HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-27; Planning Commission; MinutesMeeting ofz
Date of. Meeting:
Tia! of Meeting:
Place of Mef!ting:
CALL TO CR>ER:
MINUTES
~DC CDl4ISSI~
June 27, 1984
7:00 p.m.
City Council Chant>ers
The Meeting was Cll!llled to order by Chairnan Ramotis
at 7:02 p.m.
\)\' .
Present: Chairman Ramotis, camdssioners Rawlins,
Smith, Marcus, Parrow and McFadden.
Cannissioner Schlehuber arrived at 8:32 p.m.
Absent: None.
PLBDGE CF ALUX;IAM:E was led by Chairman Ramotis.
Chairman Rallbotis announced the Planning Camdssion
Pr<x:edure 1111118 being ehom a, a transparency and asked
the c!Udienoe to spend a few minutes reading it.
Staff Med>ers Present:
Bill Hofman, Principal Planner
Charles Grinlll, Principal Planner
Paul ICl.ukas, Assistant Planner
Walter Brom, Civil Engineer
Ex-officio Menilers Present:
Mike Rolzmiller, Land Use Planning Manager
Dan Rentschlce, Assistant City Attorney
Dave Hauser, Deputy City Engineer
Chairman Ralh:>tis introduced Jeanne McFadden, the new
Plaming Caldssioner.
CClll'DU!D POU.IC HF.MDC:
1. GPA/W :tf P-14f!JIZC-306/Cl' 84-4 -IA <Xm'A DEL &'UR
Raqueet to the Use Element of the General Plan am La Coeta M•ter Plan to mange land use designations in
the aouthweatem portion of the La Costa Master Plan area.
Aleo requeeted are a !one ChaB;Je and Master Tentative Tract
Nap.
Charles Gria, Principal Planner, called attention to the
oonditicin manges listed in the llll!IIDI'ancbn dated JWle 27,
1984, to the Plarming Caaission, and made a part of this
it•.
Mr. Gri.• read MC>ther oondition to be added as t25(K):
•o.iCJl'I featunia including, but oot limited to, additiooal
lanae, striping, traffic control facilities and attendant
right-of-way width shall be provided to assure levels of
service C fa:-the arterial street intersections adjacent to
the project ••
Mr. Gria stated the l!R)licant had seen the manges and
conoirred.
In .,...r to ~ry, Na.lter Brown stated that level c
NX'Vioe IIIU to allow the expeclitious passage of. traffic at
an interNCticin wit.hoot having to lolilit for IB)r'e than ooe
U.l#lt cycle.
(i)
MINUTES
June 27, 1984 Pac:,e 2 1!~~ 0~ :r.~ 1!
COMMISSIONERS ~ ~°\ \
Chairman Rallbotis stated that Camdssioner McFadden had
read the lllinutes and reviewed the llllterials and was
qualified to vote oo this item.
Charles Gri.mn, Principal Planner, gave the presentation
on this item as oontained in the staff report. He stated
this was a oontinued public hearing, and at the last
hearing, the PlMning Camdssion directed the applicant
to meet with the citizens to work out the problem;. The
three roncerns of. the citizens were: the major
discrepancy between the l"llri>er of units permitted in the
11111Ster plan and the runt>er of units theoretically
possible under the general plan: the developnent of the
canyon area ( arother transparency was used showing the
exhibit for the llllSter plan amendment) 1 the third was
caipatibility. Other ronoerns were traffic and the
locatioo of. the open space rorridors.
Based oo the public input, the applicant has proposed to
reduce the density ~ reducing the density in several of
the neighborhoods. Mr. Grinm indicated the areas where
the density had been reduced and further stated the
canyon oo Calina way was oow prq,osed as open space.
Aoother transparency was shown with the 23 sub-areas
iooicated, with the q,en space iooicated, and Mr. Grinm
stated everything else remained the same as the last
report.
Chairman Raltx>tis oontinued the public hearing at 7:24
p.m. and issued the invitation to speak.
Mr. Jiln Goff, representing Daon Corporation, addressed
the Calll\issioo, stating the changes as llll!lde ~ staff were
acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Goff gave the
background for the project and stated it was within the
spirit Sld plan of. the adopted plan and the applicant was
not llllllcing a change in the plan, but a refinenent of. the
plan.
Mr. Goff stated minor adjustments to the boundaries of
the areas had been mete Sld these were pointed out~
staff oo a transparency, and he stated the prq,oeed
master plan changes would protect the riparian areas and
alao establish street al ignnents in advance.
Mr. Goff stated the applicant had aet with the citizens
as directed~ the Planning Caadssion, Sld oo their
irp1t, the density had been changed adjacent in certain
aniu. Be stated they 111ere oot talking abut increasing
the denaity, that 3,458 dwelling units were already
allowed, and if they didn't put the eight acres of
ocaaercW into residential use along El Cmnioo Real and
adopt this plan, there would be 3,456 units, or t:wo less
unite allowed. Mr. Goff stated the reructioo of.
«-rcial would drq> the traffic oounts about 14,000
tripe. He stated the applicant had respouded to the
ooncerna about lot sizes. The 8.4 acres oo Calina way
would oow be deeiqnated aa cpen space, Sld as the
different albdivisiona cxae in, the spacing would be
changed frca the general Wa'f it is shown oo the mater
tentative ap.
