Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-21; City Council; 8882-1; General Plan Amendments* 1 1 0 W Qz c s % .. z 0 E s a z 3 0 0 CImF CARLSBAD - AGENDWILL v AB# 9LV3’-d’ T’TLE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS : DEPT. GPA/LU 86-4; GPA/LU 86-6; AND CITY A MTG. 7/21/87 CITY k DEPT. RECOMMENDED ACTION: GPA/LU 86-12 - CITY OF CARLSBAD CA If Council concurs your action is to: Adopt Resolution No. $r&/ , approving GPA/LU 86-4; GPA/LU 86-6; and GPA/LU 86-12. ITEM EXPLANATION: The City Council at your meeting of February 10, 1987 and Jul] 1987 directed the City Attorney to prepare documents approvinc three amendments to the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad Genei Plan. The first includes the encouragement of childcare in tl community as a goal of the General Plan. The second changes ’ designation for a 41.09 acre site south of Corte de La Vista east of Alicante Road from RMH (8-15) to RM (4-8). The third amendment allows existing R-2 lots to be developed with duple These three changes to the General plan comprise of one (1) amendment of the four (4) amendments permissible per year pursuant to Government Code Section 65358. These three chan to the Land Use Element have been combined in Resolution No. $?/&/ , attached hereto. The Council should satisfy itself that the findings and conditions accurately reflect your intentions in the matter. EXHIBITS 1. Resolution NO. ,Z/L/ , approving: GPA/LU 86-4 GPA/LU 86-6 GPA/LU 86-12 I . i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P rn m 13 28 gs 8 gI4z OU4 14 zoza QEZg 15 "Gr< u: '-IO CL" zzg$ 16 ozzm zo I? >$ a 17 >3 4 k 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 e RESOLUTION NO. 9161 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMEP OF THE GENEFWL PLAN TO INCLUDE CHILDCARE AS A GOA1 OF THE GENERAL PLAN; TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ONE AREA OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND TO CHANGE THE TEXT TO IMPLEMENT EXISTING R-2 LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED WITH DUPLEXES. GPA/LU 86-6 - CITY OF CARLSRAD (S/ OF CORTE DE L2 GPA/LU 86-12 - CITY OF CARLSBAD (R-2 LOTS TO BE GPA/LU 86-4 - CITY OF CARLSBAD VISTA AND E/ALICANTE ROAD) DEVELOPED WITH DUPLEXES) WHEREAS, the Planning Cornrission did on July 30, 1 August 13, 1986 and May 6, 1987 hold duly noticed public he prescribed by law to consider amendments to the Land Use El of the General Plan GPA/LU 86-4, GPA/LU 86-6 and GPA/LU 86- and WHEREAS, the Planning Comnission has determined tk these projects would not have siqnificant impacts on the environment and the City Council has concurred and Neqative Declarations were issued and approved in satisfaction of th requirements of the City of Carlsbad Environmental Protecti Ordinance of 1980 and the California Environmental Quality and WHEREAS, the City Council did on February 10, 1987 July 7, 1987 hold duly advertised public hearings to consid amendments and at that time received the recommendations, objections, protests and comments of all interested persons desiring to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after considering all p changes to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, direct City Attorney to return with appropriate documents to allow ... 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' m 13 Yo 8 gs a, gu-xz OUa 14 zQZ= Gczg ,>.do 20 3 c1 ;:.a I!5 zWod 16 wzoa oa2m 4 >o k 0 55 = 17 18 19 0 0 City Council to vote on the change individually as a part o single amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Pla NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council City of Carlshad, California, as follows: A. That the above recitations are true and correc B. That the findings of the Planning Commission a forth in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2572 (GPA/LU E 2583 (GPA/LU 86-6); and 2633 (GPA/LU 86-12), attached heret made a part hereof constitute the findings of the City Coun C. That the Land Use Element of the General Plan amended as follows: 1. GPA/LU 86-4 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - To amend the Use Element to include the encouragement of childcare in th community as a goal of the General Plan as shown on Exhibit & "C" dated June 10, 1986 attached hereto and made a pa 11 B 81 hereof. 2. GPA/LU 86-6 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - To change the Use Use Element from RMH (8-15) to RM (4-8) for a 41.09 acr south of Corte de La Vista and east of Alicante Road as shc 21 2o 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit "A" dated July 8, 1986 attached hereto and made a p hereof I 3. GPA/LU 86-12 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - To allow exi R-2 lots to be developed with duplexes as follows: "All legally existing R-2 lots, as of December 1, may be developed with a two-family residence regardless of density allowed by their General Plan designation if they c comply with all applicable development standards in effect time fo their development and if the following findings car made: 1 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 rn m 13 28 gs 2 gL$z OUa 14 zowa 15 Pt'O ,,,tu& uo=i >li" 5WOd wzoa 16 - zo 2 '5 2 17 n a oaZm >O 5 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a 0 1. That the project will provide sufficient addit public facilities for the density in excess of control point to ensure that the adeauacy of t City's public facilities plans will not be adv impacted : 2. That there have been sufficient developments a in the quadrant at densities below the control to cover the units in the project above the cc point so the approval will not result in excee the quadrant limit; and 3. 21.90.045(3) All necessary public facilities r by this chapter will be constructed or are gua to be constructed concurrently with the need f created by this development and in compliance the adopted City Standards. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on t of July , 1987 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux anc NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: I I ALPHA 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 LO I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e 0 PLANNING COMMISSION KESOLUTION NO. 2572 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C: CAKLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF Af -AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF GENERAL PLAN BY THE ADDITION OF WORDING TO ENCOUl ESTABLISHMENT OF CHILDCARE FACILITIES AS A GOAL ( GENERAL PLAN. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO.: GPA/LU 86-4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 30tt- July, 1986 on the 13th day of August, 1986, hold a duly nc public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said requc WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing anc considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all pc desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factc relating to the General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plan Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That the Land Use Element is amended to read as follo 1) Item I, on Page 6, be added to read: I. Encourage and promote the establishment of c facilities in safe and convenient locations throughout the community to accommodate the demand for childcare in the community caused demographic, economic and social forces .I' C) That based on the evidence presented at the public he the Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA/LU 86-4, ba the following findings: 11 I Findings: 1) 2) The amendment will promote the availability of childc, the community. This action will not cause any significant environmenl impact and a Negative Declaration has been issued by i Planning Director on June 28, 1986 and recommended foi approval by the Planning Commission on July 30, 1986. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular rneetini Plannini-Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, 1 the 13th day of August, 1986, by the following vote, to w: Commissioners: Marcus, Schramm, McFaddc Holmes and McBane. Chairman Schlehuber & Commissioner Hal: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. &?*aJ CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chi CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMI5 ATTEST : (&/?&-/ MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIKECTOR p < -2 - PC RES0 NO. 2572 EXt e e Junc - 8TATISTICCY, PRaCILE ON CHILD CARE AND DEv€LoptlpTr SERVXCES COMPILED BY CIlItDCCIRE REsuu!?cE SERVICE 1033 Cudahy Place Sin Diego CA 92110 Prepared for: city of Carlsbad Area: CarlSbad-La Costa, zip 92008 Date: my 1, 1986 Report prepared by: BrendaTerry-flahn e a I) offer incentives for developers to provide childcare milities and services such as: 1) Reduced business license fees 2) Waive business license fee for non-profit organizations with childcare programs 3) Permit increased site coverage if space is US for childcare 4 1 Modify parking requirements for childcare are if it is part of a larger center or business The Commission should be aware that it would require a significant amount of staff time to implement some of these options. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that there will be no significant environmental impacts resulting from this project and has issued a Negative Declaration on June 28, 1986. ATTACHMENTS 1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2572 2) Exhibits “A“, “B”, and “C”, dated June 10, 1986 3) Environmental Document AML: bn 6/13/86 -4- 4. e 0 - . :j PREFe Accurate statistical information is vital in toda, changing world. Cogent, successful choicsts in businel government, and public smrvice require precisr, data about populations served. It io therefore necessary to gather cyclic information about such population groups, their growth i change, and the available choices concerning them as a basis i I appropriate decisions. One area of such information-basad drcisions which increasingly important is the area of child care. Css more 4 morw women with children (who traditionally have remained home) are entering the labor force, it is critical from ma 1 concwned perspectives that the populations and facilit: 1 involved in this particular process be enumKated and evaluotc I I I It is tho intention of thr Childcar8 R8saurce Service offer accuratr, objectivr data and informational support so tl useful decisions may be made in planning to meet child care a development needs. 1 0 0 - TABLE OF CtlNTENTS ----- -- -------- 2 DATA EASES FOR THIS REPORT 3 POPULATION 4 CHILD CARE 4 THE ECllNOMICS OF CHILD CARE 9 APPENDIX, as available 2 0 0 PaPuuTION - The final word on all population data comes from the Cen5 Bureau in Washington, I). C. All other agencies dealing wi census data for the U.S.A. usm this data both as a cornparati bare for their own population surveys and a source of data f informative decision-making. The Census Burwau has a reputati among demographers for being accurate and conservative in i figures and estimates. For its demarkation borders it US census tracts which are further collected into larg geographical areas. The population data appropriate for the purpose of th report follows: ** 1980 DATA --- ---- County total P~P~1~ti~n-L~L~~ ---------- County total child population aged 0-13---3~1-~5 - SRA population * total---_PQfiL-,,--,- ag=J 0-1_617_--1-2-~~~~-3-5_~~~--6-9_~L7j-lO-l3-~~--- total child population 0-13,,z&Q;L Psrcent increasm sine= 1970--&&&%- * 1986 DCITCI e--- --e- County total poPul~tian---~~-~---------- County total child papulation aged 0-13 4=,432 - SRA total population-5125 Percent incrmrrm 1980-85--2,6% -1985-86 3,J% * It must bm emphasized that these figures are careful projectod porportions based on: agrs o-1-.~-,t-2,,~~-_3-5-~Q~--~-9---~~~-lO-l3--~~Z--- total child population 0-13--&QJ35- - 1 ------------------------------------------.---------------- the actual population totals of 1980 and 198S, the actual breakouts of these specific ages in 1980, tho parcmtile of increase since 1980 for this area, and a proximate comparison o+ the boundries of rip code5 census tracts, and sub-regional areas. It may NOT include all local factors which would affec population growth and/or thm need for child care which ha! occurred since 1980. It is therefore a carefully preparr estimate. ** All population f iqurersof age-groupings are inclusil throughout thi ss report. 1- is the co1plty-wide percentile of increase: there is no SRA prceni available at this tim. 4 0 0 - , CHILD CCVZE All child care information data comes from the statistic, data basas of Childcare Resource Service. Official listings c licmnsed facilities originate from the appropriate divisions I the county and state Departments of Social Services, Family D; Care Licensing and Cummunity Care Licensing, and are consistent1 tabulated and updated by Childcare Resourcr Service along wit the daily intake o+ child care information requests. Childcare information for th8 area in question is a f 011 ows: LICENS_E_D_ CHILD CARE, Dafined firma, as of 4-1-86 --: Number of Family Day Care Homes- 21- Child Spaces 138 Number Child Care Centers----- 6 - Chi Id spaces---^^^--- # Number Exempt Facilities - ___ 0 Child SP=---------- 0 ---.--I-- 27 --------- 473 Totals Number of requests for child care re-forrals, defined area, past calendar year 404 __ average per month--J&. March 1985 refms: 39- " 1986 " : 46 an incnase of 17.9% ELKIL!91m! E! SE&X B!D_ E?!