Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-11-17; City Council; 6811; General Plan Amendment 59~*; / / CIT OF CARLSBAD — AGENDA JILL AR# 6»/P/ / MTG. 11/17/81 DPPT PL TITLE-^ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 59 ncpr un^^-e*^ /—*/ 1 Is* CITY ATTY !y>(/ CITY MGR^Z^a—(iff iQ.0. O< O RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission and the staff is recommending that the City Council direct the City Attorney's office to prepare docu- ments APPROVING GPA 59(B), 59(C), 59(D), 59(E), 59(H), 59(1) and 59(J). ITEM EXPLANATION GPA 59 contains seven amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan involving six different locations within the city's sphere of influence and a change to the General Plan text. Ori- ginally, there were eight amendments, however, the Planning Com- mission denied GPA 59(A) (decision is final as there was no ap- peal). This item was a request to change property west of South Coast Asphalt from Low Medium Density to Commercial, Office and Medium Density uses. The staff reports to the Planning Commis- sion (attached) describe the seven remaining amendments. Also attached is an overview which describes staff's rationale in making recommendations on the general plan amendments. This sec- tion is based on staff's interpretation of various City Council policies and decisions. The City Attorney expressed concern regarding GPA 59(D) because of potential inadequacies in the EIR. The Attorney has recom- mended a change in the Land Use Element, allowing density limits on planned communities, which resolves this problem. (Refer to Attachment D.) FISCAL IMPACTS There will be no direct fiscal impacts to the city as a result of approval of the proposed amendments. An increase in the amount of commercial and industrial use may provide additional revenues to the city in the future. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Each of the items in GPA-59 have had separate environmental re- view. GPA's 59(B), 59(C) and 59(D) have certified EIR's. EXHIBITS A. GPA Overview, dated October 28, 1981 B. Staff Reports to Planning Commission for GPA 59(B), (C), (D), (E), (H), (I) and (J), dated October 28, 1981 C. General Location Map D. Memo to City Council from City Attorney E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1884 STAFF REPORT DATE: October 28, 1981 TO: Planning Commission" FROM: Planning Department * SUBJECT: GPA-59, OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION GPA-59 includes eight proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Each subamendment (e.g., 59(A), 59(B), etc.) has its own staff report (attached). These staff reports will provide the specifics for each proposal. The staff reports are followed by one resolution (Resolution No. 1884) which covers all of the amendment requests. The overview is intended to take a look at the relationships be- tween the individual amendments, cumulative effect of all the proposals and the possible effects of their approval on the city's general plan. Another intent of this overview is to dis- cuss consistency of the proposals with the rest of the general plan. Staff is recommending approval of seven of the general plan amendments and denial of one proposal. Four of the amendments have environmental impact reports (GPA-59(A) (Sherman), 59-(B) (Carlsbad Oaks), 59-(C) (Occidental), 59-(D) (Carrillo Ranch). The Commission has already recommended certification of the Occi- dental and Carlsbad Oaks EIRs. For purposes of this overview, the General Plan Amendment will be broken down by use type: industrial, commercial, or residen- tial. Industrial GPAs 59(B), 59(D), 59(E) and 59(1) all involve the redesignation of acreages near Palomar Airport Road to industrial use. The Palomar Airport Road area, from Paseo del Norte to the eastern city boundary, is rapidly developing as an industrial corridor. Much of this area is still designated Non- Residential Reserve (NRR) which is basically a holding category until appropriate non-residential uses are established. Most of the NRR is being approved as industrial use. Some criticisms can be made that an industrial corridor such as this will divide the city, produce negative visual impacts along Palomar Airport Road, and that the city will have too much industrial area. Staff believes that the city intended to have a substantial amount of land available for industrial usage when the Land Use Element was approved in 1974 and that if properly planned, it will not have significant, negative visual impacts. Similar amendments have been approved by the city in the past. Another positive factor regarding in- dustrial development in this area is the fact that a specific plan is required for almost all development in this corridor be- cause it is within the airport influence area. Use of the speci- fic plan will ensure that problems generally associated with in- dustrial development (i.e., traffic and aesthetics) can be solved by providing special landscaping along major streets, requiring adequate interior circulation, and making adjacent developments appear as one cohesive unit. Some physical division of the city will occur regardless of this area becoming industrial. The lo- cation of the airport in this area prohibits residential uses from continuing north to south. The total amount of industrial area necessary is really a policy issue, although it appears that the entire corridor is marketable as industrial use. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the four general plan amendments in this category. Another problem associated with the development of large indus- trial areas involves the increase demand for "worker housing". The city is trying to address this problem in several ways. First, the city has increased residential densities in a number of areas (GPAs 57 and 58, 1980 & 1981) throughout the city. Second, the Housing Element has addressed this problem and is providing a number of density bonus incentives to encourage the development of moderately priced houses. Third, the city is pro- posing as part of the present general plan amendments, (GPA-59- (J)), a higher density designation in the general plan which would allow 30-40 dwellingunits per acre in special areas where the City feels higher density is appropriate. The proposed industrial categories are consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan. The plan states that "industrial uses should be concentrated in the least desirable areas for residential development which is in the general area of the flight path corridor of Palomar Airport." The plan also states that NRR areas "should be held in reserve for non-resi- dential uses such as agricultural, industrial, recreational, com- mercial and governmental uses." Commercial GPAs 59(A), 59(C), 59(D) and 59(H) all concern commercial land use. Commercial areas are of extreme importance to the city be- cause of the tax base they provide. The Carlsbad General Plan provides for eight different categories of commercial use. Several studies, however, including the La Costa Master Plan eco- nomic report have stated that the general plan does not designate enough commercial use in the city. Current demand is extremely high especially along major arterials such as El Camino Real. Because of the high demand and the city's good financial shape, -2- Carlsbad can be somewhat selective in approving new locations for commercial- use. In assessing proposed commercial locations staff looks at the compatibility of the site with surrounding land uses which includes traffic and aesthetic impacts. GPA- 59(A) was not considered compatible with surrounding land uses and was deter- mined to have several negative impacts. The other commercial general plan amendments either extend, rearrange or exchange existing commercial areas. For example, GPA-59(C), Occidental, is proposing* to exchange Travel Service (TS) uses for Community Commercial (C) uses on the east and west sides of Interstate 5. They are also proposing to eliminate a Recreation Commercial (RC) site and replace it with TS and C. When a designation is removed staff must look at the overall balance of the various commercial uses in the city and make sure that those eliminated will still be available elsewhere in the city. Except for GPA-59(A), staff feels that the proposed changes in commercial land use will be consistent with the general plan. The plan states that the city should limit the type and amount of commercial uses to those which can feasibly be supported by the trade area and to those which are consistent and compatible with the concept and image of the community as a desirable residen- tial, open space community. The general plan also discourages strip commercial type development and states that commercial activities should develop in centers with common planning, design and facilities. Residential Carlsbad has traditionally been characterized primarily as a low density single-family type residential community with other hous- ing types and uses playing a secondary role. This concept is maintained throughout the text of the general plan. The general plan states: Retain the present predominance of single family resi- dences throughout the community, while providing a var- iety of housing types in the communities within the city, including townhouses, condominiums, apartments, mobile homes, modular and prefabricated housing (Land Use Element). Preserve the -existing character of the city and protect residential communities from encroachment of incompat- ible uses (Housing Element). The low density, single-family type concept becomes harder to maintain, however, as land prices and interest rates rise higher and higher. Pressure is increasing to grant higher densities so that more housing can be built at reasonable prices. A dichotomy has developed in that most existing residents would like to re- tain the existing single family character of Carlsbad (evident -3- from discussions of Housing Element Citizen's Committee, 1979 & 1980), while the city is under heavy pressure and demand to create new affordable housing which usually means smaller units and more dense developments. In the past several years the city has increased the density in a number of general plan amend- ments. Most of these increases have been in the La Costa area. Staff's recommendations are based on compatibility and selec- tivity. Despite development pressure, the city appears to be placing the appropriatness of the land use as a number one prior- ity. The city is also encouraging increases in the number of affordable housing units through a variety of programs offered in the Housing Element. GPAs 59(A) and 59(C) are proposing increases in residential den- sities. GPA-59(D) is basically rearranging densities. GPA- 59(B) is changing residential areas to industrial use. Overall, GPA-59 is retaining the same balance of residential density as before, with only a very slight reduction in overall units (be- cause of Carlsbad Oaks 59(B)). Staff feels that the proposed residential amendments are consistent with the entire general plan (except 59(A)) because the plan encourages the development of a wide range of densities and a variety of housing types. The Housing Element does recognize changing economic factors and pro- vides policies which encourage developing higher densities (as proposed in GPA-59(J)) and more affordable units. CDG:wl 10/23/81 -4- cc u CPA EXISTING PROPOSED r "" I X STAFF REPORT DATE: October 28, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department t SUBJECT: GPA^-59 (B) , SANTA FE COMPANY - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Neighborhood Commercial, Residential Medium Density and Residential Low Medium Density to Planned Industrial. Im PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Neighborhood Commercial (N), Residential Medium Density (RM 0-4 du/ac) , and Residential Low Medium Density (RLM 0-4 du/ac) to Planned Industrial (PI) on property located approximately .75 east of El Camino Real and north of Palomar Airport Road (see location map). The entire site is approximately 417 acres and is known as Carlsbad Oaks. The subject property is surrounded by open space to the north and west, Carlsbad Raceway to the east, and an approved 187 acres industrial project (same owner) will be built to the -south. The site is located in the Palomar Airport Influence Area which requires the processing of a specific plan before development can occur. II. ANALYSIS Planning Issues; 1) Is the proposed Planned Industrial use appropriate for the site? 2) Will the constraints identified in EIR 81-4 make the Planned Industrial designation incompatible with the site? III. DISCUSSION The general plan amendment proposes approximately 282 acres of Planned Industrial (PI) with the remaining 135 acres retaining the open space (OS) designation. The OS area has been slightly redefined to more accurately reflect the location of biological resources and steep slopes. 