this site from the Planned Industrial designation would have any adverse affect on the remaining industrial property. The site is small, 2.3 acres, and would be simply extending an existing TS area southward. Staff does not feel that traffic will be a problem. It is not likely that a small motel would produce much more traffic than various industrial uses. Because of a new signal at Palomar Airport Road and with the distance required to reach Poinsettia it is improbable that southbound traffic will find it convenient to travel through the Alta Mira area. A major problem to consider is the close proximity of the Encina Treatment Plant which has been known to produce pungent odors for long periods of time. In considering a similar request the Council discussed this issue at length before recommending approval. When the applicant requested denial of their amendment, however, the Council included the following statement in their resolution (Res. No. 5014) of denial: Because of the influence of the Encina Treatment Plant the subject property is not suited for travel service activities and should be left in its present designation of Planned Industrial. This statement is part of the last Council action on the subject property. Staff feels that this is the existing policy of the City Council (and staff concurs with this position) for this area and as a result is recommending denial. III. RECOMMENTATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. , recommending to the City Council that they APPROVE GPA 55(E). ATTACHMENTS Location Map CG:ar 11/21/80 Leucsdia &5* \>' ^ " NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GPA-55(E) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, January 20, 1981, to consider approval of the following amendment to the General Plan: GPA-55(E): A request to amend the Land Use Element from Planned Industrial to Travel Service on property located on the west side of Paseo del Norte, approximately 1000 feet south of Palomar Airport Road, more particularly described as: Part of Map 823, Rancho Agua Hedionda, portion of Lot H, Lots 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 6022. APPLICANT: WHITNEY PUBLISH: JANUARY 10, 1981 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL PALOMAR' AIRPORT RD _ Jf.e.f.7/ff _. so \1911 }o •17571" I X~"~> uirii'syU J-CAMINO DEXPAFlol/> ,A',\ ! 1. ENCINAS DEVELOPMENT CO. 6100 Avenlda Encinas Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 2. IMMEILIARIA MONIVON S A 6050 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 3. ANDREW & CHRISTA MCREYNOLDS 2316 Calle Chi.quita La Jolla, Ca. 92037 4. PAUL & PEGGY HADLEY P. 0. Box 292 Cabazon, Ca. 92234 5. LIffiTLE DAVID REREVIA, ROSE OTTO JEROSE CAROL TRS 2136 Wellington 'Santa Ana, Ca. 92701 6. JANES & DOROTOT GA'ISER 3340 Ridgecrest Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 7. CAL-MIL PLASTIC PRODUCTS, INC. 6100 Paseo del Norte Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 8. CALIFORNIA FIRST BANK TRUST REAL ESTATE P. 0, Box 109 San Diego, Ca. 92112 TRUST #30129-00-3 Par #4 GRCVE APTS. CASE WO. APPLICANT. STAFF REPORT DATE: December 17, 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: GPA-57(A), SANDY, Request to amend the Land Use Element from Residential Medium Density (RM) to Professional and Related Commercial (0). I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 7.9 acres in size and is located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Elm Avenue and is just south of Hosp Way, (see attached location map). The property is currently designated Residential Medium Density (4-0 du/acre) by the General Plan and the applicant is requesting that the land use be redesignated Professional and Related Commercial (O). The site is relatively flat along El Camino Real but begins to slope sharply upward toward the east end of the property. The property also slopes upward toward the south end of the property, creating an 8 to 15 foot banks above Elm Avenue. The area to the east of the property is designated as open space and the property to the north, along Hosp Way, has an approved office development. Environmental Review The Planning Director has issued a negative declaration of environmental impact for the proposed General Plan Amendment. A traffic study was completed for the site as part of the initial study. A copy of the negative declaration is attached II. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1. Is the proposed use (0) appropriate for the site? 2. Will a change in land use have a detrimental effect on the traffic flow for El Camino Real? III. DISCUSSION Staff feels that the proposed designation, Professional and Related Commercial (0) is appropriate for the site from a land use perspective. The Land Use Element of the General Plan states that Professional and Related Commercial areas can be placed along arterials without creating adverse conditions which are associated with strip development (if properly planned), and can be used as buffers between commercial areas and residential uses. The subject property is highly impacted from noise generated by El Camino Real creating a nuisance for residential development. Office type uses would also act to buffer surrounding residential uses to the east. From a physical standpoint, the site has a major problem. Access to the site is currently limited to El Camino Real and Elm Avenue. There is a center median on El Camino Real and city policy would discourage a median break between the signals at Elm Avenue and Hosp Way. A traffic study, attached, was submitted by the applicant. The study was reviewed by the city's Traffic Engineer and his report is also attached. Basically, the applicant's traffic study indicates that office uses on this site could be adequately served by a left and right turn driveway on Elm; a right-turn-in and right-turn-out driveway on El Camino Real; and a second right-turn-in-right-turn-out driveway (in conjunction with a median break) on El Camino Real (see graphic on page 10 of applicant traffic study). The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that this design would adequately handle traffic, to and from the site but that a median break would eventually be detrimental to the flow of traffic on El Camino Real. Without the median break, access to the property becomes inadequate. For this reason staff is recommending denial of the proposed change to office use. The possibility exists that access could be made from the subject property to Hosp Way behind the adjacent development to the north. This would give the property access to the signal at Hosp and allows easy access to southbound El Camino Real. Should the applicant be able to guarantee an acceptable connection to Hosp Way, staff would recommend approval of the proposed amendment. IV.. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission DENY GPA-57(A). Attachments Location Map Negative Declaration Traffic Study Traffic Engineer Study (Stracker) CGrar 12/11/80 -2- 3§ (VUS-YdD NOIiVOOl a m 3 •o•to•o (D•I C^* 5"(0 a R»O rt-' ^K^O^«a3 r-S5 n.3 5TO-cruoa O•o ' pJ (A "SO a •a 3•D 0(0Oa 00 •VI a5*«Q (0 a mxt V)r* 5"<Q a •••• a. 3*(Qw r-momzo APP&OX. /.SAC. OS STAFF REPORT DATE: December 17, 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: GPA-57(B) - LA COSTA LAND CO. - Request to amend the Land Use Element from Neighborhood commercial (N) to Residential Medium High Density (RMH). I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing that the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended to change the designation from Neighborhood Commercial (N) to Residential Medium Density (RMH 0-4 du/ac) on property located between Rancho Sante Fe Road and Centella Street south of La Costa Avenue (see attached location map). The proposed change would affect approximately 1.5 acres of a 6.08 acre commercial site. The amendment site is flat and appears to have been graded sometime in the past. The subject property is in the jurisdicition of an old specific plan (MP-149) which will have to be amended before development can occur. A zone change and a street vacation (on Centella) will also be necessary. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-57(B) would create no signi- ficant effects on the environment and has issued a negative declaration of environmental impact for this project. A copy of the negative declaration is attached. II. