Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-13; Planning Commission; MinutesI I I (' MINUTES MeetlnQ of: PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: August 13, 1986 Place of Meeting: CJty Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: The ReQular Meetlna was called to order by ChaJ rman Schleh~ber at 6:01 p.m. PL[DC[ or ALL[CIANC[ was led by Chairman Schlehuber. ROLL CALL: Present -Chairman Schlehuber, C<>11111lssloners McFadden, Hall, Marcus, McBane, Holmes and Schra"'". Absent -NonP. Staff Members Present: Charles Grl11111, Assistant Plannlna Olrector Dave Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Dan Hentschke, Assistant Clty Attorney Hike Howes, Senior Planner Bob Johnson, Traffic Engineer Adrienne Landers, Assistant Planner Cary Wayne, Senior Planner PLANNING C°"'4ISSION PROCEDURES Chairman Schlehuber reviewed the Planning Col!lllission procedures followed In public hearings for the benefit of the audience. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED A request was made frOIII staff to continue item No. 6 to the next reaular meetina (AuQust 27, 1986). Chainnan Schlehuber inquired whether there was anyone in the audience desiring to speak on this item. A Qentleman In the audience Indicated that he could return to the next regular 111eetinq If the C011111isslon continues this i tetll. The Planning COlllllllssiWl continued Item No. 6 -CPA/LU 86-7/ ZCA-197 -CITY ll' CARLSBAD -Amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Orctinance to create a land use designa- tion and zone for the ATISF Railroad Right-Of-Way and the 1-5 rreeway. CONTINUED PU8l.lC HEARINGS: 1) GPA/LU 86-4 -CITY OJ CARLSBAD -A General Plan X111endaent to .-end the land Use Element to Include the encourag~nt of childcare In the ~nlty as a goal of the General Plan. (Continued fr011 the 111eetJng of July 30, 1986) Hike Howes, Senior Planner, ga~e a brief re~Jew of the above ltewi and Introduced Adrienne Landers who will be gh ln9 the presenta Ion oo thls lte111. Schlehuber X Mcfadden )( X Hall X Harcus X Hc8ane X Holaes X Schraa X CD ' .. MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING COf44ISSIOH Page 2 COMMISSIONERS Ms. Landers, Assistant Planner, gave the background and analysis on the proposed General Plan Amendment as contained in the staff report. The proposed goal, in confor111ance with all other ele,nents of the General Plan, as well as the Zoning Ordinance, will benefit the COIIIIIIUnity by recognizing the cOIIIIIOn need for child care and atte111pting to reduce the growing shortage of child care in Carlsbad. Chalrt11an Schlehuber lnqulred on the background of the s tatlstlcal prof ll.e contained In the staff report. Ms. Landers pointed out that the report was COIIIJ>lled by the Childcare Resource Service which ls affiliated with YMCA and funded by tM State. They received their data frOIII lnfor111c1tlon gatheL~d from SAHOAG and the Census Bureau. She further responded that the data dealt with licensed child care providers only. Chairt11an Schlehuber declared the public hearing opened at 6:10 p.M. and issued the invitation to speak. Dan Sherlock, 3741 Monroe Street, Director of the Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club, addressed the Co.aission in support of the proposed .-end11ent and enlightened the C011111ission further on the child care situation in Carlsbad. He gave the definitJ.on of a "latchkey" child. He pointed out that there are seven exempt facilities in town with 337 spaces. Of those spaces, about l<K are vacant at all ti111es. He gave brief statistical lnfor111atfon regardlnq the Sca111pers progrant. Margie Cool, 2510 lkllcornlo Street, addressed the C<>Ralsslon and read a statement into the record opposing the General Plan .-endlllent because she feels that the goal ls not consistent with the existing goals of the Land Use Ele■ent. (The statement ls on file with the Clerk.) Hap L'Heureux, President of the Carlsbad Challlber of Cc,-erce, addressed the Ca.wisslon ln opposition to the General Plan aaendllent. He stated that he concurred with the state■ents 111ade by Ms. Cool, and pointed out that this ls a social service issue and not a land use issue. He stated that although 111any of the people in the business ~nity endorse the language and the concept of child care, there are a lot of questions in their ■inda on what the inclusion of thls goal will entail. He suggested that the Coaission recor.aend a huaan service ele■ent to the General Plan be created that addresses not just the day care issue but other social ltellS as well. Mae Johnson, 7227 Mi■osa, representing the League of loaen Voters, North Coast, San Diego County, addressed the Coaission in support of the General Plan .-endlllent and read a state■ent into the record listing the various aspects of Child Care supported by the League of Woaen Voters of San Diego County. (The state■ent ls on file with the Clerk.) Doris Lipaka, representing Childcare Resource Service, 1a,3 Ca11Pesino Place, Oceanside, addressed the C~lsslon and lnforaed that they are the service which prepared the statistical profile included in the staff report. She gave a brief history regarding their agency and stressed that child car~ neflds to be seen as an essential service in any ooaunlty. MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNINC COfofi41SS10N Page 3 COMMISSIONERS Ms. Llpska pointed out the various obstacles that day care centers face and subsequently are discouraged from proceeding. She emphasized that this goal ls a land use Issue as child care facilities reoulre space --space which ls not available because of the excessive land costs. She concluded by stating that the Childcare Resource Service would be glad to provide the Connlsslon with the resources and lnformat Ion avallable to them on this issue. Ms. Llpska responded to \·arious questions posed by Chairman Schlehuber reqarding the statistical profile and Informed that they have available and will provide the C011111lsslon a national study done by Sandra Burud wherein various companies were surveyed wherein lt was noted in some cases that reduced absenteeism resulted from the provision of child care by the employer. Connlssioner McFadden noted that the Dana[. Friedman report included in the staff t·eport also addresses that particular issue. Peggy Blush, Director of Pilgrim Children's Center, Pilgrim Congregational Church, addressed the Connisslon in favor of the c1111endment. She stressed that there ls a de111c1nd for child care services In Carlsbad, and expressed her concern that because of the lack of licensed day care centers, many of the children end up In homes that are not licensed. She concurred with Ms. Lipska that there ls no space available for child care centers because of the high costs involved, and pointed to Children's World as an example -they have been actively looking for property for three years now. In response to C011111issioner Marcus, Ms. Rlush informed that their center ls licensed for 80 children, and there are 25 children on a waiting 11st presently. Camille Mltkevlch, 1Hi40 Trieste Drive, Carlsbad, representing the Soroptomlst International and the Famll) Services of San Diego Count) (Oceanside/Carlsbad Office), addressed the Coaisslon in favor of the .-iendment and pointed out that the child care issue is a land use, econ<>111lc and social i~~ue. She pointed out a parent's work perforaance ls closely tied to the quality of child care available in the Cl t)' and stressed the need for facilities geared to Include children In every age category and in close proximity and n.:!etlng the health n~eds of sick children. Ms. Mitkev lch concluded by statinq that the f amlly Services has a program ready for use to counsel couples and single parents to identify the child care specific needs and the child care resources. There being no other person In the audience desiring to add1·ess the Coaisslon on this matter, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearlnq closed at 6:35 p,11, Coalssloner McFadden lnoulred why the C~lsslon could not consider the rec~ndatlons contained In the staff report beyond deciding whether to approve the General Plan aaendlllent or not. Chalr■an Schlehuber further Inquired oo the reasons why st~ff was proposing that this goal be included In the Land Use Element of the General Plan. MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING C0"'4ISSION Ms. Landers explalnec1 t hat staff ft>els 1t Is important to establish this as a Citywide goal ln the General Plan. Staff does not kno• specifically what the needs are, and could not 111ake any specific recot1111endatlons other than to Include the ooal In the General Plan. Ho•ever, staff does hope t~at the Planning Commission will make a rec0191endation to the City Council to establish a task- force who can 111ake specific reconwnendatlons following a needs assessment. Dan Hentschke, Assistant Cit) Attorney, added that by including the child care goal in the Land Use [lement of the General Plan, the Con111lssion ls establishing a policy for the physical development of the child care facilities. There ls no question as to the legality of placing this policy in the Land Use [lement and ls entirely appropriate. COfflfflissloner Mcfadden rec~nded that the Commission consider all the reco11111endatlons contained in the staff report. She pointed out a correction to Recommendation "B". The last sentence reads " •.