MINUTES
June 27, 1984 Page 3
Mr. Goff stated that this request divides the property
into areas and establishes major road alic:rnnents, but
does rot pendt lff/ kind of develqnmt. Individual
site plans "10Uld be neoessay for each of the individual
neighborhoods.
The grading would be for the streets involved and Mr/
grading done "10Uld be less than that done for the
existing halles.
Mr. Goff reiterated they were rot asking for substantive
change in the plan and rot requesting an increase in
density, but providing additional oontrols rot in the
current plan, with cpen space that exceeds that required
under the PC 2Xlne for fflllSter plans.
In answer to query, Mr. Goff stated the time table for
starting this project wuld be gradual. He stated ooe
subdivision had already been processed, but the whole
area IO.lld take ten to fifteen years.
As to traffic circulation, Mr. Goff stated the streets
are wilt by develq,ers and if Rancho Santa Fe is rot
pleasing row, oothing will happen to change that until
there is develqwient adjacent to it. He added that the
future roads are designed to meet the traffic
requirements.
Mr. John Gindorff, 2022 Cult>re Court, addressed the
ea.ission oo behalf of the Monarch Hareowners
Association, as the President a.'ld offical spokeepersal.
He stated the new plan 10Jld cause pt'Oblems-traffic,
overcroi«Hng of schools, 1088 of parks and recreation
areas, loes of ballfields, affecting adults and
children, and endanger the environments. He also stated
there was rot adequate police protection. Mr. Gindorff
requested the Ccmdssion to address the issues involved
and rot chaB}e the density.
Mr. lhldes Hileman, 7738 Madrilena Way, spoke in
oppoeition to this project, stating the City Council was
still thinking as a lalll town with a need tor
develq>era-but this is oo longer true. Mr. Hileman
ueed a Nall 1111p to show the cpen space indicated oo the
_,.ter tentative plan, which was half of the riparian
area.
Mr. Stephen ltisaick, 7912 I.as Nueces Place, President of
Ponderoea BOllllOWnera Aseociatioo, spoke in cg,osition to
t11is p:oject, stating a an's hale is his castle, and
t tw peq>le in that area are oonoemed about the
aervioee. There are proble.i with the sewer district
ant! the echool district at the present time, and oonoern v• upreeaed about police and fire protection. Mr.
IUuick apreaaed the c.pinion that perhaps this plan had
not had the proper thought given to it.
Catherine Regan, 7728 Palacio Drive, spoke in cg,osition
to the p:oject, stating her grievance with massive
grorth in general, and particularly in south Carlsbad.
She and that cpen apace be kept and traffic problea
be aolwd in aocordanoe with the general plan, lllhidl
reflects the deeires of the citbens. She stated that
LIi OOeta Aveooe mat be widened befoce arr:t IIIOCe
tlwelqaltnt tllk• place in aouth Carlsbad. She added
she knew that <Xeat:ed probl-, due t.o the topography of
the land a the l'Ullber of people involwid, but eaae ~
Nd .-how it lll■t be widened.
MINUTES
~ CDIHSSI~ June 27, 1984 Page 4
Mr . Art T atoeky, 7711 calina way, addressed the
C<anission in Cf4X)8itioo to this project, reading fran
the staff repcrt, page 4, second paragraph, regarding the
change fdrca single family to other housinq types. He
also read fran an article stating that detached housing
prices rose and attached housing prices decreased rue to
the large rurt>esr of oondcninium devel~nts in rorth
county in the last six ftDllths. He felt single family
housing was the oorrect designatioo and was ooncerned
about the grading for soil stability and denuding the
canyon. Mr. Tatoeky ooncluded, stating if the hospital
is planned, then ask for a :rone change oow and designate
this partirular neighborhood.
Miss Lee Rautenlcranz, 2922 Gaviota Circle, ~ressed the
cannission in qipoeition to the project. Chairman
Ralbotis ackoowledged receipt of her letter, which is
part of the record. Miss Rautenkranz SU111Mrized the main
points in her letter, giving her reasons for objecting to
the project.
Mr. Merris Rabin, 7717 Morada Street, spoke in qipoeitioo
to the project, stating when he oought his !'one he had to
live within the parameters of restrictions and felt that
should l!IR)ly to all pereoos, including developers. He
felt this project was rot well thought out as far as
providing services, and stated the schools, police and
fire protection services should be provided in advance of
the needs.
Mr. Willard Levesque, 7722 Anillo, ~ired whether any
action taken tonight rould be vetoed by the City Council,
and asked the ec.nission to ride out and look at the area-
~irularly the greenbelt area-and asked what "WOUld
happen to that if devel~nt encircled that.
Mr. Steve Little, 3019 Catrata Circle, spoke in
oppoeition to the project, stating he lives by SW 7 area.
Mr. Little asked about the tentative llllp and what the
density fur SW 7 lilOUld be. Olairman Radx>tis answered it
lilOUld be O -4 units per acre. Mr. Little felt the
auter plan shoold remain as it is and Daoo should live
with the density as it was when they J:Urchased the land.
Mrs. SUsan Paraalee, 2110 V\Jel ta Court, mother of three
chil~n, spoke in qipoeition to the project, stating she
would like to know \!here the parks are. Staff answered
that three Jt'Ml'8 ago the Parks, Recreation element 111118
changed to el iainate neighborhood parks and have
oaaunity parka instead. <ft park is proposed at the
intenectioo oL Rancho Santa Fe and La Costa, and with
each aibdiviaion, there will be mre acres dedicated for
open apace. Rancho Palderosa is rot city-owned, but
•intained by the hcaowners, and that type of
dwe]qaent is envisioned by the indivici.Jal developers.