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Is the proposed land use appropriate for the site? 2) Will the reduction in size of the existing com- mercial area have a negative affect on its vi- ability as a commercial site? Discussion Staff feels that the proposed land use (RMH) is appro- priate for the site because a large area of RMH is al- ready existing to the south. In essence, the subject 1.5 acres will assume the use to its south instead of future commercial use. The site is physically suitable for medium-high residential density because it is flat and a similar medium-high density project has already been constructed on an adjacent property. Such a use (apartment or condo) would also act as a buffer between the commercial site to the north and single-family residential to the south. Staff does not feel that the reduction in size of the existing commercial area from 6.08 acres to 4.58 acres will effect the viability of the commercial site. The Land Use Element states that areas designated Neigh- borhood Commercial may range in size from 2 or 3 acres for convenience type areas to 5 to 10 acres for local shopping centers. Because of the close proximity to the future community core of La Costa it is likely that this site will develop as a convenience center. As a result, staff feels this site is marketable as a com- mercial area despite the reduction in size. III. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to Council APPROVAL of GPA-57(B). (Reso- lution to be provided). ATTACHMENT Site Map Negative Declaration CG:jt 12/9/80 LOCATION MAP GPA-57(B) II SCALE -r-500 /?£S/O£M77AL VO-2O &//4C.) APPXOX. /.SAC RICCC ENGINEERING COMPANY MAKNIMC CONSULTANTS A«» Cirlt CRCINttlS 30M PIO PICO OR. • SUITE 7O2 • CARLSBAD. CA 9?OOS P.O. BOX 1129 • PHONE • AREA COOC 714 • 72949(7 STAFF REPORT DATE: December 17, 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: GPA-57(C) - KEVANE - Request to amend the Land Use Element from Residential Low-Medium Density to Residential Medium Density. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting on amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to change the design- ation on property located on the east side of El Camino Real approximately .25 miles south of Chestnut Avenue (see location map attached) from Residential Low-Medium Density (0-4 du/ac) to Residential Medium Density (4-10 du/ac). The property is approximate 2.3 acres in size and is highly irregular in topography and shape. The property is extremely steep on the west side along El Camino Real. The area to the south is less steep but still slopes sharply. The boundaries to the east and north abutt existing single family residences on the more flat portions of the property. The property is also a former dumpsite and has not been fully com- pacted. The lots are currently zoned Planned Community (P-C) . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that approval of GPA-57(C) would have no significant effects on the environment and has issued a negative declaration. A copy of this negative declaration is attached. II. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Is the proposed designation an appropriate land use for the site? 2) What effect would the proposal have on adjacent residences? 3) What effect would this proposal have on traffic circulation? Discussion Staff has several concerns with the possibility of increasing the density on this site from 0-4 du/ac to 4-10 du/ac. The topography of the site indicates that buildings should be clustered on the flatter portions of the lot. This is the area that abutts the rear of existing single family residences. Higher densities would create additional disturbances for existing residences from increased traffic and people. Staff sees no logical planning reasons to allow higher densities at this location. Generally, medium density zoning acts as a buffer for single family areas to separate them from commercial (and/or industrial and office) uses. There are no commercial uses in this area. The area is already buffered from El Camino Real by a twenty-five foot slope. Also, staff sees no need to expose even more units to the high noise levels generated by traffic on El Camino Real. Probably the most critical problem associated with this site is circulation. When property was developed to the north and the east there was no access provided to this area from local streets. As a result, access must come from El Camino Real. El Camino Real is designated as a prime arterial and, at full development, will have a median down the center. City policy indicates that median breaks should only be allowed every 2600 feet. Existing breaks already occur at Tamarack and Chestnut. This means that a development on the subject lots could not have a median break and could only have right-turn- in and right-turn-out access from El Camino Real. A median break would eventually become a signal, as a break alone would be insufficient when higher traffic flows occur. The addition of a signal would serve to slow traffic on an arterial which the general plan states should move traffic as quickly and efficiently as possible. It appears to staff that raising the density to RM (4-10 du/ac) would compound the access problems already existing under RLM (0-4 du/ac). Ill RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission DENY GPA-57(C). (Resolution to be provided). ATTACHMENTS Location Map Negative Declaration CG:jt 12/10/80 LOCATION MAP GPA-57 C) MAP 5746 - iiAr> ooo _ EL CAMINO MESA UNIT nun APIIA ucnrnMnA _. PI CASE SMCX GPA.57D REPORT DATE: December 17, 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: GPA-57(D) - VALLAS - Request to amend the Land Use Element from Governmental Facilities to Recreation Commercial. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate property located on the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road (see location map) from Govern- mental Facilities (G) to Recreation Commercial (RC). The subject property is surrounded by Palomar Airport to the north, vacant and agricultural land to the east, Palomar Business Park to the south and the County Animal Shelter to the west. The applicant is also submitting a zone change (to Commercial Tourist - CT) and a CUP. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that approval of a general plan amendment as described for this property will have no negative impact on the environment. The negative declaration is attached. II. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Is the proposed designation appropriate for the site? 2) Is access to the property adequate for the pos- sible uses allowed under the proposed designation? Discussion The General Plan contains very little discussion re- garding the Recreation Commercial (RC) category. The designation is intended for those commercial activities which are primarily recreational in nature. Uses include golf, tennis, horse and boating facilities; motels and restaurants. The General Plan provides no guidelines for site size or location, however. The applicant is proposing a small motel and an Olympic golf course (similar to a driving range) to be pro- cessed under the CT zone. This is the only zone category which generally corresponds to the proposed land use designation. Staff does not have a problem with the RC designation but does have a problem with the uses allowed in the CT zone. The CT zone would allow a number of uses which staff feels are inappro- priate (based on traffic as explained below) for the site. Staff feels that the general plan should not be changed unless the City intends to change the zoning to correspond. Given the concern regarding the uses allowed in the CT zone staff feels amending the General Plan in the subject location at this time may prove to be detrimental to the site. Both Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real are des- ignated as prime arterials which means they will even- tually have medians. Existing City policy will pro- bably limit the subject property to a right-turn-in and right-turn-out driveway on El Camino Real (traffic study is in progress). The lack of a median break on El Camino Real and the lack of a driveway on Palomar Airport Road would severely limit access to the pro- perty. Staffs concern is that commercial uses allowed in the CT zone would overburden such limited access. For example, if the general plan and a zone change were approved as proposed for this site, a use similar to Pea Soup Anderson could locate on this property. Such a use would put severe constraints on circulation in this area. Because existing City policy would only permit right-turn-in and right-turn-out access to this site staff feels that either the existing designation (G) or Planned Industrial (PI) would be more logical uses for this property. III. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission DENY GPA-57(D) . ATTACHMENTS Location Map Negative Declaration CGijt 12/11/80 TION MAP GPA-57(D) ''I LOCATION J.1AP. p 57 STAFF REPORT DATE: December 17, 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: GPA-57(E) - SIGNAL LANDMARK, Request to amend the Land Use Element from Non-Residential Reserve to Planned Industrial. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting that the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended to redesignate property located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road and southwest of Palomar Airport from Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) to Planned Industrial (PI). The applicant is proposing a large industrial park on the site which is approximately 333 acres in size. The surrounding land uses include Palomar Airport, adjacent to the east; the Roll Business Park site to the north; vacant industrial property to the south; and vacant Non-Residential Reserve to the west. The site is rough in some areas requiring substantial grading. The applicant will also be processing an environmental impact report, a specific plan, and a zone change. Environmental Review The Planning Director has determined that approval of GPA-57(E) will have no significant impact on the property. A negative declaration has been issued and is attached. The decision to wait on an environmental impact report (until a specific plan is submitted) was made because, in staff's opinion, the property will be best served by industrial uses. If an EIR exposes unmitigatible impacts then those areas impacted will have to be removed from development. II. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1. . Has the applicant provided sufficient justification that this area of NRR should be reclassified as PI? 2. Is the proposed use the most appropriate for the site? III. DISCUSSION -4Ke_ The Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) classification of^land use plan holds areas of land in reserve for future non-residential uses. The Land Use Element states that the burden of proof to reclassify this area rests with the developer or owner. The developer is indicating that a light industrial park is the most appropriate use for this site because other uses are less compatible with the airport than industrial uses. The applicant also has indicated that the property is adjacent to other industrial uses and therefore compatible. Also, the NRR indicates that future land use for this area will be non-residential for which industrial use qualifies. Staff concurs with the applicant's justification. The proposed industrial park would be consistent with existing and future uses in the area and would be less impacted by the airport than other non-residential uses. For these reasons staff feels that industrial use is the best use for the site. It is anticipated that the specific plan required for this property will ensure proper access to the site, standards for development, and an overall high quality industrial park. IV. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of GPA-57(E). Attachments Location Map Negative Declaration CG:ar 12/11/80 -2- OCATION MAP GPA-57(E) Signal-Landmark NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, January 20, 1981, to consider approval of the following amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed Amendments A-E are shown generally on the map below. GPA-57(A): A request to change property on the east side of El Camino Real between Hosp Way and Elm Avenue from Residential Medium Density to Professional and Related Commercial. APPLICANT: SANDY GPA-57(B): A request to change property on the west side of Rancho Santa Fe Road, on the east side of Estancia Street and the north side of Centella Street from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Residential Density. APPLICANT: LA COSTA LAND COMPANY GPA-57(C): An Appeal of a Planning Commission Denial of a request to change property on the east side of El Camino Real, south of Chestnut Avenue, from Residential Low Medium Density to Residential Medium Density. APPELLANT: KEVANE (Sprague) GPA-57(D): A request to change property located on the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road from Government Facilities to Recreational Commercial. APPLICANT: VALLAS GPA-57(E): A request to change property located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road just southwest of Palomar Airport from Non-Residential Reserve to Planned Industrial. APPLICANT: SIGNAL LANDMARK PUBLISH: JANUARY 10, 1981 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL Otis E. & Ch-i-is-tJne (1) Vanderburg c/o Waken & Company 747 E. Green Ste. 100 Pasadena, CA 91101 Grove Apt. Inv. Co. (2) 10738 W. Tico Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064 I. Robbins/E. Lachman S.B. Lachman/M.B.Lachman. 71-111 Tamarish Ln. Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 (3) Horace Felkins, Jr. (4) & Dolphine Flekins P.O. Box 431 Oceanside, CA 92054 Michael & Barb Buggy 4703 Birchwood Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 (8-16) THE HIGHLAND CO. (8-17) c/o Strong P.O. Box 2068 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92068 Patricia Perkins (8-18) 2508 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, CA 92008 Donald & Thomas Nicolis 2510 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, CA 92008 (8-19) "ME HIGHLAND CO. (8-28) c/o Strong P.O. Box 2068 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92068 M. & G. Gandall (8-29) 2509 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, CA 92008 Robert & Wanda Wilkerson 2503 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, CA 92008 (8-32) Jerry & Hollace Hanson 2501 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, CA 92008 (8-33) Larwin-Southern Calif Inc. 16255 Ventura Blvd. Encino, CA 91436 (5) THE HIGHLAND CO. (8-20) c/o Strong P.O. Box 2068 Rancho Sante Fe, CA 92068 TIBURON/CARLSBAD HOMEOWNERS P.O. Box 1246 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (8-34) THE HIGHLAND CO. (6) c/o Strong P.O. Box 2068 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92068 Helix Assoc. (Partnership) P.O. Box 985 El Cajon, CA (7) 92022 V. Simmons (8-5) P.O. Box 1307 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Ken & Barbara Brannick 2514 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, CA 92008 (8-21) THE HIGHLAND CO. (8-23) c/o Strong P.O. Box 2068 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92068 Paul and Edith Linden 2519 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, CA 92008 (8-24) E.L. Fogal and (8-1) L.L. Fogal 1340 La Mirada Escondido, CA 92026 W.F. Strong (8-2) -:> P.O. Box 2068 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92068 Robert & Hilda Watson P.O. Box 1790 Zephyr Cove, NV 98448 (8-25) Margaret S. Price (8-26), ;, 4705 Amerwood Ct. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Robert N. Quade (8-15); J.E. Quade t 5473 Avenida Fiesta La Jolla, CA 92037 Will & Cleo Degher 2513 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, CA 92008 (8-27) Levante Associates 1457 Highland Drive Solana Beach, CA 92075 Norman Levy oPfi - & 3343 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Albert & Debra Mack 7814 Estancia Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Robert Wiviott 4212 Clear Valley Drive Encino, CA 91316 Larry Goodwin 3340 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 C. & Elizabeth Myer 7816 Estancia Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 La Costa Land Company Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 Don & Nancy Chapel 2181 Racquet Hill Santa Ana, CA 92705 Louis Sapien 7815 Quebrada Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 George & Judy Edwards 7708 Garboso Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Paul Peterson 3310 Azahar Carlsbad, CA 92008 James & Janis Buisson 7818 Quebrada Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Harold & Joyce Gotschall 7710 Garboso Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 John Horvatich 1031 Arrowhead Drive Oxford, Ohio 45056 Occupant 7803 Centella Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Edward & Philomena Hodapp 7709 Garboso Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Kenneth & Elizabeth Arsenian 4703 Ferncreek Drive Rolling Hills Estates Occupant 7599 Dehesa Court Carlsbad,.CA 92008 Jack & Dorothy Neckar 7804 Estancia Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Patricia & Dillon Palmer 3385 Don Pablo Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Trustess of Central States Occupant c/o Central States Pension 7597 Dehesa Court Fund Carlsbad, CA 92008 P.O. Box 97427 Chicago, Illinois Iraj Nassiroghli 1351 Camino Teresa Solana Beach, CA 92075 Occupant 7595 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Robert & Joann Helmith 6696 Avenida Andora La Jolla, CA 92037 David & Doris Kerr 7808 Estancia Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7593 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carl & Hazel Hansen Jr, 7802 Estancia Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 H.A. & Freda Buckbee 7810 Estancia Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7591 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Warrnington Development Inc 1641 Lanclev Avenue Irvine, CA"92074 Robert & Barbara Crosby Jr.Occupant 7812 Estancia Street 7589 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7587 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7592 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3337 Cuesta Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7585 