Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-09-24; City Council; 8323-1; REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE MAP, PUD AND A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR 225 UNITS| CT 84-32/PUD 73/ SP 195 (CARLSBAD LAND INVESTORS)-- RIIQUEST FOR TEXTATIVE MAP, PUD AND A U ' AB# ""--#/ TITLE: SPECIFIC PLAN FOR 225 UNITS. ' MTG. 9/24/85 CARLSBAD LAND INVESTORS PLLg C'C 84-32/PUD-73/SP-195 DEIPT. ~1 CI CI r 1 ! E s 2 E s 3 a cr 4 -rl L, 3 g :: PI, -4 a 1; Nc& I- ra *m a3 Oh Q-L p az 8 -2 38 f% c "4 5u -rl m J4 8$ Ln I (u cn a3 -? I .I 2 2 5 4 =! g 3 0 0 CI@OF CARLSBAD - AGEN~BILL RECOMMENDED ACTION: Both the Planning Commission and the staff are recomendin the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 9772, APPROVING S direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare documents APP 84-32/PUD-73. ITEM EXPLANATION - This item was continued from the City Council meeting of S 17, 1985 in order to provide the Council with pertinent bat information regarding the previous city actions on the sub property. Attached are copies of previous staff reports ai minutes and excerpts from the environmental impact report addresses alternate land use and airport impacts. A brief summary of the previous city actions on this prope follows: - October, 1981 - Applicant submitted proposal to anend Gene] to redesignate property for industrial use. Based on inpul staff regarding industrial use, applicant indicated he wisl modify request. March, 1982 - Applicant modified General Plan Amendment re< a portion of the site for commercial. Staff required an enviranmental impact report. - April, 1982 - City Council authorized hiring of a consultai prepare the environmental impact report but expressed seric reservations to applicant concerning increasing density nec airport. October, 1982 - Applicant did not sign agreement for hirinc consultant to prepare the environmental impact report becaL reservations expressed by City Council and, therefore, Plar Commission denied the General Plan Amendment because the application had been on hold for almost one year. July, 1983 - Applicant submitted General Plan Amendment re< change southerly portion of property to RLM (0-4 du' s/acre, northerly portion to commercial. An environmental impact 1 was required. - proposed increasing density to R-M (4-10 du's/acre) and de; - April, 1984 - Planning Commission denied General Plan Amend rlequest. Applicant appealed to City Council. June, 1984 - At City Council hearing, applicant proposed tc request and asked for office use on northerly portion of pr City Council referred the matter back to Planning Commissic f 1 * I e 0 \ 1 > Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. ,f32 4 4 --&I June, 1984 - At the Planning Commission reconsideration, i modified request, agreed to Open Space for northerly porti property and proposed to move all development to souther11 outside high airport impact area. July, 1984 - City Council approved General Plan Amendment increase density on southerly portion of property (RLM/O--L du's/acre) in return for northerly portion being put into Space. March, 1985 - Planning Commission considered residential 1 subject property which proposed 3.68 du's/acre. Applicani redesign and reduce density to a maximum of 3 du's/acre. August, 1985 - Planning Commission recommended approval o residenital project at 2.65 du's/acre. Staff has been unable to obtain information on how a 60 C1 contour would impact the subject property. County Airpor. has indicated that they will attempt to prepare this info, but it is not available at this time. Their preliminary l would indicate that possibly the entire property would fa the 60 CNEL line. Staff has also presented the most recei of the project to the Airport Land Use Commission staff (I Updated comments from SANDAG will be available at the Coui meeting. EXHIBITS 1. Previous Agenda Bill dated September 10, 1985 2. Excerpts from Environmental Impact Report 3. First Page Only of Agenda Bill dated July 17, 1984 4. Previous Staff Report dated June 27, 1984 5. First Page Only of Agenda Bill dated June 5, 1984 6. Previous Staff Report dated April 25, 1984 7. Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes dated April and June 27, 19184 July 17, 1984 8. Excerpts from city council Minutes dated June 5, 1984 c r323 TITLE: REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE MAP, PUL) AND ~ A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR 225 UNITS. AB# MTG.*L CARLSBAD LAND INVESTORS - rl DEPT. PLN CT 84-32/PUD-73/SP-195. DE CI CI 2 -9 -!J -4 3 k 0 w Ln 03 0 4 Tr cv . . cl m w 0 F -4 cl 1 8 B 3 0 cr 3 2 8 2 3d -4 % k0 $3 0 -E 8-2 Ln 03 I 0 4 I a .- z G G a $ Z 3 0 0 CI~OF CARLSBAD - AGEN~BILL RECOMMENDED ACTION: Both the Planning Commission and the staff are recommend: the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 977& , APPROVI SP-195 and direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare dl APPROVING CT 84-32/PUD-73. ITEM EXPLANATION The applicant is requesting a tentative map and planned uni opment, and a specific plan for a 225 unit detached sing1 project on 85 acres, located approximately .3 miles E Palomar Airport Road just east of future College Boulev specific plan is required because this project is locate( Airport Influence Area as designated on the General Plan. In 1984, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendme slightly increased the density potential. Densities over portion of the site were changed from RL (0-1.5) to RLM ( acre). As a trade-off the developer agreed to cluster dev on the southern two-thirds of the site since the north constrained by airport noise. The density of the project posed is 2.65 du/acre in the 0-4 range. The project is well designed from a planning standpoint vides many amenities and open areas. The major issue regar project is its proximity to the airport. With developme concentrated toward the south the project is out of the noise levels established by the Comprehensive Land Use Plar by the Airport Land Use Committee (SANDAG) in 1974. It rc current, existing criteria provided by other involved agenc one exception. Recently, the Airport Advisory Commit recorxnended that 60 CfSEL with a 5% jet factor be uti1 residential boundaries. Although no official maps h; would extend into the central area of the project. The pr conditioned to reduce interior noise levels to 45 deci avigation easements are being required as part of the deed: The Planning Commission voted to approve the project (4- Planning Commission added additional conditions to inc parking from 20 to 40 spaces and required that the I purchase the units include recognition of the avigation required on the deeds. The Planning Commission also minute motion requesting that Council direct staff to tak at the General Plan land use near the airport. For information please see the attached report to the Commission. provided showing this contour it is likely that the 60 C 0 0 Page Two of Agenda Bill- No. 832-3 ELWIRONMENTAL IMPACT An environmental impact report was certified by the City for this project on June 4, 1984. Mitigation measures environmental impact report were incorporated in the projec FISCAL IMPACT The increased need for city capital facilities resulting f development will be offset by the payment of the public fa fee. Any capital facilities related directly to this dev will be constructed and paid for by the developer. Increased operating expenses related to this development offset to some extent from increased tax or fee revenue g by the development. No detailed economic impact analysis development has been conducted at this time so prediction portion of operating expenses covered by additional c revenue created as a result of this project cannot be made. EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 2. Ordinance No. y772 w/SP-195 3. Planning Commission Xesolution No. 2425 & 2426 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 14, 1985 6 I @LOCATION MAP /I 8 '/ p" !/ // $4 LAUREL TREE LN SITE L PUD- SP- 1 CARLSBAD LAND INVESTORS CT 84 I 1 2 3 4 5 61 7 81 0 0 ORDINANCE NO. 9772 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-195) FOR A 225 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IN THE AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA LOCATED APPROXIMATELY .3 MILES SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST OF FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARDi WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbac California has reviewed and considered a Specific Plan foi development of the site; and 9i 10 11 12 WHEREAS, after procedures and hearings held in a( with the requirements of law the City. Council has determii the public interest indicates that said plan be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of ( ordain as follows: l3 15 16 I? 18 l4 SECTION 1: That Specific Plan (SP-195) is hereb: subject to the conditions contained in the Planning Commi Resolution No. 2426 attached hereto and made a part hereo I further that the text of the Specific Plan is hereby appri read as shown on Exhibit "X" attached hereto and incorpor roe!$ i 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published a once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after it adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting o Carlsbad City Council held on the day of 1985, and thereafter 1 2 3 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said ( Council held on the day of , 1985 by 1 fo1:Lowing vote, to wit: AYES: 51 6 7 a 9 NOES : ABSENT : MARY H. CASLER, Ma 11 ' 12 13 14 15 l6 17 l8 19 20 21 22 I/ 23 24 25 26 27 I- ~ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City CiSrk ~EAL) I 11 1 I 1 I I 1 ~ I I // I 0 EmIBIT X 8/1 SPECIFIC PLAN SP-195 I. PURPOSE The purpose of this specific plan is to implement the special treatment area section (P. 44, J.l) of the Land Use Element c the General Plan which requires the submittal of a specific F for projects located in the airport influence area over 25 ac in size. The intent of the General Plan and of the specific is to ensure compatibility, to the extent possible, of land I designated on the General Plan with Palomar Airport. 11, LOCAT I OR The subject property is located approximately .3 miles south Palomar: Airport Road, just east of the future extension of College Boulevard as shown on Exhibit "A". 111. LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that parcel of land designated as "description No. 5, 10 acres" as shown and delineated on record of Survey Map No. 5 filed in the Office of County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19, 1960, being a portion of Lot "G" of the Rancho Hedionda in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of Coc Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion thereof beginning at the Northwesterly corner of said description No. 5, said point 1 the intersection of Laurel Tree Road and the Northerly line said description No. 5; thence along said Northerly line, Nc 83" 40' 44" East 584.96 feet; thence South 45" 31' 49" East 1,129.51 feet; thence South 70" 09' 50" West 17.26 feet to 1 beginning of a tangent curve concave Southeasterly having a radius of 300.