7 Staff feels that the proposed PI use is appropriate for the site because of surrounding land uses. The project site lies under a major aircraft landing route east of Palomar Airport. Some of the planes' approach at a low altitude generating a considerable amount of noise. Staff feels that if residential uses are permitted to develop on the site it will greatly increase the amount of complaints against the airport and will provide additional pressure for its elimination. Industrial uses at this location would ensure compatibility with the airport and would be compatible w,ith surrounding land uses. There are approved industrial uses immediate to the south, open space corridors exist to the north and west, and the Carlsbad Raceway and Vista 422 (approved industrial project) exist to the east. A number of environmental constraints on the subject property were identified in EIR 81-4. The major impacts were regarding riparian (streamside) habitat, air quality and affects on the Dawson Los Monos Reserve. Staff does not feel that these impacts would preclude carefully planned development of the site. A specific plan is required on the site because it is located in the airport influence area. Staff feels that the mitigation measures identified in the EIR can be incorporated into the specific plan. Mitigation measures would include the buffering and preservation of the riparian area, and orientation of uses away from the Dawson Los Monos Reserve. .The EIR did indicate that irreversible impacts would occur on biological resources and air quality. A statement of overriding considerations would have to be issued by the City Council before development could occur. For the reasons stated above, staff is recommending approval of GPA-59(B). IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Impact Report (EIR 81-4) was prepared for the subject property and was recommended to the City Council for certification at the Planning Commission meeting of October 14, 1981. V. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of GPA-59(B) to the City Council. CDG:ar 10/15/81 Attachments: 1) Location Map 2) Disclosure Statement -2- FIGURE J .SITE LOCATION , STAFF REPORT DATE: October 28, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department * SUBJECT: GPA-59(C) , OCCIDENTAL - A request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Travel Service (TS) to Community Commercial (C), from Residential Commercial (RC) to a Combination District (Travel Service and Community Commercial) and from Open Space- (OS) to Residential Medium (RM) Density. I.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND - BACKGROUND The subject general plan amendment involves 3 separate amendments to the general plan on 3 different parcels. The properties are located in close proximity to the intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Interstate 5, and are part of the area known as the Occidental properties. These parcels, their acreages and numbering sequence are shown on the attached location map. No changes are proposed on areas 2, 4 and 5. These areas are being shown on the location map for reference only. The applicant is proposing to change the designation of Area 1 from Travel Service (TS) to Community Commercial (C). Area 3 is being proposed for change from Recreation Commercial (RC) to a Combination District comprised of Travel Service (TS) and Community Commercial (C). The third change proposed is for area 6 from Open Space (OS) to Residential Medium Density (RM). The Occidental properties have a complicated history of past city actions. A number of specific plans and master plans were approved for this area between 1969 and 1974. Future actions necessary to develop areas 1,3 and 6 are described below: Area 1 Zone Change SP-7, Deletion MP-133, Revision Area 3 "Zone Change SP-7, Deletion Area 6 MP-133, Revision Before any of the subject properties can be developed there are several issues affecting the Occidental properties which must be resolved. These issues include the following: sources of funding for the Poinsettia Bridge (over the railroad tracks); elimination of a park site in Area 6; and reimbursement to Occidental and Ayers Company for the installation of sewer lines. City staff is currently working on bridge and sewer 10 benefit agreements which may resolve these issues. The park issue is further discussed under Area 6. The proposed general plan amendments should not be affected by these issues. II. ANALYSIS Area 1; Travel Service (TS) to Community Commercial (C) Issues: 1) Is the land use proposed appropriate for the * site? 2) Will the loss of the existing land use designation limit the availability of Travel Services uses in the city? Discussion The applicant is proposing that the site be redesignated Community Commercial (C). The General Plan indicates that this designation allows a wide range of facilities for retail trade including markets, offices, financial institutions and theatres. The General Plan also states that the minimum size for C areas should be 6 acres. The subject property is 5.1 acres. Staff feels that the Neighborhood Commercial (N) designation is more appropriate for the site. This designation allows local convenience uses such as supermarkets, drug stores, professional offices and personal service stores. It is similar to the C designation, but does not allow as wide a range of uses and is more appropriate for smaller sites. Staff also feels the N designation is important at this location to ensure that neigh- borhood uses are not precluded by office type development. This location will be the closest commercial site to the residential areas east of 1-5 and north of Batiquitos Lagoon and should .provide for the needs of these neighborhoods. It is likely that some of the C area on the west side of 1-5 (areas 2 and 3) will develop as office uses. Staff does not feel that the loss of the Travel Service (TS) designation on the site will severely limit this use in the city. The very next intersection (Palomar Airport Road and 1-5) is designated TS and is currently providing travel oriented uses (service station, restaurant, etc). The applicant is also proposing additional TS on the west side of 1-5 in area 3 (see discussion below). For the reasons stated above staff is recommending that the Land Use Element be amended to designate the subject property as Neighborhood Commercial. The applicant has stated that Community Commercial is the preferred designation, but has indicated that he will not oppose a Neighborhood Commercial designation. -2- Area 3; Recreation Commercial (RC) to a Combination District (C and TS) Issues: 1) Is the proposed land use appropriate for the site? 2) Will the loss of Recreation Commercial area limit the possibility of these uses developing elsewhere t in the city? Discussion Area 3 is currently designated as Recreation Commercial (RC). The General Plan states that appropriate uses would include golf courses, pro-shops, tennis facilities, boat launchings, motels, hotels, and restaurants. The applicant is proposing a combination district (two or more general.plan designations on the same area) for the subject property comprised of Travel Service (TS) and Community Commercial (C) designations. Staff does not feel that RC is the best use for the site. There is no zone which directly implements this designation and it's doubtful that any of the special uses (boat launching, golf course) allowed under the RC category will develop on this site. Staff feels that a similar designation, TS, would provide some of the same uses necessary for this area. Those uses would include hotels, motels, restaurants and service stations which would attract southbound traffic on 1-5. The applicant is also proposing Community Commercial as part of the Combination District. Staff feels this use is also appropriate because it would be .consistent with area 2, adjacent to the south, and help provide professional, financial and retail services to southwestern Carlsbad. Use of a combination district requires the submittal of a specific plan prior to development. A specific plan could dictate the size and location of the Travel Service and Community Commercial designations on the site. Because the proposed uses are appropriate for the site, staff is recommending approval of this amendment as proposed by the applicant. Area 6; Open Space (OS) and School Site to Residential Medium Density (RM). Issues: 1) Is the proposed designation appropriate for the site? 2) What affect would the elimination of Open Space have on the overall open space plan? -3- Discussion Area 6 is .currently shown as Open Space (OS) on the General Plan and also includes an elementary school site. The applicant is proposing to change both the Open Space and school site to Residential Medium Density (RM 4-10 du/ac). The Open Space designation on this property is actually part of a large open space corridor (see OS map attached) which extends from Batiquitos Lagoon northward where it connects with the floodplain just south o'f Palomar Airport Road.' The Open Space Element is somewhat vague regarding the intent of these corridors. The Open Space Element does indicate that the corridors are intended to preserve open space for outdoor recreation with the possibility of having inter-connecting trail systems. The intent is also to •establish greenbelts as a means of maintaining community scale, neighborhood identification, and achieving openness. The subject open space is shown as prime open space on the Open Space and Conservation Map (OS Element). There are three major options available to the city regarding the open space on this property: 1) Eliminate the Open Space designation by changing to RM; 2) Deny the amendment and leave the property totally as Open Space; 3) Reduce the amount of open space on the property (see attached OS map). Staff does not feel that the OS should be eliminated entirely from the site. Currently, there is no firm city policy regarding these corridors and elimination would limit the city's future options for utilizing these areas. Revision of the Open Space Element is needed in the near fu.ture and that would be the appropriate time to determine the future of these areas. Staff is recommending that the size of the corridor be reduced in width to allow development at the RM (4-10 du/ac) density. The intent would be to leave enough width so that a connection could be made to open space areas on either end of the property. The exact location of the open space would be determined during project approval. Staff agrees that RM is the appropriate use for the site, in conjunction with the remaining open space, because the area surrounding the subject property is designated RM. The applicant concurs with this recommendation. Elimination of the school site should not be a problem as the city has received a letter from the Carlsbad School District indicating that an agreement for in-lieu fees has been reached with the developer. The school site is no longer needed. A park site, existing in the open space area will also have to be I3 eliminated. This can occur when the draft Parks and Recreation Element goes to hearing early next year. The Parks and Recreation Commission has already recommended in favor of eliminating this park. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Impact Report (EIR 81-1) was prepared for the subject property and was recommended to the City Council for certification at the Planning Commission meeting of October 14, 1981. IV. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of GPA-59(C) to the City Council. ATTACHMENT 1) Location Map 2) Open Space Map 3) Disclosure Statement CDG:ar 10/21/81 -5- IH Cfc Map OCCIDENTAL. (.AND INCt POIIMSETT1A l-ANE OCCIOENTA1. L.AIMO IIMO PC3INSETTIA LAME POOJPERTII If altt_-f Lite information you Jw»ve lAiUaittec. luis t.ocn rovicwud, it iu determined .that Curlbfr information is ruuuirud' V°u "ill ^ so advised. WKJCAKT: R. C. Jewett Co. Partnership Uame (individual, partnership, join1: venture, corporation, syndication) 7215 Daffodil PI. Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Business Address . * 438-0425 Telephone Nuraljor r*nrpnra'-)-i nn (Donald Kane P.O. Box 590 Ca'rlsbad. CA 92008 Address 729-8973 Number KEJ5BERS: . - R. C. Jewett (individual, partner, joint Home Address venture, corporation, syndication) •m t^ naPf/^-i i PI Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number Frances J. Jewett Mane ' . Home Address 7215 Daffodil PI. Carlsbad, CA 92008 _ t Business 438-0425 Telephone Number Telephone Number Cm-j <-V. .TnTla . ^"A. 92037 phone: 455-7888 (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis- closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be relied upon as being true and correct until amended. I I if \ A PLANNED COMMUNfTY BY: CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA TVE WOOOmHO COVW*63. THE MSOTER COMfWNY.~WC. & DAON SOUTHWEST SiJCK CA g^ -7 r c- STAFF REPORT /""" /|1V DATE: October 28, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: GPA-59(D]I f • RANCHO CARRILLO - A request to amend the Land Use Element for the designations of RLM, RM, RMH, C, RC, PI and E. I. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION The Rancho Carrillo project area consists of 758 acres located 5.5 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. The site is bounded on the north by the Carlsbad Raceway, on the east by San Marcos, on the south by La Costa, and on the west by unincorporated San Diego County. A vicinity map is attached. In 1972, the city of Carlsbad changed the zoning designation of Carrillo Ranch from single-family residential (R-1) to Planned Community (PC) and adopted a Planned Community Master Plan for Rancho Carrillo. A revised Master Plan was submitted to the city in February of 1981. An EIR was prepared for both the General Plan Amendment and the Master Plan revision. However, due to significant environmental concerns raised in the EIR, the project applicants changed the original Master Plan revision. The latest proposed Master plan will include primarily residential land use of various densities south of Palomar Airport Road and industrial land uses north of Palomar Airport Road. Palomar Airport Road will be realigned to the northern property line. It would also allow for no more than 2,998 dwelling units at densities ranging from 1.2 - 15.8 units per acre. The plan proposes an internal circulation system within the community, including primary and secondary streets, bike paths, and pedestrian trails. General Plan Amendment. The project applicants have requested that the City of Carlsbad consider an amendment to the city of Carlsbad's General Plan in support of the proposed revised Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. Attachments A and B illustrate the existing General Plan and the proposed General Plan Amendment for the subject property. A statistical comparison of the proposed General Plan amendment with the existing General Plan and the original General Plan Amendment follows this section. Comparison of the revised General Plan Amendment to the original proposal shows that residential acreage stays relatively the same. (See chart next page). However, the neighborhood and travel services commercial is eliminated and community commercial is reduced. Planned industrial acreage increases from 41.4 to 70 acres. School acreage also increases, while open space acreage decreases. r r The current General Plan Amendment would allow 494.7 acres of residential development which is 65.4 acres more than is designated by the existing General Plan. The General Plan Amendment allows less medium-high density and low- medium density and would provide more medium density development. It would also allow a maximum of 4,110 dwelling units as compared with the 3,886 dwelling units presently allowed under the General Plan. However, the proposed Master Plan provides a ceiling of 2,998 units. The EIR only analyzed the environmental effects of 2,998 units. This creates a potential problem. The Master Plan is expected to be heard by the Planning Commission in November. However, there is a period of time between the General Plan Amendment, if approved and the action on the Master Plan during which the Master Plan could be revised. The applicants could request densities up to the limit of the General Plan Amendment and potentially receive 1,122 more dwelling units. It should be noted that if the applicants were to desire additional units, further environmental review would be required. It was the original intent of both the applicant and staff to process the EIR, General Plan Amendment and Master Plan simultaneously. The Master Plan would have then provided a control over the potential density allowed by the General Plan Amendment. However, during the 18 months of processing all three documents, the Master Plan was delayed. Many changes were necessary because of environmental impacts and revisions proposed by the applicants. The next General Plan Amendment hearing date is set by the City Council for June of 1982. Therefore, staff concludes, due to the long processing times and the Master Plan following so closely behind the General Plan Amendment, that it is more equitable to process the General Plan Amendment as scheduled. Finally, the applicant is requesting that the area referred to as a special treatment area would be eliminated and designated as planned industrial. The recreation commercial area would be decreased in size by 13.5 acres. Land Use Residential Existing General Plan Original General Plan • • - Request - Current General Plan • • Request RLM-low/medium-density (0-4 du/ac) 191.3 RM-medium-density (4-10 du/ac) 163.9 RMH-medium/high-density (10-20 du/ac) 74.1 Commercial Neighborhood Commercial 12.3 Community Commercial Travel Services Conroercial 20.8 Recreation Commercial 24.7 Planned Industrial - School Special Treatment Open Space 1 TOTALS 758.2 184.2 301.4 184.9 282.6 27.2 12. 20. 8.9 10. 41. 14. 16.0 11.2 70.0 30.4 171.0 758.2 .2 f 1. Excluding the 10.5 acre Carrillo Rancho Park III. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1. Are the proposed designations appropriate for the site? 2. Is the proposed amendment compatible with the surrounding land use? 3. Is the proposed General Plan Amendment consistent with all elements of the General Plan? Discussion As was stated before, the proposed General Plan Amendment would allow 494.7 acres of residential development. This is 65.4 acres more than the existing General Plan allows. Under the proposed GPA the maximum number of units permitted would be 4,110. The existing General Plan designations permit a maximum of 3,886 units. Under the original GPA request the applicants had proposed lower density land use designations but had calculated the units at the upper end of the scale. For example, there were more acres in the RM category (4-10 du/ac). However, the applicants had calculated the number of units per acre as 10. This would mean that each subdivision that came in would have to go through the rather difficult process of justifying the upper range densities. Therefore, under the current GPA request, the applicants have increased the acreage in the higher density land use designations but have generally calculated the number of units in the low to mid-range. However, the proposed Master Plan restricts the total dwelling units to 2,998. Also, the EIR analyzed the environmental effects of only 2,998 units. If the applicants were to exceed 2,998 units, additional environmental review would be necessary. There are two possible methods for the Planning Commission to resolve the differences between the maximum units allowed under the proposed GPA and the proposed Master Plan. The first method is to approve the GPA as proposed and to emphasize, during the hearings for the Master Plan, that 2,998 units is the upper limit. The second method is to request that the applicant revise the land use categories. Staff recommends the first method for several reasons: First, although the potential for the applicants revising the densities in the Master Plan up to the limit allowed in the General Plan Amendment exists, staff concludes that the short time between the General Plan Amendment, if approved, and the Master Plan application would limit this potential problem. Second, staff has more design flexibility at the subdivision stage if the applicant is not guaranteed the high end of the land use designation. Third, as was stated before, staff believes that is more equitable to process the EIR and General Plan Amendment now rather than wait until June of 1982 to process all three together. r Finally, staff considers it proper to pay the EIR consultant and close out that contract. Due to the long delays, the contract costs have been increased. More delays would again increase the costs. The proposed amendment would eliminate the acreage designated as neighborhood and travel services commercial. It would also designate an area for community commercial facilities which is not currently provided for in the existing General Plan. The recreation commercial area would be reduced in size to 11.2 acres. Overall, the acreage for the commercial categories is decreased from 57.8 acres under the existing General Plan to 27.2 acres under the proposed GPA. It must be noted here that the fiscal impact analysis for Rancho Carrillo stated the commercial and industrial development provide the only positive tax revenue source to the City. The fiscal impact analysis was done for the original GPA request. Under that GPA request, the EIR identified substantial problems with the location of the commercial development fronting along Pale-mar Airport Road. In response to the EIR, the applicants eliminated some of the commercial acreage, substituted planned industrial, and also realigned Palomar Airport Road. Staff believes the current GPA request for commercial acreage is appropriate. However, if the City wishes to increase its tax revenue from this project, more commercial should be included south of the proposed realignment of Palomar Airport Road. The current GPA request has proposed to eliminate the Special Treatment Areas which are north of the current alignment of Palomar Airport Road. Special treatment areas cannot be eliminated unless those areas are specifically addressed. Staff recommends that the underlying designation of planned industrial be approved, but that the special treatment overlay be maintained. Also, the EIR (Response to Comments section, page 39, item 19a) specifically recommends that the special treatment area be maintained with the underlying land use designation as proposed by the applicant. With the retention of the special treatment area and with the mitigation measures in the EIR, staff feels that the current general plan amendment proposal will be compatible with surrounding land uses. There will be two elementary school sites totaling 30.4 acres. One site is in the Carlsbad Unified School District; the other site is in the San Marcos School District. If either or both sites are not needed by the school districts they will be made available for development. Staff supports this as long as the maximum limit of 2,998 units, as proposed by the Master Plan, is not exceeded. Also, the existing Paries and Recreation Element indicates a proposed 7 acre park site at the southwest corner of Melrose Avenue and Carrillo Way. The applicants proposed moving the site to just east of the Carrillo Ranch Historic Park site and increasing the acreage to 8.2 acres. However, the