HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-09-14; Planning Commission; ; EIR 83-02|GPA/LU 83-15|ZC 267 - HPI DEVELOPMENT-
STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 14, 1983
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: EIR 83-2/GPA/LU 83-15/ZC-267 -RPI DEVELOPMENT -Request
for a General Plan Amendment, Pre-a.nnexational Zone
Change and Certification of an EIR involving 1730 acres
for property·generally located north of Batiguitos
Lagoon and west of El Camino Real, and property located
on the west side of El Camino Real south of La Costa
Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission. APPROVE the
Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager,
ADOPT Resolution No. 2181 recommending CERTIFICATION OF EIR 83-
2, ADOPT Resolution Noc 2182 reco@menoing APPROVAL of GPA/LU 83-
15 as shown on Exhibit nc", and ADOPT Resolution No. 2183
recommending APPROVAL of ZC;-267 as shown on Exhibit "D 11 •
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The application includes amendments to the general plan and zone
changes on a number of different parcels in the Batiquitos Lagoon
and Green Valley areas .. The applicant's proposed amendments to
the general plan are shown on Exhibit 8 A" and the applicants
proposed zone changes are shown on Exhibit "B". The major
general'plan changes are taking place in the Green Valley area
and at the southeast corner of ~l Camino ·Real and Olivenhain
Road. The applicant is proposing to have these ·areas included in
Carlsbad's sphere.of influence and to have them designated on the
_General Plan with a Combination District comprised of C
(Commercial), O (Office) and RMH (Medium-High Residential) uses.
With regard to zoning the applicant is -requesting the Planned
Community {PC) zone for most of the property with some
commercial zoning along El Camino Real {please refer to Exhibits
"A11 and "Bn). The City has included a preannexational zone
change for the. state owned portions of the Lagoon -west of the
Bunt properties. This area is being proposed as open space (see
Exhibit "F").
For purposes of this report, the project will be divided into
three parts: a discussion of the major issues identified in the
EIR, a section discussing the general plan amendments, and a
zoning section. The various parcels included in the application
will be labeled in the report the same way they· are listed in
the EIR, (AA, AB,_AC etc.}. These parcels are also labeled on
the attached exhibits so that they may be referenced from the
report.
·•
III. EIR 83-2.
The environmental impacts associated with this project can be
divided into two types: 1) direct impacts created by the general
plan amendment, prezoning and annexation applications, and 2)
potential impacts of future dev~lopment that may occur as a
result of these applications.
A. DIRECT IMPACTS CREATED BY THE GPA, ZONE CH~NGE AND ANNEXATION
Land Use Impacts
Prezoning. Parcels AA, AB, AD and AE are proposed to be zoned
P-C (Planned Community). Parcels AC and AF are proposed as C-2
(General Commercial). The P-C zone could result in a higher
density than allowed by the existing County zoning designations.
This is mainly due to the fact that most of the County land is
presently under a holding zone designation.
The P-C zone requires the submittal of a master development plan
for the entire property. This' could result in a "positive"
impact if the property is comprehensibly planned and all
environmental resources are considered and incorporated into
this plan. It is likely that environmental impacts would be
more easily mitigated if the project is reviewed under one
Master Plan by one jurisdiction.
General Plan Amendment. The proposed general plan amendment
could result in a 74% increase in residential and commercial
development over what is presently allowed by the existing County
land use designations. This increase assumes a "worst" case
situation of residential development built out to the maximum
density allowed by the General Plan. Most of this increase is a
result of reclassifying the Green Valley (Parcel AD) and
Olivenhain (Parcel AF) parcels which are presently under a County
holding zone.
Any intensification of land uses could potentially result in
significant environmental impacts. These impacts will be
identified and mitigated if possible at the time a Master Plan is
submitted and reviewed by the City.
Annexation. Annexation of the property would put jurisdictional
control of ,the property in the City of Carlsbad. The EIR
indicates that a beneficial fiscal· impact is likely to occur
even though the City would be providing community services. The
f~scal impacts are addressed in the following section.