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7594 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3335 Cuesta Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7583 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3338 Cuesta Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3341 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7581 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3340 Cuesta Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3339 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7579 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3342 Cuesta Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3337 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7577 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3346 Cuesta Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3335 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7580 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3347 Cuesta Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3333 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7582 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3345 Cuesta Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3331 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7584 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3343 Cuesta Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3329 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7586 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3341 Cuesta Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3327 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7588 Dehesa Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3339 Cuesta Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3325 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3323 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3301 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3321 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3344 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3319 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3342 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3317 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3338 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3315 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3312 Azahar Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3313 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3314 Azahar Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3311 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 7806 Estancia Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3309 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3307 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3305 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 3303 Vivienda Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-080-06 George W. & Ella B. Genevro 3821 El Camino RealCarlsbad, CA 92008 167-080-07 Betty J. Byers 3851 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 . •167-220-09 Steven A. Brooks Lynn A. Brooks 2420 Gary Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-220-10 : Ralph E. & Setsuko T. Pickering 3785 Trieste Drive ! Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 167-220-22 Robert C. & Gloria I. Turner 3775 Catalina Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-220-23 John L. & Rosita A. Johnson 3755 Catalina Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-220-11 Pete A. & Louisa M. Franco 2053 Chestnut Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-080-33 ' 167-220-12 Marvin S. & Idella R. Humphreys1 ^ert W. & Kathryn A. Payne P 0 Box 1099 I1 3755 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 !' Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-080-34 167-220-13"ry A.L<Marvin S. & Idella R. Humphreys' i . - P 0 Box 1099 3745 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 'Carlsbad, CA 92008 : 167-220-24 1 Robert D. & Gayle P. White 3735 Catalina Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-220-25 Donald L. & Florence L. Knight 3725 Catalina Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-220-26 William H. & Rita M. Taber 3715 Catalina Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-080-35 i Marvin S. & Idella R. Humphreys P.O. Box 1099 i Carlsbad, CA 92008 , 167-220-17 Florence R. Peniston 3720 Catalina Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-230-01 Donald C. & Doris J. duller 3795 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-080-36 Marvin S. & Idella R. Humphreys P.O. Box 1099 Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-080-41 Marvin S. & Idella R. Humphreys P.O. Box 1099 Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-080-42 Marvin S. & Idella R. Humphreys P.O. Box 1099 Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-220-18 Alicia M. Oakley 3730 Catalina Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-220-19 Gene R. & Elinor Hursh 3750 Catalina Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-220-20 ft. Barry & Christina A. Jones 3760 Catalina Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-230-02 Geraldine W. McPherson, Est. 3805 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-230-03 A!yah W. Deweese III Gail S. Deweese 3815 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-230-04 Charles M. & Zeny A. Ward 3825 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-220-04 Bebe D. Forry 2405 Gary Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-220-08 John P. & Phoebe 2430 Gary CircleCarlsbad, CA 92008 R. Henley ., 167-220-21 ••• Anthony & Patricia Banaszewski : 3780 Catalina Drive :. Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-230-05 James G. & Jacquelyne Dionisopoulos 3835 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-230-06 Robert r o n •• 3845 Trieste^5- Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-230-07 !' Virgil A. & Marba Morehous; [ 3865 Trieste DriveCarlsbad, CA 92008 , 167-230-18 Casimir C. & Joyce R. Ksyceu 2435 Stromberg Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 208-070-11 George T. & Edith T. Reynold: 3915 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-230-08 John P. & Margaret M. Gill 2409 Cobblestone Drive Hayward, CA 94545 167-230-09 i, Ellen L. & Jeanette Roudeb!,,h 3880 Trieste Drive i, Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-230-10 Bruce M & Myrtle Dal ton 3870 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-230-19 Harry Petrie Marc H. Petrie 2425 Stromberg Crircle Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-230-20 Irene M. Tye 2405 Stromberg Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 207-090-08 | Richard H. & Joan M. Caldwel, 3840 Skyline Road > Carlsbad, CA 92008 [ 208-070-12 : Charles W. & Mary E Schoenfe. 3905 Trieste Drive j Carlsbad, CA 92008 ; 208-070-13 Michael E. & Lois L. Pierson 3910 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 208-070-14 David W. & Jewell C. Worden 3920 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-230-11 | James W. & Betty J. Bittmaj 3860 Trieste Drive ! Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-230-12 Joyce E. Dobbs 9302 Cedar Lane Bethesda, MD 20014 167-230-13 Charles Y Turner, Jr. Linda J. Turner 3830 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 167^30-14 ]; Carl A. & Theresa R. Vidnic!- 2410 Stromberg Circle '. Carlsbad, CA 92008 !• 207-090-15 !' ., Rancho Carlsbad Partnership :•< 7724 Girard Ave Suite 300 !' La Jolla, CA 92038 ;' 207-090-16 ; Rancho Carlsbad Partnership! 7724 Girard Ave Suite 300 '' La Jolla, CA 92038 ; 207-090-17 Rancho Carlsbad Partnership 7724 Girard Ave Suite 300 La Jolla, CA 92038 207-090-18 |; Rancho Carlsbad Partnership1 7724 Girard Ave Suite 300 La Jolla, CA 92038 167-230-15 [' Edwin F. & Carolyn Karpinsk* 2420 Stromberg Circle !•Carlsbad, CA 92008 208-070-01 City of Carlsbad 167-230-16 Alexander J. & Sharon G. Sehramm2430 Strotuberg Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-230-17 Clyde J. & Dora J Barson2440 ^t^mbepH rfw°T«son carfsba'd, 208r070-09 ! John G. & Catherine M. Smild 4405 Trieste Drive i Carlsbad, CA 92008 ; 208-070-10 Paul M. s Irenp Trieste Sn'sbad, CA 92008 ,Lars e" HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. P.O. BOX 90515 Lo-6 Ange/exS, CA. 90009 HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. (Coip.) P.O. BOX 90575 Ange£eA, CA. 90009 MARi/ E. BRESSI P.O. BOX 1666 CasiJU>bad, CA. 9200S COUMT/ OF SAM flIEGO PapaA^ment o^ Reat Community SeAvIcei Age.nct/ B£dg. 2 ' 5 555 OveA^and Avenue. San tUego, CA. 92723 COUMTV OF SAM flepa/L#ne.n£ 0)J Community J>&fv<ic.