%!!!E E GELQGME Area gain (loss) of facilities? last fiscal quuter-_4_--= 17 X child spaces-&-- =13 ___ x 5 =22.7% child spaces-not &v-d&. -r----- ---- last 12 months ................................................................. # These facilities are exempt from state licensing regulations. They are regulated by their funding source. S e 0 SUMMARY OF-NEEDS ----- * fl_R -e--- CHILD ge5g in this area ------- ~~:_~__~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4-i-36 t Ratio of child spaces ( 473 1 to estimated children needi Care ( 3502 ) ----------- 1:7.4 (me sprcP for every-- 7.4 children) Ratio of child spaces ( 473 ) to total child population 0- ( 10 025 ),,,L&Z,,,tone space for every--21.2children). This is -11 bqod the county’wide disparity of 1:4. E_ZLLM_CIIE_ E!&E p_a_e!&eIIo_N_ N_Eg2L!!!o GEE_ IN, SR& 10 02s ---------u------------__u_________ I986 approximate child population 0-13 X 59% .------------------------------------ national X children of working mothrrs X 59.2% ---I----------------_------------------------- X children (national average) placed in formal care - - 3502 ----------------u_--____________I_______----- estimate # of children 0-13 needing care in SRA 6 e w - THE ECONOMICS Of CHILD CARE ___-- CaSTS -- OF --------- PROVIDING ----- CHILD ---- CARE -------- SERVICES Range of charqms for licensed child care in defined are ar=----,_--------- 45 - 100- ---__- -per _--_-----___-_- child full-tinaers af--L@ _____ There are a number of factors which may affect the chi1 care rates in this community. Along with the usual economiI factors in supply and demand, the variables affecting child car rates may include: VARIABLES AFFECTING CHILD CARE RATES: --------- --------- ---- ---- ------ number of hours of care number of days per week of care special services offerrad: transportation, special diets care on days child is ill, tar'. for children with sprcial needs , meals, snacks Burnished infant supplies and equipment8 dieprrs, formula, extra laundry, furniture, supplies state of local economy in the immediate area income of parent(s1 special programs offered: hommwork help, tutoring, extra- curricular activities and/or equipment, aducational excursions, preschoal program and equipment.... averogr child care fees for this area ages of children for whom care is required credentials and experiencr of caregiver (11 ratio of children per adult 1980 FAflfLY ECONOMICS DATA Median Annual Househord incomm this SRC) % 21 - 772 Children below poverty level this SRA--- Chi 1 dren 09 f emal e-headed househol ds thi 5 SRC1--_439 - A,&&% aildren of singleparent households 1027 20.24% ---- ------ --------- ---- 908 - 9.58% Current minimum wage (GROSS) monthly %-5_69,5Q __ annual 1 Y *--2QZQ Current basic AFDC grant for one parent with two chi ~d-n--S!lZ% ----a 7 0 0 - ------------u--------.---------.-~-----.--------. SOURCESt -----a Childcrrm R8sourcr Smrvicm, statistical films CPunty of Sur Dimgo, Dmputmmnt of Social Swvicmr U. S. Census Bureau, 1980 Census and 1995 Census SANDAG Bureau of Labor Statistics < CRS - 4/86 e 0 w - APPEND I X ------- As available, this section will contain supportive addenc related to the need fur child care in the given community i order for parents to participate in and support the loci economy. F 9 0 0 STATISTICAL PROFILE ON WILD CARE MD DEirQOPtlEKT SERVICE3 - *** DATA BASES FOR THIS REPURT * The data basmo of information for this report vary in tt Childcare Resource Service maintains its information base individual zip code areas, while the County and the Census Bure maintain their information bases by census tract and aqqreqat of census tracts such as sub-regional areas (SRA). The borders of these areas when superimposed upon a another do not often precisely coincide, so that the informati given herein -- while accurate, correspondent between areas, a useful-- is not completely reciprocal. Described below is t geographic area included in each base, and the gener differences between them. m OF WILD CARE 1NCOIZtlC)TION Bc)E#. I ---- AREA for which information is supplied (hereinafter referred t am "de+ined Qrmh'' ) : carL5k&.=-Q-&~-Zlk22GQ% ----------_--- - ----------- APPROXIMATE ----------- DESCRIPTION of borders 09 defined -----,-.---,--------,,,,,,,,,L,,,,,,,,,,--- beixeen the Pacific and San MarC0.s dum to San Die@- ---------- and -a -------- Qr *a 8 Please--~--~~--~~-~-~~-.~~~~--~-~-~~~--~--- --.------------------------------.--------------------------- (VZECI OF PUWI.AfION INFORM TI^ BCISE 1 ------ COUNTY e,N-D CENSUS ggEgey IDENTIFICATIO_N INFORMATION gE I! ------- GENERAL ----- AREA: Sub-r'Pgi anal area (SRA) ,GsJas-w ------------ number--42/4;2 ---- Number census tracts 7 --numbers_~~~LQ;t,,Q~~~~~~~~~, 198, 200.03 GENERAL DESCRIPTION of borders of sub-regional area: ,E~~-~~, ,~F,-~~~,-~-~~-d~-~~~~-~~-~-~-~~--~-~~-~~~~~ ---------- ami Qxan ~~~-~-~-~-are-~-~~-~-~--~~-~~~-~~~9~~-- parCels!-re-e-~-e ---------------- - ----.---I------------------- APPROXXMCITE DIFFERENC€S BElWEEN THESE &R€ASt,RhPlltB- mile -sf,XW.LiLHXGSlZ -------------- - ........................... ---------------------------------.----------------------------- .............................................................. NOTE3 3 V h - / .- 2 1:. -- - / ;.-* &-- -& 43 - +\ L” J, A-4 CARCSBAD w>, ‘. 4.L: \ .e &is ,“a- % --- f 0 CEANSI 0 E i I I i I ! I - = SAN DIEGO COUNTY - 1980 CENSUS TRACTS - = Qppfox,&qk zip Code boti~d&~i6~qZOd8 e. @ RI * *15IOC t3vtJ1 Y - Ocwmdr nwom FIGURE 7. MAJOR INDUSTRIAL PARK AREAS SOURCE: Sin Diego Association of Governma e w .O to 10 ninvtes Ell to 20 ninutes a23 to 30 m~nvte8 TRAVEL TIMES CENTERED ON DOUNTOVN CRRLSBff D FzAlmr ;...I1Lz ORANGE COUNT -- I 1 VaIln Cinta Ocrurud? Mrbor I , I I Lake Wonllord Escondido Sntwaru Rurwatr uoon OllV Renrrorr Lowr Ora! 3crrrvo,r FIGURE 2: MAJOR OFFICE BUILDINGS - SAN DIEGO REGION SOURCE. San 0icgoAssoc.ofGc - Oceaiisicie Harho;, 61~ei~ VIS;<? L~tg00 b'd t rric II ((1s L ijgoor FIGURE 4: MAJOR RETAIL CENTERS - NORTH SOURCE: Sin Oiego Astocation of Governments Regional Centers 9 Escondido Square 24 Plaza '-'lest Lomas S A Escondido Village Val1 11 Flower Yill 26 Poway Towne Centci B Plaza Carnino Real 12 Gemcn - Escondido 27 Qancho Bernard0 TO? 13 K-Mart - Poway 28 Rancho Sa Warcos 7 15 Lomu Smta Fe Plaza 30 Safeway Shopping Cc 10 Fallbrook Town Center 25 Poway Plaza Subrexional Centers L4 La Costa Plaza 29 Royal Center 31 San Diego tenter 32 San Harcos Village 33 Santa Fe Plaza 1 Broadway Vista Center 14 Lumberyard 2 Camino Town and County 17 Midtown Plaza 3 Carisbrd Plaza South 18 Mission Center 4 College Plaza 19 Mission Square 34 The Vineyard 5 El Camino North 20 Oceanride Five Shopping Center 35 Vallecitos Town Ccni 6 Encinitu Town and County 21 Oceanside Plaza 36 Vista Center 7 Encinitu Village 22 Old Povay Village 37 Wicgand Plaza 8 Escondido Hills Plaza 23 Pacific Shores Shopping Center Oceallsde Harhor 8,ttrciilrros Lagoou FIGURE 6: MAJOR PRIVATE EMPLOYERS - NORTH SOURCE: Son Olego Assocaoon of Governmcr 1 AC-DC Electronics 2 -4llstate Insurance Company 3 Armorlite, Inc. 4 Rechtel Power Corporation (San Onofre) 5 Burmughs Corporation - RancSo Bernard0 6 Deutsch Co. Flectronic Components 9ivision 7 Hewlett Packard Company 8 Xughes Aircraft Co. - Industrial Products 3ivision 9 Kearfott Division --Singer Co. 10 La Costa Hotel & Spa 11 NCR Corporation 12 Palomar Memorial Xospitd* 13 Sony Manufacturing Company 14 Tri-City Xospital. 