• to reconwnend and itnplement policies ... to the Counc 11". She stated It should be reworded t o read " .•. to rec011111Cnd the h1plementinq policies ... to the Council". The Conwnisslon and staff concurred with this correction. C01N11issloner Mcfadden co11111entcd that she sa• the City's role as the facilitator and coordinator to get all of the fraQ111Cnted child care units functionino to offer alternate options for the City's residents. C011111issloner Mcfadden suggested that another rec011Rendatlon be added to the list of reco11111endatiuns as follo•s: "J. [stablish childcare benefit options for 111Unlclpal e111ployees such as, flex hours, Job sharing, vendor voucher, custodial child care and the like in the e11ployees benefits package." The suggestion ls to Join a child care consortium with other businesses to institute an accessible child care facility. Coaissloner Holaes added that the City should not ,·verlook a ~ans of startlnq child care financially by attaching a condition to a business license --businesses should have their fair financial share in the provision of child care. In the dlscusslon that ensued wherein ~arlous C~1ssloners expressed their support of the c1111endllent, Chair.an Schlehuber stated that although he deflnltel) supports the .-.endaent, he could not support Reco.aendations "8" -"J" until Rec<M1Rendatlon "A" -a forNl needs aaseas111ent -ls CU111Pleted. (i} MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING C0"'4ISSION Page The Planning COllllllsslon recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and adopted the following Resolution rec011111Cndinq approval of GPA/LU 86-4 to the Cit} Council based on the flndlnqs contained therein, and further reconmending to the City Council Reco11111endatlons "A" - "J": RESOLUTION NO. 2572 R[COM4E.NOING APPROVAL ~ AN AHENOHENT to mt ttxt or mt LANO USE ELEMENT Of THl GENERAL PLAN BY THE ADDITION Of WORDING TO ENCOURAGE TH[ [STABLISHHENT OF CHILDCARE FACILITIES AS A GOAL Of THl GENERAL PLAN. (A co111111Unlcatlon from Carol HcCart opposing the amendment, Resolution No. 3-8687 from the Carlsbad Unified School District supporting the amendment, and a co11111Unlcatlon noting a phone call from Kath} Riqgers from North Coast YHCA supporting the a111endment are on file with the Clerk.) RECESS The Planninq C011111isslon recessed at 6:50 p.m. and reconvened at 6:53 p.m. 2) GPA/LU 86-6 -CITY Of CARLSBAD -A General Plan A111endment to revise the General Plan designation on properties which have Inappropriate desianations. (Continued from the July 30th meeting) Hike Howes, Senior Planner, gave the presentation on this itet11 as contained in the staff report and described the location of the subject property with the aid of a map. Hr, Howes gave the background of the Co11111lsslon's previous action on this 111c1tter and the reasons that staff ls rec~ndlng a General Plan c1111endment from R.,.. to RM as contained in the staff report. C01aissioner McBane inquired wh> it would not be 1110re appropriate to consider this land use as part of the Master Plan analysis for La Costa. Mr. Howes e~plalned that the Master Plan analysis going on right now is Just considering the undeveloped portions of the La Costa area that are 011ned by the La Costa Ranch Company. At the time that the La Costa Master Plan revisions hegan, this property was and ls not now owned by the La Costa Ranch C0111Pany. Staff ls just looking at the large undeveloped acreages, There are a nu111ber of smaller vacant parcels throughout La Costa that are not included in that stud}, Chair.an Schlehuber declared the continued public hearing opened at 7:05 P••· and Issued the invitation to speak. Tl~ Roberts, representlnq the La Costa Ranch C0111pan), 6994 El C•lno Real, Suite 202, addressed the C01111ission and advised that he was here as the ~nity developer in the La Costa area, and as the banker involved In the sub.feet property. He gave the reasons why he is requesting the Coaisslon to continue this niatter for an additional two unths at which tl11e the La Costa Ranch C0111pany will have full title to the subject propert) .,nd can full) represent this property at a public hearing and possibly work out a sensitive design with staff. (The current propert} owner was not present to represent the property.) Schlehuber X Mcfadden X X Hall X Harcus X HcBane X Hol111es X Schran111 X MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING C01f4ISSIOH Page 6 COMMISSIONERS ------------------------ Hr. Roberts added that another reason they request this delay ls that the La Costa area ls presently undergoing a Master Plan revision which will hopefully be in front of the COMlsslon by the end of the year. That revision as it llllJ)acts La Costa should be looked at when considering the proposed zone change to the subject property. Mr. Roberts e~plained that he could not represent the subject property at this time because the la Costa Ranch C0111Pany does not hold the title now and can not address any alternate plans for the property. There being no other person in the audience desiring to address the C011111lssion on this matter, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed at 7:03 p.m. COIMllssioner Harcus Inquired whether by continuing this Matter for two 1110nths, it could be included in the La Costa Master Plan reviston. Mr. Howes replied that there ls that possibility. ChainMn Schlehuber e~pressed his support of staff's rec01111endations based on the fact that the surrounding uses are already lower densitie~, and there has been traffic probletllS on the corner of Alga and Alicante. The Planning C011111ission continued Item No. 2 for two 1110nths. (This was later rescinded.) Mr. Howes requested that this ltet11 be continued to whenever the La Co$ta Master Plan revision ls brought before the Planning Coaalsslon. The Planning Coaalssion rescinded the above 1110tlon continuing this ltea for two 110nths. C«-1.saioner Mcfl.tne inquired on what was the ability of property 091\er <.:01Ung back in th~ lnterl• -if the Master Plan la delayed -and processing a NP on this property on the higher denaity. Mr. Howes gave the reasons why it would be very diffloult for such a processing to be coapleted prior to th review of the La Costa Master Plan. Mr. Hentachke confiraed Hr. Howes' stateaents. The Planning Coalaalon continued Ite11 No. 2 -CJ>A/LU 86-6 until th La Coata ,_.ater Pl n ls brought before the C«-1.ulon. Schlehuber Mcfadden Hall Marcus Hc8ane Hol.es Schra11111 Schlehuber Hcf adden Hall Marcus Mc8ane Holaes Schra• Schlehuber Hcf adden Hall Marcua McBane Holaea Sehr- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7COMMISSIONEAS 3) GPA/LU 86-8/ZC-347/LCPA 86-1 -CITY OF CARLSBAD - General Plan Aiiiendwients, Zone Changes, Local Coastal Plan A111end111ents to bring the General Plan, Zoning, Local Coastal Plan maps Into conformance. [.,.hlbit "D" -Costa Real Property -El Camino Real Gar) Wayne, Senior Planner, 9ave the presentation on this Item as contained in the staff report and described the location of the site with the aid of a map. Staff ls rec01111ending a zone change from R-1-10 to H-Q with a Q Overlay. He added that staff has received a letter from Costa Real stating that they are in accordance with staff's rec01111endations. Chalnnan Schlehuber declared the continued public hearing opened at 7:10 and Issued the invitation to speak. No one from the audience desired to speak on this matter. The Plannln9 C011111lsslon accepted staff's recommendations on [l(hlblt "0" as contained in the staff report. [l(hiblt "F" -Huqhes Property, Hlghwa> 78 and Jefferson Street Gary Wayne, Senior Pl 1nner, gave the presentation o,, this itet11 as contained in the staff report. Staff ls rec~nding a General Plan a111end111ent from RRI to OS and a zone change fr0111 C-2-0 to OS, He stated that staff has reviewed the final 111ap subfftittal and the topography of the area and has a better delineation of the open space area as depicted on the displayed map. Staff ls reco.aending that the open space be just for the creek area and that an LCP aaendwient be processed so that the remaining area to the north within the City be left C-Z-Q. The Planning C~ission approved staff's recOl!lllendatlons on [l(hibit "F" as contained in the staff report. Exhibit "J" -Ticor (APN 1SS-101-6S and lSS-190-13) and Native Sun {APA 203-010-21) located near the MOUth of Buena vista lagoon Cary Wayne, Senior Planner, gave the presentation on this ltea as contained in the staff report. Staff ls recoaending a General Plitrl ~ndllent to designate the Native Sun parcel as OS, a General Plan .