Fiscal Impacts
Fiscal impacts are only addresssed on the Green Valley (AE) and
Olivenhain (AF) parcels since these are the only parcels not
presently in the City's sphere of influence. Three scenarios
-2-
-
are considered: 1) "worst" case -assumes 100% residential
development; 2) · "likely" case -assum~s a combination of
residential, crnnmercial and office uses; and 3) "best" case -
assumes 100% commercial development.
Considering-projected costs ve~sus revenues to the City of
Carlsbad, under a "worst" case scenario, a net deficit of
$470,000 would result if Parcels AD and AF are annexed to
Carlsbad. Both the "likely" and "best" case assumptions result
in net surpluses to Carlsbad of $670,000 and $3.9 million
respectively. The "likely" and "best" case assumptions are
considered to be a beneficial impact to Carlsbad.
Traffic Impacts
Three traffic scenarios are considered to address-potential
traffic impacts created by the project: 1) development under
the "existing" general plan land use designations; 2) "likely"
case -assume~ a combination of commercial, residential and
office uses on Parcels AC, AE and AF; and 3) "worst" case -
assumes all commercial development on Parcels AC, AE and AF.
All·volumes were determined based on the year 2000 traffic
projections.
In terms of traffic volumes~ under a "worst" case scenario,
Poinsettia Lane and SA 680 would exceed their designed carrying
capacities. SA 680 would also exceed its projected carrying
capacity under the "likely" case scenar~o.
With respect to inte~section capacities, under a "worst" case
scenario, 4 out of the 6 major intersections in the vicinity of
the project would be at an unacceptable service level (see page
3-54). Under the "likely" case scenario, 2 out of 6
intersections would be at an unacceptable service level. Under
both the "worst" and "likely" cases, an adverse traffic impact
would be created on El Camino Real
Mitigation measures would include the construction of streets to
their master planned widths, the reclassification of streets to
widths that could adequately handle future traffic volumes,
access restrictions onto El Camino Real and approval of land
uses that do not create excessive traffic (please refer to EIR
pp. 3-56, 57 for more specific mitigation measures).
Biology
The proposed annexation, general· plan amendment and rezoning
would result in the loss of the flood protection provisions
provided for by existing County Ordinances on Parcels AE and AF.
This could result in a potential biological impact created by
the loss of the Riparian habitats located in these parcels.
These .impacts would be mitigated by Carlsbad Zoning provisions
that would require flood protection of areas located in the "100
year" floodplain boundary.
-3-
·•
B. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RESULTING FROM FUTURE
DEVELOPMENi:;:>
Land Use Impacts
Proposed land use designations-on Parcels AE and AD are different
than those approved as part of ·the San Diegui to Local Coastal
Plan. Potential impacts that could occur at the development
stage include impacts to hydrology, water quality, biological
resources and agriculture.
Exact impacts and their corresponding mitigation measures cannot
be determined until a master plan is submitted by the applicant.
Agriculture
The proposed land use designations could result in the conversion
of existing agricultural land. If fully developed, Parcels AC,
AD, AE and BB would be in conflict with existing Coastal
Commission policies regarding ·agricultural land preservation.
Mitigation measures would include the preservation of a portion
of the existing agriculture lands at the time of development.
Biology ,;
Potential impacts to bi'ological resources could occur at the time
of project development. Specifically, the potential loss of one
endangered plant species (Salt Marsh Bird's Beak) and five rare
species is considered significant. Also, the potential loss of
four endangered bird species and 33 sensitive bird species is
significant. Finally, the potential loss of the riparian,
freshwater marsh and Oak Woodland habitats are considered
significant potential biological impacts •.
Mitigation measures would have to be considered at the time a
master plan is submitted for review. At this time, precise
impacts cannot be determined, however, necessary mitigation
measures could be incorporated into future project proposals.
Community Services
Future development of this project· could result in potential
impacts relating to water conservation, solid waste disposal,
energy conservation, police protection, and hospital facilities.
Hydrology/Water
Development of the subject property could result in adverse
impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon water quality. The precise impacts
cannot be determined at this point in time, however, these would
have to be determined at the time a master plan is submitted
for review.
-4-
Cultural Resources
~he EIR identifies twenty archaeological sites, two historical
sites and one paleontological site all of which are considered
important cultural resources. Future development of this property
could result in potential significatn impacts on these resources.