15 Washington Patrol Service, hc. Tocnoicillv J Public Agency e MAJOR OF FlCE BUILDINGS 0 YfAR SOrJARE BUILT FOr)TACE 1 Aero Office Park I 1980 90,000 - 2 Aid Building Phase I 1983 124.000 3 Balboa Business Center 1978 75,i;C' i Bank of America Plaza 1982 266,397 5 Bank of California Plaza 1971 312,410 7 Black Uountain Commerce Pirk 16 Buildings) 1975 96,349 8 California First Bank hiding 1966 231.000 199.050 9 Centerride I Building 1983 10 Central Savings Tower 1916 330,173 11 Central Valley Plaza 19111 81,946 12 Centre City Building 1928 8 1.173 I3 Chamber 3uilding 1963 1 bt.928 14 Commerce Park 1918 85.600 15 Crossroads 1983 130,000 16 Crossroads Limited 1978 114.750 17 Executive Office Building 1963 216,000 19 Fifth Avenue Financial Center 1965 120.958 21 First National Bank Building 1982 527,9 17 22 Home Federal Building 1927 181,913 148,870 23 WorneTover 1963 24 ICW Office Park (3 Buildings) 1980 86,500 25 Imperial Bank Tower 1962 529,675 26 Xeamym 1974 98.000 27 Yeuny Office Park 1975 89,964 za ~a JO~ ~anir .nd T~WC 1984 150,439 29 La Jolla Gateway I 1982 169,000 30 La Jolla Professional Canter 1980 146,118 31 La Jolla Science Center 1981 80,000 32 Lion Plas. 1972 93.555 - NAME -- 6 Bemardo Center (9 Buiidinqd , I 984 81,220 18 Fifth & Broadvay Building 19 10 85,000 LO First interstate Plaza 1984 467,843 . 33 Lion United Artins 1981 16.290 34 Mission Otfiee Puk 19b4 165,498 152,200 3S Visaion Valley Finincia) Cmta 1972 31 Montgomery Airport Plaza 1982 89,630 38 Montpome~ Busineu Center 1983 198,000 39 North Cout Business Puk (9 Buildings) 1982 186,000 41 Pines, The 1980 80,000 43 Professional Office Centn 1984 94.643 45 Regmu Square 1984 162.000 46 san Diego federal Building 1974 323,000 47 Sm Dieno Tech Center 1983 160.000 48 Sm Diego Trust k Savings Building 1928 . l2k,?93 49 Security Pacific Plaza . 1973 233,191 50 Seville Qbz. 1981 132.000 51 Zotrmto VaI1.l Science Park 1984 94.01 1 36 Mimion Valley South 1968 8S,OOo 40 Pacific Pmtesaiond Center 1983 81,000 42 Prdo Plaza 1984 90.534 44 Rio Vista Office Building 1984 101,000 52 Sports Anna Village Office Plaza (6 Buildings) 1981 185.000 53 SprecfeIs Building 1912 9 t.OOO 54 SUTUOrdPhZ8 1982 121,000 5s SpC8mOn Crmk Office Park (3 Buildinqs) 1983 9 1.000 56 Tormy Pines Swine= h Research Park 1977 18 1.284 57 Tycor Title Insurance Building 1958 16,000 58 Union Emf Building 1969 375.000 59 Wcil, Fargo Bank Ruilding 1982 3 8 5.648 60 \Vest Bemanto Plaza Pbur? I I984 19,746 61 West Bemudo Plaza Phur U 1984 83,b38 COMPLETION EXPECTED DURING 1985 A Capital Pacific Buineu Plat. 1985 l?t,000 B Fargo La JoIla 1985 19,000 C GatevayP 1985 166,000 0 Highland Park Business Center 1985 95,000 E Metropolitan Life Building 1985 200,000 168,000 F Plaza At La Jolla 1985 G Regents Puk Financial 1985 91.000 H Ruffin Office Park 1985 101,000 I SM Diyo National Buik Building 1985 11 1,000 J Scripps PIaza 1985 14r1,OOO K Seaviav Corporate Center 1985 ?00.000 L Sorrcnto View 1985 84.000 H Sunroad Plaza Phase lI 1985 200,000 N Torrey Pines Science Ir Business Center 1985 160,000 0 Torrey Pines Science Park Building 47 1985 92.000 P Tree- Street Building C 1985 157,218 R Unknown Name 1985 Q Untvwsity Center Lot 01 1985 120.000 iza,ooo S Wateridge 1985 2a0,ooo * 0 MAJOR INDUSTRIAL AREAS - Total i) # of Tot, of Parks Parks in Area of A in in Area >100.000 So.ft. - Airport 28 4 2, I 2 Carlsbad Ave Encinas 5 0 2 3 Vista South 4 1 21 5 Oceanside Oceanside Bivd. 7 1 4 7 san Marcos Rancho Santa Fe Rd. 2 1 2' Sorrento Valley/ 62 7 398 Area - City 1 Carlsbad 4 Oceanside Airport 4 2 6 6 SanMarcos at. 78 42 5 1,9\ 8 Escondido West 26 0 8 9 San Diego Torrty Pines 10 San Diego Miramar 71 24 6,4f 11 San Diego Rose Canyon 10 2 6i 12 San Diego Rearny Mesa 71 . 21 5,511 13 SanDiego Scripps Ranch 15 3 2,1; 14 SanDiego Rancho Bernard0 21 2 1,OE 15 San Diego Mission Gorge 11 2 73 17 SanDiego San Ysidro 7 0 25 19 Chula Vista Southwest 23 7 i,sa 20 El Cajon/Santet Gillespic Field - 16 San Diego Sports Arena/Bap Pk, 11 '0 31 18 National City West of Broadway 10 4 1,24 48 - 5 t,32 Totals 484 91 32,84 *There exists approximately 2 miIIion additional square feet of industrial park space sc throughout the region not within these aajor industrial areas. EJ SOURCE San Olego Assoclarion of Governments Jan 19% y CHILDCARE RESOURCE SERVICE 1033 Cudahy Place San Dick = OF ACTI'IE FdM I LY !YAY CARE NMES , z:p CgoE I 26 i 34 Oceansi de 92054 Ocgansi de 92056 Vista 47 92083 Carl sbad 20 92008 I r' OF CE!ITEJS I CL'RRCIT = OF OP5'JI:iGj i ;;iFk:ITS 3QESCiGGL j SC,-CCL-T;~ 7 15 20 I :2 I 2 only for 23 84 5 family in stress or emergency 17 35 58 36 9 24 17 6 e 0 EXHIBIT "B" JUNE 10, 198 - Santa Monica - required childcare in new industrial offices over 40,000 square feet. San Francisco - required to pay $1 per square f to affordable childcare fund or provide childcare center if proposing 50,000 square feet or more. Concord - developers of industrial/ commercial/office space costing over $40,000 to pay a childcare impact fee of 0.5% of developme costs or provide a childcare center meeting the needs of the employees. Can be waived if st1 shows no need. -ARVARD BUSINESS Ra “IEWe MAR&APRIL 1986 SpeciA-Report Child care for “lncreasingl~ child care employees’is a competitive issue:’ kids Will it help attract and hold workers, reduce turnover, absenteeism, ez7ox, and accidents!” . . -. At a recent Harvard Univer- sity seminar for executives, partici- pants were asked to esrimate the per- centage of their workers who are in families in which the male breadwjn- ner is the sole support of his at-home wife and children. The answers ranged from 40% to 70%. But only 10% of U.S. households fit that traditionai mode. can children between 6 and 13 are home alone for some time after school. A new term has entered our vocabulary: the “three o’clock syndrome? It refers to reduced productivity and higher error and accident races as employees’ minds turn to their chiIdren around the time when school lets out. About 50% of the work force is now made up of families with both spouses working with another 6% be- ing single parents. Estimates state that by 1990,6S% of people entering the la- bor market will be women (new en- trants or reentranta]. Approximately 80% of working women are of chiid- bearing age. Ninety percent of them will become pregnant. About 60% ofmarried men who work have wives working full or part time. The needs of both mothers and fathers are already piaying an expanded role in recruiting programs, benefit plans, and productiv- ity incentives. Why companies get involved Roughly 2,X0 U.S. compa- nies help with their employees’ child care needs. That’s about a fourfold in- crease in four years. These companies believe that getting involved in child care helps increase recruiting, morale, productivity, and quality, and decrease accident rates, absenteeism, tardiness, and turnover. Then there are the children. People usually think about the young- est ones, but about a third of all Ameri- Child care help can also re- duce the stress workers feel. A 1985 study of 6SO’employees in a large, Bos- ton-based corporation reported that the stress of balancing work and family responsibilities is the heaviest contrib- utor to depression among employees, regardless of gender.’ Ms. Friedman is a nationally known expert on child care issues and a senior research associate at the Work and Family Information Center of the Conference Board. After spearheading a consor- tium of businesses to establish the EXHIBIT 6-10-86 Northside Child Development Center in Minneapolis, Control Data CoTor tron studied 90 employees over a LO- month period. Thirty mothers with children m Northside were marched with a sample of 30 mothers using other child care arrangements and 30 other employees with no chridren or grown children. The average montn!y absenteeism rate for day care users m the company-sponsored center was 4.4%, compared wrrh 6.029/o for non- participants in the two control groups The average monthly turnover rate among program users was 1.7796, com- pared wrth 6.3% for nonpartrclpants. In three natlonal surveys of employers with child care arrange- ments, the majority of respondents re- ported that the programs had posrrrve effects on a variety of productrvlcy measures {see the E.tiibrt\. Most oi those executives who answered were human resource managers, and al- though they offered their conclusions as impressions rather than measured results, the reasonableness of the sur- vey results rings true. Rather than documenting what companies save by respondm8 to child care concerns, a Portland, Oregon study shows what compdmes Iosc by nor r:spunding. A sur:ey of -more than 8,000 employees from 22 compan~cs m the city found that 59% of iema!e work ers with chiidren under 1’2 had difncui- ty finding child care. Women with cb.ii- dren under 12 mrssed about 12 days of work each year. Employed fathers who hada wifeorotheradultat home rmssed 8 days of work per year-a number srmr- lar to that of men with no children. The authors explain that “men’s absen- teeism rates are lower than women’s because they carry fewer child care responsibilities. Women make men’s low rates possible.” Mothers take time off to look for care, or tend to a sick child, or respond to a last-minute emer- gency. Absenteeism was not, therefore, a “woman’s problem” but a famrly solution.’ Many businesses, however - a good 44,000 in the medium- to large- size category-have taken little or no action regarding employees’ child care needs. Some executives see no clear ec- onomic justification for getting in- volved, either as providers of care or via arrangements with independent agen- cies, or through other assistance such as modified work schedules. They are e March-April 1986 m maru Business Review skeptical; productivity and other gains are difficult to prove. They are con- cemed about potential problems: costs, complex insurance anmments, obli- complaints, quality control, and equiry Coming Glass Works and Merck Pharmaceuticals provided the start-up funds for private, nonprofit centers, which rely on user fees to cov- er operating expenses. Other businesses prefer to contract with either nonprofit or profit-making agencies to run their programs. Kinder-Care, the largest profit-mahng chain of day care centers in this country, runs several programs, including those at Cigna Corporation, Campbell Soup Company, and Disney World. Financial arrangements differ among the Companies that use Kinder- Most companies that inves- tigate the on-site option decide that it is not appropriate or affordable, though. It is not suitable for some due to the cost of downtown space, or employee commuting patterns, or the limited number of workers that would eventu- ally be served. located near each other [as in an indus- mal park1 can collaborate to create, support, or run a center on a joint basis. Seven Wand radio stations in the Washington, D.C. area created the Broadcasters’ Child Development Cen- ter in a conveniently located school. The Burbank. California Unified School District solicited S 10.000 in contributions from eight employers, among them Lockheed, NBC, Colum- bia Pictures. and Universal Studios, to renovate an empty school building for child care. In return, each emplover re- ceived 20 slots for its children. Companies can also help or- ganize so-called family day care provid- ers, that is, neighborhood people who care for up to six chxldren in their homes. Many parents prefer tius home- like setting for very young children. This option is particularly flexlble. The fixiiity can be located near home or work, hours can be extended according to work shifts, it can serve a wide range Offering information of ages, and the number of providers The child care svster can expand or contract as needs change. ten fragmented. poorly advertis Several companies hire local vaned in quality. A poor child c agencies to recruit, train, and license choice may translate into additi family day care providers along their days off from work when parent employees’ commuting paths. St. Luke’s look for new arrangements. Rush-Presbyterian Medical Center in More than 500 comp; Chicago, which has a 225-infant wait- have contracted with local inioi ing list for its own on-site center, estab- and referral agencies that maim lished a satellite system of family day computerized lists of available ( care homes for which the hospital’s care services. Run by the Unitecr center provides training and backup or as private, nonprofit agencies support (as when a caregiver gets sick). can be found in the yellow pages Businesses throu; country have collaborated v dreds of school districts and nity agencies to use school F run before- and after-school The Houston Committee or Sector htiatives coordinate from 30 companies to enablc cerns or fears are unfounded. Costs for agencies to offer after-schoo getting involved vary widely. Some are in schools, churches, and stc remarkably low. Many companies Several companies contribut merely subsidize existing child care “warm lines’’-a teiephone h programs and organizations. Others of- children to use when they ge fer space, expertise like training for from school. wregivers, and ocher resources such as Care. Some companies - furmture. Some offer referral services Inc. in Illinois, Wang, and 3iW to point parents in the right directions. example - have created sumr AI chld care costs (direct or allocated1 camps on