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along said curv 51.13 feet through a central angle of 9" 45' 55"; thence ta to said curve, South 60" 23' 55" West 115.58 feet; thence S 57" 18' 45" West; 328.50 feet to the besinning of a tangent concave Southwesterly having a radius of 500.00 feet, a rad line from said point bears South 57" 03' 32" West thence Northwesterly along said curve 334.65 feet through a centra angle of 38" 20' 54"; thence tangent to said curve North 71 22" West 336.40 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve cc Northeasterly having a radius of 570.00 feet; thence Northwesterly along said curve 844.63 feet through a centri anRle of 84" 54' 05"; thence tangent to said curve North If 43 East 5.13 feet to the point of beginning. a e IV. GERERAL PLAN AND ZONING The General Plan for the site is Residential LOW Medium Dens (RLM) 0-4 du/ac, There are two zoning designations on the property, The zoning is Open Space (OS) on approximately thc northern one-third of the property. The remainder of the propert:y is zoned R-1-10000. The intent of the General Plan and zoning designated for the property is to allow full density credit from the General P1 (RLM) but through the zoning make development of the propert occur on the southern two-thirds of the property south of th 65db noise level created by the airport. This is to help minimize impacts from the existing airport. V, LAND USE A) Permitted Uses: R-1-7500 (1) Residential - attached or detached units to exceed 3 dulac for the entire site B) Permitted Uses: OS (1) Recreation facilities for the private us( future residents of the subject property (2) Recreation facilities for public use if agreed to by both the property owner(s) the City Recreation uses will be of a non-commercial or public use nature as this property is being ut for development in terms of density credit bei transferred to the southern two-thirds of the VI. SPECIAL DEVELOPHEHI STAHDARDS A) No development shall occur where exterior noi: levels exceed 65db as determined by the SANDA( "Airport Development Plan", June 1985. B) Interior noise levels for any development sha- mitigated to 45db. C) No development shall occur on slopes in exces 25% except minimal intrusion may be specifica approved by the City Engineer and Land Use PI Manager. -2- e a D) No grading, clearing or grubhinp may occur on tt property without a grading permit issued by the of Carlsbad. E) A detailed soils report shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permit. F) Any development of this property with lots less 7,500 square feet shall be processed pursuant tc Section 21.L5 (Planned Development Ordinance) o Municipal Code. G) Projects not requiring discretionary actions SUI the installation of large recreation facilities shall be approved by the Land Use Planning Mana, Mitigation measures as determined by the Land I1 Planning Manager shall be applied to developmen this property. I) Deeds for all parcels created as part of 'this project shall contain flight easements and provisions for exempting the City from liabilit from airport impacts. These provisions shall 1 the satisfaction of the City Attorney. H) An EIR (EIR 83-9) was prepared for this site. VII. VESTING OF RIGHTS Approval of this specific plan does not constitute a vesting development rights on the property. Any future development require compliance with all applicable City codes and ordin; effective at the time development is proposed. -3- 1' 2 3 4 51 6 7 8 PLANNIRG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2425 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFOWIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST OF FUTIJRE COLLEGE BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD LAND INVESTORS CASE NO: CT 84-32/PUD-73 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain propr wit: All that parcel of land designated as "descriptic 11 22 23 desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all fac relating to the Tentative Tract Map and Planned IJnit Dev 24 25 1 icommission as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1 28 based on the following findings and conditions: I 1 2 %, 6 7 5i 9j a 10 11 12 13 (I) e Findings: 1) The project is consistent with the City's General Plai the proposed density of 2.65 du's/acre is within the range of 0-4 du's/acre specified for the site as indi, the Land Use Element of the General Plan. ) The site is physically suitable for the type and dens the development since the site is adequate in size an to accommodate residential development at the density posed. The project is consistent with all City public facili icies and ordinances since: a) The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an 1- appropriate condition to this project, ensured tt final map will not be approved unless the City CC finds that sewer service is available to serve tk project. In addition, the Planning Commission h: condition that a note shall be placed on the fin: that building permits may not be issued for the r unless the City Engineer determines that sewer sc available, and building cannot occur within the unless sewer service remains available, and the j Commission is satisfied that the requirements of Public Facilities Element of the General Plan ha' 1) 16 I.7 18 19 1 b) The Carlsbad School District has written a lette August 30, 1984, stating that school facilities available to this project. c) Park-in-lieu fees or parks dedication is require1 I 1 condition of approval. ' lI ~ 20 21 22 24 25 23 26 27 d) The applicant has agreed and is required by the I of an appropriate condition to pay a public faci fee. Performance of that contract and payment c will enable this body to find that public facili be available concurrent with need as required by Gener a1 Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the City's E Development Ordinance and also complies with the Des Guidelines Manual. 1) This project will not cause any significant environr impacts as the applicable mitigation measures ident EIR 83-8 and certified by the City Council on June 1 I 1) I have been incorporated into the project. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 konditions: 1) Approval is granted for CT 84-32/PUD-73, as shown on 11 "A" - "C", dated June 7, 1985, incorporated by refere on file in the Land Use Planning Office. Development occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted i conditions. Building elevation exhibits shall be sub for approval by the Land IJse Planning Manager prior t issuance of any building permits, !2) This project is approved upon the express condition t final map shall not be approved unless the City Counc as of the time of such approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision. 1 12 131 4) This project is approved upon the express condition applicant shall pay a public facilities fee as reqfli City Council Policy No. 17, dated April 2, 1982, on I 23 24 25 7) Approval of this request shall not excuse complianc sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other appl ordinances in effect at time of building permit iss 8) Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to i Service agreement between the City of Carlsbad and Real Water District, dated May 25, 1983. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 a @ 10) The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and tion plan which shall be submitted to and approved by Use Planning Manager prior to the issuance of buildin permits. A 500' scale map of the subdivision shall be submitte Land Use Planning Manager prior to the recordation of final map. Said map shall show all lots and streets and adjacent to the project. 11) 12) All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a health] thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debrj 13) Any signs proposed for this development shall be desj conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall review and approval of the Land Use Planning Manager installation of such signs. 14) Trash receptacle areas, for the recreation lots shal: enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates j to City standards. Location of said receptacles sha: approved by the Land Use Planning Manager. 15) All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, architecturally integrated and concealed from view a sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, to Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satis the Land Use Planning Manager and Building and Plann Director. 16) The applicant shall submit a street name list consis the City's street name policy subject to the Land Us llanager ' s approval prior to final nap approval. 17) The project shall provide bus stop facilities at the intersection of College Boulevard and Cobblestone W? satisfaction of the Morth County Transit District. I1 I/ facilities shall at a minimum include a bench, free I 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 advertising, and a pole for the bus stop sign. The pole shall be designed in a manner so as to not deti the basic architectural theme of the project and sa: ~ shall be subject to the approval of the Land Use P1; Manager and North County Transit District. i 18:l Approval of Tentative Tract No. 84-32 is granted sul approval of Specific Plan 195. 19) The CC&R's shall prohibit the storage of recreationa in the required front yard setback. A parking area ' recreational vehicles/boats located in the unused ar 1 at the north end of the property shall be paved, f landscaped to the satisfaction of the Land Use Plann Manager. Said parking area shall be for the sole us residents of this project and shall be maintained by homeowners association. The homeowners association residents a small fee for the use of this facility t recover naintenance costs. This shall be reflected CC&R' s. PC RES0 NO. 2425 -4- I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l2 e @ 20) The developer shall display a current Zoning and Lanc in the sales office at all tirnes, and/or suitable all to the satisfaction of the Land Use Planning Nanacjer 21) All sales maps that are distributed or made availahlc public shall include but not be limited to trails, fi existing schools, parks , and streets. 22) Building identification and/or addresses shall be pl< all new and existing buildings so as to be plainly v from the street or access road; color of identificat addresses shall contrast to their background color. 23) If any condition for construction of any public imprc or facilities, or the payment of any fees in lieu thl imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this p challenged, this approval shall be suspended as prov Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condit determined to be invalid this approval shall be inva the City Council determines that the project without condition complies with all requirements of law. Driveway locations on the cul-de-sacs shall be posit there is a minimum of 22 feet for guest parking to c 24) 13 i of each driveway. 16 Flanayer for approval prior to the issuance of buildi permits. 