At the time of master planning ·of the property, the applicant
would be required to mitigate the potential impacts to these
sites.
Air Quality
The project, at development, would result in an incremental impact
to regional air· quality. The significance of this impact cannot
be determined until an actual development plan is submitted for
review.
Staff believes that EIR 83-2 was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and has adequately identified
and discussed both the direct impacts resulting from the project
presently under consideration (GPA, ZC and Annexation) and the
potential impacts which will have to addressed when a Master Plan
for-the property is considered. For these reasons, staff is
recommending CERTIFICATION of EIR 83-2.
J
IV. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Planning Issues
1) Is the proposed land use appropriate for the site?
2) Is the proposed land use consistent with surrounding
land use?
31 Are the subject parcels. logical ~xtensions of the City
of Carlsbad (parcels AE and AF only)?
. .
A. Preannexational General Plan Amendments
The first two general plan amendments would expand the City's
sphere of influence or general plan boundaries into areas which
now have their land use controlled by the County's general plan.
Parcel AE ~ Parcel AE is known as the Green Valley Area. The
applicant is requesting a Combination District designation for the
property. The Combination District would be comprised of the O
(Office), C (Commercial) and RMH (Medium-High Density) categories
(Exhibit "C"). The subject parcel is approximately 280 acres in
size. Except for the portion of the Encinitas Creek area which
runs parallel with El Camino Real, the County has designated this
property for residential use at 2.9 du/ac. The creek area is
designated as a Floodplain "Impact Sensitive" area.
-5-
Staff feels that the subject property is a logical extention of
the City of Carlsbad. The.City already has jurisdiction south of
La Costa Avenue on the east side of El Camino Real and it makes
sense from a planning standpoint that the area on the west side
of this street should also be included in the City. The bluffs
separating this property from Leucadia on the west side make a
much better boundary than does El Camino Real. By using the
bluffs as the boundary, planning for this area would be much
easier because access on both sides of El Camino Real would be
controlled by the same jurisdiction. Control of the drainage
basin would also be the same and many of the public facilities
and services such as police and fire would be under one planning
unit. Finally the standards required by the City of Carlsbad
would prevent the type of strip commercial being approved south_
of the City. Annexation of this area could protect existing
Carlsbad residents on the east side of El Camino Real from
undesirable development occuring on the west side.
Staff feels that proposed Combination District {C, O, RMH) is an
appropriate use for the site. The property meets the City's
criteria for Commercial use but is somewhat constrained by
Encinitas Creek. As a result a mixed-use approach may be more
logical and could be accomplished under the specific or master
plan required for the property. The master plan could also
provide for protection of the creek habitat. Staff is
recommending approval of the land use proposed _by the applicant.
Parcel AF -Parcel AF is located on the southeast corner of the
intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road. The
applicant is requesting that this 37 acre area-be added to the
City with the Combination District designation comprised of the C
(Commercial), O (Office) and RMH (Residential 10-20 du/ac)
categories. Parcel AF is -currently designated by the County for
residential use (2.9 du/ac). There is a floodplain designation
on the Encinitas Creek area which also traverses the property.
Staff feels that parcel AF should be included in the City's
sphere of influence for two reasons. The primary reason is that
this area is a logical part of the City based on topography. The
subject parcel is bordered on the south by a ridge which runs
west to east from El Camino Real. This ridge makes a natural
southern boundary for the City of Carlsbad. It also gives ,
jurisdiction of the Encinitas floodplain to one agency which
simplifies _drainage problems, public services, access on
Olivenhain·Road and other planning problems.
The second reason is that the City Council has already voted,
subject to the approval of LAFCO, to include areas south of
Olivenhain Road, and north of the ridgeline, within the City of
Carlsbad. The Woolley annexation, located east of the subject
parcel, was approved by Council earlier this y~ar.
-6-
Although this area should be included in the City, Staff does not
feel that the uses proposed by the app:icant are the most
appropriate. The applicant is proposing a Combination District
(Cr O, RMH) which does include commercial use. Because of the
property's proximity to other commer.cial uses (Burnett Center, La
Costa core, and Green Valley) staff feels that there is already
an abundance of commercial use "in the immediate area. Commercial
at this location could create additional traffic problems along
El Camino Real by slowing traffic with additional access points.