neasby company or nity property. This has prove1 pensed. Several states offer special tax larly helpful to dworced parel credits for employers who provide cer- have custody of children only tain kinds of help. the summer and, therefore, h; regular child care setup. To deal with absen sociated with sick children, I! Packard and Levi Strauss )om lished a 15-bed mfirmary attac day care center in San lose, C; Other companies contract wi, growing number of services ti vide trained nurses for all-day the child‘s home. The 3M Con pays 70% of the 56.25-per-hoc ior in-home nursing services o Children% Hospital in St. Paul Business can contril existing child care services. So panies give day care direcrors i trative help; some assist with c wrire staff training. Other busi use their political clout to lobt increased government support care. New York State employe! IBM, Con Edison, Morgan Gua: and American Express have rei tatives on Governor Mario CUC Commission on Child Care. : gations incurred by referrals, parental i issues. Actually, many such con- . are in some way tax deductible or ex- Small companies or those I . Who’s doing what? Companies that help with child care get involved in roughly four ways: providmg sewices where the community supply is lacking; offering idormation about parentmg or on how to serect quality care; giving financial assistance !or purcnasing community semices; and freeing up time to heIp employees balance the responsibilities of iamiiy and work. Providing services Some companies decide that an on-site child care center is the best option for them. They either run them themselves or rent space to a profes- sional organization. Stride Rite Corpo- ration began its first on-site progr~ in 1971. Parents can have lunch with their children, breast-feed, administer medi- cine when necessary, and meet easily with teachers. Employees pay for the program according to a salary-based, sliding-fee scale. with the maximum fer $65 a week. The success of the first program led to a second Smde Rite center in I~~LLUY 1982. Wang Laborato- ries in Massachusetts and H0ffma~- La Roche in New jersey aiso have on- site centers. These companies believe that by hiring center staff as company employees and making them eligble for company beneiits rhey attract better and more committed caregwers. - .March-Apnl 1986 * Harvard Business Review 6 30 Exhibit Results of three national - surveys of employers that provide child Care services Perry, l_q78* Magid. 1983t Burud, et a SUIWY "What. if any. of the following cnanges "Which 01 the following items do you Survey "Would vou sa quution are changes that have occurred as a ::=on perceive as naving been awed by quostion service has n tne tollowing ooeration7," F given a list 01 asred to rate care program negative. unkr result of navin a day care center for emplovees?" Wespondents were given a list of 7 items and were asked to bndicaie which had been atfectee by the child care service. tne child care prcgram~" Respon- dents were given a list 01 16 Items and were asred to rank the top 5 Items that were most srgnrhcanNy atfected by the child care setvice. Each item was than weigntee according to me number ana order of the rannings and a cumulative rank assigned. (Only positive items were listed. like "recruitment aovanrage." "less turn- ' over." "lower aosenreeism," e&.) 58 empioyers reSD0ndad. most of SUN^ 204 companies responded. Survey Out ot 41 5 sur 230 which were hOSQitalS with on-site trmpr. aamplo 178 business# child we centers. question. The dents were en their own day Aim Prcont.go Alpact. CUmullhm Asp.ct8 8fl.n.d ranking8 by affwmd .tt.ct.d 01 .mployofs napondi m.pond.nt. Mimdy Increased ability 10 88 X Recruitment 448 Employee mot anracl employees advantage employee morale Public reiation absentmsm Improved 65 Lower aosentuo 214 Emdoyee WOI employee attitude rates satisfaction toward sponsoring organizauon Less turnover 21 1 PubliUty Favorable publicity 60 Attract wmns on 208 Abiiity to atnac because of center leave Back io work new or retumir Lower job turnovw 57 Attract available 205 rate Improved 55 employee attitude impwe emDlovee 170 lurnovw toware work work Satistaciion Emoioyee lmoroved 36 Bener public 154 motivation community relations relations Ansenteeism Recnutment .. -tower 72 lmQfWed 345 workers talented Emoloyee employees commitment ' Bener community 137 flexibility Proeumvity 08 Less tardiness Improve employee 67 motivatton Wity ot work force Improve produc- 48 tlon ethciency Equal employn oppomnlty Availability of 26 Quality of prodl temporary help or sewice Tardiness image SCnedUllng Tax advantag. 14 Provide equal 13 opponunity employment lmprwedqudity 11 of product Pod- '~amrjn sann Pony. &nomyus ma oda tRmn Y. ~lgd ma cam IR~~O*CI k~ t*S.My. Bund. Pal Cue; ESIablishfRp S8fWCOS Through Ih. Womng Pmnn: Why €mawera Ga UldJac9Li.l MC Bureau. U.S. Deuanmmtot boar. 1982). mt &sooaten. 1983). Human Reswrcu Workplace twuningion. D.C.: bwmen's mwwa INOW YOIN: Amoncan U- suooonsa &a ( Houm. 1984). IConthued on page 32 - narvara tlusiness neview # March-.\pril 1986 programs usually limit eligbility to certain income groups or ages of chil- dren. Polaroid Corporation covers a portion oi the child care costs for em- ployees whose yearly family incomes are under 625,000. The Measurex Cor- poration pays $100 per month for chiId care costs during an infant's first year. Baxter Travenol Laboratories (in Illi- noist and Palmetto [Florida) Hospital confine vouchers to a selected group of day care centers. Zayre Corporation reimburses employees $20 a week for any chld care they choose for their children five years old and under. A recent Conference Board survey found that fewer than 25 U.S. companies offer thus direct form of fi- nancial assistance, which comes to about $750 to S1,OOO per year per recip- ient employee.J Flexible benefit pro- grams, whch let employees choose among an axray of benefits, are usually cheaper for employers than vouchers. About 2,000 employers now provide flexible benefits, and approximately 50% to 75% of their plans offer depen- dent care as an option. Dependent care - includxng care for children, elder- ly parents, and handxapped dependents -is a nontaxabie benefit. It is one of many options in a cafeteria of choices offered by Educational Testing Service, American Can, Procter 8\ Gamble, Steelcase, and Comerica. .bother type of flexibk pian is the freestanding flexible spendmg ac- count, wbch maintains a basic benefit package, then creates a spending ac- count for a variety of taxable and non- taxable benefits. The account may include an employer contribution, aug- mented by a portion of profirsharing, but it is usually funded through salary reduction-which enables employees to use pretax dollars to purchase child care. The salary reduction option actu- ally iowers employers' costs by elimi- nating social