She atated lhe had waited six years fur parks--and it
N0Uld probably be another four befa:e ooe 111118 available.
She ooncluded, stating there were four freeways boxing in
the children, md the need for parks was 1-ediate.
Mr. lo}er St.olbe19, 3221 Marca Place, indicated the areas
when the lot aiae had been increued, and il'¥]Uired about
the dlpth oL that oondition-uie lot, tvo, ex how many?
Re Mked tor that dllpth to be defined. He also il'¥]Uired
about the -,torcycle traffic.
MINUTES
~ CDIHSSICN June 27, 1984 Page 5
Mr. John Strayer, 2001 Cima Court, addressed the
Ocaaission in qiposition to this project, stating he was
inYOlved in adult sports, and his children in youth
sports, and there are rot enough facilities at the
present time for youth, a!ults and senior citizens. He
stated there was rothing in the plan to alleviate these
problelllB. Mr. Strayer <Dlal!nted the l"l.fflt>er of h:xneowners
here taught indicated involvement in the camuni ty, and
he wanted recreational facilities for everyone.
Mr. John Dilg, 2808 Segovia, spolce fOt' hillself and seven
other hcllleolfners in the area, in CW)Sition to the
project. Re asked why area t 10 had rot been oownqraded am was in CW)Sition to this.
Mr. Goff spolce in response to the issues and questions,
stating as a landowner, sane were beyond his ability to
answer. As far as services being supplied first, Mr.
Goff stated that just ooes rot happen. The City am't
fund these services until they get fees for develOJ:llent,
which cunes with the approval of each individual
devel0pllellt.
Mr. Goff stated the hospital oould be in the rorthwest
portion. A ccmunit~ide prqx,eal had been Rade rather
than wait for the GPA.
As far as parks, Mr. Goff stated the applicant had
respouded to what the City Council had told them and
every tune a subdivision would go in, added acreage would
be dediceted. The individual subdivisions would be
responsible for that dedication. The City amnot afford
Sllllll.l neighborhood parks and the h:xneowners would have
difficulty IBintaining them. As to the notOt"cycles, Mr.
Goff stated no a1e had permission to run on Daon's
prq>erty. 1'hen Daon is informed they are there, the
police are called. He suggested the direct WII'/ to handle
the •tter IIOU.ld be for the peq,le to call the police.
Mr. Goff stated SW 10 was not l!Ddified, due to the fact
that a:iginally it had extended W1eStward across sw 9 am
hid a <ma:)11 lx>uMary with SW 15. This area was rut in
half to a,.;.,-date the ability to stay within the
denaity already authodzed.
Mr. Gaff stated the applicant was also very 111Jch in favor
of La Coeta Aveooe being aproved. However, they were
aware the City did not have jurisdiction at this tiJne.
Mr. Goff reiterated the applicant is requesting mioor
aoclificatima to the aster plan and urged approval.
Aaaiatant City Attcimey Dan Hentschke stated that if the
halpital ia to be in the n:rtm.est area, was that part of
the IIJPlication being presented tonight? Mr. Goff stated
it -not. Be 11M •rely narrowing the site chm. Mr.
Bentachke etated the Plaming Ocaaission would not be
able to take action to illplaent that tonight. He stated
the pEqJONl to allow ron-reeidential U8e8 would affect
only the area indicated on the-rand was rot oonamity
wida.
Q\airaan Ralbotie cloeed the public testimny portion at
9rll p.a.
MINUTES
P~ CDIIISSICfi June 27, 1984 Page 6
~:
Chairman Ralbotis declared a recess at 8: 33 p. m. and the
Plannir¥J Camussion re-o:>nvened at 8:47 p.m., with six
Callllissioners present.
Chainaan Rmbotis asked staff to clarify the hospital
ia11ue and staff stated they had inserted this in the
sou1':hwest at the request of the applicant, but it was
int.ended to af4)ly to the ..tlole llllBter plan. The
Assistant City Attorney now states that oann:>t be oone.
New it am be said for sure it will oot be in the
sou~t portion.
Ocanissiooer Farrow CD1plimented Daon Corporation for
the excellent plan. He stated he was pleased to see all
the residents present to state their ooncerns with the
application. ca.issi~r Farrow stated his main
concern was the product mix and the increase in the
nt.mt>er of uni ts. He IO.lld like to see nore detached
housir¥J and larger lots and IO.lld like to see the
project cane beck addressing these ooncerns.
ca.nissioner Smith a:maented on the lack of recreational
facilities for yaJr¥J children. Staff reiterated
Stageooach Parle would be built and that 200 square feet
per unit IO.lld be dedicated in each subdvisicn, with the
City havin;J the right to increase that footage.
M ike Holzmi Her, Land Use P lannir¥J Manager, stated if an
area is a s·candard subdivisioo and oot a planned unit
develqaen'c, there is oo requirement for recreational
areas. ~ir¥Jle family lots cb oot require CXlllllD"I
recreGl:ional areas-only planned unit developnents.
The «-ent was mde that Rancho Santa Fe is now a prime
arterial, and the park would be across that prime
arterial.
Cc•duiooer MaraJS ™1rred with Camrl.ssioner Farrow
ard stated Daon had oone a fine job. However, she felt
the l'Ulf:>er c1 dissatisfied people of here rould oot be
ignored.