-endlllent fr0111 RM/OS to RL, a zone change fr011 R-A to R-1-30, and an LCP aendaent froa OS to RL for the Ticor propert>. Schlehuber McFadden Hall Harcus McBane Holmes Schrc111111 Schlehuber Mcfadden Hall Marcus Mc8ane Holaes Sehr- X X X X X X X X " " " " " " " " MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION C~issloner Mc:Bane inquired what was the size of the larger of the two parcels. Mr. Wayne responded that it was 1.6 acres. The Coastal Commission when they first reviewed the project believed that there was only one parcel out there. There may in fact be one lot and two parcels. Cownissioner Mc:Bane reco11111ended that the zone change for the Ticor parcel be to R-1-40 to be certain to limit the a1110Unt of units out there. Mike Poynor, attorney representing Ticor Title, 225 Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, addressed the COffllllission in opposition to the proposed amendments recommended by staff on the Tlcor property. He stressed that development can be acc0111plished so that the lagoon and the surrounding area will be sensitively protected. He contended that 10 dwelling units in a cluster fashion could be sensitively constructed on half of an acre of the Tlcor property, leavlno two acres as open space. He listed the benefits that a development of this type would bring to the area, and the reasons why he felt that because of the de,elopment controls that exist, leaving the Ticor parcel zoned as RM would not be a cause of concern to the City. He distributed an aeriel map and photooraphs of the area. (The photographs are on file with the Clerk.) Due to the fact th~t his time limit was up, Mr. Po)nor requested that this 111atter be continued to the nexl regular meeting to allow him an opportunity to complete his presentation. The Commission denied the request. C01M1issioner Schra111111 inquired whether the Tlcor parcel was a view corridor. Mr. Wa)ne relied t hat it was not particularly a view corridor. lt is low l)ing; however, structures there would add bulk in that area. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Schramm regarding the access driveway and the easement, Mr. Wayne replied that the easeaent is sufficient for a road. Using a recorded 111ap provided by Mr. Poyno;, Mr. Wayne noted that the 111ap did not have a scale. However, he pointed out that the easement ls approximately 20 to 25 feet in width. Ca.ilssioner Mcfadden noted that the constraints dealing with the possible geological hazards, etc., were not addressed by staff. Hr. Wayne responded that there ls no soils and geolO<ly report existing on the property. There would have to be a soils test done to determine whether vr not the parcel was sound enouoh for structures. This could be done upon a request to develop on that land. C~lssioner Mcfadden expressed her concern that the access driveway and the public street itself would not hold the traffic which would be generated by an additional 10 dwelling units. She !,,formed that the Beach Overlay C«-ittee ls considering recownending that that entire street be one way. MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMI SSION Commissioner Holmes noted that the inap exhibit in the staff report was different from the llldp on display. Mr. Wayne apologized and stated that the original maps from the July 30th meeting were inadvertently pulled. However, he pointed out that the llldps contained in the staff report were correct. Hr. Poynor reappeared and stressed the reasons why he believed that the area could be reasonably ffldintalned RM Zoning considering all the constraints th&t would be in place. The C011111ission would still have plent> of control as to the development out there. In the discussion that ensued, C011111issioner McFadden indicated her preference to change the zone to R-1-4-0 to assure that there will only be two units developed out there. The Planning Co11111lssion accepted staff's reconwnendatlons on Exhibit "J" as contained in the staff report. Exhibits "N", "N-1" and "0" -Area in the vicinity of Harz-ison, Addffls Streets and Chinquapln Avenue Gary ,ayne, Senior Planner, gave the background on this item as contained in the staff report. Staff ls coming back ffith a revised recommendation as instructed by the Cot11111ss1on that the area bounded by Harrison, Chinquapin and Adams be desigllated RLM and have the lmpleinentlng zone of R-1-7500. Further, staff ls recommending that the two lots to the west of Harrison that co,1talns the existing R- 1-7500 Zone, but with an R"1 land use designation be changed to ROM to implement the l~nd use designation of the General Plan and the LCP. Jane Oldham, 1015 Chinquapin Avenue, addressed the Coaaission in opposition to the RLM zoning change and stated that they own an acre of land at the southeast corner of Chlnquapin and Harrison. Susan McCarthy, 4049 Ada111S Street, addressed the C011111lssion and read a letter into the record favoring the RLM proposed designation and thanking the C~lsslon on behalf of various neighbors in the area. (The letter ls on file with the Clerk.) Gene Rene, 4513 Cove Drive, addressed the COlilllission and requested that, the two lots he jointly owns be llldintained in the sc1111e designation, whether it be RM or RLM. Carl Stephen, property owner of 4090 Harrison Street, addressed the C<>Waission in opposition to the proposed RLH designation. Schlehuber HcF adden Hall Harcus HcBane Holmes Schra11111 X X X X X X X X MINUTES f\uoust 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Bruce Ganoe, 5422 Curr} Way, San Diego, joint owner of the lot at 4115 Harrison Street, addressed the Co11111ission in favor of the proposed desiqnation. He suggested that If the Conwnission cannot come to any aareements relat l,e to the lots across the streets which are requestlnq the RM designation, that that propert) be dealt with separately. Jim Alexander, propert} owner of 4120 Harrison, addressed the C011111ission In opposition to the proposed ame11dment to RLM. Conwnissioner Mer adden inquired whether It was customary to chanqe zones across public streets and whether R-1 was compatible with ROM. Mr. Wayne replied In the affirmative on both inquiries. Following further discussion on the matter, the Plannlna Co11111lssion accepted staff's recommendations on Exhibits "N" "N-1" and "0" as contained In the staff report. Exhibit "U" -Paseo Del Norte between Palomar Airport Road and Encinitas Creek Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, gave the presentation on this item and described the location of the site with the aid of a map. Staff ls proposing an LCP amendment to reflect the City's General Plan as well as the specific plan on the area. Further, that the appropriate zone chanqes be implemented to reflect SOl!le of the Coastal Conwnission's subsequent action on permits in making the area both east and west of Paseo Del Norte, south of Palomar Airport Road from PI to TS/0. Andrew HcReynolds, 2316 Calle Chiquita, addressed the C011111ission and requested clarification on whether the action taken tonlqht would open a six -week review period wherein he will be able to submit written conwnents. Mr. Wayne confirmed that It will involve an LCP Amendment which requires a mandatory six-week review period. The Planning Cont11ission approved staff's recoll'lllendations on Exhibit "U" as contained in the staff report. Schlehuber X McFadden X X Hall X Marcus X McBane X Holmes X Schra11111 X Schlehuber X Her adden X Hall X Harcus X X HcBane X Holmes X SchralMI X , ' MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page Exhibit"[[" -Commercial area, northwest of Alga Road and El Camino Real Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, gave the presentation on this item and pointed out that the reason this matter was continued was the fact that the property had already been annexed to the City and contained a City zone. Staff ls proposing a zone change from C-2-Q on the property north of Dove Lane to ROH to implement the RM General Plan designation which is also being reco11111ended for the area. The Planning Co11111lsslon accepted staff's recorrmendatlons on Exhibit "[[" as contained in the staff report. Exhibits "CG" and "HH" -South end of Batlquitos Drive (Savage and Lyman Properties) Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, stated that staff is recormending that this item be continued and added to the list of items which the Commission has directed staff to look into -inappropriate land uses. There are still a number of remaining issues on this property, and it ls now known how much time it will take to iron out those issues. The Planning Commission accepted staff's reconmendatlons on Exhibits "GG" and "HH" that it be added to the list of ite111s for staff to look into -inappropriate land uses. Exhibit"~" -[eke property south of Palomar Airport Road Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, explained that this exhibit was continued from the last meeting because it was not property noticed at that ti111e. Staff is reco11111ending a cOlllbination of LCP ainendments, General Plan amendments, and Zone Changes to define the boundaries of the open space on the [eke parcel. The intent ls to preserve steep slopes, streaM course, and the riparian habitat and to thoroughly map those resources and ultimately define this intent. ChairMan Schlehuber clarified that staff's intentions ls to define the intent, and that the specific mapping be acco111Plished when it is brought ln for a specific review. Hr. Wayne replied in the affirmative and added that staff wants to go on record as to this intent in interpreting this open space. Andrew HcReynolds, 2316 Calle Chiquita, addressed the Cotaission and requested assurance that there will be a six-week review period whet-ein he can submit corrrnents on this matter. Staff conflrined that there will be a review period for the LCP amendment on this matter. I Schlehuber X McFadden X X Hall X Marcus X McBane X Holmes X Schramm X Schlehuber X HcF adden X Hall X Marcus X X McBane X Holmes X Schra111R X @ MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING COHHISSION C0111111lssloner Mcfadden stated that she could not locate this propert) and expressed her concern that as to exactly what was being deslonated open space. The Plannlno Conwnisslon continued this matter to the next reoular meeting (Auqust 27. 