security and unemploy- ment expenses for the amount of sala- ries reduced. Chemical Bank contributes 6300 per employee to a spending ac- count that includes child care assis- tance that can be augmented with 50% of profit sharing and up to $5,000 in salary reduction. In 1984, child care ac- counted for nearly 2% of ail the bank's employee benefit choices and 8.7% of reimbursement dollars available horn its benefit programs. This totaled $518,053 for child care assistance. Mel- Ion Bank, Hamard Unive PepsiCo have also establ ing accounts that inciudi care as an option. e -- provide on-site counseiing, parenting seminars, and publicity materials to promote the child care services to em- ployees. contractor called WFamily Direc- tions to idenniy local'resource and re- fend programs for employees in its 200 plant sites. Through ths program, the company funds local agencies to provide referrals and follow-up services for all IBM parents seeking child care. The corporation also allocates money to stmdate the suppiy of child care senrices so more parents can eventu- ally be accommodated. house refrnd programs. Steelcase Inc.'s child care services include employee access to two child care specialists who conduct parenting workshops and help workers find appropriate communiry resources. call for parmershp between the public and private arenas. Local governments can facilitate employer invoIvement by crcacing.a cbild care delivery system that businesses can, in tum, augment. The pattern of employer support for child care suggests that companies are less interested in starting up new pro- gams than they are in helping their employees find or pay for existing ser- vices. BankAmerica Foundation an- nounced a plan m March 1985 to ex- ~ pand the supply and improve the qualiry of chid care throughout the state oi California. The foundation might not have set this ambitious goal were it not for the statewide system of resource and referral agencies the Cali- fomia legislature had already created. DM has created a national Freeing up tim Flextime, part- and job sharing are arrang U.S. companies are introc duce workers' child care I proximately one-third of "1300" companies offer t; ees personal leave or sick leave when family membc A Columbia Un study reports that every U dustnai nation except the States mandates some for nity 1eave.l In the U.S., thl nancy Discrimination Act companies to treat pregnv other disability. Conseque: employees return to work lowed six to eight weeks o Among higher income wo of three renun wib fou cording to a 1983 study.' 0 female workers, however, 1 ity coverage and receive pa maternity leave. Some con experimenting with mater temiry leaves to facilitate I to return to work after birt tion. Another survey indica women do not necessanly 7 tim: off; some prtferto reti on a part-time basis for a w: Businesses also set up in- Child care problems often How you can ge Selecting the righ depends on a unique blend E ment objectives, employees community resources. To be important to gwe at least on the company the responsibil pioring work-family issues a range of solutions available. nies often organize a task foi research and decision makm zations like the Work and Fa mation Center of the Conferc can provide national data an( to companies that already ha grams. State child care kens cics, the United Way, and loci agencies also have helpful in: hternai sources lil ployee assistance programs, a Easing financial burdens It can cost a family horn S 1,500 to 1615,oOO a year for child care (with most spending about 53,000 a year). Some employers help by arrang- ing for discounts at ld child care pro- grams, much as some already do for car rentals and sporting events. An esa- mated 300 employers contract with profit-making centers that use dis- counts themselves as a marketing tool and a way to fill unused spaces. Most of these programs offer a 10% discount; in about half tbe contracts, the employ- er contributes 10% of the fee as well. vouchers as a direct form of subsidy to employees. Companies with voucher Other employers provide .. - 0 -4 records, exit intemews, and health in- surance claims can uncover iniorma- ployees’ needs. Group meetings oi - tion about the scope and nature of em- References -- - employees and surveys can help, but surveys may be problematical. . Drme Buram. I Ramvv Cmnn and itudv in proms, L)V be Boston Unlvenln Scnmlot Socia1 Wori. Experience shows that only 1096 to 15% of surveyed parents who center, for example, actually enroIl children when such a center first opens reputation will very many employees indlcate a wish for an on-site child care 2 Arthur C. Emico and Paul E. Kowo Hard to Frnd and Dikrcuit to Manarc. ?he Effects of Chd Care on tne Workmacc IPonkld SwC UnlvC~51FI. I9P4, p. 6: ud Azulbur C. Eden. lunea Kushmd.. Paul E. Kom. and Leslie iaugnc. Communitv Snarer. Corporate hnonunx ot a Chdd Care inrormauon Scrnu iWashmpcon. D.C. Depurmcnr ot Hulb sad HLUMO krnccs. 198s). p. 10. 3Surnvrrport. Cornorate FinanuaJ AJUsranw ror Grid Cue itin, York: Connrmcc Ihud. 19851. L)lrecuoru mr rbc Furwe lNew York: Gulrsc. 1981bp.45. up. Only after it has established a good start to use it. to assess what already CXISKS in the communi^^ and learn about prevailing Of course, compames need costs and the qudity of locai services, and they may identlfy CO~~IXUK~ peo- pk to collaborate with later. All this is part of the job of getting started. Arguments for and against 4 Comorrmonr and Two.Carur Fmhu: corporate involvement in chdd care exist. Increasingly, however, it is a com- petitive issue: Will child care help at- absenteeism, error, and accidents? carc is likely KO grow at a siow bur steady pace. The movement is tem- per4 by business executives who tend 5 We Buah Cmca . tract and hold workers, reduce turnover, on Chld Cevclopmcnc and hcvl PoLc). A&- Comrmnce m kri.nt cuc tave. L Employer-supported child Sracmmt and Rrcommcndauons [New Harrn.Com.. Kovcmkr26.1983*, p.2. 