HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-09-09; City Council; 5578; Siting of Satellite sewer treatement plantsCITY OF CARLSBAD
f?
AGENDA BILL NO. ^5*^7IT Initial
Dept. Hd
DATE: September 19, 1978 C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
SUBJECT:SITING OF SATELLITE SEWER TREATMENT PLANTS
CASE NO.: GPA-53 APPLICANT: CITY INITIATED
(Public Hearing)
Statement of the Matter
The City Council, on April 18, 1978, initiated a General Plan
Amendment to provide for the siting of satellite sewage
treatment plants and directed staff to draft appropriate amend-
ments. The City Attorney, with the Planning Department's con-
sultation, drafted the amendment which was forwarded to the
Planning Commission for hearing.
This amendment expands existing section (C) (6) of chapter 4
on page 28 of the Land Use Element. It is a revision to the text
regarding public utility descriptions to provide siting of both
existing and future public facilities. It will provide for the
general siting of the satellite sewage treatment plant such as
a reclamation plant proposed in the Lake Calavera Hills deyelopment.
The Planning Commission held three hearings on this matter and
were primarily concerned about the lack of definitive location
criteria in the "general" siting of the "U" designation. Therefore,
the Planning Commission recommended a modification to the amendment
to allow the "U" designation to "float" within a one kilometer
radius of the designation. They also limited the "U" designation to
a satellite waste water treatment facility.
Exhibits
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1463
Staff Report dated July 26, 1978
Staff Report dated July 12, 1978
. Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 1978
Recommendation
If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission, the
City Attorney should be directed to prepare documents ADOPTING
GPA-53 as per Planning Commission Resolution No. .1463.
Counci1 Action;
9-19-78 Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents
adopting GPA-53 as per Planning Commission Resolution
No. 1463.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1463
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL
PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR THE SITING OF SATELLITE SEWER
TREATMENT PLANTS
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
GPA-53
City of Carlsbad
WHEREAS, the City Council, on April 18, 1978, initiated a
General Plan Amendment to provide for the siting of satellite
sewage treatment plants, and
WHEREAS, an environmental review has been conducted pursuant
to the Guidelines, for Implementation of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance
of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review-; a Notice
of Declaration of Nonsignificant Environmental Impact was issued
for the following reasons:
1. The project is an administrative matter that will have
minimal direct impact on the environment.
2. Any particular public utility facility proposal will come
under individual environmental review.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on July 12, 1978, July
26, 1978 and August 9, 1978 hold duly noticed public hearings as
prescribed by law to consider said amendment; and _.-
WHEREAS, at said public hearing of August 9, 1978, and upon
hearing and considering testimony and arguments, if any, of all
persons who desired to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the General Plan Amendment and found the
following fact and reason to exist:
ATTEST:
1. It is both necessary and desirable to have the requirement
of amending the General Plan be the first step when locating
primary utility functions.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by the following roll call
vote recommended APPROVAL of GPA-53 as represented on the attached
Exhibit "A", dated August 9, 1978, attached hereto:
AYES: ;.LfHeureux, Rombotis, Larson, iSchick, Wiench
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Jose
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the above recitations
are true and correct.
Introduced, approved and adopted this 9th day of August, 1978.
JERRY ROMBOTIS, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary
-2-
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
(GPA-53)
SECTION Is The Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General
Plan is amended by the amendment of Chapter IV, Section (C) (6)
Public Utilities, at Page 28, to read as follows:
"(6) Public Utilities. The General Plan contemplates
that primary public utility facilities will be located in areas
that are classified U (Public Utilities). This category of land
use designates areas, both existing and proposed, either being
used or which may be considered for use for public or quasi-
public functions. Sites delineated with precise boundaries
represent existing sites or sites which have been precisely
fixed by General Plan. Amendment for primary functions such as
the generation of electrical energy, treatment of waste water,
stantial portion of the community. Sites identified with a r ^
circular U designation indicate that the City is studying or
may in the future evaluate the location of a satellite waste
water treatment facility in an area which could be located
within a one kilometer radius of the designation. Specific
siting for such facilities shall be accomplished only by a
change of zone, specific plan adoption, or master plan approval
for developments in the Planned Community zone or other similar
actions adopted by ordinance which in any case shall be approved
only after duly noticed public hearings."