Because it may be some time before the development of this
property occurs staff would recommend that the Planning
Commission take the same approach as on the Woolley Annexation by
recommending the RL (Low Density} designation. This category
would act as a holding category until such time that an
appropriate land use can be determined for the site.
B. Amendment to the Existing Carlsbad General Plan
This area is already included in the Carlsbad sphere of
influence. The applicant is asking to change the existing land
use.
Parcel AC -Parcel AC is located on both sides of El Camino Real
~pproximately a quarter mile north of Dove Lane. The applicant
is requesting a change from the exist~ng RM (4-10 du/ac) on the
west side and the existing ELM (0-4 du/ac) on the east side to a
Combination District comprised of the C, o and RMH designations.
Staff does not feel that the proposed change is appropriate for
several reasons. One, there is already a large amount of
approved commercial in this area. There is an existing
commercial center located at the southeast corner of Dove Lane
and El Camino. Real. A larger commercial site has been approved
on the west side of El Camino Real that starts at Alga Road and
extends northward to Dove Lane. This site is less than a half
mile south of the subject parcel. Farther north, the Koll
Company, the Signal Company and the Carrillo property all have
some approved commercial use. It is also likely that the large
Bressi property, located on the southeast corner of Palomar
Airport Road and EL Camino Real, will also contain some
commercial development in the future. Staff feels that
additional commercial in this area is unneccessary andwill
constitute strip development. Staff would recommend that the·
existing general plan designations of RM (4-10 du/ac) and RLM (0-
4 du/ac) be retained on the property.
ANALYSIS -ZONE CHANGES
Planning Issues
1) Is the proposed zoning· consistent with the general plan
designation on the p~operty?
2) Is the proposed zoning consistent with the surrounding
zoning and land use?
-7-
·-•·
.
Parcel AA -The applicant is requesting a preannexational zone
change from the existing S~90 Cou~ty zoning to the PC {Planned
Community zone) on this 20 acre site. Staff feels that the
proposed zone change is consistent with the general plan
designation of RLM {0-4 du/ac) and also consistent with the
surrounding land use. Parcel BB which is contiguous to the
south is already zoned PC. Sta.ff is recommending approval.
Parcel AB -Parcel AB has exactly the same circumstances as
parcel AA except that it is 25 acres in size. Staff is
recommending approval.
Parcel AC -AC is the parcel that is located on both sides of El
Camino Real approximately a quarter mile north of Dove Lane. Tpe
applicant is proposing the C-2 {Commercial} ·zone for this
property. The ·zoning should be cons is tent with the g1=neral plan.
Because there is already enough commercial in the· area and
because of the possiblity of a "strip" effect along El Camino
Real staff recommended that the existing RM and RLM residential
categories of the general plan be retained. To remain consistent
staff would recommend approval of the RD-M (density multiple}
zone for the west side of El Camino Real and the R-1 zone for the
eas·t side.
Parcel AD -Parcel AD which includes portions of Batiquitos
Lagoon is currently zoned S790,-A-70-8, Commercial and Floodplain
on the County general plan. The applicant is proposing the PC
zone for the entire parcel. Staff agrees that the developable
portion of the site should be zoned PC to be consistent with the
adjoining parcel to the north, parcel BB. The.undevelopable ·
portion of the property in the Lagoon area should be zoned Open
Space (OS} to be consistent with the existing general plan. In
summary, staf.f feels that the northern portion of the parcel
should be zoned PC and the lagoon area OS (see Exhibit "D").
Parcel AE -The applicant is recommending· the PC zone for parcel
AE. This is consistent with the proposed general plan
Combination District. The PC zone would allow a comprehensive
mixed-use development to occur in conjunction with a specific or
master plan. Staff would also recommend that the FP or
Floodplain Overlay zone be placed on the Encinitas Creek area as
shown on Exhibit "E".