Carlsbad Parks and Recreation Commission voted to accept parkinlieu fees rather than land dedication. The park site will be deleted when the Parks and Recreation Element is revised during the next year. The 10.5 existing acre park site which includes the Carrillo Rancho House is not a part of the Master Plan or this General Plan Amendment. .4 r The Open Space Element of the General Plan does not specifically delineate certain areas as open space. It recommends that certain areas with high priority resources be considered for preservation as open space and that these areas be designated during the planning process. The map which accompanies the Open Space Element generally shows an open space corridor through the Rancho Carrillo project. Under the current GPA request, the riparian area and drainage swale is partially preserved as a high priority resource area. There would be 146.4 acres of open space which would cover approximately 17.9% of the site. The requirement for open space for the PC Zone is 15%. However, the Master Plan permits a 10% variation in the open space areas during the tentative map process. Staff believes that the open space changes, as proposed, are appropriate and generally maintain the open space corridors as indicated in the General Plan. Palomar Airport Road will be realigned along a more northerly route. This realignment will eliminate a dangerous curve. Melrose will be realigned to the west. These changes are considered minor and an amendment to the Circulation Element was not considered necessary. (It must be noted here that even with the improved circulation design the intersection of Melrose and Palomar Airport Road will operate beyond capacity. This is the result of a regional problem; the proposed General Plan Amendment and Master Plan will only add incrementally to an existing problem). Staff is recommending approval of GPA-59(D). The proposed designations are appropriate for the site, are compatible with surrounding land uses and are consistent with other elements of the General Plan. Environmental Review The Planning Director has determined that approval of this project might have significant environmental impacts and that an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared. The EIR was prepared and noticed according to the requirements of CEQA and the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance. The public review period ended May 6, 1981. The draft EIR and Responses to Comments will precede the General Plan Amendment request. Recommendation Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission retain the special treatment area and APPROVE GPA-59(D). Attachments 1) Existing General Plan 2) Proposed General Plan 3) Location Map 4) Disclosure Form JC:ar 10/20/81 .5 r D Existing General Plan Low Medun Density (O-4<)u/3c) Medium Density (4-KMu/ac) Medium High Density (1O-2Odu/*:) Commercial Travel Services Commercial Recreation Commercial Special Treatrr«nt Are* Elementary School Open Spac» -cso—o^^v^^5^^- ,^v/^c^%^-:^;ta3isfe&*x _ -V V<"O-»'^£r^v"n-.'W> c Revised General Plan Ammendment M Low Wfdium Density (0-4du/ac) Medium Density (4-IOdu/ac) Medium High Density (10-2Odu/ac) Community Commarciat Recreation Comrmrcial Planned Industrial Elem*otary School OfH-fi Sp^ce D PALO l\Ts_EX\\\lT~^v\\NRRv-h\rI.N 6 \\\ \ \\ \\ \\ STAFF REPORT DATE: October 28, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: GPA-5 9 (E) , CARLTAS - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Non-Residential Reserve to Planned Industrial on the south side of Palomar Airport Road, approximately 600 feet east of Paseo del Norte. I. Project Description The applicant is requesting that the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended to redesignate two properties from Non- Residential Reserve (NRR) to Planned Industrial (Pi), located as described above. The combined area of the two lots is approxi- mately 20.44 acres, with approximately 2990 feet of frontage on Palomar Airport Road and an average depth of 450 feet. Low lying vegetation covers most of the site which slopes to the south. A nursery and a Caltrans storage yard for highway maintenance equipment are located on the properties to the west of the sub- ject property. The properties to the north, south and east are vacant. A 32 acre parcel directly to the south of the subject property is designated for industrial development by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The applicant has not submitted any plans for the development of the properties. 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 The Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) classification of the 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 owner is indicating that light industry is the most appropriate use for this site because it is adjacent to other industrial pro- perty, partially within the Palomar Airport influence area and adjacent to major roads. Ce Staff agrees that planned industrial is the most appropriate "non-residential" use for this site. Commercial use would create a strip effect along Palomar Airport Road and would also generate greater traffic volumes. Industrial uses would not require in- dividual, direct access off Palomar Airport Road and could be serviced from an interior street with a signalized intersection at Palomar Airport Road. In the recent past much of the land in the vicinity of Palomar Airport has been redesignated from Non-Residential Reserve to Planned Industrial. Staff is under the opinion that most of the other property along Palomar Airport Road that is designated NRR will eventually be redesignated to PI. Since a portion of this property designated NRR is within the special treatment area sur- rounding the airport a specific plan or site development plan will be required prior to the development of any of the property. This will provide the city with the opportunity to control access onto Palomar Airport Road and assure that the industrial corridor developing along Palomar Airport Road will be developed cohesive- ly with high quality industrial park-type uses. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff had environmental concerns about the proposed General Plan Amendment and required an archaeological and biological survey of the site. An archaeological field check on May 5, 1981 revealed that there were no archaeological sites on the subject property. A biological field check on March 31, 1981 revealed that no threatened or endangered species were found on the site or ex- pected to occur there. Further environmental review will be necessary when development plans are submitted for the site. The Planning Director has determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment and therefore has issued a Negative Declaration on September 23, -1981. V. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Nega- tive Declaration issued by the Planning Director and recommend APPROVAL of GPA-59(E) to the City Council. VI. ATTACHMENTS 1) Location Map 2) Background Data Sheet 3) Disclosure Statement 4) Environmental Documents MH:wl — 2*- O7 BRCKGIKXJKD C£TA SHEET CASE NO: GPA-50 (E) APPLICANT: CABLTAS COMPANY REQUEST AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment from NRR, . (Non-Residential/Reserve) to PI (Planned Industrial) s/side of Palonar Airport Road between Paseo del Norte and El Carnino Real. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Lot "H" of Rancho Acrua Hedionda according i-n Map— - - "^- ' - - ' ' .-.™_..i. n j • UITITUI.I _IJJ_._.T-I_-.« _jra— £r- 823 filed November 16, 1896 _ Assessors Parcel Nurnber: 211 - 040 - 8 & 9 20«44 Ko. of Tjots 2 GENERAL PLZ^I AND ZONING General Plan Land Use Designation NRR _ [ Density Allowed 0 Density Proposed p_ Existing Zone L-C Proposed Zone Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Worth E-A Vacant South P-M Vacant East E-A Vacant West c~2 Storage Yard and nursery PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad - . . Water District Costa Peal -Sewer District Encina _ ' _ _ ^EDU's N/A Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated May 6, 1981 _ XOther; IMPACT ASSESSMETTT Other, Negative Declaration, issued Sept. 23, 1981 Log No. E.I.R. Certified, dated . STAFF REPORT DATE: October 28, 1981 TO: Planning Commission- FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: GPA*59(H) CITY OF CARLSBAD REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (PI) TO A COMBINATION DISTRICT COMPRISED OF COMMERCIAL TRAVEL SERVICES (TS)/ PROFESSIONAL (OFFICE) AND RELATED (O). I. Project Description and Background The City of Carlsbad is requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element from Planned Industrial (PI) to a Combination District comprised of Commercial Travel Services (TS)/ Professional and Related (O). The project contains approximately 12.3 acres and is located along the frontage of Paseo del Norte southerly of Palomar Airport Road and northerly of Alta Mira (see attached map) . Surrounding land use consists of commercial travel services to the west (California 6 Motel and Hadley's), government and com- mercial travel services to the north (CalTrans Maintenance Yard, 711 Market, and Arco Service Station), and undeveloped land im- mediately east and south of the project. The northerly portion of Alta Mira is located approximately 650 feet southerly of the project. Current land use on the project site consists of light industry (CalMil Plastics and Oreo), commercial (Haedrich Bldg. Tip Top Market), as well as four vacant undeveloped parcels. The subject property in this application is part of a Specific Plan, SP23A, which was approved in 1972. Basically, SP23A imple- ments the provisions of the PM zone on the subject M zoned pro- perty. If approved, a combination district land use designation requires a Specific Plan for development. Should the subject GPA59(H) be approved, City staff would prepare the necessary Specific Plan concurrent with an implementing zone change appli- cation. The new Specific Plan would supercede SP23A for those properties involved in GPA59(H). II. Analysis Major Planning Issues 1) Is the proposed land use designation appropriate for the site? 2) Would the elimination of this property from the area's PI designation decrease the viability of development of the remaining PI properties? Discussion The proposed General Plan Amendment 59(H) would create a combina- tion district comprised of Commercial Travel Services (TS)/Pro- fessional Office and Related (O). The Travel Service designation in the Land Use Element states that travel service uses including motels, highway oriented service stations, and restaurants serve business and industrial areas as well as the traveling public. Furthermore, the Element indicates that TS uses should be access- ible to interregional traffic, but they need not have direct ac- cess if their location is easily identifiable. The site meets the above locational criteria because of its location adjacent to 15 (and southerly of Palomar Airport Road). In addition, the site is immediately southerly of the developing travel service complex which includes Pea Soup Andersen, Hadley's, and Califor- nia 6 Motel. The Land Use Element also indicates that Profes- sional Office and Related Commercial (O) uses could be located along major arterials without creating adverse conditions associ- ated with commercial strip development. Furthermore, the Element indicates that "O" uses can be utilized as buffers between com- mercial areas and residential uses. Therefore, the addition of the "O" designation in the proposed combination district would not only serve to mitigate adverse conditions associated with the developing strip commercial along Paseo del Norte, it would also help to buffer Alta Mira and other residential uses to the south from commercial and industrial uses to the north. Therefore, staff believes the site is appropriate for the proposed combina- tion district designation. Another important consideration that is related to the appropri- ateness of the site for the proposed land use designation is the site's close proximity to the Encina Treatment Plant. The plant has been known to produce periodic pungent odors. However, an air quality/odor analysis prepared by Westec Services for Cali- fornia 6 Motels concluded that any such odor impact (from Encina) will occur only rarely and should not interfere with project development plans. The City Council accepted the findings of Westec analysis when they approved the California 6 project ear- lier this year. The proposed conversion of 12.3 acres of Planned Industrial (PI) land to commercial use would not significantly affect the via- bility of development of the remaining "PI" properties in the area. The remaining PI property (27.2 acres) could become an isolated island of Planned Industrial; however, the property is adjacent to 22.44 acres of land that is currently designated non- residential reserve (NRR). This NRR land is the subject of General Plan Amendment GPA-59(E) which proposes to change the -2- use designation to Planned Industrial. Should GPA-59(E) be ap- proved, there would be more PI property in the area than current- ly exists. The property involved in GPA 59(E) would require a specific plan for development so that access from Palomar Airport Road to the remaining PI property could be insured through the specific plan process. Moreover, access to Palomar Airport Road for industrial traffic would be more desirable than having the industrial traffic utilize Paseo del Norte (a secondary arterial). III. Environmental Review .The Planning Director has determined that approval of GPA59(H) will not have a significant effect on the environment and has issued a Negative Declaration for the project on September 22, 1981. IV. Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Nega- tive Declaration issued by the Planning Director and recommend APPROVAL of GPA59(H) to the City Council. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Environmental Documents GW:wl -3- tra && \r. CASE MQ-. GPA 59 1 A PIPLB € A N!___H!EAJJL_ ____^ 4/r port VJC1N1TY MAP- © STAFF REPORT DATE: October 28, 1981 TO: Planning Commission t FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: GPA-59(I)•- JAMES HIEATT - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan 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 a 13.5 acre parcel of property located on the north side of the northern boundary of Palomar Airport, approximately 6000 feet west of El Camino Real (see attached location map), from Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) to Planned Industrial (PI). Surrounding land uses include plan- ned industrial to the west, the Koll Business•Park1s combination Planned Industrial and Commercial to the north and east, and the airport to the south. Topographically, the site is dominated by a plateau prevailing north-south through the center of the pro- perty. Slopes declining from this plateau vary from quite steep at the northernmost point to very mild along the southern and eastern portions of the property. Over 50% of the site is rela- tively flat. Access to the subject property is presently provided by circuitous dirt roads crossing both the Koll property to the north and the Signal Landmark property to the south and west. II. ANALYSIS PLANNING-ISSUES 1. Is the proposed General Plan Designation of Planned Industrial the most appropriate for the site? 2. Is the proposed designation compatible with existing and future land uses in the area? III. DISCUSSION The General Plan Land Use Designation of Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) is essentially a holding category to be utilized until an appropriate non-residential use is found for the property. A Planned Industrial (PI) designation would include primarily light industrial uses developed via a business park scheme. The Gen- eral Plan states that the burden of proof to reclassify areas in Non-Residential Reserve lies with the developer. The developer feels that PI is the best use for the site because it is sur- rounded by other property designated for industrial use and is adjacent to the airport. 07 Staff agrees that the property will be best served by this type of industrial use. Since the property is virtually surrounded by industrial uses, the proposed PI designation would be consistent with existing and future uses in the area and would be less impacted by the airport than other non-residential uses. A site development plan, which is required for all properties of less than 25 acres within the special treatment area (Airport Influ- ence) , will properly adapt this use to the topography and config- uration of the site and set standards for the development. For these reasons, staff feels that the proposed designation is proper for the site. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that approval of GPA-59(I) will have no significant impact upon this property or the sur- rounding environment. The impacts of future development on the site have been addressed through environmental review of Carlsbad Pacific Industrial Park (Koll Company EIR-80-3) and the addi- tional submittal of an archaeological and biological study by the applicant. While most impacts were found to be negligible, the biological survey revealed the presence of Dichondra Occiden- talis, a rare California Plant, on the site, primarily on the western slope of the plateau. The study recommended that this species be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Staff feels that a grading plan sensitive to this fact would not -greatly reduce the buildable acreage of the property. All appro- priate mitigation measures identified on EIR 80- 3 and in the biological report will be incorporated into the site development plan. A Conditional Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director. V. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Condi- tional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and recommend Approval of GPA-59(I) to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1) Location map 2) Background data sheet 3) Disclosure statement 4) Environmental documents PJK:ar 10/21/81 -2- • • BACKGROUND DATA SIIELT 15 N0: GPA 59 til APPLICANT: James Hieatt ,__ f REQUEST AND LOCATION: GPA from General Industrial to PI (Planned Industrial) north of Palomar Airport, south of Roll property, and east of Signal __~ : ~ —— Landmark ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Lot "F" of the Rancho Aqua Hedionda* • according to Map 823 filed November 16, 1896. Assessors Parcel Number: 212 - 030 - 03 Acres 13.5 No. of Lots GENERAL PLAN A1\D ZONING General Plan Land Use Designation Density Allowed N/A _ Density Proposed Existing Zone • PI (County) _ Proposed Zone pi Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: . • Zoning Land Use North CM . Vacant CM • Airport East CM Vacant West CM Vacant PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water District Costa Real. Sewer District Palomar Airport Basis EDU's N/A_ Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated May 27, 1981 (Other: ; .__ ENVIRONMENTAL 'IMPACT Conditional^ Negative Declaration, issued Oct. lf 1981 Log No. ' ._ E.I.R. Certified, dated Other/ ' . STAFF REPORT DATE: October 28, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: GPA-59(J) - CITY OF CARLSBAD - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by creating a new, higher density residential designation. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND This is a request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by creating a new residential designation which would allow a higher density range than presently permitted by the Plan. This amendment is part of a three step program which staff was directed to proceed with by the City Council earlier this year. Part 1, which was recently approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, was a Zone Code Amendment which reduced the maximum permitted density of the R-3L, R-3, R-P, R-T and R-W zones in order to make them consistent with the present density ranges of the General Plan. Part 2, which is the General Plan Amendment before the Commission at this time, is the establishment of a new higher-density, residential land use designation which would only be applied in very limited areas of the City. If this amendment is approved, then Part 3 would be the creation of a new zone to implement the new land use designation. II. ANALYSIS Staff is recommending that the new residential designation have a density range of 30 to 40 dwelling units per acre. The new designation would only be applied in very limited locations in the city where the city definitely believes that higher densities are appropriate and desirable. Such locations might be near the commercial core, in the Redevelopment Area or close to high employment work areas. The designation would also be applied only under restricted circumstances such as encouraging apartment development, redevelopment or the provision of low/moderate income housing. It is staff's intent if this amendment is approved, to draft an implementing zone which would actually provide, within the text of the zone, the circumstances and locational criteria under which the zone could be applied. Also, the submission of a development plan could be required at the same time that someone applies for the zone. Staff recommends that the new designation be' Density (30-40 DU/ACRE)". With this new density residential designations of the General Plan would follows: titled "Very High range, the be as RL RLM RM RMH RH RVH Low Density Low-Medium Density Medium Density Medium High Density High Density Very High Density 0- 0^- 4- 10 20 30 L.5 du/acre du/acre 10 du/acre -20 du/acre -30 du/acre -40 du/acre III.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that this not have a significant impact on the environment issued a Negative Declaration on September 23, IV.RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission Negative Declaration issued by the Planning recommend approval of GPA-59(J) to the City ATTACHMENT: Environmental Documents MJH:rh 10-6-81 approve the Ditrector and Council. -2- amendment will and, therefore, 1981. 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 438-5591r7™s Citp of Cartebab NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: City of Carlsbad PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan .Amendment to consider creating a new, higher density residential land use designation (i.e. 30 to 40 units per acre). The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: September 23, 1981 CASE NO: GPA 59(J) APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad JAMES C. HAGAMAtf Planning Director PUBLISH DATE: September 26, 1981 ND-4 5/81 OCEANSIDE BUENA VISTA LAGOON;? HWY 78 SCALE CITY OF CARLSBAD AQUA HEDIONDA LAGOON PACIFIC OCEAN MEMORANDUM DATE: November 12, 1981 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO LAND USE ELEMENT OF GENERAL PLAN When GPA 59-D came before the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, our office had some significant concerns regarding the adequacy of the environmental review done on the project. The difficulties stemmed from the fact that the Environmental Impact Report on the general plan amendment addressed only the maximum number of housing units that would be allowed under the proposed master plan. The general plan amendment however permitted a much greater maximum number of dwelling units in the project area. Because the higher number of dwelling units could have a significant environmental impact, it must be analysed by the Environmental Impact Report. After expressing our concerns on the project to the Planning Commission and outlining the options available to it, the Planning Commission chose to accept the risk inherent in approving a project without adequate environmental review. Since the Planning Commission meeting, we have come up with a method of eliminating the environmental challenge to the validity of the general plan amendment, while at the same time allowing for greater certainty of land use decisions in the planned community zone. What we are proposing is an amendment to the text of the land use element to add a statement to allow the City to set the maximum residential density for planned communities at a number less than the high