CU-1uiooer Mc:Fadcten agreed this was a qood plan, but
felt it needed refinmaent. She had oonoerns about the
procllct type am the (i\asing of the large roads. That
needed to be addressed, particularly the pd111e
arterials, befon lllf)roval was given. Cnwiaaioner
N~ stated llhe .ould like to aee a neighborhood unnm ,.. district for the •intenanoe of the cpen
spam onnyon, • there might be a drainage probl•
there.
Cnwiuioner Rawlins stated he had problelllB with t.oth
plane n felt the l'Ulf:>er of uni ta had oot been changed
that aidl-1ust re-arranged. He felt there would be a
school llhortage n concluded that park areas wre
needed.
Ot.aiman Atlltlotis stated the deepw of the buf fer BOne
IINlhd to be dafined, with a~ change .t1ere it
._ mt dafinite. Be felt the grading ahould be looked
at m an indiviclaal buis, am • far • traffic a, La
00.ta, IUJIJNl'Ad • tree right turn onto Bl Caino.
MINUTES
P~ ~ISSI~ June 27, 1984 Page 7
ca..issioner SJl\ith stated his appeciation for the
attitude of the l!A)licant and the feelings of the
00111111nity and felt the ooncerns about services were
legitilnate.
Motion WIM llede to approve the Negative Declaration
issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and adopt
Resolutions 2276, 2277, 2278 and 2313, including the
conditions as &Med by staff.
Motion failed.
Plaming Ccnlission directed staff to prepare d:>cuments
denying the l!A)lioation.
M i.ke Holzmiller stated this action was final unless
appealed to the City Cbuncil.
Cclllllissioner Schlehuber joined the C.cmnission at this
point in the meeting.
2. GPA/UJ 84-1/lC-301/SP-1~2/Cl' 84-5/SDP 84-1 -BUENA
VISI.'A PARll: PLAZA -Request for l!A)roval of ll general plan
aaidiiient dlanging the land use designation frail O/1'S/(6
to !111/(6: a zone change frcrn R-~/C-'l'-Q aoo o-s to RD-M-
0 and O-S: a specific plan1 a tentative subdivision 118P
to <Xeate nine lots1 and a site developrent plan for the
first 329 apartment lD'lits generally located oo the 900th
side af Highway 78, l!A)roximately .5 miles east of El
Cai.no Real.
Charles Gri.BI, Principal Planner, stated the l!A)licant
h_, requested a oontinuance of this item for two weeks,
and then IOlld ask O::luncil to postpone this for two
week&.
Nr. Joe Sandy, representing an>licant, stated there was a
probl• m noticing, and the mly Wl!l'/ to bring the
project. fa:ward was to ask for a oontinuanoe.
The Aaaiaunt City Attorney stated the an>lication had
b.--en changed by the an>licant after it had been noticed.
N 1Jte Holailler, Land Uae Planning Manager, stata:J staff
n,u _l\ded rot oontinuing this ite111 and holding 14> the
other l!llPlioantione. If the IIR)lioant "'81\ts to wait
until a later ti•, they oould ask for a new plblic
hearing. He ■tated there lllight be another GPA hearing in
Auguat. If thie •tter were oontinued, there "°'-lld not
be U.. to prepare a new staff report before it wae cl.te
to 90 to Council.
Nr. 8Ml!y stated the applicant was willing to risk
waiting 1.r1til the rext GPA hearing.
lolt:>otis X
Rawlins X
snlith X
Marcus X X
Farrow X
McFadden X
Radx>tis X
Rawlins X
smith X
Marcus X
Farrow X X
McFadden X
(y
MINUTES
P~<IHIISSI~ June 27, 1984 Page 8
Planning C'.aadssion denied the request for a continuance
on this item.
Charles Gril'IIII, Principal Planner, gave the presentation
on this ite111, referring to the letter received June 19,
1984, to the Planning Department fran Mr. Joe San1y, and
stating staff had mt had tiJne to address the
applicant's requested change in the letter.
Mr. Gri.nn stated he "°1ld give his report oo the or:iginal
request, using transparencies showing the existing and
prq>aeed zone change and the project site. He stated
staff had a ronoem about the riparian area and felt this
site was mt apprqniate for residential use. The mise
fran Highway 78 and fran South Coast Asphalt was given as
the primary reason for staff's recomnendation for denial.
Aleo, the City Cnmcil had changed the General Plan oo
this site just 1 1/2 years a;JO. Mr. Grinm stated the
late change wuld have to be mtked for the Planning
ec..dssion and oould mt be acted upon tonight.
Chairan Raltx>tis cpened the public hearing at 9:33 p.m.
and issued the invitation to speak.
Mr. Joe Sandy, representing the applicant, addressed the
Calaissioo, referring to the letter previously nentioned
by staff. Mr. Sandy referred to a chart showing the
site am surrounding area and five charts displayed
on the board showing the general plan for the property.
Mr. Sandy stated the l!R)licant thought they cx,uld
calculate the Roll on all the property, but found they
oould mt ct> this. Be stated that alternative two in
the EIR ws basically the project reo:mnended.
The three issues in the staff report were mise, biology
and traffic. Mr. Sandy stated the 65 CNEL fran Highway
78 is in the middle of the q,en spaoe and the
residential IIO.lld mt be upacted by Highway 78. The
Marron Road ooiee IIO.lld be lllitigated as usual with
apptq,t late lan&loaping, buffer, berm and setbacks. As
to the biological aspect, the alternative lilOUld (reServe
the riparian habitat, acmrding to Mr. Sandy. The
traffic generated by this project 1«JUld be less than
that in the erlatiug general plan. If the area remained
u ~rcial or: office, the traffic IIO.lld cp through
Tangl81100d and Kelly.