Parcel AF -Parcel AF is located on the southeast corner of El
Camino Real and Olivenhain Road. The applicant is requesting
the C-2 (Commercial} zone for this property. The zoning should
be consistent with the general plan. Under the proposed general
plan amendment staff has recommended that the property be added
to the City's sphere of influence as RL (low density) because it
was felt that commercial use is inappropriate. The L-C (Limited-
Control) zone would implement the RL designation recommended by
staff and act as a holding zone until a proper· use can be
determined for the site in th~ future. sfaff is recommendirig
that in addition to the L-C zone that the FP zone, or floodplain
overlay, be applied to the Encinitas Creek portion of the site
(Exhibit "Ea).
-8-
Parcel AG -Parcel AG is a 10 acre site located on the north
side of future Alga Road west of El Camino Real. The applicant
is proposing the PC zone for the property which is consistent
with the RLM designation of the general plan. The PC zone is
also consistent with the zoning proposed for parcel BB adjoining
to the south. Staff concurs w~th the applicants proposal.
Parcel AH -Parcel AH is the remainder or western end of the
lagoon area (Exhibit "F") and is owned by the State. The City of
Carlsbad has added this parcel to the application so that
annexation of the entire lagoon can occur at one time. The major
benefit of the annexation is that the entire lagoon will be
within one jurisdiction. Staff is recommending the Open Space
(OS) designation which is our most restrictive designation and _is
consistent with the rest of the lagoon area and with the general
plan.
Parcel BB -The majority of parcel BB will have no change. The
property is already in the City of Carlsbad and has the RLM (0-4
du/ac) general plan designation. Except for a small piece on the
east end the property is zoned PC. The applicant is proposing to
change the small piece on the east side from R-1 to PC. Staff
concurs with this proposal as it will make all of parcel BB one
zone.
In summary staff feels that the land uses proposed in Exhibit
"C" and "D" are appropriate for the site and compatible with all
other elements of the General Plan.
For a final review ·of the proposals and recommendations please
see Exhibits "A" and "B" (applicants request) and Exhibits "C"
and 11 D" (Staffs recommendations). Also attached is a chart
(Exhibit "G") which lists all the parcels, the proposed
requests, and the recommendations.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
EIR 83-2 was prepared for parcels AA, AB, AC, AD, AE and AF~
Parcels AG and AH were added later to the application and
Negative Declarations were issued by the Land Use Planning
Manager on August 29, 1983.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Planni'ng Commission Resolution Nos. 2181, 2182 and 2183
2) Location Map
3) Disclosure Form
4) Environmental Documen·ts (except EIR, previously distributed)
5) Exhibit "A" and "B", Applicants proposals
6) Exhibit "C" and "D", Staff recommendations
7) Exhibit "E", Floodplain area
8) Exhibit "F", western lagoon annexation
9) Exhibit µG", Project Summary Chart
10) Response to Comments to Environmental Impact Report
BH:CDG:bw
9/8/83
-9-
l
i PACIFIC
t OCEAN
I t l !
...
EIR 83-2
t -.GP,t\/LU 83-15
'ZC-267 1·
p . .
ALGA ROAD
' l
I
\
\
--c..,... ........ ~ ... t...., ......... , ................. ,.-__ ..,_
:t_'i1a~,:further i~fo:::::-matior __ ·.required, you will be
.. -so act sed. _· .e ·=.
.,
• APPLICJ;,.N'.r: N.B. Hunt.& W.H. Hunt
•' Name (individua,.l, p~rtnership,. joint venture, corporation, synd.i.catio:1)
'. . 2800 .Th&nksgiving Tower . 1601 Elm
Business Address :· ..
214-573-8400
Telephone Nw....ber.
. AGENT: The Agatep CorPQ~ation
Name
P.O •. Box 590, Carlsbad; ·CA 92008 -... : . Business Addres~ .. (714)· 434-1056:·--:. ·. ·
. . . -----------------------Telephone NU!!lbe~
-· ·-·. . .
. · • NBI:IB:C.:RS : . . .-.. . . . .
Name ·(individual, partner, joint ..
· venture~ corporation; syndicati.on)
•. ~ ··: .· : Business Address
J
.. . : :•
.. ·-:
· . · ;: : .:· _.._ Telephone-Nc:.:ber
.. ;, :-·. \ :
...