end of the density range otherwise applicable to the area. The proposed revision has been reviewed by the Planning Director and has his support. The amendment may be adopted by the City Council without the need for referral back to the Planning Commission because the subject of limiting the maximum residential density for the area contained in GPA 59-D has already been considered by the Planning Commission, the residential density set for the area by the City Council is less than that approved by the Planning Commission, and the amendment is a modification of a project consistent with and in response to an environmental impact report prepared under the Environmental Quality Act. Mayor and City Council -2- November 12, 1981 The modification of which we are speaking would be an addition to the third paragraph on Page 22 of the Land Use Element and would state as follows: "Certain areas of the City designated for planned communities may have several residential designations or combinations of residential designations. In order to accommodate good design and planning as well as environmental and topographical factors, planned communities shall be controlled by a master or specific plan. The residential density for the planned community may be set at a maximum number of dwelling units which is less than the total number of dwelling units which would be allowed at the high end of the density ranges specified for the area. If such a limit is set, the land use map shall indicate the planned community and shall designate the maximum number of dwelling units that may be built. Consistent with the housing element, the maximum dwelling units designated may be exceeded to provide low and moderate income housing." If the Council concurs with this proposal, the amendment will be accomplished when the matter is referred to the City Attorney for documents. VINCBWT-Pv BIONDO, JR., City Attorney istant City Attorney DSH/mla 4 « INFLUENCE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1884 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 5 WHEREAS, verified applications for amendments to the 6 General Plan land use designations and requirements for certain 7 property located as shown on Exhibits "A" - "H", dated October 8 28, 1981, attached and incorporated herein, have been filed with 9 the Planning Commission; and 10 WHEREAS, said verified applications constitute requests for amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal 12 Code; and 13 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 28th day of 14 October, 1981, 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 17 considering all testimony arid arguments, if any, of all persons 18 desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 19 relating to the General Plan Amendment and found the following 20 facts and reasons to exist regarding GPA-59(B), GPA-59(C), GPA- 21 59(D), GPA-59(E), GPA-59(H), GPA-59(I), and GPA-59(J), as shown 22 on Exhibits "B" , "C", "D", "E", "F" "G" and "H" respectively. 23 Findings; 24 1) The sites are physically suitable in size and shape to accom- 25 modate the proposed land use designations for reasons stated in the staff report. 26 2) Uses allowed in the proposed land use designations are com- 27 patible with surrounding land uses for reasons stated in the staff report. 28 3) That GPA-59(J) will establish a new, higher density residential designation in order to increase housing opportunities in the city of Carlsbad. 3 4) The projects are consistent with all city public facility 4 policies and ordinances since; 5 a. Sewer service is not required for these projects and subsequent development of the property will require the Q availability of sewer service to serve such developments or construction cannot occur. 7 !5) The environmental effects of the proposed projects have been 8 9 10 11 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 adequately addressed and the Planning Commission has found that GPA-59(Ef H, I and J) , will not cause any significant environmental impacts and negative declarations or conditional negative declarations have been approved by the Planning Commission. For GPA-59 (A, B, C and D), the Planning Commission has recommended certification of Environmental Impact Reports addressing the significant impacts of the proposed projects. 12 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found the following 13 facts and reasons to exist regarding GPA-59(A) as shown on 14 Exhibit "A". 15 Findings; 16 1) That increasing the intensity of land use from Low Medium Density Residential to Commercial, Office and Medium Density Residential would be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan as stated in the staff report. 2) That increasing the intensity of land uses as proposed would have an adverse effect on nearby residential areas as described in the staff report. 3) That the subject property is not suitable for the proposed uses because of locational and environmental impacts as described in the staff report. 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 DENIAL OF GPA-59(A) as described on Exhibit "A", APPROVAL of GPA-59(B) as described on Exhibit "B", PC RESO #1884 -2- l• ^ of GPA-59(C) as described on Exhibit "C", APPROVAL of GPA-59(D) as described on Exhibit "D", APPROVAL of GPA- 2 59(E) as on Exhibit "E", APPROVAL of GPA-58(H) as described on Exhibit "F", APPROVAL of GPA-59(I) as described on Exhibit "G" and APPROVAL of GPA-59(J) as described on Exhibit "H". PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California, held on the 28th day of October, 1981, by the following vcte, to wit: AYES: g NOES: 10 ABSENT: 11 ABSTAIN: 12 13 MARY MARCUS, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 14 ATTEST: 15 16 17 JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO #1884 -3- Exhibit "A" to PC Reso No. 1884 Case No: GPA-59(A) October 28, 1981 Applicant: Sherman REQUEST;. Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General plan from Residential Low Medium Density (RLM) to Residential Medium Density (RM), Community Commercial (C), Neighborhood Commercial (N), Professional and Related Commercial (0) and Open Space (OS) as shown on the map below: Figure 3 PROPOSED LAND USE 0 Professional and related C Community commercial N Neighborhood commercial RM Residential (medium density) OS Open space 39.8 ac 10.0 ac 5.0 ac 28.4 ac _12.6 ac 95.8 ac PC ACTION; The Planning Commission DENIED GPA-59(A) as 'described above. The property remains Residential Low Medium Density. ti 7 Exhibit "B" to PC Reso No. 1884 Case No: GPA-59(B) October 28, 1981 Applicant: Santa Fe Company REQUEST? Request to amend the 'Land Use Element of the General Plan from Residential Low Medium (RLM) Density, Residential Medium (RM) Density, Neighborhood Commercial (N) and Open Space to Planned Industrial (PI) as shown on the map below: XWOMiTWAL. OS -OpeioSp/vcC /McPtUM £ttUSf T^ PC ACTION: The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA- 59(B)as described above. Exhibit "C" to PC Reso No. 1884 Case No. GPA-59(C) October 28, 1981 Applicant: Occidental REQUEST; Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Travel Service (TS) to Community Commercial (Area 1); from Recreation Commercial (RC) to a Combination District comprised of Travel Service (TS) and Community Commercial (C) in Area 3; and from Open Space (OS) to Residential Medium Density (RM) in Area 6. PC ACTION; The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA- 59(C)as described above, except that in Area 1 the Planning Commmission approved Neighborhood Commercial as shown on the above map. Exhibit "D" to PC Reso No. 1884 Case No: GPA-59(D) October 28, 1981 REQUESTr Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and/or change boundaries of the designations as shown on Figure 1 below to new designations or boundaries as shown on Figure 2 below: - ' 11 f -3. - Oc/vs/ry PC ACTION; The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA 59 (D) as described above. Exhibit "E" to PC Reso No. 1884 Case No: GPA-59(E) October 28, 1981 Applicant: Carltas REQUEST:' Request to amend the Land Use element of the General Plan from Non-Residential Reserve (NNR) to Planned Industrial (PI) as shown on map below: PC ACTION; The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA^- 59(E)as described above. Exhibit "F" to PC Reso No. 1884 Case No: GPA-59(H) October 28, 1981 Applicant: City of Carlsbad REQUEST;*_ Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Planned Industrial (PI) to a Combination District comprised of Travel Service (TS) and Professional and Related Commercial (0) as shown below: PC-ACTION: The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA- T>9(ri) as described above. Exhibit "G" to PC Reso No. 1884 Case No: GPA-59(I) October 28, 1981 Applicant: Hieatt REQUEST; Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan 'from Non-Residential Reserve to Planned Industrial (PI) as shown on map below: M T<<a Co A* PC ACTION; The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA- 59(1)as described above. Exhibit "H" to PC Reso No. 1884 Case No: GPA-59(J) October 28, 1981 Applicant: City of Carlsbad REQUEST;' Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General "Plan By establishing a new Very High (VH) Residential category. Page 23 of the Land Use Element will be modified by adding the following: "(f) Very-H i g h De n s i t y; A Very High residential classification characterized by apartment and condominium development, with a density of 30 to 40 dwelling units per gross acre. This designation is only to be applied in very limited locations where the city definitely believes that higher densities are appropriate and desirable, such as near the commercial core, in the Redevelopment Area, close to high employment work areas or to encourage low and moderate income units." PC ACTION: The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA- 59(J) as described above. /Vhd*- c c. 1646 Via Caneion San 'Marcos, Ca., 92069 October 25, .1981 Planning Commission Attn: Mr. Torn Hagenan City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Calif., 92008 RE: EIR 80-7 GPA-59 Rancho Carillo Master Plan Sirs: A recent death in our family precludes our personal appearances before your board. It is requested that our concerns herein be read into the record. Serious concerns regarding the future motor vehicle noise impacts-, especially along the Melrose Avenue extension, exist and with very good reason. Our home and property is located in an espec- ially noise-sensitive area being next to canyons and hills. We can easily hear echos on our land when we clap our hands. There- fore, noise is intensified and increased because of our topography. It is absolutely essential that accurate noise studies be conducted in relation to the realignment of Kelrose Avenue. Manmade barriers, and natural effects of existing topography must be carefully considered for this area in order that future cornpatiability of the land use for Rancho Carillo does not preclude the rights of property enjoyment for existing residents. It is requested that we be allowed to participate in the noise study that is to be performed in the EIR (page 80, #35). The future or present EIR must not be certified when it clearly states that citizens.will be severely impacted or when it states that it is not known whether noise increases adversely impact the existing homes because no analysis has been conducted (page 7S). We seriously question the analysis of the Carlsbad Raceway Noise Impact (page 79). A letter from the Meadowlark Community Associa- tion to the Car1stad City Manager requests that unreasonable and increasing noise from the Raceway most definately violates San Biego County Code Ordinance #4387 and requests correction and mitigation cf the inadequately controlled noise. It is hep si rhat <>e will be included in the noise study that v/ill be perfcrr.ei and ~hat the local board will insist that local standards "ce upheld. BCEIYED OCT2? 