Mr. 8Mc!y stated the l!R)lioant needed a denial to 11DVe
fonard to Council and mange the request.
The Auiatant City Attomey stated if the Calllission
r,,.1 I dad to the Council that the pr-q,ety be 1'1~,
that cculd oot be (banged between mw and Council. The
Council cculd direct the Plaming Coaiasioo to a.:ird.lct
~t hearings. If the project is denied, the
OOUncll cculd direct the ca.iaaion to hold further
hearinl}II.
\
ltllltx>tis
Rawlins
Schlehuber
Smith
Marcus
Farrow
McFadden
MINUTES
June 27, 1984 Page 9
In answer to query, ~Ir. Sandy stated the EIR sh~ a
buffer betlileen South Coast Asphalt and this project.
Mr. Jerry Elder, 7280 Encelia Drive, San Diego, owner of
the adjacent property, spoke about his concerns for
protecting his property rights. He had previously
expressed a:,ncerns about the roof material, air
conditioner ruct.s, elevator shafts, etc., an the
rooftops, and the effect an the surrounding ronm.mity.
Franchesca Fereno, 2320 Via Canente (spelled by sound
only, as ro written slip was received), stated there was
a need for m:-re residences rather than m::>re rosinesses.
Mr. Jerry Hart, 1926 Sunset Drive, spoke in q:,position to
this request, stating the traffic i.npact would cause
serious problems.
Mr. Sandy responded, stating the applicant would work
with Mr. Elder with regard to roof rraterials, etc.
The public testim:Jny was concluded at 9:54 p.m.
Planning Carmission adopted the following Resolutions:
RESOWI'IOI 00. 2308, D~m:; AN "4EN!l4ENI' TO 'fflE LAND IBE
ELEMENI' OF 'fflE GENERAL PLAN fROol O/l'S/00 TO R'l/00 OI
APPR:lXIM/a'ELY 96. 8 ACRES OF PR)PERI'Y GENERALLY I..OCM'ED OI
THE SXJm SIDE OF HIGHWM' 78 , APPOOXIM/a'ELY • 5 MILES FASl'
OF EL CAMIOO ~-
RESOWI'IOI 00. 2309, D~IN:; A ZOIE QiAN.'.;E m:Jol R-P-Q/C-
T--Q7o-=S TO R>-M--Q/00 Cf.I APPIOXIM/a'ELY 96.8 ACRES OI
PRlPERI'Y <»IBRALLY I..OCM'ED OI 'fflE &XJl'H SIDE OF HIGHWAY
78 APPIOXIM/a'ELY • 5 MILES FASl' OF EL CN1IOO RFAL.
RESOUJI'IOI 00. 2310, D~IN:; SPEX:IFIC P~ 192, FDR A
RF.SIDENTIAL SPEX:IFIC P" 1\N FDR 96.8 ACRES c»IBRALLY
u:c,a,ED OI 'fflE &XJl'H SIDE OF RIGIWAY 78, APPOOXIM/a'ELY
.5 MILES FASl' OF EL CAMIOO RFAL.
RESOWl' IOI 00. 2 311 , D~IN:; A TENr M' IVE SJBO IVIS IOI MAP
~ APPIOXIMATELY 96. 8 .t.CRES OF POOPERI'Y c»IBRALLY
u:c,a,EO OI 'fflE SXJm SIDE OF HIGMAY 78, APPIOXIMM'ELY
.5 MILES FASl' OF EL CAMIOO REAL.
RSOUJrIOI 00. 2312, D~n«; A SITE IEVEI.01"'ENr PLAN 00.
84--1 , FOR 329 M>.t.RIJIENI' lNITS OI PIOPERI'Y GENERALLY
1.£0'1'1!1) OI 'fflE SXJm SIDE CF HIGffl,p.Y 78, APPR:lXIM/a'ELY
• S M ~ EA8l' OF EL CAM IOO RFAL.
3. ~ 84-4/lC-305 -I03ERI'~ -Request for
appnMl of a general plan wi&nt fran i... and RIM to
C and a ~xational 7.one change to C-2--0 on the
southeast oorner of. Tlll!lllractr: .t.venue and El Camiro Real.
Bill Hofman, Principal Planner, gave the presentation en
this item as a:,ntained in the staff report, using a
tr~ to show the project site (Exhibit X) and
another transparency of Exhibit z showing the separation
fran the aurrounding residential, with the hillside
buffer shown. He stated a traffic study was oone and
wall ape .-ere ll8ed to show the location of neighborhood
00a1ercial sites. The Country Store is near this area,
but 1.e not of. sufficient size to meet the future
ca111mrcial needs of the surrounding vicinity.
Root:otis X
Rawlins X
Schlehuber X
smith X
Marcus X
FarreN X X
McFirl3en X
MINUTES
PI.MIHM. (lJlillS.SIOI June 27, 1984 Page 10
Staff stated oo nnre oon,ercial "°-!ld be reamnended on
El Camiro after this project, as they felt the spacing
of ronmercial areas along El Camiro Real was auite
adequate. Also, such spacing would discourage future
strip a:mnercial einanating fran existing conrnercial
developnents.