.. .
Dallas, Te~as 75201
.. ~ .. ... . . .. ... . .
. • ..
Home Aaoress
.. ::-..
~elephcne };;umber
Borne l:.ddress.
· · · Telep'h?ne ~huabe-r
. . ......
... '-;
. I
1 I
I (Attach more· sheet? if neces~c:ir-.1} ~ :" ..
. + ... . ~. .
·~··
·I/We a~cla::-e ur!de~ penalty of. perjury that the inforir.0.tion contained
. closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct
in this dis-
and :raa y be·
·relied UP?~ as bein~ true and correct until /4z~en~~.d../'.1 · /
.. ~~
. . . /)J .%P ;~~' n t · _/LL~ ~-,/-·. -----rr.-: ~ 'J~ . N. H. Ihrnt .
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE
,.
'·-• 1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
(619) 438-5591
Qtitp of <!Carlsbab
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PIDJECI' ADDRESS/u:x:::ATION: Western one-third of Batiquitos Lagoon.
Pro.JECI' DESCRIPTICN: Pro:posed annexation to the City of Carlsbad for
those p:>rtions of the lagoon area controlled by the State of
California.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the
aboye described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act arrl the Environmental
Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not
have a significant impact on the ·Emvironment) is hereby issued for the
subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Land Use Planning Office.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on
file in the Land Use Planning Office, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Comments frcm the.public are invited. Please
subnit comments -in writing to the Land Use Planning Office within ten
(10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: August 29,1983
CASE t--.X): EIA-888
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBt,ISH Ill'\.'I'E:1 September 3, 1983
ND-4
5/81
I
c.if MICHAEp J.ILZMILLER
Land Use Planning Manager
0EVELOPMEN.TAL
SERVICES
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE
··•
~itp of QI:arlsbab
NEGATIVE DECL.imATION
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
(619) 438-5591
ProJECI' ADDRESS/LCY"....ATICN: East of El Camino Real arrl north of the
future extension of Alga Road.
PIDJECT DESCRIPTION: A preannexational zone mange from County E-1-A
to P-C (Planned Community) on 10 acres of land.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the
above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act arrl the Environmental
Protection Ordinance of· the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not
have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the
subject project. Justification for this a:::tion is on file in the
Land Use Planning Office.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on
file in the Laro Use Planning Office, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue,
·carJ.sbad, CA. 92008. CCTnments £ran the public are invited. Please
subnit CXITUTtents in writing to the Larrl Use Planning Office within ten
( 10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: August 29, 1983
CASE 1'.10: ZC-267
APPLICANT: HPI Development
PUBLISH ffiTE: September 3, 1983
ND-4
5/81
MICHAEL. J. (HOLZMILLER
. Land Use Planning M_anager
• EXHIBIT A
9-14-83
. .
APPLICANT-GENERAL PL.AN AMENDMENTS
PACIFIC
o,eAN
AA
..
BB
C0~1BB\iA THON
..-.~DISTRICT
(RfulH, C, 0)
AG
ALGA ROAD
COMBINATION DISTRICT
(RMH,C,O)
AA: PARCEL NUMBER
RMH= GENERAL PLAN 0ES!GNATION.
PACIFIC
O.CEAN
-EXHIBIT·s
-~ 9-14-83
APPLICANT-PROPOSED ZONING
..
'·~
9" v, .,,
K§.Y
AA: PARCEL NUMBER
PC= ZONE
P-C
AA
.,
PC
AG ALGA ROAD
BB
\
\
\
\
AE
PC
•
STAFF RECOMMENDATION-·
. .
GENERAL-PL/~N Afv1ENDfv1ENTS
PACIFIC
OCEAN
li'l
-
AA: "PARCEL NUMBER
AA
AG
BB
.I
· COMBINATION DISTRICT
(0,C,Rfu1H)
RLr~= GENERAL PLAN oes1GNAT10N
EXHBBIT C --9-14-83
ALGA ROAD
• ---EXHIBIT D
9-14-83
STAFF RECOMMENDATION-ZONING
-
J<E..Y
.AA: PARCEL NUMBER
PC= ZONE
PC PC .