1931 CITY OF CARUBAQ Planing Depa» it Mr. and L'irs. S. G. Frahm DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES D Assistant City Manager (714) 438-5596 D Building Department (714) 438-5625 D Engineering Department (714) 438*541 D Housing & Redevelopment Department (714)438-5611 O Planning Department (714) 438*591 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Citp of Cartebafc November 16, 1981 Mr. and Mrs. S. G. Frahm 1646 Via Canrion San Marcos, CA 92069 SUBJECT: RANCHO CARRILLO EIR AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Dear Mr. and Mrs. Frahrn: Attached please find the EIR consultants' response to your letter dated October 25, 1981. I regret that I could not provide this response sooner, but have just received it and have been unable to contact you by telephone. Your letter and the attached response will be given to each City Council member and will be included in the final EIR document; I have done seme preliminary research and it appears that there is significant "high ground" between your neighborhood and proposed Melrose Avenue. The cur- rent project will rucve I-felrose Avenue about 1/2 mile further west fron your pro- perty than the original proposal and proposes approximately 1/3 less units than as approved in 1972. The environmental impact report reconnends further noise studies and specific mitigation treasures at the tentative tract level. Although we will be happy to keep you informed cf noise attenuation studies in areas that may be of interest to your neighborhood, the studies are meant to be of a detailed and technologi- cal nature and address a very specific level of development. At nearly a mile fron the project site, these studies could not encompass your neighborhood. Again, I would like to remind you of the City Council public hearing on this matter on Tuesday, November 17, at 6 pm in the Carlsbad City Council Chamber. I hope you will attend and if I can be of further assistance, please don't hesi- tate to call me at 433-5591. Sincerely, PATRICK W. TESSIER Associate Planner PWT:wl attachment RECEIVED MOV 211981 CiTV OF CARLSBAD Planning Depar nt D 500 newport center drive, suite 525 newport beach, California 92660 phone (714) 640-6363 D 2927 newbury street, suite c berkeley, California 94703 phone (415) 841-6840 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. November 13, 1981 Mr. Pat Tessier Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Dear Pat: TRANSMITTAL OF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON NOISE SECTION OF RANCHO CARRILLO EIR Attached are my responses to the comments that were submitted to the Planning Commission, Attention: Tom Hageman, by Mr. and Mrs. S. G. Frahm. They are written so you can include them in the letter from the City of Carls- bad to Mr. and Mrs. Frahm. If you have any questions regarding my responses, please call me and we can talk about them. The only comment I did not directly respond to is the one concerning whether or not the Frahms will be allowed to participate .in the noise studies to be performed as a result of mitigation in the EIR. This is a decision the City of Carlsbad should make, and the response should be worded by City staff. All other coinments are responded to on the attached page. I will be prepared on Tuesday night to respond to any questions raised by the Frahms or their representative, especially since I assume this letter will not reach the Frahms by that time. As we discussed, I suggest you contact either Daon or The Planning Center and request. that they have a representative from Bio-Acoustical Engineering at the hearing to answer technical questions raised by either the City Council or the public. I look forward to seeing you on Tuesday and wrapping up this project. you have any questions, give me a call. If Sincerely, LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. AMS:jl Attachment Annette M. Sanchez Project Manager Comment 1: It is absolutely essential that accurate noise studies be ^conducted in relation to the realignment of Melrose Avenue. Manmade barriers and natural effects of existing topography must be carefully considered for "tin's area in order that future compatibility of the land use for Rancho Car- Fillo does not preclude the right of property enjoyment for existing resi- dents. Response: The analysis within the noise study contained in the Rancho Carrillo EIR clearly shows that traffic-related noise along Melrose Avenue, based on the traffic volumes assumed, will not impact any existing residences within the area. This means it will not impact existing homes in either La Costa or the Meadlowlark community. As shown in Figure R of the Responses to Comments for the Rancho Carrillo EIR, the area within the 60-65 CNEL exposure is contained within the Rancho Carrillo development itself. At 100 feet from the centerline, the CNEL contour ranges from 63.9 CNEL near the southeastern portion of the property to 68.9 CNEL near where Melrose Avenue intersects with Palomar Airport Road. Consequently, if noise levels falling at 65 CNEL or greater occur only within approximately 100 feet of the centerline of Melrose Avenue, a community such as Meadlowlark, which is well over 5,000 feet from the centerline of Melrose Avenue, will not be adversely impacted by traffic- related noise along Melrose Avenue. Future noise studies and a noise control program will be conducted for the Rancho Carrillo development at more precise levels of planning. Mitigation Measure #35 of the Environmental Impact Report requires that such studies be conducted and submitted at the time of the ten- tative subdivision maps. These noise analyses and control programs will have to reflect any potential changes in estimated future noise exposure levels due to revised or new information such as additional traffic volumes. A noise control program will be provided utilizing such features as setbacks", noise (barriers, and/or housing designs in order to reduce noise exposure levels to State and local standards. At that time, effects of natural and manufactured topography will be considered in the analysis. Comment 2: The future or present EIR must not be certified when it . clearly states that citizens will be severely impacted or when it states that lit is not known whether noise increases adversely impact the existing homes ibecause no analysis has been conducted, Page 79. Response: The Draft EIR does not state that citizens will be severely impacted by noise resulting from development of Rancho Carrillo. As discussed above, the existing homes within the Meadowlark community will not be impact- ed by traffic-related noise resulting from the Rancho Carrillo project. The Draft EIR did discuss that there would be an increase in noise levels along El Fuerte Street and Algo Road west of El Fuerte. This expected increase would be due to both project-related traffic and traffic related to other projects planned for the area, such as La Costa North and Carlsbad Oaks. Given the existing low levels of noise along the streets in question and the relatively small increase in noise levels expected as a result of traffic along El Fuerte and Algo Road, it is not expected, that these increases will adversely impact the existing homes along these streets. However, this will be verified within the noise studies to be conducted at a more detailed level of planning. Comment 3: We seriously question the analysis of the Carlsbad Raceway noise impact, Page 79. A letter from the Meadowlark Community Association to the Carlsbad City Manager requests that unreasonable and increasing noise from the raceway most definitely violates San Diego County Code Ordinance #4387 and requests correction and mitigation of the inadquately controlled noise. Response: The noise study conducted for the Rancho Carrillo development was based on actual onsite noise monitoring which occurred in two locations within the property site. Monitoring occurred during raceway operations. Results of this monitoring clearly indicated that those areas proposed for residential within the Rancho Carrillo development will not be exposed to noise levels above standard resulting from raceway operations. The issue of noise impacts of the Carlsbad Raceway on properties in the surrounding area is beyond the scope of the EIR for Rancho Carrillo. rCarlsbad City Council TO City Hall Carlsbad, California 92008 ~l FROM SEALANDS COMPANY 3904 JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD, CAL. 92008 (714) 729-2515 SUBJECT: FOLD i Amendment,. -...59 ... J -DATE: Nn\7fimbp-r ,9, ,19.81 Dear City Counselors: I wish to support Amendment GAA - 59 J of the General Plan which would allow housing densities of 30 to 40 units per acre in designated areas. Allowing higher densities is one of the few ways the City can encourage "affordable housing". It is Toy hope that the locations where higher density can be obtained will not be so limited as to be nearly non-existent. PLEASE REPLY TO SIGNED Philip B. Lukei REPLY SIGNED GRAVARC CO.. INC.. BROOKLYN. N. V. 11232 THJS COPY FOR PERSON ADDRESSED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GPA-59 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chanters, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, November 17, 1981, to consider applications for General Plan Amendment 59, which would change the Land Use Element as follows: GPA 59 (A) From Residential Low Medium Density (RLM 04 du/ac) to Residential Medium Density (FM 410 du/ac) , Community (C) and Neighborhood (N) Canniercial, Open Space (OS) and Professional and Related Conmercial (0) on property as shown on the map below. Applicant: Sherman. GPA 59(B) From Residential Medium Density (RM) , Neighborhood Conmercial, Open Space (OS) and Residential Low Medium Density (RLM) to Planned Industrial (PI) and Open Space (OS) on property shown on the map below. Applicant: Santa Fe Co. GPA 59 (C) Area 1: From Travel Service (TS) to Ccranunity (C) or Neighborhood (N) Conmercial, Area 3: From Recreation Commercial (RC) to a combination district comprised of Community Commercial (C) and Travel Service (TS), and Area 6: From Open Space (OS) to Residential Medium Density (RM) and the removal of a school site as shown on the map below. Applicant: Occidental. GPA 59 (D) From existing land use as shown on map below to a variety of proposed land uses and general plan boundary changes as shown on the existing and proposed land use maps below. Applicant: Daon Corporation. GPA 59 (E) From Non-residential reserve (NRR) to Planned Industrial (PI) as shown on the map below. Applicant: Carltas. GPA 59 (H) From Planned Industrial (PI) to a combination district comprised of of Travel Service (TS) and Professional and Related Conmercial (0) as shown on the map below. Applicant: City of Carlsbad. GPA 59(1) From Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) to Planned Industrial (PI) as shown on the map below. Applicant: Hieatt. GPA 59 (J) A proposal to create a new Residential Very High Density (RVH) category for the Land Use Element of the General Plan which would allow residential development at 30 to 40 dwelling units per acre. This category could be utilized in various locations throughout the City if approved by the City Council. Applicant: City of Carlsbad. PUBLISH: November 4, 1981 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 8 Shelley Caron PO Box 1502 Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 Joseph Sherman 7^23 Garvey Rosemead, Ca. 91770 South Coast Asphalt Co, PO Box 218 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Title Insurance^Trust 220 A St. San Diego, Ca. 92101 Title Ins. & Trust 220 A St. San Dieg$,Ca. 92101 fttff • Helis Associates PO Box 985 El Cajon, Ca. 92022 Jerry Elder PO Box 308 LaJOlla, Ca. 92038 Grant Berkstrand PO Box 845 Palos Verdes Estate,Ca. 90274 Richard Kelley c/o Waken Co. 7474 E. Green St. Pasadena, Ca. 92560 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GPA-59 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, November 17, 1981, to consider applications for General Plan Amendment 59, which would change the Land Use Element as follows: / GPA 59 (A) From Residential Low Medium Density (RIM 04 du/ac) to Residential ' / Medium Density (EM 410 du/ac) , Community (C) and Neighborhood (N) / Commercial, Open Space (OS) and Professional and Related Conniercial (0) on property as shown on the map below. Applicant: Sherman. GPA 