17 All standards contained in Specific Plan 195 shall I: included herein as conditions of approval of CT 84-2 /26'' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ncjineering Conditions : E) The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior t commencement of any clearing or yrading of the site 29) The grading for this project is defined as "control iny" by Section 11.06.170(a) of the Carlsbad Munici engineer whose responsibility it shall be to coordi inspection and testing to ensure compliance of the the approved grading plan, submit required reports Engineer and verify compliance with Chapter 11.06 o Carlsbad Municipal Code. Grading shall be performed under the observation of ~ !,/// I PC! RES0 NO. 2425 -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30) upon completion of grading, the developer shall ensur "as-graded'' geologic plan shall be submitted to the c Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geoloc exposed by the grading operation, all geologic correc measures as actually constructed and must be based or tour map which represents both the pre and post site This plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer engineering geologist. The plan shall be prepared 01 or similar drafting film and shall become a permanen 31) No grading shall occur outside the limits of the sub( unless a letter of permission is obtained from the 01 the affected properties. 32) A separate grading plan shall be submitted and appro separate grading permit issued for the borrow or dis *I 9l 10 11 12 13, if located within the city limits. 33) All slopes within this project shall be no steeper t 34) Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to a proposed construction site within this project the c shall submit to and receive approval from the City E for the 2roposea haul route. The developer shall cc all conditions and requirements the City Engineer m? with regards to the hauling operation. I l5 I construction phase of this project to prevent any oJ siltation. The developer shall provide erosion con' nieasures and shall construct temporary desiltation/l basins of type, size and location ds approved by th Engineer. The basins and erosion control measures 21 23 22 24 25 26 27 the temporary basins and erosion control measures f of time satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall their maintenance and satisfactory performance thrc aeposit and bonding in amounts and types suitable t Engineer. (1 36) Additional drainage easements and drainage structui provided or installed as may be required by the Coi Department of Sanitation and Flood Control or the ( neer. The developer shall pay the current local drainage construct drainage systems in conformance with the Urainage Plan and City of Carlsbad Standards as re the City Engineer. I I i3") prior to approval of the final map for this projec I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 0 38) The developer shall construct desiltation/detention . a type and size and at locations as approved by the I Engineer. The developer shall enter into a desiltat maintenance agreement and submit a maintenance bond satisfactory to the City Engineer prior to the appro final map for this project. serviced by an all-weather access/rnaintenance road. provisions of this agreement shall apply to any offs sites which may be utilized in the construction of t project as required by the City Engineer. Each desiltation basin 39) The owner of the subject property shall execute a ho harmless agreement regarding drainage across the ad] property prior to approval of the final map for this 40) The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that resulting from a 10-year frequency storm of 6 hours hours duration under developed conditions, is equal than the runoff from a storin of the same frequency E duration under existing developed conditions. Both 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determi detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish t results. Detention basins may not be required provj applicant can demonstrate that downstream facilitie: adequately handle runoff to the satisfaction of the Engineer. 15 16 for all public streets and easements required by tlit conditions or shown on the Tentative Map. The offc made Prior to issuarice of any permit by a Certifical 18 l7 Final Map for this project. All land so offered sh: granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. Streets already public are not required to be rededicated. i 20 21 22 33 College Boulevard. 42) Direct access rights for all lots abutting Cobblest Way shall be waived on the final map except for acc RV storage area. 43) Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for I I improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction Engineer. Prior to approval of the final map, the I 26 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: 27 28 //// I//// ;(//// PC: RES0 NO. 2425 -7- l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 0 a) Sidewalks b) Curbs, Gutters c) Street striping d) Street Median Improvements e) Street Lights f) Street Trees 4) Water h) Storm Drainage i) Sewer k) Street improvements on College Boulevard from the centerline of Palomar Airport Road to the southei return of Cobblestone Way. Improvements shall be to full-width major arteri standards. j ) Wheelchair Ranips 1) Street taper on College Boulevard from the south return of cobblestone Way full width improvement feet south of the southerly curb return of Cobbl east half street improvements , (per Exhibit "B" ) arterial street standard. m) Street improvements on College Boulevard from 6C 13 14 15 16 17 l8 south of the southerly curb return of Cobblestor the southerly curb return of public street I'P", street improvements (per Exhibit "B") to major E street standards. I n) Street improvements on Cobblestone Way from the centerline of College Boulevard to the westerly intersection of Cobblestone Way with the northwe boundary line bearing north 45'31'49". Improver shall be to full-width collector street standarc 68 foot right-of-way. 1 23 24 25 26 27 p) Street improvements on public street "Q" from t' centerline of public street "P" to the cul-de-s terminus approximately 300 feet northerly, full collector street standards with a 68 foot right per Exhibit "B". q) Street improvements on College Boulevard and Pub I'P" from the end of paved sections to the center future Poinsettia Avenue shall consist of full h grading to top of subgrade and drainage improverf required by the City Engineer, per Exhibit "B". 28 /I// iJ?C RES0 NO. 2425 -8- 1 e 0 r) Street barricades at the end of paved improvement 2l 3 4 College Boulevard and public street "P" . Barricz shall be well lighted by permanent street lights. 44) Unless a standard variance has been issued, no variai City Standards is authorized by virtue of approval o tentative nap. 5 6 i 7 8 9 10 11 Sidewalks (4.5 feet wide) shall be designed and cons' to City standards on all drives and streets within tl subdivision. 45) 46) The developer shall construct private street accesse private streets are not a portion of the public stre The developer shall place a plaque-type sign with th "PRIVATE STFEET BEYOND THIS POINT, at the access poi private streets from public streets. The script on shown above shall be capital letters of a size and c such as to be readable for a normally sighted person distance of 20 feet. The provisions of this conditi be met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prio issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any porti public streets in such a way as to clearly designate 13 l2 project. The developer shall comply with all the rules, regul ! 15 16 17 48) Should the developer decide to final map and develor out of numerical sequence with the approved phasing phases shall be completed unless otherwise approved on the tentative map all conditions required of the 22 23 by the City, and the standard improvement plan checl inspection fees shall be paid prior to approval of map for this project. 26 25 27 28 sibility shall be clearly stated in the CC&R's. 51) All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by homeowner's association (if on commonly owned prope individual property owner (if on an individually ob An appro riately worded statement clearly identifyi responsigility shall be placed in the CC&R' s. I I i PC RES0 NO. 2425 -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 52) Street improvements shall be installed to the satisfi the City Engineer prior to occupancy of any units wii phased development as follows: A) Phase One and Phase Two: 1) College Avenue full width from Palomar Road to Cobblestone Way including drainage, wate: sewer facilities to serve this subdivision. 2) Cobblestone Way full width from Collegl to the northwesterly boundary line of this subdi. bearing north 45O31'49". B) Phase Three: Street A, all-weather access with a mi two inch A.C. pavement from the boundary of Phas easterly through Phase 5 to public street "Y", a remaining offsite improvements as shown on Exhik C) All Subsequent Phases, Items A and B as mentioned above, and frontage improvements for that phase. The Subdivider shall provide separate sewer, water, I! 12 l1 13 14! 16 l5 l7 0 e electric services with meters to each of the units. 54) Some improvements shown on the Tentative Map and/or by these conditions are located offsite on property neither the City nor the subdivider has sufficient t interest to permit the improvements to be made withc acquistion of title or interest. The subdivider shc to Section 20.16.095 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code 55) All plans, specifications, and supporting documents improvements of this project shall be signed and set Engineer in responsible charge of the work. Each s' signed and sealed on their first page. Additionall r3) I I I be signed and sealed, except that bound documents rn 20 21 22 24 23 25 26 27 28 ' I I hereby declare that I am the Engineer of Work for i project, that I have exercised responsible charge o design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of Business and Professions Code, and that the design consistent witn current standards. I understand that the check of project drawings and specifications by the City of Carlsbad is confined only and does not relieve me, as Engineer of Work, responsibilities for project design. (Name, Address and Telephone of Engineering firm) I' DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE 'I I I '//'I/ PC RES0 NO. 2425 -10- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 0 9 Firm: Address: City, St.: Telephone : BY Date: - (Name of Engineer) R.C.E. NO. # S6) The developer shall provide the City with a reproduci copy of the tentative map as approved by the Planninq approval by the City. The map shall be submitted to dngineer prior to improvement plan submittal and shal x 36" in size and of a quality and material satisfact the City Engineer. Commission. The tentative map shall reflect the conc 57) Prior to recordation of any final map for this develc this project, the owner shall give written consent tc annexation of the area shown within the boundaries oj l3 l4 15 16 l7 18 19 2o 22 23 21 24 26 27 25 28 Tentative Map into the existing City of Carlsbad Str I Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1. 