6 Sherh 8 herman. hlired 1. Kahn. and Paul Lnpron. .bhtcnufv Pobacs and Woricmx &omen <New York: Columbm Ucuverrrrv Rnr 1983e. p. 66. hew Yurk: Gtuvrc. to k pubusncd UI sprurg 19661 to proceed with caution when getting more involved in the personal lives of may begm with small steps toward un- dentanding work and family issues and respondtng to employees’ child their staffs. For ths reason, companm 7 ?ne Corprarr Guide :o Porcniol Lave care needs. But the Employee Benefit Research Institute predicts that cud care will be the fmge benefit of the 1990s. That is likely to happen because, being sound for employees, it becomes goad for business. - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo 11 I.2 l3 14 l5 16 17 I.8 l9 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 za e a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2583 -h-AESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERj PLAN FROM RMH, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH, 8-15 DU/A( TO RM, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM, 4-8 DUIAC ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF ALFIL WAY (CORTE DE LA VISTA), EAST OF ALICANTE ROAD IN LA COSTA APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO.: GPA/LU 86-6 WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment General Plan designation for certain property located, as 2 Exhibit "A", dated 3uly 8, 1986, attached and incorporated has been filed with the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a I for amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Munic Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 30th July, 1986.; and on the 6th day of May, 1987, hold a duly no public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said reques < WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all per desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factor relating to the General Plan Amendment. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plann Cornmission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 8) That based on the evidence presented at the public heal the Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA/LU 86-6, as on Exhibit "A1', dated July 8, 1986 attached hereto ctnd a part hereof, based on the following findings: 1/11 I/// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 L? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 findings: 1) The site -14- physically suited for the type and density of development allowed by the RM, Residential Medium, 4-8 du/a General Plan designation, since the site has no physical constraints that would prohibit or significantly constrain development of this site at the above-mentioned density ran Medium, 4-8 du/ac General Plan designation will be compatible with existing land uses on adjacent properties since the property to the north of the site is being developed at a density of 2.2 dulac and the property to the west of the site is being developed at a density of 6.2 du/ac while the land to the south and east of this site is designated OS, Open Space. 3) That to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area the corresponding zoning should be implemented as RDM-6. 4) This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on 3uly 12, 1986 and approved by the Planning Commission on May 6, 1987. 2) The uses and densities allowed by the RM, Residential PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of May, 1987, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairman Marcus, Commissioners McBane, McFadden, Schlehuber, Hall, Holmes, & Schramm. NOES: None. .- ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. . 92% 2dA& MARY MA S, Chairperson CARLSB PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: % MICHAEL 3. HmZMIL'LER PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO. NO. 2583 -2- [CITY OF CARLSBAD GPAILU 86. m 0 - 6.3 DWACRE GOLF COURSE Proj ec t Set t i n g ALICANTE HILLS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2633 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLm, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY THE ADDITION OF WORDING TO ALLOW EXIST: REGARDLESS OF THE DENSITY ALLOWED BY THEIR GENERAL PCAE R-2 LOTS TO 8E DEVELOPED WITH A TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGNATION. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAO WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as shown below, has been filed with the Planning Commission; and CASE NO.: GPAILU 86-12 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a reques for amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning commission did, on the 6th day of May, 1987, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by 1 to consider said request; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the General Plan Amendment. I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That the Land Use Element is amended to read as follows: 1) The section titled Explanatory note on Residential Densi on page 26 be amended by the following addition: 1/11 ///I 1/11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 lo 11 l2 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e @ All legally existing R-2 lots, as of December 1, 1 be developed with a two-family residence regardles density allowed by their General Plan designation -n comply with all applicable development standar effect at the time of their development and if the following findings can be made: 1. That the project will provide sufficient addit public facilities for the density in excess of control point to ensure that the adequacy of t City's public facilities plans will not be adv impacted. approved in the quadrant at densities below th control point to cover the units in the projec the control point so the approval will not res exceeding the quadrant limit. C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hea the Commission recommends APPROVAL of GPA/LU 86-12, ba the following findings: 2. That there have been sufficient developments Findings: 1) The proposed General Plan Amendment will allow existinc lots to be developed with a two-family residence. 2) The proposed General Plan Amendment will aid in provid variety of housing types in the City of Carlsbad by al R-2 lots to be developed with two-family residences. 3) The proposed General Plan Amendment will allow vacant I under developed R-2 lots to be developed in a manner compatible with surrounding duplex development. 4) The following findings will have to be made for any prc considered in the R-2 zone which does not meet the cont point: a. That the project will provide sufficient additional facilities for the density in excess of the control to ensure that the adequacy of the City's public facilities plans will not be adversely impacted. b, That there have been sufficient developments approv the quadrant at densities below the control point t the units in the project above the control point sc approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant I titi //it -2- PC RES0 NO. 2633 a- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e m 5) This action will not cause any significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on December 10, 1986, and recommended for approval-by the Planning Commission on May 6, 1987. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of tt Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held or the 6th day.of May, 1987, by the following vote, to wit: I_ AYES: Chairman Marcus, Commissioners: Hall, Schlehuber NOES: Commissioner McBane. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. McFadden, Holmes, Schramm. MARY MARCUS, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL 3. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR < I PC RES0 NO. 2633 - 3-