&> Agency 5 555.xOueA^and Auenue San ttcego, CA. 92123 MARV E. BRESSI P.O. BOX 7666 , CA. 9200S BIRTCHER BUSIWESS CEWTER- Cofvpofiatz. VaJLomasi 11611 La. Paz Laguna, NlgueJt, CA. 92677 COUMTV OF SAM 171 EGO 24SJ Rd. f, CA. 9200« BIRTCHER BUSTWESS/CEWTER 276H La Laguna W£gue£, CA. 92677 OF SAM PI EGO Co until hnimaJt Rd. Casitbad, CA. 9200S 1 Birtcher Business Center Corp Palomar 27611 La Paz Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 James L. Hiett 604 14th Street Manhattan Beach, CA 9026< Frank Mitsui U.P.S. USA 611 West 6th Street Suite 2198 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Judy Land Tahnee Corp. 916 Begonia Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 GBP Investments Group 135 W. Mission, St. 209 i. Escondido, CA 92025 ;; Japatul Corp. PO Box 849 San Diego, CA 92112 Robert B. Kelly PO Box 175 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Cabot, Cabot & Forbes 6231 Yarrow Drive Suite C Carlsbad, CA 92008 THE KOLL COMPANY 7330 Engineer Road San Diego, CA 92111 Airport Commercial 965 Somera Street Los Angeles, CA 90024 Huntington Beach Company 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Malopar Properties c/o Global Business Mngt. 9601 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90210 Pelican Land Company c/o Donald M. Koll 1901 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Richard Kelley PO Box 175 Carlsbad, CA 92008 County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County 3088 PIO PICO AVENUE • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation, published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of publication of the notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: 2M/5-79 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN ' the Planning Commission of City of Carlsbad will hold a pul hearing at the City Council Chi bers. 1200 Elm Avenue. Carlsbad. CA.. at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, De- cember 17, 1990. to consider recom- mending approval of the following amendment to the Land Use Ele-ment ot th»C »(w»i M --GPA-57(C) — A request to change property on the east side of El Camino Real, south of Chestnut Avenue, from Residential Low Medium Density to Residential Medium Density. _ /, tApplicant: KZVANE ^ ^ ~^' "~ ^PA-37(D)—A request to changeproperty located on the southwest corner of El Camino Real andfalo- mar Airport Road from Govern- ment Facilities to Recreational. posed: anwmlBMoI A-C i* generally on th« nt»p b*taw. •-GPA-57(A> — A request to change property on the east side of El Camino Real between Hosp Way and Elm Avenue from Residential Medium Density to Professional and Related Commercial. Applicant: SANDY \, GPA-57(B) — A request to changeproperty on the west side of Rancho Santa Fe Road, on the east side of Estancia Street and the north side of Centclla Street from Neighbor- hood Commercial to Medium-High Residential -Density.Applicant: LA COSTA LAND COM-PANY December .6 _ ^ _ 19 80 w4JPA-57(£)—A request to changeproperty located on the north side of Palonur Airport Road just south-west of Palomar Airport from Non- Residential Reserve to Planned In-dustrial. • • Applicant: SIGNAL LANDMARK Th6ae persons wishing to speakon this proposal are cordially in-vited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions pleasecall the Planning Department at438-5391. CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 19 19 19, 19 ! I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is trus ' and correct. Executed a^Carlsbadf County of San Diego, ! State of California on V-1^ _D_LQf Dpcombor 19SO __ Clark of the Printer 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Clerk Q J X TELEPHONE: (714) 438-5535 Cttp of Cartebab December 19, 1980 Mr. Jack H. Sprague 4800 Williamsburg Lane #104 La Mesa, CA 92041 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Application For General Plan Amendment (GPA-57(C)-Kevane) Your request to appeal the December 17, 1980 decision of the Planning Commission has been received, together with the appropriate appeal fee of $50.00. A receipt is enclosed. Your request will be processed for hearing before the Carlsbad City Council on Tuesday, January 20, 1981 under the public hearings section of the Agenda. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. iASXLRAXl^. RANZ, \ ' LEE RAUTENKRANZ City Clerk LR:adm Enclosure cc: Planning Department ATR QUALITY/ODOR ANALYSIS CALIFORNIA "6" MOTELS » CARLSBAD Prepared For: California "6" Motels P.O. Box 524S Hacienda Heights, California 91745 Prepared By: Hans Giroux Senior Air Quality Specialist WESTEC Services, Inc. 3211 Fifth Avenue San Diego, California 92103 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section , Title A Introduction B Carlsbad Atmospheric Environment C Odor Characterization D Sewage Treatment Plant Odor Control E Treatment Plant Impact Page 1 3 5 6 9 LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 1 Location and Topography of Project Site and Vicinity 2 Palomar Airport Wind Direction Frequency Distribution (Wind Rose) Page 2 4 LIST OF TABLES Number Title 1 Sewage Odor Strengths 2 Sewage Treatment Odor Control Alternatives 6 7 A. INTRODUCTION The proposed project is a 140--unit motel to be located east of Interstate 5 and south of Palomar Airport Road or. Paseo del Norte in the City of Carlsbad, as shown in Figure 1. This air quality analysis addresses the potential adverse impacts on persons using the proposed motel related to odors from the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility, which is located less than 1000 feet west of the project site. Concerns for potential adverse or unpleasant odor impacts on development downwind from sewage treatment facilities are well founded based on histori- cal incompatibility of treatment plants and nearby inhabited receptor areas. These concerns are especially valid at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) because the plant has traditionally been an offensive odor source. Motorists driving past the Encina WPCF on 1-5 downwind of the prevailing onshore winds have been acutely aware of the problem from their occasional exposure. Thus, even if some of the odor problems related to improper Encina WPCF design or insufficient treatment capacity have now been rectified, in the memory of many people the facility will continue to be considered as an offensive odor source. While it is theoretically possible to construct a treatment plant free from offensive odors, in actuality it is almost impossible. Odor emissions from routine operations can be effectively controlled and are rarely noticeable beyond the plant boundaries. However, during equipment malfunctions, unseasonal weather, surge throughput or from improper wastewater treatment plant design, noticeable odor emissions may escape from the plant. In general, odors are minimized by enclosing the odor source (containment) and by keeping the sewage in an oxidizer rich (aerobic) state. When the treatment system breaks down, hot weather depletes the oxygen supply from rapid oxidation, or the treatment capacity is exceeded requiring storage of stagnant sewage, the system becomes anaerobic and begins to develop obnoxious odors. Such odors are offensive, violate standards of clean air concerning nuisance emissions and may have adverse physiological, psychological and economic impacts. WESTEC Services. Inc. V SAN CLEMENTS 2G Ml. *•*«•» - QC£AHSID£ 3.3 Mi. (SAN LUIS REY) PROJECT SSTE FIGURELocation and Topography of Project Site and Vicinity (Portions of USGS 7.5' Encinitas Quadrangle) B. CARLSBAD ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT In considering the relationship between potential odor sources at the Encina WPCF and the proposed project, the windfield is the most important criterion determining probable impacts. An adequate wind record exists from very close to the project site. These wind data, taken at the Palomar Airport when a refinery was being considered in the Carlsbad area, show that winds almost always blow onshore across 1-5 by day and become slightly offshore on many nights. The wind direction frequency distribution for the airport monitoring site is shown in Figure 2. It shows the predominantly bimodal onshore/offshore distribution with winds from the WSW and W during the day arid reversing on many evenings, into E or ENE winds. In terms of the relationship between the plant and the motel site, the critical wind direction is from the SSW or SW. About 3.5 percent of the winds in a year are from the SSW and 6.5 percent from the SW, or 10 percent of the total winds, which translates into about 2 hours per day on the average. These winds usually occur in the mid-morning hours as the nocturnal offshore winds rotate through the SE and S into the mid-day onshore winds. Any potential exposure of the California "6" Motel sits to Encina WPCF odors would there- fore usually occur somewhere around 9-11 a.m. Since this daily rotation of the wind direction occurs in a continuous motion, the actual direct path exposure of the motel site to the Encina plant would be only a few minutes (perhaps 15 minutes). The wind direction frequency plot (Figure 2) is also based on the Palomar Airport "site atop the mesa. At the Encina WPCF, the Canyon de las Encinas tends to steer the winds more into the SW or WSW away