59(B) From Residential Medium Density (KM) , Neighborhood Commercial, Open Space (OS) and Residential Low Medium Density (RIM) to Planned Industrial (PI) and Open Space (OS) on property shown on the map below. Applicant; Santa Fe Co. GPA 59 (C) Area 1: From Travel Service (TS) to Community (C) or Neighborhood (N) Commercial, Area 3: From Recreation Commercial (RC) to a combination district comprised of Community Commercial (C) and Travel Service (TS), and Area 6: From Open Space (OS) to Residential Medium Density (RM) and the removal of a school site as shown on the map below. Applicant; Occidental. GPA 59 (D) From existing land use as shown on map below to a variety of proposed land uses and general plan boundary changes as shown on the existing and proposed land use maps below. Applicant; Daon Corporation. GPA 59 (E) From Non-residential reserve (NRR) to Planned Industrial (PI) as shown on the map below. Applicant: Carltas. GPA 59(H) From Planned Industrial (PI) to a combination district comprised of i of Travel Service (TS) and Professional and Related Commercial (0) as shown on the map below. Applicant: City of Carlsbad. \VV^ GPA 59(1) From Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) to Planned Industrial (PI) as shown on the map below. Applicant: Hieatt. GPA 59 (J) A proposal to create a new Residential Very High Density (RVH) category for the Land Use Element of the General Plan which would allow residential development at 30 to 40 dwelling units per acre. This category could be utilized in various locations throughout: the City if approved by the City Council. Applicant: City of Carlsbad. PUBLISH: November 4, 1981 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL GPA Propose LEGEND | ^ Industrial ^^ Open space i ! Proposed General Plan Air.endmeht for Carlsbad Oaks. PUNNING CONSULTANTSAND CIVIL ENGINEERSRICEC ENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 PIO PICO DR. • SUITE 202 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 P.O. BOX 1129 • PHONE • AREA CODE 714 • 729-4987 OWNERS LIST (JOB 17576) 1. Subject Property 2. 169-230-19 Ida Dawson Rancho Agua Hedionda Y Los Monos Vista, CA 92083 3. 219-010-10 South Melrose 422 Partnership 6671 Wrenfield Huntington Beach, CA 92647 4. 221-011-01 • South Melrose 422 Partnership 5. 221-011-02 South Melrose 422 Partnership 6. 221-011-05 Belsan Investments Co., Inc. 3311 Starline Drive Rolling Hills, CA 92074 7. 221-011-04 Belsan Investments Co., Inc. • , 8. ' 213-030-08 Woodward Companies 5100 Campus Drive, Suite 412 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' 9. 221-011-01 South Melrose 422 Partnership 10. 221-012-01 , Rancho Carrillo B Street, Suite 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 11. 213-030-09 Woodward Companies 12. 213-030-14 .Mary E. Bressi P.O. Box 1666 Carlsbad, CA 92008 13. . 209-050-18 County of San Diego 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 209-070-07 169-230-03 169-230-04 169-230-07 169-230-08 169-230-18 169-230-20 Mel-Dean Incorporated 1164 Crystal Lane El Cajon, CA 92020 Regents of University of California Regents of University of California Regents of University of California Regents of University of California Regents of University of California Regents of University of California Ida Dawson Rancho Agua Hedionda Y Los Monos Vista, CA 92083 S. Melrose 422 Part. 6671 Wrenfield Huntington, Beach, CA 92074 Belson Investments Co. -3311 Starline Drive Rolling Hills, CA 92074 Woodward Companies 5100 Campus Drive #412 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Rancho Carrillo B Street, Suite 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 Mary E. Bressi P. 0. Box 1666 Carlsbad, CA 92008 County of San Diego 220 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 B. J. Ricketts University of Ca. San Diego Dept. of Elect. Eng. La Jolla, CA 92093 Sehoppe', Theodore 710 S. Brookhurst St. Anaheim, CA 92804 Standard Pacific 7906 Convoy St. San Diego, CA 92111 Ben Hillebrecht 2170 Skyline Escondido, CA 92027 j, Kramer, C & A 6798 Paseo Del Norte Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occidental Land Inc. c/o Property Tax Dept. P.O. Box 868 Houston, Texas Altaraira Management Assn. 451 Hale Avenue Escondido, CA 92025 Resident 710 S. Brookhurst St. Anaheim, CA 92804 • Jw-» _• • '>. ' **» '"" *;.:•'' ^> :-r^>» Existing General Plan KM low-Medium Denisty FM Medium Density JWH Medium-High Density C Community Coirnercial BC Recreaticxi Connercial PI Planned Industrial E Elementary 06 Open Space TS Travel Services Ccnmercial NRR Non Residential Reserve Revised General Plan CASE NO.59 (D) APPLICANT CAp.aii.LO RAMCH - Occupant 2924 Capazo Court Coronado, CA 92118 i' Occupant 2826 Esturion Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 2924 Capazo Court Carlsbad, CA 92118 Occupant 4658 Palomar Airport Road CA 92008 Occupant 4658 Palomar Airport Road -«*««*, CA 92008- ' ' Occupant 2920 Cfiprizn Court CA 92008 Occupant 2920 Capazo Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 'Mardi & Sarah Rusiam 266° w- Olive Avenue Burbank, CA 91505 Occupant ' 2852 Esturion Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Edward & Joyce Johnson 12532 9th Avenue Garden Grove, CA 92640 Occupant 2852 Esturion Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 ^E Realty Partners 2082 Business Center Drive Suite 100 Irvine, CA- 92715 Trustees of Central States 609 S. Grand Avenue los Angeles, CA 90017 Occupant 2844 Esturion Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mary E. Bressi PO Box 1666 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 2844 Esturion Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Occupant 2826 Esturion-Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Title Insurance & Trust c/o J.M. Gessleman PO Box 1150 San Diego, CA 92112 Jack & Patricia Vanderback 1713 Redwing Street San Marcos, CA 92069 Howard & Francelle Hoffman 1828 Townee Street San Marcos, CA 92069 Belsan Investments Co., Inc. 3311 Starline Drive Railing Hills, CA 90274 Paul Anderberg 1720 Redwing Street San Marcos, CA 92069 Paul & Gale Cunningham 1832 Towhee Street San Marcos, CA 92069 Rubel Investments Company 3311 Starline Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Sandru Investment Company 3311 Starline Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ellen Adams 1234 Orangewood Drive Escondido, CA 92025 Meadowlark Farms, Incorp. 1430 San Pablo Drive San Marcos, CA 92069 Stanley & Janet Frahra 1646 Via Cancion * San Marcos, CA 92069 Francis & Patricia Johnson 1714 Redwing Street San Marcos, CA 92069 Mary Boyles 1708 Redwing Street San-Marcos, CA 92069 Tarry Grismer 1819 Via Gauilan San Marcos, CA 92069 William Apple 1808 Towhee Street San Marcos, CA 92069 Patrick & Audrey Henry' 1812 Towhee Street San Marcos, CA 92069 Kenneth & Josephine Nichols 1813 Towhee Street San Marcos, 'CA 92069 David Stall 1819 Towhee Street San Marcos, CA 92069 Peter & Roberta Hirschhorn 1825 Towhee Street San Marcos, CA 92069 . Kathryn Judd 1831 Towhee Street San Marcos, CA 92069 Henry & Frances James 1710 Kingley Road San Marcos, CA 92069 Robert & T.-ijiA* Conn 201 S. Oxford Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90004 Ross & Barbara Mclntire 1816 Towhee Street San Marcos, CA 92069 Mary Burgess 1704 Kingley Road San Marcos, CA 92069 Donald & Susan Denny 1725 Redwing Street San Marcos, CA 92069 Lynn & Florence Hancock 1820 Towhee Street San Marcos, CA 92069 Kenneth & Isabel Mayes 1700 Kingley Road San Marcos, CA 92069 Fred & Vega White 1719 Redwing Street San Marcos, CA 92069 James & Lonnie Warms 1824 Towhee Street San Marcos, CA 92069 La Costa Land Company Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 Robert & Jean Bias 3110 Unicornio Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Daniel & Sharon Abbott 17 Sixpence Way Coronado, CA 92118 Cecil Neeley 2830 Esturion Place Carlsbad. CA 92008 Mark Sibonny 2455 4th Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 James H. Prather 7635 Nueva Castilla Carlsbad, CA 92008 Janes & Emlko Hinkley 2822 Esturion Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Harold & Celia Carson 999 E. Valley Blvd. #65 Alhambra, CA 91801 Gary & Jane Winter 2909 Cacatua Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 William & Norxna Fulton PO Box 1 San Clemente, CA 92672 George & Nancy Nijame 7915 Arbusta Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Wachtano & Irene Djobadze 1485 Bendict Canyon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Douglas & Diane Berry 2814 Esturion Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Wilbur & Luda Stephens 2939 Cacatua Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Peter & Elaine Shaw 2906 Capazo Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 Steve & Irene Olas 13739 Nogales Drive Del Mar, CA 92014 Stephen & Janice Daulton 2733 Argonauta Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 John Edwards 401 Neptune Avenue Leucadia, CA 92024 Forrest & Alvina Simpson 6974 Bacontree Way San Diego, CA 92111 Junko Izumara 2625-220 Pirineos Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Seville-Trident Corporation 2862 Luciernaga Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Arthur & Patricia Van Praet Seville -Trident Corporati 13514 Calais Drive c/o Greenbaum Del Mar, CA 92014 2862 Luciernaga Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 La Jolla Federal Savings &Loan Frederick & Babette Fishma PO Box 1439 • 6325 Rodgerion Drive La Jolla, CA 92038 Los Angeles, CA 90068 Alexander Korosi 11850 Edgewater Road No. 611 Lakewood, Ohio 44107 TL Construction 124 E. Cliff Street Solana Beach, CA 92075 Earl & Barbara Hehn 636 Camino De Clara Solana Beach, CA 92075 William & Mary Mullen 2928 Cacactua Carlsbad, CA 92008 Gary & Joan Chase 2834 Esturion Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Shirley Swain 321 Pearce Grove Leucadia, CA DAON CORPORATION 1041 MacArthur Jewport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Patrick McAtee CARRILLO ASSOCIATES C/O THE MEISTER CO, INC, Attn: Terry Teepla Newport Beach, CA 92660 AETNA CAPITAL CO. C/O THE WOODWARD CO. 5100 Campus Drive Newport Beach,.CA 92660 TARMITZER, HAMILTON HUNTER 40 Vienna Newport Beach, CA 92660 CARRILLO RANCHO PART. Attn: Byron White 600 "B" St. Ste 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 6PA CAR.LTAS CARLTAS Co. P.O. Box 488 Encinitas, CA.93024 Carltas Co. P.O. Box 483 Encinitas, CA 92924 State of Calif. Transportation Dept 110 W C San Diego CA 92101 CAL-MIL PRODUCTS 6100 Paseo Del Norte Carlsbad CA fS398 92008 State of Calif Transportation Dept 110 W C San Diego CA 92101 CAL-MIL PRODUCTS 6100 Paseo Del Norte Carlsbad CA 92008 Andrew & Christa McRSYNOLDS 2316 Calle Chiquita La Jolla Ca 9203? Andrew & Christa McRSYNOLDS 2316 Calle Chiquita La Jolla, CA 92037 Richard C. KSLLY Robert P. KELLY P.O. Box 175 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Richard C. KELLY Robert P. KSLLI P.O. Box 175 Carlsbad, CA 92008 GENERAL PLAN Land Use DesignatioGPA-59(H) ?ItoT<./0Jesignatlon/?I to T5./ J.T. & Dorothy L. Hawthorne P. 0* Bos: 708 San Diego, CA 92112 Paul E. & Peggy Hadley 4743 W. Hoffer Banning, CA 92220 David & Revia Little Otto & Carol Rose 2136 Wellington Santa Ana, CA 92701 Andrew & Christa McReynolds 2316 Calle Chiquita La Jolla, CA 92037 James & Dorothy Gaiser 3344 Ridgecrest Drive Carlsbad, CA 92024 Cal-Mil Plastic Products Inc. 6.100 Paseo del Norte Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carltas Co. P. 0. Box 488 Encinitas, CA 92024 State Road Maint. Station Caltrans 6050 Paseo del Norte Carlsbad, CA 92008 Sea Gate Associates Ltd. 8950 Villa La Jolla St. Suite 2100 La Jolla, CA 92307 Koblentz, Meyers, Haber 140 Marine View Ste. 204 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Paul & Magdalena Ecke P. 0. Box 488 Encinitas, CA 92024 -.q; PROPERTY OWNERS ADJACENT TO HIEATT PROPERTY - PARCEL 212-020-03 COUNTY ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER PROPERTY OWNERS 213-020-18 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 212-030-03 PALOMAR BUSINESS PARK 17890 Skypark Blvd., Irvine, CA 92714 212-020-24 CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER 7330 Engineer Rd., San Diego, CA 92111