Mr. Hofman stated staff is reconrnending the C-1 zone
vith the O overlay, since the C-2 zone l«>Uld allow sane
uses rot !R)ropriate for this site.
There 111218 a discussion mrong the Conmissioners and staff,
with a determination that a signal is presently planned
for Kelly and El Camiro Real.
Chaionan Rarbotis opened the public hearing at 10:10 p.m.
and issued the invitation to speak.
Mr. Jim Hides, 6994 El Camiro Real, representing the
applicant, addressed the Conmission, stating there was a
traffic circulatioo p-:oblem and a report was cbne
satisfying thif' <DOCern. He stated the prq,erty is flat
and would rot require a large annmt of grading. Also,
Tamarack is b.lilt in this area. Mr. Hides stated the
timing was good for this project and he used a wall nap
to show the neighborhood rorrmercial locations, s-..ating
the demand aspect was good for this project.
In answer to query fran the Conmission, Mr. Hides stated
they agreed with the C-1 and had volunteered the Q
over lay.
~r. Richard Hulbert, 4722 Amer,,,ood Court, Carlsbad
Palisades RaReOWners Association, spoke, representing 115
units, wx, would overlook this area. Mr. Hulbert
si.mmari zed his letter dated June 22, 1984, to the Land
Use Planning Office.
Mr. Harold Moyer, 4724 Amer,,,ood Court, irliressed the
Ccaaissioo in qiposition to this project, stating the
noise and traffic will be p,:oblE!11'6.
Mr. Richard Shepard, 4667 Coralwood Circle, addressed the
ca.ission in qiposit ioo to this project, stating
~rcial was rot appropriate for that oorner.
Mr . Hicks stated the oomnercial developnent will rot
i n...--reaae the traffic load, aB the streets are designed to
handle that traffic. He stated there were plans to pJt
an elementary school oo the east side of El Camino Real,
and through the O ovierlay, all specific plans will be
reviewed by the Planning Ccmdssioo.
Since rx> one else wished to speak oo this item, the
public testiloony was <DnCluded at 10:25 p.m.
Mr. Hofman stated staff had looked at the smw:; report oo
traffic, and T .. rade is well within the range of a
secondary arterial, and t r aff ic wo.ild not be increased to
any signi ficant degree oo El Camino Real.
In answer to query, staff s t ated the setback fran El
c.ino would be 40 to 45 feet, per the El Camino Real
Corridor Study.
MINUTES
PINfi:IK; OJIC ISSIOI June 27, 1984 Pac,;•.? 11
Planning Carmission approved the Negative Declaration
issued by the Land Use Planning Manager 100 crl:lpted the
following Resolutions:
RE90LI.Jl'IOI 00. 2314, REQ'.H4EN)n«; APPRJ\TAL CF AN
NUXMfffl' ro 'fflE I.AND l.5E ELEMEffl' CF 'mE GNERAL PL.\N
PlOI 94 HI> RlM ro C FDR APPR:lXIMATELY 19 ACRES CF
PFOPERl'Y <DERAIJ..Y I..OCm'ID OI 'fflE &XJ!'RFA'n' CDRNER CF EL
CNil IOO REAL ~ TJIMARACK AVFNUE.
RE90LlJl' IOI 00. 2 3 1 5, REO'.H4 ml) n«; APPROVAL CF A
P~IOW:. ZOIE ow«:IB ro C-1 ~ FOR APPR:>XIMATELY
19 ACRES CF PIOPERl'Y GENERAU.Y [OCJ(l'ID CN 'mE &XJ!'RFA91'
COffiER CF EL CMIOO REAL AND TlfolARACK AVENUE.
4. GPlyUJ 83-14/lC-278 -CARLffiW) I.AND INVEffi'ORS -
General Plan Amerdllent and zaling to change 56 acres of
RL (0-1.5 du/ac) designated property to 36 acres of RIM
(0-4 du/ac) and 20 acres of O (Office).
Charles Gdfflll, Principal Planner, gave the presentation
on this item using a transparency to show the project
site.
The Assistant City Attorney s tated that this had been
sent back by City Council and his recorrmendation would
be that the new Planning Coomissioner abs tain oo this
item.
Ccnnissioner McFadden stated she would abstain, but
would remain for the discussion of the item.
Mr. Gri.n111 stated this was appealed to the City Council
an:'! returned with a reannendation the Planning
cannission oonsider office zone. Staff recnrmen:'led
denial <ile to traffic inpacts and land use
caipatibili ty. He in:'licated, however, that the
applicant would present an altetnative tonight.
Mr. Nick Banche, 702 Fourth Street, representing the
applicant, addressed the Cannission, stating the
application for GPA and preannexation was denied and
appealed to Council. The awlicant felt if the office
could be used in the oorth tx:> avoid the influence of the
airport, the entire rest of the area could be O -4
instead of 1-1/2. Mr. Banche stated staff did not like
that and wanted nothing oo that designated office space.
He offered a oonpranise of imking that area 2'lOOed q,en
space, stating that was the first time an awlicant had
accepted q>er1 space oo developable land. In return for
the designation of q>en space, the density of O -4 was
requested for the entire site oo the General Plan. Mr.
Banche amnented this was oot an act.ion item; they just
want tx:> tring this la.'ld into the City of Carlsbad. He
stated the exte.nsion of Laurel Tree Lane and College was
an illport.ant lir ' fran the st.arq:>oint of t-i-.,e City.