18) This subdivision contains a remainder parcel. No bu permit shall be issued for the remainder parcel unti further subdivided pursuant to the provisions of Tit the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This note shall be pla final map. 9) Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire kb months from the date of City Council approval unless map is recorded. An extension may be requested by t applicant. Said extension shall be approved or deni discretion of the City Council. In approving an ext the City Council may impose new conditions and may I 1 I I existing conditions. Streets A and B shall be 36 feet wide to face of CUI 1) Streets A, B, and Cobblestone Way shall have a minil centerline radius of 300 feet. Radius shown on the map which are less than 300 feet are specifically nc approved. An alternate alignment may be approved b Engineer. lo) 21 Minimum width of street frontage shall be 15 feet o and on Lot 70. ire Conditions: 3) Additional public and/or onsite fire hydrants shall F I provided if deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal. C RESO NO. 2425 -11- P I 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 lo 11 l2 13 I* 15 16 17 e 0 64) The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a site E showing locations of existing and proposed fire hydra onsite roads and drives to the Fire Marshal for apprc 65) An all-weather access road shall be maintained throus construction. 66) All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurteni shall be operational prior to combustible building m- being located on the project site. 67) All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked at all times, and shall have posted "NO Parking/Fire Away Zone" pursuant to Section 17.04.040, Carlsbad M Code. 68) Fire retardant roofs shall be required on all struct 69) Brush clearance shall be maintained according to the specifications contained in the City of Carlsbad Lan Guidelines Manual. 70) All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing automatic sprinklers, and other systems pertinent tc project shall be submitted to the Fire Department fc prior to construction. i Planning Coinmission of the City of Carlsbad, California, the 14th day of August, 1985, by the following vote, to \ AYES: Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners: M< PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetir Smith and Hall. 19 , 20 21 I 22 23 24 25 I 26 27 28 NOES : Commissioners McFadden & Xombotis. ABSENT: Commissioner L'Heureux. CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Ch CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMI ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER PC RES0 NO. 2425 -12- 1 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2426 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOM OF THE CI CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SP ESTABLISHING PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STAND 4 3~ 5! PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED .3 MILES SOUTH OF PALP AIRPORT ROAD JUST EAST OF FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVAF APPLICANT: CARLSBAD LAND INVESTORS CASE NO: SP-195 -- 25 '(A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 28 following findings: I ' I /I// ~ 1 2 3 Findings: 1) The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the Gc Plan since it implements the RLM (Low-Medium) land ut: designation specified for the site by the Land Use El 4 51 ' 7/ 9 8 10 11 I.2 13 the General Plan. 12) The site is physically suitable in size and shape to accommodate existing uses and those permitted by the plan, as discussed in the staff report. The Specific Plan will help mitigate impacts on this from Palomar Airport as discussed in the staff repor Proposed uses would not be detrimental to adjoining circulation system, as discussed in the staff report The specific plan is consistent with the Carlsbad GE and with Sections 65451 and 65452 of the Government regulate the use of specific plans. 5) This project will not cause a sisnificant environmer impact as any applicable mitigation measures identif EIR 83-8 and certified by the City Council on June C I have been incorporated into the project. 13) (4) i5) ' 21 22 '3) 1 Approval of this request shall not excuse complianc sections of the Zoninq Ordinance and all other appl ordinances in effect at time of buildins permit is: 28 -2- //'/I 'PC I RES0 NO. 2426 I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 8, 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 I? PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetinc ~laizning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, the 14th day of August, 1985, by the following vote, to w AYES : Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners: Ma Smith and Hall. NOES: Commissioners McFadden & Rombotis. ABSEXT: Commissioner L'Heureux. CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Cha CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMIS ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZLJlILLER LAND USE PLALJEING MANAGER 1 I_ I 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IPC RES0 NO. 2426 -3- 0 - ,g-- -.. \ (I 7 '',\ I, m DATE : AUGUST 14, 1985 'w I STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM : LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE SlJBJEC'I: CT 84-32/PUD-73/SP-195 - CARLSBAD LAND INVESTORS - Request for approval of a tentative subdivision map for a planned development for 225 detached single-f residential units. The site is located on a ridget south of Palomar Airport Road and just east of the future alignment of College Boulevard. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolut Nos. 2425 and 2426 Recommending APPROVAL of CT 84-32/PUD-73 SP-195 to the City Council, based on the findings and condit contained therein. 11. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION The proposed project is situated on 85 acres, in a virtually undeveloped area of the City. This area was recently pre-zo from a county agriculture zone to the City's R-1-7500 and Or Space Zones. Over half the site is considered topographically Constrained western portions of the property. The southern and central portions of the site consist of a relatively flat plateau. is on this plateau area that the development is proposed. 1 site is presently covered with native scrub brush. In mid-1984, the property was the subject of a General Plan amendment which increased its density potential. Densities much cif the site were changed from RL (0-1.5 du/ac) to RLM (0-4 dulac). As a trade-off, the developer agreed to clustc development on the southern portion of the property, since 1 northern portion is considered constrained for residential development due to its close proximity to the airport. The property was subsequently zoned 0-S on the north and R-1-75 on the south. As shown on Exhibit "A", the project proposes two points of access off future College Boulevard. College Boulevard is antici-pated as a major arterial roadway, providing an impor link between Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia Lane. Fut traffic projections are high for each of these three roadwa to the presence of steep slopes on the northern, eastern, ar 0 0 The suhject development Droposes 225 units resulting in a grc density of 2.65 du/ac. square feet and would contain sinale-family detached housing. The project is proposed as a private, qated community (incluc private! streets). recreat.ion lots proposed on the site, (includinq a recreatior clubhouse, tennis courts, and pools). An approximately five- graded pad, near the north end of the property, is restrictec open space uses. The developer has not indicated specific improvements to this area. A specj.fic plan is required for this site because it is locat in the Airport Influence Area. The specific plan is short because one was not submitted by the applicant for neqotiatic Staff drafted the attached document and feels that it adequat addresses the issues associated with design problems created by the proximity of the airport. The specific plan calls fo- special, mitigation measures to help reduce noise impacts. The lots would averaqe around 4,100 There are a number of well dispersed 111. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Does the project justify the proposed density? 2) Is the property suitable for residential use due to its proximity to Palomar Airport? 3) Does the proposed project meet the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance? DISC USIS I ON The subject project is proposed at a density of 2.65 du/ac. figure is based upon gross acreaae, which includes all areas (buildable and unbuildable) of the property. Based on the General Plan adopted criteria for determining density of spe projects within the allowable range, the project would tend justify this place in the range (0-4 du/ac) for this area. analysis of the criteria as it relates to this project is as follows: A) Site Constraints and Design - Topography is a substantj constraint to development of the property. The site consists of a north-south trending ridge with steep nal hillsides descend steeply to the west, north, and east Proximity to the take-off flight pattern from Palomar Airport (restricting units to the southern portion of property) further constrains design. The applicant ha: done a good job keeping development away from the slop a.nd south of the 65 CNEL noise line. slopes, up to 200 feet high. From the ridqetop, the -2- e e B) - Onsite Amenities - The overall design concept appears qc with many units situated to take advantage of the panor: vi.ew. Although it is unclear as to what recreational features are proposed at the vacant north end of the property, the project is providinu a number of recreatic areas and view corridors throuqhout the project. - Location/Offsite Amenities - The proposed project is siituated in the south-central portion of the City, surrounded by industrial property down the hillside to I north and east, and residential property to the west an( south. This close proximity to the industrial (employmi corridor is considered a locational plus. The 1-1/2 mi distance to commercial facilities (1-5 and Poinsettia L is considered average. The City anticipates a future regional park/educational complex (far which the exact location has not been determined) in close proximity to property. - Land Use Compatibility - The property abuts a vacant RL (0-1.5 du/ac) site to the northwest. Other surrounding residential property (also vacant) is designated 0-4 du (similar to the subject site). The site's proximity to airport (2,700 feet from runway) must be considered a compatibility issue. Mitigation is reflected in the clustering of residential units toward the southern end the property. Also, conditions of approval include the recognition of flight easements on the deeds, and a reduction of interior noise levels to 45 decibels. Mitigation, however, does not eliminate the issue of cl proximity to the airport. The proposed project meets t criteria provided by SANDAG for use around the airport. was evaluated in 1974 and was considered when this prop was rezoned in 1984. The lines established by these ac still do not guarantee that there will be no noise impa to the project area. A change in land use would also F new problems in that it will be difficult to determine another appropriate designation. Besides the airport, traffic and compatibility with residential uses to the are also a consideration. Since the land use for this was reaffirmed by Council last year, staff would recomn no change. E) Public Facilities - Since few public facilities are on- in the area, the developer will be responsible for the] construction. It should be noted that traffic congest: presently exists on Palomar Airport Road, and is anticipated, at buildout (even with all proposed improvements in place) at its intersection with Collegt Boulevard. Traffic impacts are discussed in more deta later in this report. Based on this analysis of the proposed plan, staff conclude: that the project does justify the density as proposed at 2.1 du/ac. C) D) airport was taken into consideration when the General P -r -3- 0 0 Traffic Impacts Although relatively little development has occurred in the vicinity of the proposed project at this time, roadways in area are already experiencing congestion. Palomar Airport ' is operating near capacity and its intersection with El Cam Real is operating at a low level of service, and the I-5/Pa Airport Road interchange is severely conqested. The propost project would add incrementally to these problems. In the long range, however , extensive improvements are plan to the circulation network in the area. Palomar Airport Ra will be widened to six lanes, the Palomar Airport Road/El C Real intersection will be upgraded, and the 1-5/Palomar Air Road bridge will be widened. In addition, College Boulevar will be constructed as a four-lane divided highway, providi link to Poinsettia Lane. The Carlsbad Land Investors Environmental Impact Report Tr2 Study and SANDAG Traffic Model Estimates indicate, however, that, even with these improvements, traffic service levels be low. congested roadway in the City at buildout. The Palomar Air Road/College Boulevard intersection (directly impacted by t proposed project) will operate (at best) at level of servic (tolerable but not desirable). The 1-5/Palomar Airport ROE . 