1986) to qive the Conrnis- sioners an opportunity to visit the site. There being no other persons desiring to address this item, (hairman Schlehuher declared the public hearing closed at 8:06 p.m., except for the particular exhibits which were continued to August 27, 1986. Dan Hentschke, Assistant Cit) Attorney, advised that there were some amendments that need to be made to the Resolutions Oil this item. He outlined the amendinents as follows: ( 1) The date of Exhibits "N", "N-1" and "0" should be changed to August 5, 1986 on all Resolutions where it is referenced; and (2) Exhibit "I+!" nist be deleted from all Resolutions where it ls contained. Commissioner McBane added that Exhibits "CG" and "HH" must also be deleted from the Resolutions due to the fact that they have been continued. Commissioner Mcfadden inquired on the procedure in votinQ for the overall Resolutior.s on this Item due to the fact that she was not in aoreement with some exhibits of the item. Chairman Schlehuber pointed out that the minutes will reflect her particular vote on each exhibit, and therefore, it ls her prerogative on how she will vote on the overall Resolutions. He did not feel that there was any reason for concern. Th e Planning Connission rec011111ended approval of the Neqative Declaration and adopted the following Resolution with the modifications pointed wt by Dan Hentschke, Assistant Cit) Attorney, and Commissioner HcBane: RESOLUTION NO. 2584 RECOt+IENDING APPROVAL Of AN AMEt-l)MENT "fO THE LOO USE ELEMENT Of THE GENERAL PLAN TO !JUNG THE DESIGNATIONS ON THE GENERAL PLAN HAP, ZONING HAP, ~ LOCAL COASTAL pt AN HAP INTO CONFORMANCE ON PROPER T'l' LOCATED IN THE CITY Of CARLSBAD. The Planning C~lssion adopted the following Resolutions with the modifications pointed out b) Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, and Conrnlssloner HcBane: RESOLUTION NO. 2585 RECOt+IENOING ,-,PPROVAL Of A ZONE CHANGE TO IIIINC THE OESIGNA TIONS ON THE GE.HERAL PLAN HAP, lOHHtG MAP, AND LOCAL COAST Al PLAN HAP INTO CONFORMANCY ON PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE CITY Of CARLSBAD. RESOLUTION HO. 2586 RECOHHEHOING /\PPROVAL Of AN AMENDMENT To THE tAR[S8Ao LOCAL COAST AL PLAN DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERT IES SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "I" ON PROP[.IHY LOCATED 1N CARLSBAD. Schlehuber X Hcf adden X Hall X Marcus X X McBane X Holmes X Schramm X Schlehuber X X HcF adden X Hall X Marcus X HcBane X Holmes X Schramm X Schlehuber X X McFadden X Hall X Marcus X HcBane X Hol111es X Schra11111 X MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANtHNC COMMISSION RECESS The Planning Co11111lssion recessed at 8:11 p.m. and reconvened at 8:27 p.m., with all members present. Exhibit "R" -FrontaQe lots, west side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Shore Drive loop Chairman Schlehuber informed that the Commission inadver tently did not vote on the Resolution pertaining this exhibit at the July 30th meetinq . to A motion was made to approve Resolution No. 2597 and reconnending approval of the Negative Declaration. The motion failed adoption. For clarlflcati0n, Hr. Hentschke related the Commission's previous action on this matter. Commissioner Holmes indicated that he had misunderstood. His intention was to vote In favor of the Resolution. The Planning Co11111lssion approved the following Resolution and recommended approval of the Negative Declaration: RESOLUTION NO. 2597 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A ZONE OiANGE FROM R-2, RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY TO R-1, RESIDENTIAL ONE FAMILY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY I OCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN PONDlh0~A DRIVE ~D LARCH DRIVE. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4) CUP-286 TEXACO -The Addition of an existing service station facility of a convenience store at 945 T c1111arack Avenue. Gary Wayne, Seni or Planner, gave the presentation on this item as contained In the staff report and described the location of the site with the aid of a map. Staf~ ls recoianending approv~l of the project. Conaissioner McFadden referred to a~ error in Condition No. 18 of the Resolution wherein the developer ls to install a wheelchair ranip. Hr. Wayne informed that this was a typographical error. The word "northeast" should be replaced with "southeast". C011111issi0fler Mcfadden also inquired why the developer was not responsible for getting the traffic signal opposite frUIII Pio Pico in working order. Dave Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, explained that the traffic signal has been repaired and op~ratlng properly. Normally, a developer does not have to repair an existing City facility if it Is on a regular City 111alntenance program. Schlehuber X HcF adden X Hall X Marcus X X McBane X Holmes X Schramm X Schlehuber X HcF adden X Hall X Harcus X X Hc:Bane X Holmes X Schramm X @ r 1 MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Conwnissioner McFadden referred to the traffic report and stated her reasons why she believed that the traffic conditions surrounding the drivewa>s of the project ls not a safe situation. Motorists should not be allowed to come out of there and pour out into the intersection of Tamarack and Pio Pico. COlll'llissioner Harcus concurred with Commissioner McFadden as to her concerns. Mr. Hauser stated that City staff has reviewed the situation and has determined that it meets the requirements of the City In that area. ~urther, a condition has been added that there be a nine-foot lane left between the building and the servlct' bays enahllng motorists to circulate out the easter!) drivewa). Commissioner Harcus stated that the present condition is very bad, and urqed the Cornmlssion to not give It more usage. Chairman Schlehuber declared the pub! le hearing opened at 8:43 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Dave Matson, 10 Universal City Plaza, Los Angeles, representing Texaco, addressed the Cornmlsslon and pointed out that the traffic situation was addressed in the traffic report by BS!. It Indicated that increased trip generations would be very insignificant based upon what Is currentl) operating there. He stated that he agreed that the traffic situation Is not very good presently, but that cannot be changed. He pointed out the intersection ls signalized and has been upgraded. Under the conditions of approval, people can ingress/egress from either driveway. Further, there ls a condition requlrinq that a no-left turn sign be placed on the west drlvewa}, The motorists will be exiting through the easterly driveway where It ls signalized. He added that there is adequate onsite circulation. There being no other person In the audience desiring to address the C011111lssion on this matter, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearino closed at 8:45 p.m. Following further discussion, a mot ion was made to approve the NegatJve Declaration and adopt Resolution No. 2575 approvinq ClP-286 based on the findings contained therein. The 1110tlon died due to the lack of a second. The Planning C~lssion denied the Neaatlve DeclaratJon and directert staff to return with a Resolution denying CUP-286. Schlehuber X Hcf adden X X Hall X Marcus X McBane X Holmes X Schrdllll'I X MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION S) GPA/LU 85-9/ZC-338 -SEAPOIN TL CARLSBAD -CITY OF CARLSBAD -Request for General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes and Local Coastal Plan Amendments for an area bounded by Palomar Airport Road, 1-5, Poinsettia Lane, and Carlsbad Boulevdrd, plus thdt area bounded by Poinsettia Lane, Ponto Road, Carlsbad Boulevard and the AT&SF Railroad. Chairman Schlehuber announced that the portions of this Item wherein audience participation has been requested will be heard prior to the other portions. Adrienne Landers, Assistant Planner, gave the Initial staff presentation on this Item stating that staff ls recommending a number of General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes and Local Coastal Plan Amendments. She gave the background relating to the pro.feet as contained In the staff report. She added that the consultant hired b) the City to study the area divided the study area Into existing and proposed sites. The area was examined reoardlna land uses, topograph), envlromental issues, as well as opportunities and constraints. At some locations, the study identified potential land use changes and at other areas, they remained with the same land use designations and zoning designations. Based on this information, staff has recommended various -ndments. Preliminary talks with the Coastal Commission indicate that they have no problem with staff's proposals. Overall, the proposed changes will reduce the total number of dwell Ing units in this vicinity. However, the uses themselves will intensify In some areas. A traffic stud) was prepared In conjunction with the land use stud) which indicated that more intense uses would not credte any add i tional traffic probletns. Basicall), the study area has very favorable access recause it is bounded on three sides by prime or major arterials and on the fourth side by the freeway. The traffic engineer has indicated that the proposed mitigation measures are acceptable and should be implemented as projects are developed. In addition to land use changes, the study also makes numerous reconnendations regarding access points, setbacks, landscaping and other design criteria which can be Incorporated Into future development plans as they are proposed. Overall, staff relieves the proposed chanoes will create land uses which are mo~e compatible with surrounding uses. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, introduced Don Hansen and Randi CooperS111ith of the Austin-Hansen-Fehlman firm which prepared the land use study on this Item. Subarea P-1 Mr. Howes gave the presentation on Subarea P-1 as contained In the staff report. He described the location of the two sites (Bankers/Life and Lusk parcels) with the aid of a map. The split designation on each of the sites of Subarea P-1 will require the preparation of a detailed specific plan whJch nust be approved by the Planning C011111ission. (if) I ..-. ' MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING CO~lSSION Chair~an Schlehuber declared the public hecring opened at 9:37 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Jim Hicks, 2910 Managua, addressed the Corrmlssion on behalf of the owners of the Bankers/Life Property. He stated that they feel that the chanqes that staff is rec0111111ending will be COlllpatible with the land uses which are in existence north of the sewer plant. The develop- ment of the Bankers/Life property will be the final link In the Avenlda Encinas connection which would provide the passage of traffic from Poinsettia Avenue across Palomar Airport Road up to Cannon Road. Further, with the development of the land requiring a specific plan, the COO'lllission will have full opportunity to address the final aliqnment of Avenida Encinas as well as the final place111ent of the various land uses. He urged the C011111ission to appro\e staff's reco11111endatlons. Bot: Ladwig, Rick Engineering, representing the Lusk C0111pany, addressed the C011111ission in opposition to the proposed amendments dealing with the Lusk property because the Lusk Company feels it is premature at this time. They are concerned about several pending \alid issues that could have a major affect on land uses in the City, and they feel it will be appropriate to wait until earl> next year, after the elections, to consider an> changes ln this area. Their concern ls that because of the free•a> ramp on the southerly portion, that maybe It will make more sense to put the non-residential uses there dfld decrease the intensity of the use as you go northerly. C011111issioner Hall inquired why residential zoning was being proposed in the southern parcel (Lusk). Mr. Howes stated that mainly staff had some concerns about that large of an office area in that portion of town, and also, one of the goals of the Local Coastal Plan was to encourage residential use in close proximity to the beach. It was staff's intent with puttlnq the split designation that a detailed plan could be worked out for a combination of residential and office uses with adeouate buffers. Con1111issioner Mcfadden inquired whether the economic anal) sis report of the cl ty has been completed and questioned staff's reasoning in determining what ls needed in this area. Hr. Howes responded that staff felt that it would be 110re appropriate to have industrial use directly adjacent to the sewer plant. Further, staff has concerns aboot the dlllOUnt of comnercial throughout the City and how much the City can octually absorb. Chairman Schlehuber staled that he would go along with staff's recOtllfflendations for the Bdnkers/Life parcel. However, on the other parcel, (Lusk), he questioned the residential usage proposed. Charles Gri11111, Ass i stant Planning Director, pointed out that when there is a split designation (RM/0), it does not guarant~ that when the specific plan is COl'llpleted that there will be any residential or any office at all. Specific plans could c0111e back with a development that showed either all office or all residential. ® MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Pdge 17 COMMISSIONERS In response to the C011111ission's inquiry regarding the consultant's reasons for reconrnendlng residential use in the Lusk parcel, Randi Coopersmith, Austin-Hansen-Fehlman C0111pany, addressed the Conwnlssion and stated that in the Local Coastal and General Plans, mixed uses are encouraged. Because of the size of the area (340 acres), the access, and surrounding uses, It was their feeling that mixed land uses (multlple-famlly, office, and conrnercial) could be appropriate!> provided for. COtllllissioner McFadden stressed that the Co11111lsslon needs some economic analysis of the City to know what ls being put in the different zones. Mr. Gri11111 Informed that staff prepared an agenda bill requesting that a consultdnt be hired to work on the economic andlysls report. However, the City Council felt that this job could be better done by the City's Finance Department. The economic andlysis ls being prepared by the Finance Department. Con,nissloner Marcus stated that she felt that because a specific plan will be required for any development, the C011111isslon will be able to be more definitive In the future as to what to allow in the drea. C011111issloner McFadden stressed that by leaving this area as a split designation, as reconrnended, the Commission ls at the mercy of what people can afford to build in the area. She urged the Commission to wait until the economic analysis report ls submitted. The Planning Co11111ission accepted staff's reconrnendations on Subarea P-l. Subarea P-3 (a) C011111Unlty Partners Mr. Howes described the location of the site as depleted on the llldp and gave the presentdtlon on this Item dS contained in the staff report. C01111issioner Hall inquired regdrdlng the background of this area when a particular project came before the C011111ission on this portion. Mr. Howes replied that it was a arlti-family project which was approved by the Planning Ca.ilssion, but later denied by the Council because of the dense appearance of the project. Pat O'Day, O'Day Consultdnts, 7750 El Camino Real, applicant, addressed the C011111isslon and gave further background on the project. He gave various reasons why he felt that t he Connlsslon should approve this area as an office use and not as recOflllended by staff. Schlehuber Mcfadden Hall Marcus McBane Holmes Schrdlllll @ X X X X X X X X MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING CO ... ISSION Page 1~0MMISSIONERS Joe Gallagher, 1165 Hoover, addressed the C01T111isslon and also gave background of the pro.feet and added that the same planninq constraints as related to the Bankers/life's parcel are consistent for their parcel. He urged the Conwnission to approve this property as office use designation. Mr. Coopersml th responded to questions posed by Chairman Schlehuber on the reasons that they came to the alternative of the office use as contained in their report. In the discussion that ensued, Corrmissioner Hall requested clarification as to whether restaurants are allowed in office use designations. Mr. Howes replied that restaurants are allowed upon approval of a conditional use permit, unless spec1f1call} prohibited b} the Resolution Itself. Chairman Schlehuber stated that he supports the consultant's recommendation for the office use designation with the specific limitation that there be no restaurants on the site. He stated that he ls basing this on the consultant's report that there ls an odor problem in the area. Corrmissloner McFadden stated that althouqh she concurs that it ls not a good site for residential, she questioned whether office was the best use, and whether travel- service was not better for the area. (b) la Costa Downs Subdivision Ray Fuller, CM Engineering Associates, 550 West Vista Way, Vista, addressed the C011111ission on behalf of Richard Donahue, a property owner in the la Costa Downs Subdivision. He stated that they are in favor of the zone change being proposed b} staff. Mr. Howes gave the presentation on this item and stated that this portion consists of an old subdivision that was created many years ago which created a number of substandard lots. At this tiae a general discussion ensued regarding the traffic study upon which all of the land uses being proposed are based. Coiaissioner McBane inquired whether staff felt that the traffic study reflected accurately the current situation in terms of traffic problems which miqht be generated by the whole land use plan. Mr. Howes responded that it was his understanding that the trafflc stud} was based on future build out, not present traffic flows. @ r l MINUTES Auqust 13, 1986 PLANNING COHHISSION Philip Raoul, Rarten-Ashman Associates, 180 Southlake Avenue, Pasedena, addressed the Co11111ission and stated that some of the traffic counts were done in November. However, they were bdckchecked with some previous counts and correlated with some numbers from SANOAG . They are reasonable for that time of the year to represent average conditions. Unfortunately, the time frame to do the study limited when they could conduct the