Mr. Jerry Hart, Pa.lanar Airport Pilots Association, 6929
!l Cairo, addressed the Conmission in cpposition tx:>
this project, using a wall chart to show the traffic
patterns for the airpcrt. He also had a photograph
showing the property in relationship tx:> tl-ie eoo of the
n.ll'MIIY, and stated this was under the iiugnes helloopter
teet flight arcu.
1! ~
o.,.\~~~ -"'-~. 0
COMMISSIONERS q,_ ~\~ ~
lbdx>tis P<
Rawlins X P<
Schlehuber P<
Smith P<
Marcus X
Farrow P<
McFadden X
MINUTES
1? ~
June 27, 1984 Page 12 0.A :Y~ i! -.;.: ;.L ~ 0
COMMISSIONERS ~ ~ ~ ~\
Mr. Hart stated the q:iinion that oo residential was
appropriate oo this property due to the ooise, safety
and liability. He ask:ed whether the study for proper
land use had been l1Bde as requested by council, and Mike
Holzmiller answered it was part of the Agenda Bill.
Ccmnissioner FatTCM stated he felt the flight patterns
should be shown at al 1 times for orojects in that area,
and ~ that the safety and roise is the liability.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that is part of
project review oow. The Airport Land Use Cannission
nust review and IIBke a reroamendation oo every project.
Mike Holzmiller stated this project had been suanitted
to that Airport Land Use Cannission for reronmendation.
Mr. Bandle agreed to zone as cpen space any area
significant to the airport.
Since oo one else wished to speak oo this item, the
public testi.n'Ony was a:included at 10:49 p.m.
Charles Grinm, Principal Planner , gave the staff response
to the applicant's prcposal. He used a transparency to
indicate the area to be designated as cpen space. He
stated with the O -4 du/ac density clustered in the
lower por tion of the site, <Nay fran the airport, staff
could support the new prorx:isal, but still felt the
existing land use was nnst appropriate.
Walter Brown, Civil Engineer, stated College would be
west of the existing Laurel Tree Lane at Palanar Airport
Road, but farther south the alignment would ooincide.
The Assistant City Attorney roted that with the change
and cxmpranise, oone of the maps or exhibits would
apply.
Planning Camdssion granted a GPA for RIM designation
over the entire site and directed staff to prepare zone
code mnenchent OOlll)ranise and cpen space designation
appropriate for the rest of the site.
APPRJVAL CF M IlOI'ES:
The Minutes of the June 13, 1984, me.ating were approved
as presented.
Rr:l'rbotis
Rawlins
Sdllehuber
Smith
MarC\.IS
Farrow
McFadden
lo'rbotis
Rawlins
Schlehuber
Smith
Marcus
Farrow
McFadden
@
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
MINUTES
June 27, 1984 Page 13
ADJalRMENI':
By proper notion, the neeting of June 27, 1984, was
adjourned at 11:08 p.m.
Respectfully sul:ni t ted,
MICEAEL J . I
Land Use Planning Manager
Harriett Babbitt
Minutes Clerk
COMMISSIONERS
MEEI'IlG5 ARE ALOO TAPED AND KEPI' Ol FILE (Nl'IL 'ffiE MIMJI'ES APPRJVID.
er J<-3 -/f'cff
{!~J~.s :
~ ~ -6:,
7 ~ c:X.._ ~
7 c~c7~
✓J,~ ~ -1-~,_7
~Cl~ ~.~rL~~
~ ~ ~7 ~, 4--;,Jld£Z ~
~ 7 ,4_ ~ s
~
~ ~ r~ . W.c ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ r~,_/1 ~
~ ~ {. . (J)
C .-/-vuL a,..,d );;~~ ~
~ ..3' I~ cf> ~ b.,--, ~
~ G~ G.. .?-:Loe~
_,A ..... ··~~
June 18, 1984
Catherine Nicholas
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: GPA 84-1
•
DEVELOPMENT
CoNSUL TANTS
CONSORTIUM
Pursuant to our discussions reguarding the appropriate Land
Use designation for the Buena Vista GPA, we agree with
your comments and request a modification of our original
application. The original application requested RM
(4-10 du/ac) and OS with the density calculated on the
entire 96+ acres. The staff has indicated that this is
not acceptable. This modification, therefore, will accomo-
date our proposed density and remain consistant with the
multi-family alternative project covered by the Environmental
Impact Report. The amended proposal would designate
approximately SO acres as RMH (10-20 du/ac) and preserve the
riparian habitat in an Open Space designation as outlined in
the EIR.
We under•tand that further modifications to the proposed
Specific Plan will be required if the General Plan Amendment
as requested is approved.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have
any questions, please call at your earliest convenience.
2966 Roosevelt No. 4 • P. 0. Bo• 214 3 • Cartsbad. CA 92008 • (61 9) 434-3135
CAliLSBA D PALISADES H01ECMNERS ASSN.
1A ND ~E P 1.A NN1 NG OFTI CE
CITY CF CA RLSBA n
1200 E~ AVE.
CA RIBBAD, CA. 92008
Gentlemen1
June 22, 1984
~ i.?o "c, ,jl,.
S'... ~ '\.> . ,~~ ~
tl ··.O ~ i~· :;lf\tl ~ _,,,,_, ()f c:c"
'· ~ .. ·. a"
We represent the Carlsl:s.d Palisades Homeowners Assn.· Ottit,1un1ta)/
and would like to voice our OBJECTIONS to the proposed zoning cha~ on
"Robertson land" at the southeast corner of Tamarack and El Camino Real,
Change to Commercial Zoning is OPPffiED for the following reasons1
(1) Our homes are above and directly overlooking whatever is planned
for ttds area. The NOISE, TRAFFIC, LIGHTS, ITC . which always accompany
commercial locations would decrease the value and desirability of our entire
area.