from the motel site. Thus, given the relatively low frequency of winds from any odor sources at the plant toward the project site and the fact that the bluff north of the Canyon de las Encinas tends to deflect the wind away from the motel site as well, there is only a limited potential for adverse odor impacts based on the wind analysis. A second meteorological consideration relative to odor dispersal is the stability conditions (intensity or size of turbulent air motions) to be WESTEC Services. Inc. NE SE CALMS: 7.96% LOCATION: Palomar Airport Palomar Airport Wind Direction Frequency Distribution (Wind Rose) FIGURE O*£» encountered during the onshore wind conditions. During the late morning hours the air is slightly unstable and this aids in rapidly dispersing any odorous plant emissions. During the day the lowest levels of the air become increas- ingly unstable above the warm ground. After sunset, the ground cools and odorous plant emissious "hug" the ground and become locally stagnant. This stagnation usually occurs in conjunction with offshore winds such that the worst odor potential is found at the beach instead of inland. Late in summer the onshore winds persist most of the night. This onshore flow and stable conditions leads to malodorous conditions near 1-5. Odor impacts are greater near the dip .along the creek bottom than they are closer to the uphill Palo mar Airport off-ramp. C. ODOR CHARACTERIZATION Sewage odors can produce a variety of adverse psychological and physiological reactions. Varying degrees of nausea, lack of appetite, sleeplessness and impaired breathing may result from objectionable odors. Because of variable individual response to olfactory stimuli and because sew- age or'ors are a mixture of hundreds of organic compounds, any direct measurement of odor is almost impossible. Quantification of odors is there- fore performed subjectively. A panel of people is exposed to a given odor under controlled conditions. The odorous air is then diluted with clean air until less than one-half of the panel members are unable to detect the odor. The number of dilutions required to dilute the odorous sample is called the number of "odor units" (OU) in the air sample. For example, a 1 liter sample of air collected above a sample of fresh, raw sewage that requires a 100-fold clean air dilution to make it undetectable to more than one-half of the panel members is said to contain 100 OU. By definition, however, a sample of only 1 OU is still detectable by 49 percent of the population such that some people could still detect traces of an odor at well below 1 OU. A Not only is there a considerable variety in the composition and detectable response of sewage odors, there is an equal variety in potential odor sources. Table 1 indicates the intensity and character of odors normally associated with sewage in various stages of treatment and biological decomposition. v Table 1 SEWAGE ODOR STRENGTHS ____ Source Odor Units Character Activated Sludge 2 earthy Effluents from Biological Process 8 earthy Sedimentation Sludge 16 fecal Screenings 32 putrid Fresh, Raw Sewage 48 dishwatery Stale, Raw Sewage 1,000 putrid Digested Sludge 2,000 tar-like Sludge Gases Up to 1,000,000 putrid The principal odor constituents include: • mercaptans - pungent H-S bond molecules used by the gas company in minute amounts to odorize natural gas « hydrogen sulfide - rotten egg odor molecule detectable at only a few parts per billion • indole, skatole - nitrogen bond molecules resulting from amino acid breakdown which are the principal fecal excreta odor sources in sew- ages. Paradoxically, pure forms of these compounds are used as fixa- tives in the world's most expensive perfumes. • organic sulfides - odorants resulting when sulfur replaces oxygen in a molecule formed under oxygen-deficient (anaerobic) breakdown. While these odorants are only a small part of the spectrum of detectable emissions from sewage treatment, these are the compounds with the lowest threshold and are thus the critical components of treatment plant emissions. D. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT ODOR CONTROL As previously noted, despite the considerable potential for odorous emissions, they can usually be contained and abated by a combination of proper operational procedures and supplementary odor control equipment. By insuring that there is adequate treatment capacity and that there are back-up or fail- safe procedures during primary equipment breakdown conditions, the sewage can usually be maintained in an aerated and non-stagnant state. A number of candidate odor control alternatives are available at a treatment facility to remove or control odors as a supplemental control measure beyond good operational practice. These odor control methods are summarized in Table 2. A number of these control methods require a considerable expendi- ture in initial costs and in on-going materials consumption, and several methods produce environmentally unacceptable byproducts that only transfer the problem from malodorous air to toxic liquid or solid waste disposal. Table 2 SEWAGE TREATMENT ODOR CONTROL ALTERNATIVES Category 1. Physical control 2. Liquid pretreatment 3. Combustion 4. Adsorption 5. Scrubbing 6. Biological oxidation 7. Dilution Examples Completely covered operations Odor it-asking using counterac- tants or perfumes Cooling to control decay rate Prechlorination PH control Air blowing Incineration or catalytic oxida- tion Activated charcoal Oxidizers such as chlorine, bleach, hydrogen peroxide or ozone Odor removal towers (water) Soil beds Aeration tanks Tall exhaust stacks After considering the various treatment alternatives for the Encina WPCF upgrading and enlargement, project, the Biological Odor Removal Towers (ORT's) were selected as the primary odor control mechanisms. The exhaust form the ORT's, while relatively "clean", is then fed into a granular activated charcoal adsorption bed for final foul air treatment. The combination of ORTs (a counterflow arrangement where foul air flows upward through efflu- ent dripping down across a packing medium) and activated charcoal produces 98 percent odor removal efficiency. The new Encina WPCF odor control sys- tem is projected to become operational in early 1983. In conjunction with the odor control equipment, operational process changes currently being imple- mented will help reduce odor potential. Odor complaints within the last six months have dropped significantly as a result of these changes. Once the new odor control system comes on line, the frequency of odor problems when all the odor control systems are operating properly should be negligible. With regard to efficiency and reliability, the preliminary engineering evaluation of the Encina WPCF system stated: "The process (ORT's) is essentially specific for hydrogen sulfide oxidation, and does a relatively efficient job in this respect. Some data exists to indicate that the process is effective in the removal of other odorants...The process would not remove hydrocarbons and other organic compounds which are not water soluble...Some additional treatment method (e.g., activated carbon adsorption) would be required in combination with the (ORT) tower, per- haps as a second stage, in order to achieve desired overall odor reductions in critical odor control applications." The evaluation goes on to caution: "While the process is relatively simple, it can be plagued by mechanical problems associated with corrosion, pump operation, nozzle plugging and solids buildup. These can be improved by proper design and a reasonable preventive maintenance program." page 9, Encina WPCF Preliminary Engi- neering Evaluation. Thus, while the plant under normal operating conditions is essentially odor free, there is a finite potential that the equipment will not always be fully operational. E. TREATMENT PLANT IMPACT Considering that the wind blows from the plant to near the motel site only a small period of time, and since the odor control system will work most of the time, any potential treatment plant odor impact is small. With a 10 percent frequency of winds toward the motel site and perhaps a 95 percent reliability factor for the ORT's and charcoal system, the joint frequency of the meteorology/equipment malfunction relationship is expressed as follows: 0.10 x 0.05 X 8760 hours/year = 43.8 hours/year Thus, during about 40 hours per year, there could be elevated odor levels near the motel site, especially during the mid-morning hours. If it should happen that the wind is blowing toward the motel and that the odor control system is not operational, natural dispersion proceses with clean air will dilute the malodorous air to reduce any adverse impact at the motel site. Using standard Gaussian Point Source Diffusion Model estimates, it is possible to determine what odor strength would be required near the source to still be detectable at the motel site. This analysis yielded the following estimates: Odor Strength at Source Required Stability/Condition/ to Arrive at California "6" Motel Time of Day 1 Odor Unit Concentration Stable-night and early morning 382.7 Neutral-morning and evening 475.1 Slightly Unstable-Mid-day 595.7 Thus, unless the odor strength at the source exceeds about 400 OU, it will not be detectable at the project site. Referring to Table 1, these odor strengths are only reached when systems become stagnant or particularly malodorous materials are exposed to the air. Even if the odor control systems themselves are not operational, as long as the treatment process remains aerobic, there will not be a noticeable odor impact at the project site because of natural dispersion processes. While it is impossible to predict that there will never be an objectionable odor impact at the project site, the combination of an infrequent wind orientation, highly efficient odor control systems and natural dilution all suggest that any such odor impact will occur only rarely and should not interfere with project development plans. 