study. The counts of bulldout ls another study and another condition considered. Mr . Raoul explained that on the last page of the traffic study report, there is a table that looks at the existing levels of service, the bdckground and the cumulative condition. This ls not a bulldout condition but represents the exis ting traffic counts projected to the year 2000 based on a bdckground growth rate. Hr. Raoul further clarified that they have some average dally traffic volumes on the major arterials that they obtained from previous counts conducted by the City. Bob Johnson, Traffic Engineer, stated that the City did take SOllle counts along Carlsbad Boulevard before the bridge was closed. One count was taken on October 23, 1985 just south of Cannon . The bridge was closed on October 29, 1985. Previous traffic counts were done on Poinsettia Lane on September 25, 1985 and on Avenida Encinas in August, 1984. C011111issloner McFadden pointed out that traffic ls not mentioned in any of the proposed zone changes In the different subareas and expressed concern regarding the traffic situation of Carlsbad Boulevard. Hr. Grln111 stated that the transporatlon consultant did find the study acceptable. He pointed out that staff is not approving the access points at this time. They are just potential access points. When the developer comes in with a detailed develo:>ment plan for each of the areas, then that wiil be worked out. The study is just to show potential. The Planning C0911ission directed staff to designate P-3(a) (COllllll.lnity Partners) with an office use designation, and approved staff's recOWRendatlons oo P-3(b) (Lusk). Subarea P-4 "~· Howes gave the presentation as contained in the staff report and described the location of the two sites (the Northern Third -north of Poinsettia, and the Southern Two-Thirds -South of Poinsettia) with the aid of a 111ap. The split General Plan deslqnatlon will require approval of a detailed specific plan prior to any develop111ent In this area. Schlehuber X McFadden X Hall X X Harcus X HcBane X Holmes X Schra.n X MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNINC COMMISSION Bob Ladwig, Rick Engineering, representing the Lusk CQlllpany, owners of parcels P-4 (a) and (b) spoke in opposition because they feel that it ls preffldture. The issues of Coastal access and low cost housing need to be addressed before an) changes are made in this area. They 1·equest that this item be tabled until after the first of the )'~ar. Dale Schreiber, All Storage, 7290 Ponto Drive, addressed the C0111111issl on, and pointed out a change to the map on display. Their total land l s now five and one -half acres . He stated that they are worklnq on a seaport vlllage-t)pe project and want as lll.lch co111T1erclal there as possible. He inquired whether gas stations are permitted under the travel service designation. Mr. Howes explained that the travel service designation ls for all the property south of Poinsettia Lane. He clarified that at this time staff does not know which portion will be C011111erclal and which will be residential until a detailed specific plan ls submitted for that entire area. The existing Coastal designation for that area ls RH11. Staff is recommending an .-nendment to the LCP to Include travel service as well as residential uses. Commissioner McFadden expressed her concerns that a great deal of valuable land l s left up to someone walklnq in with a specific plan. The Commission should be doing more positive planning. This ls ha rd to do when the Commission does not know hon much co11111ercial, etc., uses are in the City. She suggested that this item be delayed until the economic analysis report ls i n to the Conwnlsslon. Co11111lssloner McBane expressed the same concerns in regards to the traffic patterns being used. He stated that he is not comfortable with the available traffic data. The Planning Commission accepted staff's rec011111endatlons on Subarea P-4. Subarea P-2 Hr. Howes gave the presentation on this item as contained in the staff report and described the location of the site with the aid of a 111c1p. Ted Blonsky, 17065 West Bernardo Drive, Rancho Bernardo, representing Pacific Coast Hotels, addressed the C01111lssion and advised that he has been planning the site in question as a hotel site for SOIIIC time. He urqed the COINllission to approve staff's recommendations. The Planning Commission approved staff's rec011'111endatlons on Subarea P-2. Schlehuber X X Mcf" adden X Hall X Marcus X HcBane X Holmes X Schra-X Schlehuber X Mcfadden X Hall X Marcus X X HcBane X Holmes X Schra-) (i) MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Subarea P-1 Jim Hicks, 2910 Managua Place, addressed the C011111ission and requested that the C011111ission reconsder its vote on P-1. He explained that lt was his impression that the property could have been presented P-1 North (Bankers/Life) and P-1 South (Lusk) separately. He was under the impression that the Bankers/Life property could have received more than just a four to three vote from the Planning COl!l!lission. Hr. Hicks inquired of Assistant City Attorney Hentschke whether it was possible to Qo to the City Council and split the applications even thouqh the Planning Co11111isslon voted on P-1 as a total package. Chairman Schlehuber stated that he saw no reason why this could not be done. It ls going to the Council for review, and it ls their prerogative as to how they consider a particular item. Conclusion Hr. Howes concluded by stating that staff feels that the proposed changes will allow land uses that are compatible with the Local Coastal Plan and the State Parks Plan. He added that the Planning Commission will be opening the six-week review period for Local Coastal Plan amendments. There being no other person in the audience desiring to address the Co11111ission on this matter, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed at 9:50 p.m. The Planning Commission adopted the following Resolutions recommending approval of GPA /LU 85-9, ZC-338 and LCPA 86-2 per staff's recowmendations to the City Council based on the findings contained therein and with the changes so noted earlier; specifically, P-3 (a): RESOLUTION NO. 2587 RECOl+IENOING APPROVAL CJ' AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOO USE: ELEMENT CJ' THE GENERAL PLAN AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" DATED JULY 21, 1986 FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE AREA COVERED BY THE SEAPOINTE-CARLSBAD LAND USE STUOY. RESOLUTION NO. 2588 RECOHHEHDING APPROVAL CJ' ZONE CHANGES AS SHOWN M EXHIBIT "C" DATED :lJLY 21, 1986 FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA COVERED BY THE SEAPOIHTE-CARLSBAD LAtf> USE STUDY. RESOLUTION NO. 2589 RECOHHENOING APPROVAL CJ' AN AM[tl>HENT To TR£ CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE AREA COVERED BY THE SEAPOINTE- CARL SBAD LAtl> USE STUDY AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "8" ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN CARLSBAD. THIS AMEtl>HENT WOULD ALSO ADD AN CJ'FICE CATEGORY TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN. For clarification, Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the minutes and the staff report will reflect the individual votes of the C011111issioners on each separate portion of this item. Schlehuber X McFadden X Hall X X Harcus X McBane X Holmes X SchralllTI X MINUTES August 13, 1986 PLANNING COfili4ISSION 6) (}>A/LU 86-7/ZCA-197 -CITY Of CARLSBAD (This ite111 was continued to the August 27th Meeting.) I tfC ORMA TI ON IT EN 7) PC0-91 -O'GARA -Request for approval of a house relocation fr0111 the rear to the front portion of a property located at 3229 Valley Street in the R-1 zone. C~issloner Mcfadden polnttd out that the density is not accurate in the staff report. Hr. Grl-stated all the developer is doing ls 1110vlng a house froia the middle of a cul-de-sac of a subdivision to over on lot 4 which is already a created lot. If there ls a density established for this project, it is already approved. Thi s is si111Ply a relocat ion of a house. The Planning C~ission adopted the following Resolution approving PC0-91, based on the fi,dings and subject to the conditions contained therein: RESOLUTION HO. 2573 APPROVING A HOUS£ RELOCATION fROH TH[ REAR TO THE FRONT PORTION CJl PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 3229 VALLEY STREET. ADDED ITEMS Alf> REPORTS Planning C01111ission Chair111an Schlehuber thanked Connissloner Mcfadden for a very successful party in honor of former C011111issioner Ji S111ith. ADJOllUl4ENT By proper 1110tion, the Meeting of August 13, 1986, was adjourn~ at 10:00 p.111. Respectfully sut:aitted, MICHAEL t«>LZMILLER Planning Director Elizabeth Caraballo Minutes Clerk EC:tb MEETINGS ARE .a.LSO TAPED NI> KEPT CJl fIL[ lMTIL TH[ Ml,-,T[S AR£ APPROVED. Schlehuber X X Hcf adden X Hall X Mdrcus X HcBane X Holaes X Sehr-X ---- -~ ~~ - -w w ~)\.UU O 4 1 o..O.Q.. e-ft· . - .. C.~J . ~ ¼_ ~ I pp.cl -· -~-u Ca_~ __ QJtJ~ ~_a;~~ --~~ ~ ~ e_~ ~~~ ~ · I 3-o:_-', y '. ,s-- / ✓ LWV SOGJ C!