(2) "Need for additional Commercial Location" --This area is 1.4 miles
south of the new San Diego Bank & Trust Bldg. and its adjoining vacant c0111-
111ercial land and the El Camino Plaza Shopping area. There are many vacant
retail locations in the Plaza area, and many that appear in dire need of
additional customers. The proposed re-zoning would only further dilute the
preser.~ business which would normally go to this professionally planned
business center. Also, there is a commercial loostion only one block south
of the Pobertson Property. Already available here are a grocery store, res-
ta\ll'1lo~, travel agency, beauty shop, nursery and green house, a.nd liquor store.
It iF a traffic hazard due to its entrance and ex.1 t on El Camino Real, but it
does eerve the needs of the area .
(3) Traffic -Your proposal addressed some of the traffic problems list-
tng the proposed extension of Kelly Street and the installation of a traffic
signal at the corner of Kelly and El Camino Real. Children from this whole
area attend Kelly Elementary School. Presently, there is a crossing guard
on duty every morning and afternoon to assist children across El Camino Real
at this busy intersection. It i s an extremely dangerous situation now, and
would be doubly so with Commercial traffic and confusion added!
Please accept this letter in lieu of a signed petition, as your
not1f1oation letters did not give us time to prepare and circulate same.
We trust our OBJECTI ON3 to this Eoning change will be g1 ven serious
coru;iaet'Btion by the Planning Commission.
~-
'
June 26, 198'
PLANNlt(; COMMISSIOt£RS
MAYOR ~ CITY COUNCIL t-EMBE:RS
City of Carlsbad
1200 £1• Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92006
LA COSTA DEL SUII
Lee Rautenkranz
2922 Caviota Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92006
. .-.1 i, ..
At your meeting of June 27, 1984, you will again be asked to consider an
•endment to the La Costa Master Plan and a General Plan Ainendl'llent ( dftl()flQ other
th ings). I wish to make my opposition to this project known.
Hy reasons are many, and as fol lows :
1. The prior General Plan Amendment application would have allowed an
additional 616 units; however, the wording ln the La Costa Master Plan would
not have allowed that increase.
The 50lution proposed now ls to increase the rulTber of units allowed by the
La Costa Master Plan by 1~8. They say this increase of density ls a
tradeoff. Tradeoff for whose benefit? Increasing the runt>er of units
allowed by the Master Plan inay certainly give advantages to Daon, but what
advantages do exht ing res ldent s rece l ve?
2. Part of the proposed aMendment would permit many non-residential uses in
RLM, RM and Rtili areas. Supposedly the purpose ls to accommodate a
hospital.
To accOlll!IOdate the possibility of a hospital on one piece of property, they
are leaving the door open for a myriad of uses in every area which ls
designated RLM, RM and RHM.
If the area for the hospi tal ls known (as l understand lt ls) then condition
that neighborhood accordingly. Don't subject all residential zones to the
posslblllty of the Mny uses which this c1111end1nent would allow.
3 . Staff states the proposed general plan and llldster plan amend■ent will not
adversely i■pact surrounding properties. l disagree. Significant adverse
l1111pacts could be felt by surrounding propert les lf these .-end11ents are
approved.
@
'
PL~Nit«; COMMISSIM:RS
La Costa Oel Sur
June 26, 198'
Page 2
4. Staff states the master plan amendment wil 1 permit mre rlexlblli ty and wll l
allow a little wider range of product types . That benefits only Daon.
lxisting residents were not looking ford variety of product types in their
neighborhood. They were looking ford neighborhood comprised of single-
family detached homes.
~-Table Ill -3 -Development Standards. There ls no consistency between
developMent types and R-1 zoning. In the R-1 zones, the development types
vary froa Standard, Detached Single-Family to Clustered Hultl-F•ily. R-1
is and should be Detached Single-Family homes. That ls the case with the
Master Plan as it exists.
6. In all cases, the units allowed by the Mc1Ster Plan ln the R-1 zones are
maximized at 4 uni ts. The statement at the bot tom of the pdge says
"*Dwelling unit count shown on this table rep esents the ....inoer of units
per11ltted in the Master Plan under normal ctr~umstances . Additional units
must be justified t hrough the use of the Master Plan development review
process." That says that the maximum density possible ls being given as a
right with no questions asked.
The existing 19dster plan Identifies all the R-1 zones as Detached, Single-
F amlly. It also s.ays t he ....incer of units shown represents the potential
maxiffl\J• numer under ideal planning conditions. The .-endment says the
maximum ls a given right dnd ideal planning conditions don't have to exist.
I repeat -R-1 zoning should remain Detached, Single-Family houses and
llldxil'IIUtl density should never be a given.
7. If Neighborhood Development Regulations are to be ~ollowed, wording should
say Development shall rather than should.
One final coaent -as City Clerk, I have attended many Council meetings and
have heard Council approve projects advising neighbors they should have checked
the general plan ~ zoning before buying their home. I did check the general
plan and zoning and uster plan before I purchased my home":-I made an infol'flled
decision to purchase a detached, single-family home ln a neighborhood of same
and to be surrounded by same.
1 object to the pr'>posed aniendments to the general plan and La Costa Master
Plan.