1-5/Poinsettia Lane interchanges are also projected to excc capacity. These studies are generally based upon mid-poin' density range estimates. The proposed project is below the mid-point of the density At 2,,65 du/ac, the project will create slightly less impac traffiic than anticipated by the SANDAG study. Planned Development Ordinance As proposed, the project meets or exceeds all the requirem I' of the Planned Development Ordinance. All residential lot have a minimum usable area of I5 feet, guest parkinq will provided an-street and in several bays distributed through project. In summary, staff feels that the project is designed appropriately for the site, meets the standards of the Pla Development Ordinance and justifies the density proposed. these reasons, staff is recommending approval of CT 84-321 and SP-195. Palomar Airport Road is projected to be the most -4- 0 0 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental impact report has been completed and certif on this site. This report identified sianificant impacts an( proposed mitigation measures. The Land Use Plannina Manager determined that the proposed project with added mitisation measures sufficiently resolves these impacts. As a result, is recommending approval of the proposed project. At tachivent s 1. Planninq Commission Resolution Nos. 2425 and 2426 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Statement 5. Exhibits "A" - "F", dated February 13, 1985 CG:ad 7/29/85 -5- I * -.. thaf - fur+her information i r) required, you Will !J~ 50 adv a. Ccirl sbad ~,~?.d rr.ves:ors, A CallEornla !,:mired "arrn.ersiiD Name CindLvLcual, 2at'--?crshi2, Joist venture, cor--ration, gym Secure Properties Tnc, Ceneral Parcner i7332 Irvine Blvd., Sui plusinass Address 'TustLn, CA 92680 .. APPLTfgLNT 2 - 17!4? 83Y-3359 l:elephcz?e Xuzhr AGENT: e :Lx!la 2956 Roosevelt Street Carlsbad, CA 92008' .- 13usinars ,Xdress ,. (619) '43411056 - 'Telephone Nutber Limited Parte-er 6 1 i President !I? 52 Srurswick Way, SanL . MEMBERS: - Mark Z. Zwichorqw. rrame (individual, paz LTer, j aint acme Ac?aress venture, coqoyzizion, synclication) 17332 T' ,rvu Fi'vd.. $1 1- . TP 245 * TustL?, CA 92680 - - Bisiness A2cLres.s; I c (714) 838-3350 (offLce) (7lb) 544-1390 (residenci Telephone ?:?JtlSer Telephone Yumber John W. Zylstra, Secretary ?.O.Zox 4342 San Cleaen litr;le ' i - ti li-ited Partner E~me Adckess - 17332 Irvine Ellvd., Suite 2115 Tustin, C,\ 91'jRO 5isiness Aikkess (7'4) 838-3350 (office) 17141 rn "V-!654 (resldenc ?ele?b.io Y-&L* I ele2.lor.e !iim.ber NOTE: Secure Dropertles Tncorporated is R Califorcia Cor?orat-on, lncorF The above two parties and tfieLr wives are tb.e OP'V Drcncipals of Secure- Inc., and the only Limited Partners (Attach more sbtts if necessary? . I/WC decle-et under penalty of perjury that th infomation cgn',ained in t closure is t,-ru% tnd correct and that it will remain true and correct and 1 relied upozl as being true and correct until e~eded. / /-7 .. 1 - -- GJ .. 0 @ BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: - (2 84-32/PUD-73/SP-195 APPLICANT: CARLSBAD LAND INVESTORS REQUEST AND LOCATION: Subdivision map, planned development and specific Dll for 225 units on 85 acres south of PAR and east of College Boulevard LEGAL, DESCRIPTION: All that parcel of land designated as "description No.5 103.54 acres" as shown and delineated on record of: Survey Map No. 5/15 7 i.1 in the Oh:. of Cty Recorder of SD Cty, kc. 19, 1960 , being a portion of: LC of: the M-I in the Cty of SD, St. of: (?A, accord. to Map No. 823 , filed in 0 of County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896 APN: 212-040-30 Acres 85 Proposed No. of LotslUnits 225 - GWERAL UL PM' AND ZONING Land Use Designation LY Density Allowed 0-4 du/ac Censity Proposed 2.65 du/ac Existing Zone R-1-7500 and OS Proposed Zone no change Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site R-1-7500/0S Vacant North PI Vacant South County East PI Vacant West County Agriculture Agr i cul t ur e PCBL I C FAC I LI T IES School Di.s tr ict Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's 225 Public Facilities Fee Agrement, dated ENVIRONMEPITAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Negative Declaration, issued - E.I.R. Certified, dated August 30, 1954 None Other, - 7 GENERAI; PLAN AMENDME" AND CHANGE GPA/LU 83-14/2C-278 - MTG. 7/17/84 LAUREL TREE IANE. DEPT.PLN CARLSBAD IAND INvEsms. DEPT CITY i 84 i? 3 g w 0 f al ! Bi s 3 8 3 ! a I 5 I!! 3 $ h c, -4 u 8 e a7 . F co rl rl 3 9 2 0 s 0 a =1 0 z a 0 0 bI I I r Uhnm~~wn- -.--.---. .-- 'AB#- mosm OF PAJnnR AImm rnrnz!!sT OF CITY RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Ccmnission and the staff are' recannending that the City direct the Attorney's Offh to prepare documents APPROVING GPA/Lu 83- refer X-278 back to staff for additional -id&= order to 1 appropriately implement the general plan anendment. ITEM EXPLAWTION In April of this year the Planning Camission considered a generz amendment to change 85 acres of residential low (RL 0-1.5 duns/: residential lcxwnedium density (RLM 0-4 du's/ac) to RLM and amnercial acres. Staff and the Planning Comnission recarmeded denial of this based on traffic, land use compatibility and noise. The City Council hc appeal on June 5 and suggested an alternative land use which included RIJ southerly portion of the property and 20 acres of office (0) on the mT1 portion. They returned the item to the Planning Cmission for a report At the Planning Corranission meting of June 27, the applicant proposed alternative. Tkis alternative would change the entire 85 acre site to I? on the general plan. The zoning would be residential for the southern 1 and the Open space Zone on &e northern 20 acres (refer to Exhibit "4") this configuration the applicant could use the density for the entire I but wuld cluster it on the southern 65 acres. The planned devi ordinance could be utilized to build attadned units if the applicant de The Planning Camnission reccmnended that ZC-278 be referred back to SI propose zoning which muld appropriately implement this new proposal. The Planning Comnission felt that the applicant's proposal is a good for the site. Staff still feels that the existing general plan is the for the site. Staff does feel however, that this new alternative is because it does provide for developrrent m the southern portion of the E fran the portion of the property mst impacted by the airport. The portion of the site could be used to fulfill the cpen space requiremente future residential project. It also leaves the bluff area as the logic between residential use on the mesa and non-residential uses along Airport Road. For further information please see the attached staff reports to the Ccmnission. FISCAL IMPACT There will be TY) direct fiscal impact on the city frcin the proposed pro ENVIF%)"TALIMPACT ~n Environmental Impact ~tzport was certified for this project by Council on June 5, 1984. EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 2. Exhibit "A" 3. PC &solution No. 2316 4. 5, PC Staff Report dated, April 25, 1984 PC Staff Report dated, ,June 27, 1984 il LUl\I 3UDl"lL L LAiL 1 Ap"vl 0 APRI -3, 1983 - cgl 8 STAFF REPORT /f-- . ' // \ ';c- k x- -' DATE : June 27, 1984 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: GPA/LU 83-14/ZC-278 - CARLSBAD LAND INVESTORS - Gem Plan Amendment and zoning to change 56 acres of RL 1.5 du/ac) designated property to 36 acres of RLM ( du/ac) and 20 acres of 0 (Office). I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolut Nos. 2316 and 2317, DENYING GPA/LU 83-14/ZC-278 based on the findings contained t%?in. 11. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION On April 25, 1984, the Planning Commission considered a Gene Plan Amendment to allow increased acreages of RLM (29 to 79 acres) and 6 acres of commercial land uses, on 85 acres of property located south of Palomar Airport Road and east of Laurel Tree Lane. Staff and the Planning Commission recommt denial of this request based on compatibility, traffic, and noise issues. On June 5, the City Council indicated that tl could approve an alternative land use for the site. This alternative is being sent to the Planning Commission for a report and is demonstrated in Exhibit "A". It includes the following changes: Land Use Exist inq Propose RL (0-1.5 du/ac) 56 ac. 0 ac. RLM (0-4 du/ac) 29 ac. 65 ac. 0 (Office) 0 ac. 20 ac. - Total 85 ac. rn 111. ANALYSIS Planning Issue 1) Is the proposed land use compatible with the site with the surrounding land use? Discussion Staff has closely analyzed both the existing general plan uses and the revised uses suggested by the City Council, a continues to have planning concerns with the revised plan. . 