-'ILD ,~DV O(,lC'( ;:,osr-:-IO~l: I Ch i:d ,,_bs e anc 'leglec: """\ PROGRAM ~·,N SJ.rl Dr ~GO COUNTY Children of San Diego Cuunty have tne rignt to grow up free of abuse and negle~t. and so the League of Wo~en v~~ers of Sa n Diego County supports: .... e'T'er']ency f,;cilities including interir. resi,;., •. ,_~ ana 24-hour hotline with infonnaticn and referral caoabilities . .... systematic training of these professionals involved with children, to identify, respond to and treat victims . .... development of foster homes olus training and resources for providers of care . .... increased availability of treatment, such as counseling, to families under stress as well as to victir.s of abuse and neglect . ... . coord~nation of a1 1 agency services dealing with abuse a1d neglect . .•.. increased er,:phasis on prevention of abuse and neglect through awareness programs and parenting educat ion. II Child Day Care The League of Women Voters of San Die go County supports: .... provision of diverse, alternJtive forms of day care for children, responsive to the widely di fferent soci~l and economic needs of famili ~s . . . . • creation of public, private and family day .Clre programs that err:ohasize develooment rather than custodial activi t i es, varying curricula to meet·the needs of children of all ages, offering flexible hours and 'sliding scale fees . ..•• parent education and involvement as essential t~ quality day care . .... governmental efforts to: -allocate funds to ~eet day care needs, -streamline zoning and licensing laws, -increase supervision and training for day ·care providers, and -eApand infant care services . ...• financial incentives to businesses to provide day care and tax exemptions to families for day care costs. _ ...• allotment of day care sites in housing and industrial developments . .... the use of school sites as one alternative for the placement of day care programs. III Juvenile Delinquency Prevention The League of Women 'loters of San Diego County supports: .... a juvenile delin~uency prevention effort that gives priority to providing opportunities for all youth to oarticipate ccnstructi vely in society and that will reduce the predisoosition towarc delinquency . .... educational programs which are relevant to child and youth needs and that prepare students for life experiences such as initia l employment, family living and peer relationships . .... collaboration amon <; schools and co!"ll!lurit/ resources to provide after- school activitie~, utilizing cross-age and oeer involvement and making use of the ski ll s and knowledoP. of the be~dvioral and life sci ences . .... informction sharing and j oint.efforts ar.:~g public and orivate agencies to improve services to the young at-risr. ~nd to develop orimar-1 prevention 9rograms . .... cooperative cor.munity efforts to i;:rodde ;:,ractical jcb and skills training leading to useful work experience. CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DATE TO FROM SUBJECT POST OFFICE BOX 1E,0~ JULY 30, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CARLSBAD. CAL IFORNIA 92008 CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CHILD CARE PROPOSAL (6191 729-592• The Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce is pleased that the City of Carlsbad i s reviewin g t h e need for child care facilities in our community. It is the desire of the Board to provide input regarding matters of p u blic and business interest, and would therefore request that th e Planning Commis- sion withdraw the child care amer.dment to the General Plan until such time as necessary citizen input is provided. of the Board of Directors are as follows: The concerns 1) Whether the is su e should be addressed in the Land Use Element, or if it would be more appropriately addressed in an other eleme nt of the General Plan. 2) Has the City staff considered any public input from the child care industry, private sector, and other cit- izens interested in the issue? 3) What method(s) of providing for the child care facili- ties will be developed. 4) What criteria the City is using for the implementation of goal s as set forth in the amendment. Above all else, it is the position of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce that items of such social and economic significance must be given the necessary time for public review. Thank you for considering this request. PS:dp @ I ,'. ,., -t \ L, lJ ~ IJ , 4 ~ CAR LSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Carlsbad. California RESOL UT ION NO. 3-8687 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CHILD CARE AMENDMENT OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD'S GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS the Carlsbad Unified School District sees the need for before and after school supervision for school-aged children of working parents; and WHEREAS the Dis t rict believes that provision of child care facilities and services for school-aged children is a joint responsib i lity of the school. city, and community; NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Governing Board of the Carlsbad Unified School District: hereby declares its support for Carlsbad Resolution 2572, recommending an amendment to the City of Carlsbad's General Plan addressing the need for before and after school supervision of school-aged children starting at the kindergarten level (GPA-LV-86-4). PASSED AND ADOPTED oy the Gover 1ng Board of the Car l sbad Unified School District in Carlsbad, California on the~ day of August. 1986, by the followin g vote: AYES: NOES: Trustees Nygaard, McCormick, Angel. and Switzer None ABSENT: None ABSTENTIONS: None I, J. Edward Switzer,Jr. Clerk of the Board of Trustees. do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution duly passed and adooted by said Board at a regularly called and conducted ing held on s~id date. Margie Cool 2510 Unicornio Street Carlsbad, California I I /, I '-. I am speaking as a private, concerned citizen and as a former member of the Committee to Review The Land Use Element Of The General Plan in opposition t o General Plan Amendment 86-4 which would amend the land use element to include Childcare as an addi- tional goal. First, Childcare is a service, not a land use. None of the other goals in the Land Use Element address the provision of social services; therefore, this goal would be inconsistent with the existing goals of the Land Use Element. Secondly, this raises the question: if the goals are expanded to include this social service, what is to prohibit it from being expanded to address other current social issues, such as: drug education and rehabilitation; senior citizen health and daycare needs; family and teenage counselling --to name a few. In fact, attention given to the encouragement of a reduction of liability insurance would be of immediate benefit to existing day care facilities as well as the City of Carlsbad, businesses and industries. However, creating goals in the Land Use Element to satisfy these needs is still inappropriate. In addition, before the City of Carlsbad becomes committed to Childcare and other social services, the City Council should adopt a policy to that effect and, perhaps, add a Social Service or Human Resources Element to the General Plan as was done with the Arts Element. ~·!!-.dtever action taken should be with the citizens of Carlsbad being full ·· informed and allowed to participate. I am not opposing the concept of childcare. I am very concerned with the plight of unattended children, and I recognize the diffi- culties faced by working parents in finding acceptable facilities for their children while they ar~ working. I hope this need for childcare will be addressed. To approve this amendment the Land Use Element of the General Plan would commit the City of Carlsbad to the social service of Childcare without the necessary time and exposure needed to inform @ ' • the community of such a decision. One Planning Commission meeting and, possibly, one City Council meeting to consider this amendment does not give time to examine all of the ramifications involved or allow those affected by the staff recommendations to be a part of the decision-making process. A task force to examine childcare and an assessment of the needs in Carlsbad should be the first step, then the amendment to the General Plan considered, not vice versa. Therefore, as a citizen and a community member of Carlsbad, I urge the Planning Commission to vote "no" on this Land Use Amendment to the General Plan and recommend that other options should be examined with the communi~y informed and involved in the decision-making process. Are there any questions? Planning Comm1ss1on !-lembe t RE: August 13, 1986 Meeting h Id r e urd1nAnce To Ad o pt a c i -ca . d NOT impose a dd i tiona l fees on In m o i nion the Ci ty of (;i r hhad .sho<t l x~m l e ~ r,f the defic it a lready t he .~ev~lo pe r f or ch ild.-rareC~u~p"~~s~<-.1;·bv ~.ncin1tas c hild-car e r e n ter . with the Carlsbc1d <.irl -. u ' d -,._ . t . kee" o ur curren t f at, I i tes are t1nd 1ng ••Ill ,,0 1. o ~ Time shou l d be spent i n rl ne'-onf's . _ · operating befo r e pas~1~~r ~:w~;ubl ~ave s upport ot v;i r 1o u s ioc~I 1~~~:;~- The Carl s bad Boys a n If t h C1 tv i ~ go1n)" t u support a c l zation and United r und . / r . mmun 1tv '"te o•1 that. A mere / 7-t?, center . t han l etdthe ~e~~~\~ I .~~, 1 :r~" [cl It. ll 1\_°u t y 1 '1',1• rls Club passing ,)f an o r . 1118( ar s uau \.J to resolve anything. Carol McCart p o Box 2254 C~risbad, CA 92008 to benefit from party with Louisiana theme (liAd Y!!