HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-21; City Council; 9081-1; 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-