10 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1730 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTAIN 3 AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE 4 CARLSBAD SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. 5 WHEREAS, verified applications for amendments to the General 6 Plan designations and requirements for certain property located 7 as shown on Exhibits "A" thru "D", dated November 5, 1980, attached 8 and incorporated herein, have been filed with the Planning 9 Commission; and 101 WHEREAS, said verified applications constitute requests for 11 amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; 12 and 13 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of 14 November, 1980, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed 15 by law to consider said requests; and 16 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing, and considering 17 all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to 18 be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the 19 General Plan Amendment and found the following facts and reasons 20 to exist regarding GPA-55(B); GPA-55(C)(in part); GPA-55(D) and 21 GPA-55(E), as shown on Exhibits "A", "B", "C", and "D" respectively i 22 Findings: 23 1) The sites are physically suitable in size and shape to accommodate the proposed land use designations for reasons 24 stated in the staff report dated November 5, 1980. 25 2) The deletion of a secondary arterial from the Circulation Element will not adversely affect traffic for reasons stated 26 in the staff report. 27 3) Uses allowed in the proposed land use designations are compatible with surrounding land uses for reasons stated in 28 i the staff report. 4) The projects are consistent with all city public facility policies and ordinances since: a) Sewer service is not required for these projects and subsequent development of the property will require the availability of sewer service to serve such developments or construction cannot occur. 5) The proposed projects will not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts since, based on the initial study the Planning Department has prepared conditional negative declarations or negative declarations. Further environmental review will be required before development can occur; and o WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found the following facts 9 and reasons to exist regarding GPA-55(C) (in part) as shown on 10 | Exhibit "B". Findings: 12 1) That deletion of Los Manos Way may, at this time, is -.-2 inconsistent with the goals and policies in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 14 2) That approval of a request to redesignate 270 acres to •jr residential low density is, at this time, inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the -,Q General Plan. -,„ 3) That further analysis of the entire area east c?f El Carnino Real, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of College -o Boulevard is needed before adequate land use and circulation decisions can be made in this area. 19My NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of 20 the city of Carlsbad, as follows: 21 A) That the above recitatxons are true and correct. 22 B) That in view of the findings made and considering the 03 applicable law, the decision of the Planning Commission is to recommend APPROVAL of GPA-55(B) as described on p4 Exhibit "A", APPROVAL, in part, and DENIAL without prejudice, in part, of GPA-5~5TcT, as described on Exhibit "B", APPROVAL ^t- of GPA-55 (D) , as described in Exhibit "C", and APPROVAL of ^° GPA-55(E), as described in Exhibit "D". 26 //// 28 ( i PC RESO #1730 -2- f- 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the 2 Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on 3 the 5th day of November, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: 4 AYES: Marcus, Rombotis, Larson, Jose, Friestedt 5 NOES: None 6 ABSENT: Leeds 7 ABSTAIN: L'Heureux 8 9 MARY MAROTS, Chairman CARLSBA!) PLANNING COMMISSION 10 (/ ATTEST: 11 12 13 | JAJrtE'S "C. HASASJAN, Secretary (RLSBAD PLANNING^COMIISSION 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO #1730 -3- Exhibit "A" to PC Reso #1730 Case No: GPA-55(B) November 5, 1980 Applicant: Sandy /Ukegawa REQUEST: Request for amendment to Land Use Element from Non- Residential Reserve to Planned Industrial on property located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road near Laurel Tree Road (as shown on map below). PC Action: The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA-55 (B), a request to change the land use designation on property shown above from Non-Residential Reserve to Planned Industrial- Exhibit "B" to PC Reso §1730 C e No: GPA-55(C) November 5, 1980 Applicant: O'Hara REQUEST: Request for amendment to the Circulation Element to delete two secondary arterials, Los Manos Road and San Francisco Creek Road currently designated east of El Camino Real between College Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road and a request for amendment to the Land Use Element as follows: A) Change approximately 25 acres from Residential Low-Medium Density to a Combination District comprised of Professional and Related Commercial, Community Commercial and High Density Residential for property as shown on the attached maps. B) Change approximately 25 acres from Residential Low Medium Density to a Combination District comprised of Professional and Related Commercial, Community Commercial, and High Density Residential for property as shown on the attached maps. C) Change approximately 270 acres from Residential Low-Medium Density to Residential Low-Medium density for property as shown on the attached maps. D) Change approximately 53 acres from Non-Residential Reserve to Professional and Related Commercial for property as shown on the attached maps. PC ACTION: The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of the following amendments to the General Plan requested by GPA-55(C), as shown on the attached maps: 1) That San Francisco Peak Road be deleted from the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 2) That the request for a change from Residential Low-Density to a Combination District comprised of Residential High Density, Community Commercial and Professional and Related Commercial be approved for property located on the east side of El Camino Real south of future College Boulevard. The Planning Commission DENIES without prejudice the following requests for amendment: 1) That the request for a change from Residential Low-Medium Density to a Combination District comprised of Residential High Density, Community Commercial, and Professional and Related Commercial at the northwest corner of El Camino Real and future College Boulevard be denied without prejudice until a study of land use can be completed for this area. 2) That the Commission deny without prejudice the request to delete or realign Los Manos Way from the Circulation Element. 