~ td Caro l McCart 8/11/86 Bv Lola Sherm.in Tr1oune S1 .. dl "~ 'N Holiday Park in Carlsbad will be transformed into another time aod place Aug 17 for the Fifth Annual Lazv Louisiana Davs celebration to ben;fit the !uni Girls Club '<\agnol,a blossoms long party dresse,, and parasols. and the aroma of chicken and grits 11111!' fill tbe parll. dunng the fest1v1t1es !rt I to 6 p.m at PinC' Avenue and Pio f-;co Dnve Mooey raised Ifill belp pay operat- ing expenses which 4irecter El1eell obon said run from $3,500 a month Ill tbe winter to $5,000 eacb moatll Ill tbe summer for about .SC gira. · She said fee raised from 1.lie dulf1 program pay only abollt nalf tbl u- pemes. _........, A rummage sale Saturday ..- Prizes will be given for costumes ar,d for the best approx1mauon of Southern expression And a Confed· .-rate flag donated by the New Or- leans Chamber of Commerce wtll fly over the park while Dmeland Jatt $1.000 But Olson saN! * IS couatilll on the Louisiana Days event and u mternatJooal dinner in November fer m05l of the money Tickets ~ available at tbe el•. located aCTOS.5 Ellreb Place frca the part.. at the Cbam'1er of Cllm- merce in the 111d railnlad dlpit • Elm A•enue at tlle Slat.a Fe tnaL and at tllle leach Vn Lodp Oil Carlsbad Boulevard. entertains the partygoers .. "It 5 for the v.hoie fanuly. said Shirle\ Saler a director of tbe Carlsbad Girls· Club Geoeral ~ ii$!,; llcll:eta f« children uder 12 are P. g---;-fiJ ·:Encinitas migrant child-care center posts deficit for fourth straight year By Tara Garner 1"rlllaM SW/ Writer The dehc11-ndden migrant child-care center in E 1nn1 wended tbe 19~ school \'ear S37.5l2 in the red. near· ly $8,000 above ongma I pred1ctmns. said SupenntPnden1 Donald Lllldstrom. Final budget figure show the federally funded center finishf'd its fourth con~cut,vr vear m the EnnniUls UDIOO School D1strirt with J defir-,t Lindstrom 10Jd lrus tees last week. "We had ant1c1pated a deflr1\ and we don t expect n to be much less th!S year ... hr said. adding th,·rr ,, d poss, bihty that lbe debt may nearly tnple Earlier this vear the d1~tnct had predicted a $30 000 deficit · The 10-year-old center at (dpn C:lement.;ry provide, health aod educational care for lbe children of migrant agricultural woril.ers who l:v~ in Encinitas Card1ff-by- the-S-...a. Carlsbad. V1sui and Oceanside Tbe conunued losses.. which have cost the district's general fund $55,957 since 1982. are the direct result of 1ncrea5ing salaries within the d1Stnct and slow federal IDC~ in lundmg tbe program Becall!e of the fmannal burden. the board m February announced 1t will bait its in volvi>ment wllh the day-care center at tbt-end of tbe upcomang school year Suzanne Lyles. actmg director for Susan GJe~t. who IS on matemJly leave. promised that a parent. teacher and staff steering committee 1s conunumg its f'ffort, to make up the difference so that lhe cenlC'r can s1av in tht> district '"l'bere is still a lot of concern among the suiff. and the parents are 1111llmg to do whatever they ca ~ .. Lyles said To dale. parent.s have contributed $5 000 and ha, e more than $2.400 m pledges from :he community. she &aid. The center·s 1985-86 mcome was '428,682 wbile n penses were $464.194. Landstrom said. Trustee B111 Carli commended t.be pa.reel.! for die el forts but noted that community support for tbe prasnm which serves 74 children and baa an equally lengthy nit• ing 11st. simply has not come forward. · I voted against (halting district Involvement) a fn months back based on the commuruly support we 1111 ft would get." Carli said. refemng u, a meeting attended bJ more than 100 parents and several busl.DeSSmen m tbe r nr.imumty "And 1t Just doesn"t !leem to be there It appt>ar, to me thf' parents are doing all they can. but it hasn I been what we expectt-d Tm making certain not to fault anyone. especuUy tbe parents · Carli saJd. "But to make up tlus ~fieit we need a much stronger comrrutment ·• The 12-hoor-a-day program for cluldren .ige 6 montlllll to 5 yea~ old 1DCludes bealtb care. super;'lloo and edlt- rat1on for the needy youngsters The center hopes to say m tile dJstncL but will probl- bl v l><' taken over by a pnvate company sbould tbe di&- 1 nct be unable to continue supportmg the pr<>cnrn. tna- tees agreed. In other acuoo last wed:, die board. • Approved spending SUOO to coounue for the fifth@ year as a membe.r of lhe National Council of Year-round Education. • Uirected t.be 111penntendent to contract wttb a land appraiser for an lllldetenmned swn to detenrune market l'alue of dtstnct-owned property near Ocean Knoll School The land IS a proposed site for the San Dieptt.o Transportation Cooperauve. a use that bas come IIDder' fire by nearby residents LR Cost A RRncH Co. July 30, 1986 Plann i ng Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 ATT: Chairma~ Schlehuber SUBJECT: GPA/LU 86-6 -General Plan South of Corte de la Vista, Road in La Costa. Amendment located east of Alicante Dear Chairman Sch l ehuber: As the for mer property owner and as the developer of the La Costa Master Plan, the La Costa Ranch Company objects to the General Plan Amendment on the above referenced property which would reduce the properties land use from RMH(8-15 dus/acre) to RM(4-8 dus /acre). We disagree with the reasons given in t he staff report for the downzoning of this property. We believe the existing land use desig- nation is appropriate for the site based on the following reasons: 1. As stated in the staff report, the property was approved for a General Plan Amendment to the RMH category less than S years ago. At that time, the staff conducted an analysis of this land use and determined that it was appropriate for the site. Also, a condominium project was approved on the site and this also was reviewed by the city and found to meet all requirements of the existing ordinances. No substantial changes have occurred in this time to justify a downzone of the property. Staff has not give n sufficient reasons to downzone the property. 2 . Staff has cited traffic as a reason for the downzoning of this site. The reason given is that "residents of La Costa are already complain i ng about the amount of traffic on these roads." This goes counter to the traffic studies that have be~n conducted in this area. Even the staff acknowledges in the staff report that both Alicante Road and Alga Road "could nandle the traffic generated by development on this site under its existing designation." ===== 699◄ El umino ~. Suite 202 • urtsbad • ulifomia 92008 • (619> ◄38-8226 ======== , .... -~ 3. Staff also cites land use compatibility as a reason for a reduced designation. It is true that adjacent properties have developed at a lower density than the subjec t property. However, these properties, i r. particular the Joc1<ey Club, are large luxury units that have the appearance of a high density development. Also, properties located nearby the site have been approved at densities over 20 dwelling units per acre. Compatibility is more a function of design than density. The Jockey Club is a good example of a low density project that appears to be higher in density than it actually is. Although thP. previous proje-:t on the subj e ct site may not be approved under coday's standards, a new pr o ject could be designed under existing criteria that could be compatible to surrounding proper- ties. As stated in the staff report, the design of the previously approved project seems to be one reason for the downzone of this ~roperty. We suggest that the present land use designation be retained. When a new development is proposed on this site, the city and property owner would insure a site sensitive project. 4. Finally, the downzoning of this property would cre:ate severe financial hardship for the property owner. The property owner has invested approximately $16,000,000 in the property to date. With the downzoning of the property to 4-8 dus/acre, the value of the property would be reduced to $5,000,000. Although, this is not a reason for a land use decision by the city, it believe it is significant enough to be noted. For the reasons stated above, we believe the property should not be redesignated to the RM land use category. We request that the Planning Commission consider our findings before making a decision on this matter and that this letter be made part of the public record. Sincerely, ;i~ t:~rs.2-~ Project Manager cc: Planning Commissioners Planning Department Minutes Clerk Barbara Hunt Mead 4140 Adams Street Carlsbad, California 92008 e. is-Kt, DATE Request To Speak TO CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION G-P,C.~0~ 0 , f 1,-~ 1N oeeos1r10N TOPIC e,t1. ,. 1t1, "JJ ~'1 _ 1.. ,, Nj) "re £1., M 1 n -r;, ,,ae/uJe. ct,,1JC11ll, llfl ITEMNO. / G,:t11. P1.1J,J Individual speakers are limited to FIVE (5) Minutes for their presentation. Group Spokespersons are limited to TEN (10) Minutes for presentation on behalf of their group. When the Chairman calls you to the microphone, state your Name, Address and Group affiliation for the record. Please Print NAME ___ f!1_~A~E~-~-o~H........_.d_s_o~J~--- AooREss 'i ~ ,. 1 M , Mt o S " , ~ A-~ I. S 8 A fl. REPRESENTING l e, c, w« of WtCM e n V,, f~ r .s No . C ••rt' SA # j) I _ ... Q. I (! 0 lJ tvrj WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED THIS FORM, PLACE IT IN THE DESIGNATED SLOT AT THE MINUTE CLERK'S CHAIR. THANl1 YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION & PART/Cl PA TION