0 0 These concerns are as follows: A) Land Use Compatibility - Land uses in the Carlsbad Land Investors area, as delineated the City's General Plan, closely follow the natural topograph layout of the land. The site is situated on a ridgetop. It along this ridgetop area (including adjacent properties soutl- west of the site) that viewshed, circulation patterns, and overall community environment is interdependent upon neighbor properties. Staff finds the existing residential land uses this area very compatible. To the north and east, the subject site is separated from thi Planned Industrial uses (along the south side of Palomar Air Road) by an existing 6O--foot slope which firmly defines the ridgetop from the non-residential uses in the valley below. slope provides an ideal land use buffer. Staff has repeated advocated the concept of preserving this slope, which runs f two miles, to provide a buffer between the primarily industr uses in the Palomar Airport Road corridor, and residential u atop the ridge. A transitional land use (such as office) at the ridge is unnecessary, and will, in fact, provide an intr of such use into a residential area, without a well-defined use boundary. As stated in the previous staff report, stafi concludes that the site Ifis most appropriate for residential uses" which should be clustered on the south end of the pro1 Because of the proximity of the airport, the north end of tk property should be used only as vacant acreage for density computation. Density computed from the entire site (224 uni would then be restricted to its southern half. Such would I: conformance with the intent of the Palomar Airport special treatment area guidelines. B) Traffic The revised project, as presented to the City Council, woull greatly increase the number of vehicular trips into and out the site. Assuming 9 of the 20 acres of office property is buildable (the remainder is slope), the revised land uses h generate an additional 3300 ADT (average daily trips). The trips will further congest College Boulevard and Palomar Ai Road, particularly at the intersection of the two. Even un the existing general plan, the EIR identifies this intersec as operating at level of service D, which is considered to "tolerable" and "close to capacity". The recent SANDAG tr: model alternatives all project College Boulevard to operatc capacity (under existing general plan circumstances) even : is upgraded from a secondary (as presently designated) to i arterial. If this roadway is not upgraded, projections inc almost double the capacity. It should be noted that this GPA does not involve a 16-acr. parcel isolated in the northwest corner of the subject are (see Exhibit "At1) atop the ridge, and adjacent to the prop -2- * e 0 office acreage. Assuming this property (approximately 9 acre buildable) is eventually also redesignated to office uses, th traffic generation factor increases to 6240 ADT over the exis plan. Overall, staff is very concerned about future circulat problems in this area, and recommends that land use intensification not occur in areas that will generate traffic intersections or roadways identified as problem areas unless overriding considerations exist. Since this property can adequately be developed without land use intensification, ste does not find such considerations. C) Noise While staff is concerned about allowing office uses on the I for compatibility and traffic reasons, staff is also concernc about increasing the higher density (RLM) acreage on the sit6 Higher density results in additional residential units subjec to airport and helicopter noise impacts. It is apparent thai existing low-density land use designations were placed on thi site for the specific purpose that such land uses would sub] less residents to aircraft noise and crash hazards. Staff concludes that a low number of residential units (as allowed the existing plan), clustered on the southern portion of the (a greater distance from the airport), is, from an overall planning perspective, the most desirable development pattern the site. This is what would be allowed under the existing general plan. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL !REV1 EW An Environmental Impact Report was certified for this projec the City Council on April 25, 1984. ATTACHMENTS 1) Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2316 and 2317 2) Location Map 3) Background Data Sheet 4) Disclosure Form 5) Exhibit "A" , dated June 27, 1984 PJK : bw 6/19/84 -3- Ln I W 2 0 i- 0 4 2 0 z 3 0 0 - improvements. ENVIROMJ3WAL RevIEW An environmental impact report was required for this project and was 1 for certification by the Planning Commission on April 25, 1984. EXHIBITS 1. Lmation Map 2. Planning Comnission Resolution Nos. 2279, 2280 & 2281 3. Staff Report, dated April 25, 1984 w/attachments 0 0 (3 STAFF REPORT e DATE : April 25, 1984 TO : Planning Commission FROM : Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: EIR 83-8/GPA/LU 83-14/ZC-278 - CARLSBAD LAND INVEST Request for: (1) Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, (2) A general plan amendment to allo increased acreages of RLM land uses and to allow commercial land uses, and (3) a preannexational zon change to R-1-10 and C-2 zones. The property is located on 85 acres, south of Palomar Airport Road, and east of Laurel Tree Lane. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1 ) Adopt Resolution No. 2279 recommending CERTIFICATIC EIR 83-8 to the City Council based on the findings contained therein. 2) Adopt Resolution Nos. 2280 and 2281 recommending DE of GPA/LU 83-14 and 2C-278 to the City Council baG the findings contained therein. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting approval for: 1)the certificati an Environmental Impact Report on 101 acres (an 85-acre parc and a 16-acre parcel) Located south of Palomar Airport Road east of Laurel Tree Lane, and 2) a general plan amendment i preannexational zone change on the 85-acre parcel to increaE residential densities and to allow some commercial developmc The subject property consists of a ridgetop and steep slopes located just south of the planned industrial corridor that parallels Palomar Airport Road. The slopes on the northern eastern boundaries of the site presently form the land use buffer between industrial and residential development as shc on the general plan. The entire site is presently designatc for low (0-1.5 du/ac) and low-medium (0-4 du/ac) residential densities. While the 16-acre parcel located in the northwe: corner of the site has been reviewed for purposes of the E11 the owner does not wish to apply for any discretionary actic at this time. The requested general plan amendment and zonc changes affect only the remaining 85 acres of the site. Thc entire property lies within the airport influence area. 0 0 . AS shown on Exhibit "A", the proposed general plan amendment would eliminate all RL designated acreage on the 85-acre site, In its place, the RLM acreage would be increased from 29 to 7s acres. created on the north-central portion of the site. This land 1 pattern is slightly different than that described in the EIR. It is so similar, however, that the identified impacts would t cosidered closely comparable. The applicant's intent is to develop a comprehensive planned residential development flor approximately 300 attached dwellir units and 6 commercial acres, to be located on the flatter portion of the ridgetop. Residential units are proposed towai the southerly end of the site to reduce the impact of airport noise. Most of the slope areas are proposed to remain in oper space, utilizing these areas for density credit only. Since 1 project is loated within the "airport influence area", a specific plan or site development plan is required. 111. EIR 83-8 MAJOR IMPACTS I) Traffic Circulation Six acres of community commercial acreage would be The Environmental Impact Report points out that the proposed land uses exceeds the ADT generated by the existing general plan by about 10,000. Palomar Airport road will be operating at or near capacity, and the futui intersection of Palomar Airport Road and College Avenue will operate at an undesirable level of service even without the proposed intensification of land use. 2) Land Use The Environmental Impact Report states that the sitinq oj large commercial site, with access off a local residentii street, is not consistent with city policy for the sitinc of such centers. The Land Use Element suggests that sucl centers be developed at the intersection of arterial streets. In addition, the project site is located beneai the Hughes Helicopter test flight pattern and would be subject to potential crash hazards from these testing operations. 3) Noise The northern portion of the project area is within the 1' 65 CNEL noise contour from Palomar Airport. There is thc additional likelihood that the residential area of the project would be within the 65 CNEL contour for helicopt( generated noise, given the topography of the site and thc relationship of the flight patterns to the property. In general, approval of the density increase would increase the number of residences that could be exposed to annoyii single-event noise levels generated by aircraft and helicopters and, therefore, could result in increased no complaints. -2- 0 0 4) Topography and Visual Aesthetics An increase in intensity of land use would likely result an increase in grading for additional streets and pad ax Mitigation includes incorporation of design criteria su( as restricting development to areas with less than 25 percent slope and setting commercial structures back frc slope areas to minimize visibility from outside the pro: area. 5) Biological Resources The Environmental Impact Report identifies two sensitivc plant species on the site. An increase in land use intensity may result in additional hazards to these plai populations. Mitigation would include provision of an effective preservation plan for these plants. IV. ANALYSIS - GPA/LU 83-14/2C-278 Planning Issues 1) Can the identified environmental impacts be mitigat 2) Is there sufficient land use justification that the to a level of insignificance? proposed land uses a.re superior to those presently allowed by the general plan? Discussion Staff's concern with the applicant's request revolves primar around three major issues: a) land use compatibility, b) tra circulation, and c) airport impacts. The Environmental Impact: Report addressed the possibility of acres of commercial use resul.ting from the proposed general amendment. This includes a six acre area owned by the appli which would be changed from the RL designation. The Environmental Impact Report also discussed a 16 acre parcel adjacent to the northwest where the owner is also interested commercial use. (Due to the slope constraints on the 16-acr parcel, it is likely that a maximum of 14 acres, including t proposed 6 acres, of general commercial acreage could result The appropriateness of placing such a commercial area off a local residential street is questionable. The location of t proposed commercial use, as we11 as the impacts associated k incompatibilities. The natural slopes to the north and east provide a useful and attractive land use buffer to the apprc planned industrial uses along the south side of Palomar Air5 Road. In staff's opinion, the ridgetop, and property to the south, is most appropriate for residential land uses. This consistent with staff aind City Council action to date. high intensity uses, could increase the potential for land u -3- 0 0- b In addition, the Environmental Impact Report traffic study has identified anticipated traffic capacity problems (with uses presently allowed by the generdl plan) on Palomar Airport Road particularly at its intersection with College Avenue. Staff areas that will generate traf f ic at intersections already identified as problem areas, unless overriding considerations exist. Staff is unable to find these considerations. The proposed project is located 2700 feet from the take-off er of the Palomar Airport runway. As such, there are presently hundreds of take-offs per day, at full-engine speed, travellir close to the subject property. The entire site is within the (airport influence area. Althouc only a small (northern) portion of the site is encumbered by i official crash impact zone for general aircraft, significant numbers of Hughes Helicopters transverse the site daily. The Hughes Company has written a latter to the City asking the Cit not to increase residential density on this property. It is apparent that the existing low-density land use designations were placed on the site for the specific purpose that such land uses would subject less residents to aircraft noise and crash hazards. Staff concludes that this is sound reasoning and does not recommend any increase in residential intensity on the site. Finally, staff feels that the subject property should be developed through the Planned Development Ordinance. This is the perfect vehicle to use to transfer residential density from the entire property and cluster it or the south side of the property away from the noise impacts. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2279, 2280 and 2281 2. Location map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Form 5. Exhibit "A", dated April 25, 1984 PJK:ad 4/11/84 concludes that land use intensification should not occur in -4- CARLSBAD LAND INVESTORS X-: PLANNING m1ss1m April 25, 1984 Page 14 Response : Charles Novak, in response, indicated that parking was going from 16 current parking spaces to 39 parking spaces by rerrodeling the back area. Mr. Novak did not understand bw there can be an increase in traffic when there is rn &ange to the occupancy of the building and felt they were not penalizing the neighborhood by upgrading the neighborhood. Mr. Novak asked the Conmission to direct staff to help them find the appropriate approach to file a subdivision map on this property. Comnissioner Schlehuber questioned why there has been a do nothing maintenance apmoach on this property for a couple of years. Mr. Novak stated there is a new owner. Mr. Novak indicated that they were not asking for an increase in density, change the munt of residents living there, increase occupancy but only asking for the Owner of this property to make the investment necessary. Since no one else wished to speak on this item, public testimony was concluded. A motion was made by the Planning Comnission to approve the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and adopt Resolution No. 2286, retmmnding denial as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 2286, DENYIE AN AfENDME" 'IO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF E-E! - PLAN FaoM 1ZSIDEN"IAL mMEDIuM, 0-4 DU/AC 'IQ RESIDEWTIAL HIGH DENSITY 20-30 DU/AC ON PROPERTY GEWERALLY LKATED AT 3460, 3470, 3476 AM3 3480 KIWE STREET. A motion was made by the Planning Conmission to approve Planning Cdssion Resolution of Intention No. 170 as COMMISSIONERS Rawlins Marcus Lyttleton smith &&&is Schlehuber ,sdhlehuber Marcus follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOMTTION OF I-ION NO. 170 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARCSBAD DECLARING ITS INIWTION TO CONSIDER AH - OF TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE. I 5. Request for: (1) Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, (2) a general plan amndment to allow increased acreages of RLM land uses and to allow camnercial land uses, and ( 3) a preannexational zone change to R-1-10 and C-2 zones. Airport Road, and east of Laurel Charles Grh, Principal Planner, gave the presentation on this item as contained in the staff report, using a transparency of a location map showing the site of the project and wall maps showing the entire project. EIR 83-8/GPwLU 83-14/ZC-278 - CARLSBAD LAND INWSTORS - The property is located on 85 acres, south of Palomar Rawlins Lytt leton smith ~cmbotis Charles Grim indicated that the major issues identified in the environmental impact report are traffic, land use and noise from the airport. applicant is proposing that liL area be changed to RLM and the 6 acre amnercial site be located towards the north end of the property. Staff is recommnding denial of this project because this area is designated residential low density and designated this way because of its proximity to the airport and airport mise. for sound reasons. other than residential and adding a comnercial site will increase traffic. Staff feels a mmrcial site is not a good one for this area. alternatives with the applicant in what they can do with the existing density. Conmissioner Smith asked if the noise impact report also include the helicopters from Hughes. Charles Grim introduced Debra Collins from RECON. Debra Collins stated that the existing noise contours for the Helicopter Test Flight Operations but in the EIR it references the existing CNEL contours. significant noise impacts to residential developnent, however, since the helicopters ere not considered. If a new analysis were done to hcude the helicopter it is possible, based on doptive noise standards that there muld be a signfiicant noise impact and recorranend that a mre detailed analysis be done when detailed development plans are prepared. Conmissioner Schlehuber asked if there was any problem with the EIR if the helicopters have not been considered - would this be an adequate EIR because of the noise factors. In response to Comissioner Schlehuber’s question, Debra Collins responded that this muld rat be a problem. detailed analysis wuld be required at such time when developnent plans are sukdtted. Chairman Rombotis opened the public hearing and issued the invitation to speak. John Zilstra, P.0 Box 4342 San CPemente, Carlsbad, CA. Mr. Zilstra distributed packets to the Comnission hi& included additional maps for their review. adequate and describes everything on the site. Mr. Zilstra felt that this plan can met all of the mitigation requirements of the enviromntal impact report, He felt that the entire area should be one zone because it is an isolated area and a great opportunity to do a master plan for this area. Don Agatep, Consultant, 2956 msevelt, Carlsbad, CA. Addressed the four issues as outlined in the staff report by Mr. Grim indicated that the Staff feels this was designated this way This is not a good site for other uses Staff has discussed various airport did not specifically include noise from the Hughes There will be no More He felt the EIR is staff 8 ~r. Pgatep indicated that the reason they are requesting a portion of this site to be comercia1 is because of the noise impacts that do exist on the site. Also, the line which separates FU,M to RL is a line drawn in his opinion to reflect the difference between a flat plateau area on the site. Agatep felt that retaining the 0-4 du/ac on the southern half of the property is consistent with the city's objectives. Mr. Agatep explained the reasoning for the non-residential designation for the area on the northerly portion of the site. Airport Road and Laurel Tree Lane/Cannon (to be), 65 Dl3 countour is generated by traffic noise frm road surfaces. The airport 65 DB contour (as outlined on the graphic as the dotted line) on the left. If the 65 Dl3 contour is super- area to the right. The mre important is the airport impact zones. These areas are where a higher incidence of potential crash, if there were to be a crash. Additionally, Hughes uses this particular prtion of the plateau. Felt it is hard to comprehend that lower density residential projects should be developed in an area subjected to noise in this case, when it is okay adjacent to a freeway where there is high traffic, higher noise decibal ratings that we allow 9, 10, 15, 20 du's/ac abutting that mise generator. Chairman Rombotis opened the public hearing and issued the invitation to speak. James Courtney, President of Palomar Flyers, 4914 Avila, Carlsbad, CA. Mr. Courtney expressed mncern as to whether or mt the Comnission is going to grant zoning changes because this area is already zoned residential and if there are any tract mps at dl approved for zoning on this area why can't we change the policy and include in those approvals into the CC&R's of the project so when people cane in to buy a ham in these tracts that when they sign these dwuments they are fully aware that they are next to a railroad tract, airport, etc. Installing such a system into the CCbR's of a project wuld eleviate some mise complaints down the road. Roger Carland, Plant Manager for Hughes Helicopters, 3101 Haddica mad, Carlsbad, CA. the proper manner or take away any rights of the property owner but, we should ansider the people that use the airspace above the property in question. The property in question is directly beneath the flight paths of our production flight test helicopters. Richard Lee, Pilot, 2773 Glasgow Dr., Carlsbad, CA. object to the changes to the zoning, but felt that everyone should be aware of the fact that any hcrease in density will decrease safety for the people that live below the airport, will increase mise, noise cosrp?laints and problem to the city. Felt it very hard to understand bw people can build around airports without telling the future Owners of the impacts of noise on their homes. Samething in the CC&R's should be included to make them aware of these problem. William Hart, President of Palomar Pilots Association, Carlsbad. Felt that noise, safety and liability to be incurred by the developer arad City were sune of the important factors of this property. Conmissioner Rawlins asked how many crashes have occurred on this property. Mr. He indicated that the decibal range created by Palomar imposed on the graphic it would mve the airport noise impact Not oppsed to usage of land in Felt the EIR, as it relates to noise needs to be revised. Did not Explained a chart he presented to the Conmission. Harry Peers, La Costa, Carlsbad, CA. Felt the airport should be expanded maller. Response Don Agatep indicated that they wuld be Willing to put any of the restrictions mentioned earlier in the CC&% and also be willing to assess and create avigation easements for this purpose if this were to occur. Urged to view their request and recamnend approval. Since m one else wished to speak on this matter the public testimony was concluded. Corfrnission query took place in regards to all the major concerns discussed by the public. Don Agatep felt other land uses could be looked at and expressed a willingness to bark with staff. A mtion was made by the Planning Comnission certifying EIR 83-9, Resolution No. 2279 as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2279 - RECOMMENDIIG CERCIFICATION OF ENvIF0"TAL IMPACT REFOF???, EIR 83-8, EDR A PRCUECT GENERALLY INCLUDINS: 1) A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FFOM RTL (0-1.5 DU/AC) TO RLM (0-4 DU/AC) AND C (GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND 2) CHANGE OF ZONE FROM E-1-A (CO.) TO l3-1- 10,000 AND C-2 ON 85 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF Pm AIRPOHT ROAD AND EAST OF LAUREL TREE LANE. A mtion was made by the Planning Comnission recomnending denial of ResolutionNos. 