3) That the Commission deny without prejudice the request to change 270 acres from Residential Low-Medium Density to Residential Low-Density. The Commission directs staff to prepare a Resolution of Intention to hold a public hearing for a General Plan Amendment for this area following a study of circulation and land use by staff (see map depicting Commission action). The Commission hereby permits the applicant to withdraw the request to change the land use designation for 53 acres on the west side of El Camino Real between College and Palomar Airport Road. Attachments Maps CG:ar -2- p. 3 Exhibit B PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION GPA-55(C) 11-5-80 Recontnend approved, of the deletion of Francisco Peak Road Request to delete or realign Los Manos Way denied w/o prejudice Request to change 270 acres from RLM to RL denied w/o prejudice Reconmendjapprova of 50 acres ^LM to Comb District (KH.O,C); RLM to Combinati deu prejudice I Recommended acce ' pplicants request Eto withdraw this area from application GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AS PROPOSED BY APPLICANT TO P.C. GPA-55(C) •F - Conbination District comprised of Rfl/O/C Exh.L-jit "C" to PC Reso 11730 Case No: G PA-5 5 (DO November 5, 1980 Applicant: Mola P.EQUEST: Request for amendment to Land Use Element from Residential Medium Density to Community Commercial on property located at the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road, as shown on the map below: (Exist R-l) PC ACTION: The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA-55(D) changing the land use designation on property shown above from Residential Medium Density to Community Commercial. Exhibzt "D" to PC Reso #1730 Case No: GPA-55(E) November 5, 1980 Applicant: Whitney REQUEST: Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Planned Industrial to Travel Service for property located on the west side of Paseo del Norte approximately .25 miles south of Palomar Airport Road. **» . J5?"S9V* £o<?> PAR-1 10 «\ " • < *o ."»» N S^'31 ^x^asVtf^/%L •>(-*•. 7> y-^?,;1* fePARA T62 AC c* .-u-zt^-v:: . 02^ PAR. AO) ' V-> S 31.93 AC. •' C\J»_; O -5S^i . I '10} -^.iCAM.NO ' !-POR'3^V\ /C" PC ACTION: The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA-55(E), a request to change the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Planned Industrial to Travel Service as shown on the roap above. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1744 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CARLSBAD SPHERE OF INFLUENCE WHEREAS, verified applications for amendments to the General Plan designations and requirements for certain property located as shown on Exhibits "A", "B", "C" and "D", dated December 17, 1980, attached and incorporated herein, have been filed with the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified applications constitute requests for amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of December, 1980, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said requests; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing, a^d considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the General Plan Amendment and found the following facts and reasons to exist regarding GPA-57(A); GPA-57(B); GPA-57(D) and GPA-57(E), as shown on Exhibits "A", "B", "C", and "D" respectively. Findings; 1) The sites are physically suitable in size and shape to accommodate the proposed land use designations for reasons stated in the staff report. 2) Uses allowed in the proposed land use designations are compatible with surrounding land uses for reasons stated in I the staff report. 3) The projects are consistent with all city public facility policies and ordinances since: 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 27 28 r a) Sewer service is not required for these projects and subsequent development of the property will require the availability of sewer service to serve such developments or construction cannot occur. 4) The proposed projects will not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts since, based on the initial study the Planning Department has prepared negative declarations. Further environmental review will be required before develop- ment can occur; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That in view of the findings made and considering the applicable law, the decision of the Planning Commission is to recommend APPROVAL of GPA-57(A), as described on Exhibit "A", APPROVAL of GPA-57(B), as described on Exhibit "B", APPROVAL of GPA-57(D), as described in Exhibit "C", and APPROVAL of GPA-57(E), as described in Exhibit "D". PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of December, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairman Marcus, Commissioners Larson, Kombotis, L'Heureux, Leeds and Friestedt. NOES: None„ ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None,. *Jose voted against GPA-57(A). ATTEST: MARY CARLSB: US, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION J^MES C. HAGAMAN", Spdfetary"" /CARLSBAD PLANNING^OMMISSION PC RESO #1744 c EXHIBIT "A" TO PC RESO NO. CASE NO: GPA-57(A) DECEMBER 17, 1980 APPLICANT: SANDY 1744 REQUEST ; Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Residential Medium Density {RM) to Professional and Related Commercial (O) on property located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Elm Avenue (as shown on the map below) . PC ACTION: The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA-57(A), a request to change the Land Use from "RM to "O" on property as shown above. c c EXHIBIT "B" TO PC RESO NO. 1744 CASE NO: GPA-57(B) DECEMBER 17, 1980 APPLICANT: LA COSTA LAND COMPANY REQUEST: Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Neighborhood Commercial (N) to Residential Medium High Density (RMH) on property located between Rancho Santa Fe Road and Centella Street south of La Costa Avenue (as shown on the map below). APP&QX. /.SAC. OS PC ACTION: The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA-57(B), a request to change the Land Use from "N" to "RMH" on property as shown above. c EXHIBIT "C" TO PC RESO NO. CASE NO: GPA-57(D) DECEMBER 17, 1980 APPLICANT: VALLAS 1744 REQUEST; Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Governmental Facilities (G) to Recreation Commercial (RC) on property generally located on the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road (as shown on the map below). w£% !• ^ '^l i *'J\ h\SITE LOCATION' *£ \ I?' LOCATION ;vi/,pi PC ACTION; The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA-57(D), a request to change the Land Use from "G" to "PC" on property as shown above. EXHIBIT "£)" TO RESO NO. 1744 CASE NO: GPA-57(E) DECEMBER 17, 1980 APPLICANT: SIGNAL LANDMARK REQUEST: Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) to Planned Industrial (PI) on property located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road, southwest of Palomar Airport (as shown on the map below). PC ACTION: The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA-57(E), a request to change the Land Use from "NRR" to "PI" on property as shown above. C 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1745 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL 3 OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE ELEMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW 4 MEDIUM DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY. 5 WHEREAS, verified application for amendment to the General 6 Plan designation and requirements for certain property located as 7 shown on Exhibit "A", dated December 17, 1980, attached and in- 8 corporated herein, has been filed with the Planning Commission; and 9 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for 10 amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; 11 and 12 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of 13 December, 1980 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by 14 law to consider said request; and 15 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing, and considering 16 all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be 17 heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the 18 General Plan Amendment and found the following facts and reasons 19 to exist regarding GPA-57(C) respectively. 20 Findings 21 1) That approval of GPA-57(C) may be detrimental to surrounding residences, as stated in the staff report. 22 2) That approval of GPA-57(C) could have serious affects on 23 circulation and on El Camino Real. 24 3) That approval of GPA-57(C) may be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the traveling public, as stated in 25 the staff report. 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of 27 the City of Carlsbad, as follows: 28 A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 1 2 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the 4 Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on 5 the 17th day of December, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: 6 AYES: Chairman Marcus, Commissioners L'Heureux, Larson, 7 NOES: None. 8 ABSENT: None. 9 ABSTAIN: None. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -f B) That in view of the findings made and considering the applicable law, the decision of the Planning Commission is to recommend DENIAL of GPA-57(C) as described in Exhibit "A", Friestedt, Jose, Rombotis, and Leeds. ATTEST: S, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION Secretary SBAD PLANNING JTOMMISSION PC RESO #1745 -2- cEXHIBIT "A" TO PC RESO NO. 1745 CASE NO: GPA-57(C) DECEMBER 17, 1980 APPLICANT: KEVANE REQUEST: Request for amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to change property shown below from Residential Low Medium Density (RLM) to Residential Medium Density (RM). ASS ft PC ACTION: The Planning Commission recommends DENIAL of GPA-57(C) for property shown on the map above.