AA
BBi
PC
AG.
\
\pc \ ' . \ \
ALGA R~D
,fp
AE
PC
I I ~ 1 OLJVENHAlN
I ROAD
FP
·• • EXHIBIT E
9-14-83
PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY AREA
ENCINITAS CREEK
J
I I
I I I I
\ I
\ \ . \
\
\ ' '
FP
·(. ·•,. EXHDBIT F !
CITY OF CARLSBAD
E!A--888 PROPOSED ANt~EXA TION
9-14-83
-z
0
::0 m
:I> ....
.,
...
.. -
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
PROJECT
PARCEL
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
AF
I
I
AG
BB
AH
(City Proposed)
.------· -...
. (.
'IIJTAL
ACRES
25
20
38
607
280
37
10
723
135
TYPE
GP
Zoning
GP
Zoning
GP
Zoning
GP
.
Zoning
GP
Zoning
GP
Zoning
GP
Zoni11-3
GP
Zoning
GP
Zoning
TABLE 2-1 •
EXISTIN3, PROPOSED U\ND OOES /\ND 'lDNI-
EXHIBIT "G"
EXISTIN3
LI\ND USE
DESIGNATION*
.RLM (Residential
low Medium 0-4
du/ac)
S-90 (Holding Zone)
RIM (Residential
Low Medium 0-4
du/ac).
S-90 (Holding Zone)
RL.'I (Residential
Low Medium 0-4
du/ac).
RM (Residential
Medium 4-10 du/ac)
S-90
RL.'I ( Residential
Low Medium 0-4
du/ac)
RM (Residential
Low 1-Edium 4-10
du/ac)
RMH (Residential
Medium High 10-20
du/ac)
RC (Recreation Com-
mercial)
TS (Travel Service
Corranercial) •' .
OS {Open Space)
C (Conm:rcial)
S-90 (Holding Zone)
ACRES OF
FACH USE
25
20
15
23
98
45
7
12
.6
438
A-70-8 (Limited Agri-
culture)
FP (Floodplain)
RL (Residential 234
Low 2.9 du/ac)
FP (Floodplain) 39
NC (Neighb::>rhood
Ccmnercial) 7
C ( Ccmnercial)
A-1-8, A-70-8, A-72-8
(Limited ar.d General
Agriculture)
FP (Floodplain)
RL (Residential 22 rnw 2.9 du/ac)
FP (Floodplain) 15
R-S-3 (Residential rnw 2.9 du/ac)
FP (Floodpla.i.n )
RLM (carlsbad) 10
S-90
RM (Residential 55
Medium 4-10 du/ac)
RU1 Residential uow 658
Medium 0-4 du/ac)
PC & R-1
APPLICANI'S
PROPOSED CHANGE
l'bne
PC (Planned Comnunity)
1'bne
PC (Planned Conmunity)
Corroin,ition District:
c ( Conmercial)
O (Professional and
Related)
RMH (Residential
Medium High
10-20 du/ac)
C-2
N:>ne
None
None
None
None
N:)ne
PC (Planned Comnunity)
O:Jnoination District:
C ( Ccmnercial
0 Professional and
Related)
RMH (Residential
Medium High
10-20 du/ac)
PC (Planned Conmunity)
Ccrobination District:
C (Comnercial)
O (Professional am
Related)
RMH (Residential
EXHrBIT G
9-14-f.:3
STAFF
RECCt-1MENDATIOO
--
As proposed
--
As proposed
---·--· Kee!? existing
R-1 & RIM.
R-1/RDM
·-· --
--
--
--
--
--
l?C/OC (Lagoon)
.
As proposed
As pz::oposed
with addition
of FP en
Encinitas
Creek
RL
Medium High 10-20 du/ac)
C-2 (Comnercia+) L-C & FP
(Floodplain)
1'bne --
P-C As proposed
lt>ne --
l'bne --
R-1 to PC As Requested
--
-
-"-"" __ ......
0-S 135 None --
County 0-S 0-S
I
I
'
'
'
I
.
i
' '
f r
l
\
l
' > • ' t I i I I i I•