2280 and 2281 as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION ~SOL~ION No. 2280 - DENIAL OF AN AMEIM3MElipp 10 TIIE LAND USE ELEMENT OF TEE GENERAL PLAN FFQM RL ( 0-1.5 DU/AC) TO RLM ( 0-4 W/AC) AND C (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) on 85 ACRES OF PROPEEITY GENERALLY LLMXIED SOUTH OF PALOMAFt AImKI'R(3AD AND EAST OF LAUREL TREE LANE. COMMISSIONERS Marcus Lyttleton smith schlehuber RCdXJtiS Rawlins Marcus Lytt leton smith Schlehuber Rawlins Rcrrnbotis PLANNING CCNMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2281 - DENIAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM E-1-A (COUNTY ZONE) TO R-1-10,OOO "D C-2 a 85 ACRES OF PROPEKIY GENERALGY LLXXIED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRJ?OF??? ROAD AND EAST OF LAUREL TREE LANE. A minute mtion was made by the Planning Consnission to ask the City Council for a study of land uses in this area. Marcus Lytt leton smith Schlehuber Rombotis Rawlins Page 11 PLANNING aMMIssIoN June 27, 1984 Planning COnrmission approved the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and adopted the following Resolutions: msomrm NO. 2314, RE~~ING APPR~VAL OF AN AME"I' TO 'IRE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FRCM R4 AND FUM TO C FOR APPFOXIMATELY 19 ACRES OF PROPERTY CWEBALLY LOCATED ON THE SClUI'HEAsT CORNER OF EL CAMIN0 REAL AND TAMARACK AVENUE. RESOLUTION NO. 2315, RECKMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PREANNEXATIaJAL ZOME CHANGE TO C-1-Q FOR APPFlOXlMA!J!ELY 19 ACRES OF PFOPEFU'Y GENERALLY LKRL'ED CN THE SIUI'HEAST COEWER OF EL CPMINO REAL AND TPMARACK AVENUE. 4. GPA/L€J 83-14/cLC-278 - CARLSBAD LAND I"0RS - General Plan Amendment and zoning to change 56 acres of RL (0-1.5 du/ac) designated property to 36 acres of RLM (0-4 du/ac) and 20 acres of 0 (Office). Charles Grim, Principal Planner, gave the presentat ion on this item using a transparency to shcw the project site. The Assistant City Attorney stated that this had been sent back b City Council and his recormrendation would be that the new Planning Comnissioner abstain on this i tern. Comnissioner McFadden stated she would abstain, but would remain for the discussion of the item. Mr. Grh stated this was appealed to the City Council and returned with a recomnendation the Planninq Comnission csonsider office zone. Staff recomTlended denial due to traffic impacts and land use compatibility. He indicated, however, that the applicant would present an alternative tonight. Mr. Nick Banche, 702 Fourth Street, representinq the applicant, addressed the Conmission, statinq the application for GPA and preannexation was denied and appealed to Council. could be used in the north to avoid the influence of the airport, the entire rest of the area auld be 0 - 4 instead of 1-1/2. Mr. Banche stated staff did not like that and wanted nothing on that designated office space. He offered a OJnprOPnise of making that area zoned open space, stating that was the first time an applicant had accepted cpen space on developable land. In return for the designation of cpen space, the density of 0 - 4 was request& for the atire site on the General Plan. Mr. Banche amnted this was not an action item; they Just want to bring this land into the City of Carlsbad. He stated the extension of Laurel Tree Lane and College was an inportant link from the standpoint of the City. Mr. Jerry Hart, Palomar Airport Pilots Association, 6929 El Camino, addressed the Comnission in cpposition to this project, using a wall &art to show the traffic patterns for the airport. showing the property in relationship to the end of the runway, and stated this was under the Hughes helicopter test flight area. The applicant felt if the office He also had a photograph COMMISSIONERS mnbtis Rawlins Schlehuber Smith Marcus Farrow McFadden Mr. Hart stated the opinion that no residential was appropriate on this property due to the noise, safety and liability. He asked whether the study for proper land use had been mde as requested by Council, and Mike Holzmiller answered it was part of the Agenda Bill. Cdssioner Farrow stated he felt the flight patterns should be shown at all times for orojects in that area, and added that the safety and noise is the liability. The Assistant City Attorney stated that is part of project review m. must review and make a recomaendation on every project. Mike Holzmiller stated this project had been submitted to that Airport Land Use Conmission for recomnendation. Mr. l3anche agreed to zone as open space any area siqnif icant to the airport. Since no one else wished to speak on this item, the public testbny was mncluded at 10:49 p.m. Charles Grim, Principal Planner, gave the staff response to the applicant's proposal. indicate the area to be designated as apen space. stated with the 0 - 4 du/ac density clustered in the could support the new proposal, but still felt the existing land use was mst appropriate. Walter Brown, Civil Engineer, stated College would be west of the existing Laurel Tree Lane at Palomar Airport Road, but farther south the alignment would coincide. The Assistant City Attorney noted that with the change and cOnprOmise, mne of the mps or exhibits mld apply Planning Codssion granted a GPA for RIM designation over the entire site and directed staff to prepare zone code amendment ampromise and open space designation The Airport Land Use Codssion He used a transparency to He lower portion of the site, away from the airport, staff appropriate for the rest of the site. COMMISSIONERS Rombotis Rawlins Schlehuber Smith Marcus Farrow M cFadden APPFK)VAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the June 13, 1984, meting were approved as presented. Ronbtis Rawlins Schlehuber Smith Marcus Farrow McFadden June 5, 1984 Page 4 ORDINANCES FOR AOOPTION: (Continued) (28) 16. AB #7756 m REMOVAL OF CQtlMISSICINERs - QWLIFICNION FOR APPOINIMENT. Council adcpted the following Ordinances: OFDINAtKE NO. 1270, AMENDING TITLE 2, CliIAPTER 2.08 OF THE WBAD MUNICIPAL 03DE By THE ADDlTTIaJ OF SEC!I'ICN 2.08.080 TO PROVIDE !33R THE RFMOVAL OF MEMBERS OF THE CITY'S BOARDS AND COMMISSICRJS. ORDINANCF NO. 1271, AMESIDMG TITLE 2, WER 2.08 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION O!? SECTION 2.08.090 TO REQUIRE THAT APPOINTEES TO ALL ROARDS Iwn CCMMISSIONS BE UNITED STATES CITIZENS. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (57) 17. AB #7769 - GENERAL PLAN ME". (85) (11 3) a. AB #7769 - Supplement #1 - APPEAL OF PLANNING CCMMISSIaJ DENIAL OF A GENERAL PIAN FMENCMENT AND ZONE CHANGE - EIR 83-8/GPWW 83-14/ZC-278 - CARLSBAD IAND INVESTORS. Charles Grim, Principal Planner, Land Use Planning Department, gave the staff report as amtained in the Agenda Bill, using a transparency showing the site. He stated the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and future Colleqe would be significantly impacted by this project, and the mrthern portion of the site is inpacted by the 65 CNEL from the airport. On the general plan amendment, Mr. Grim used a transparency showing the existing land use designation and the applicant's proposed use. He stated staff and the Planning Cdssion recormrended denial because of (1) the n&r of people that mld be exposed to airport mise, (2) traffic, (3) inappropriate location of the axrmercial site, and (4) the bluff is an MEMBERS Casler Lewis Kulchin Chick Prescott appropriate buffer separating the residential uses €mm non-residential uses. Mayor Casler cpened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Mr. Nidc FEmche, 702 - 4th Street, Oceanside, Attorney, spoke cn behalf of the applicant. history of the applicant's efforts in regard to the property, and stated there were two problem at the Planning Conmission hearing. Those two problem were (1) the mmmrcial piece, and (2) increasing density. He stated the applicant also did not believe amrcial was a good use for that particular six acres. Mr. Banche stated the second problem was the request for 20 acres to be changed from zero to one and a half to zero to four density. He stated this was mt an action- type application, but a request which would enable the applicant to mme to the City to present a plan. Mr. Banche used a transparency to show haw the acreage was proposed to be divided, showinq 20 acres for office use and eliminating the comnercial designation. He gave a brief He -2 L:-m - LI 2- - -27 -_.__ _ ---* * ._ June 5, 1984 Page 5 Mr. Banche stated in asking for all the property to be zero to four density, this would only mean seventy additional units. He stated there were heavy plblic facility obligations inposed on the applicant and he did not feel zero to one and a half was appropriate by the airport. Mr. Banche used another transparency to show the area irrpacted by the 65 CNEL and the crash areas. He stated by making the cMmrercia1 area into office use and mving the residential area to the south, the inpact mld be minimized. Mr. Banche stated the proposal is llow different from the one submitted to the Planning Camnission with regard to office rather than axrmercial. since no me else wished to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed at 6:39 p.m. Council Mer Lewis stated he mld not support professional buildings or the C-2. the opinion that any area near an airport should not be densely papulated, and that density should not be increased. Council Member Chick stated the mmrcial zone wwld be inappropriate in that area. Council Me-r Kulchin stated she had no problem with this request and felt offices would be preferable to mmercial, and Mayor Casler mncurred. Council M&r Presmtt stated he was mncerned abuot traffic in that area in that the access road would share the traffic load of both the residential and non-residential area. In response to query, Mr. Grim stated staff mld a natural buffer; ard the mncern for any traffic increase in the area. Council certified EIR 83-8. He also expressed oppose any non-residential uses because the bluff acts a; Council Mer Lewis mved denial of GPA/UI 83-14/ZC-278, and support of the Planning Conmission decision. died for lack of a seand. Council announced their intention to approve GPAm 83- 14, and returned this item to Planning Cornnissim fix Motion MEMBERS Casler Lewis Kulchin Chick Presmtt review of the office use on the prqrty and the change of zone to zero to four. The City Attorney stated this wwld be sent back to Planning for a report on the changes and then be returned with the other GPA's being heard at this meeting, to be acted on at the same time. b. AB #7769 - Supplement #2 - APPEAL OF PIANNING (57) CCMMISSICN DEXIAL OF A GENERAL PLAN PMENllIENT - BA/LU 84-2 - MONROE STREET. This item was withdrawn and will be re-noticed in November. Chick Prescmtt July 17, 1984 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (57) 18, AB 87818 - GENERAL PLAN "DIENT, (57) (113) CARLSBAD LAND I"0RS. Mike Holzmiller, Land Use Planning Manager, gave the staff report on this item as contained in the Agenda Bill, using transparencies showing the site, the original proposal for office space and the new proposal for open space. Mayor Casler cpened the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Mr. Nick Banche, 702 Fourth Street, Oceanside, addressed Council, stating this project was a good exanple of applicants and staff working together. stated the heavy offsight inproverents required of the applicants did mrit sdme consideration as far as density. Since no me else wished to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed at 6:28 p.m. Council directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare documents approving GPA/LU 83-14 and referred 2C-278 back to staff to have it appropriately hplement the general plan amendment. A. AI3 #7818 - Supplement #1 - GPA/W 83-14AC-278 - He (57) 18. E. AB #7818 - Supplement #2 - BA/W 84-1DC- (113) 301/SP-l92/CT 84-5/SDP 84-1 - BUENA VISTA PARK PLAZA. This item was withdrawn. denial of the project stands. The Planning Comnission (99 1 (57) 18. C. AB #7818 - Supplement #3 - GPA/Lu 84-4nC-305 (113) - mmsoN* This item was mntinued to August 7, 1984. MEMBERS Casler Lewis Kulchin Prescott Casler Lewis Kuhchin Prescntt