- EXHIBIT "A
August 9, 1978
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CARLSBAD . ) SS
I, JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
introduced, approved and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad at a regular meeting
of said Commission held on the 9th day of August, 1978
by the following roll call vote:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
^ V;GV -HAGAMAN> -: Sec r etary -- h^
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 26, 1978
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Planning Department Staff
SUBJECT: GPA-55
BACKGROUND
On July 12, 1978, the Planning Commission considered a proposed
General Plan Amendment (GPA-53) to revise the text of the Public
Utility description in the Land Use Element to provide for the
siting of both existing and future facilities. The staff report
for that hearing is attached for your reference.
The basic intent of the proposed amendment is to require a General
Plan Amendment as the first step in locating any primary public
utility facility. The current wording.of the Land Use Element text
states that the Public Utility designation only defines areas
currently being used for public and quasi-public functions. This
would imply that a proposed facility would only need zoning or
some other discretionary action prior to development. The city
would then amend the Land Use Element to show the site after it
was established. This is clearly not the intent of the General Plan.
The'Planning Commission concurred with this premise but was
uncomfortable with the concept of allowing the future sites to
"float" within an undefined area. Because of this concern, the
matter was returned for staff to develop a tighter definition of the
area in which the future Public Utility sites could be located.
Staff has reviewed this matter and feels that there are two basic
options. These two options are discussed in the following sections.
FLOATING SITE
This concept is in-line with the staff report presented at the last
meeting. Basically, it recognizes two"categories of public utility
sites, "existing" and "future".
i
Staff feels the"future"category of this designation would allow
early citizen awareness and discussion of a proposed facility.
However, it could create'a situation where there was not yet enough
information to precisely locate the site (i.e. Lake Calavera Hills).
Therefore,-the concept of a "floating" Public Utility was used.
„ Memorandum (
July 26, 1978 V
Page Two (2) • .
In order to better define the limits of the area in which the
Public Utility could float, staff would suggest, for the sake of
discussion, that one of the following three criteria could be
used:
• l. Fixed Distance - The text would state the maximum
radius in which the.site could be moved (i.e. 1,000
meters).
2. Sub-drainage Basin - The text would state that the
site for sewage treatment facilities could ultimately
be located anywhere within the sub-drainage basin, to
be established at time of placement on the Plan.
3. City Quadrant - The text would state that the future
utility may be located anyxvhere within one of the
identified quadrants of the city.
These criteria obviously increase in their geographical definition.
The larger definition allows more flexibility and places more people
on notice that a site is being studied. The tighter definition
places tighter restrictions on where the site could be located and
allows a more detailed review by the citizens and the decision-makers.
Staff feels that the minimum dimension that would be practicable is
1,000 meters (one kilometer = 3280.84 feet or approximately two-thirds
of a mile).
Again, the advantages of the concept of a floating site are 1) earliest
possible notice to the citizens that a site is being studied, and
2) earliest public hearing forum oh a proposed site. The disadvantage
of this concept primarily has to do with the lack.of specific
information.
FIXED SITE .
The concept of two types of sites, "existing" and "future", can be
expanded to three types of sites, "existing", "proposed", and "future".
"Proposed" sites would be those that are fixed on the Land'Use Plan
after thorough study and approval by the city. "Future" sites would
be those areas still under study and would not be shown on the Land
Use Plan. Under this concept, only "existing" and "proposed" sites
would be shown in the General Plan.
The disadvantage of this concept would be the lack of showing the
future sites until studies.and specific'proposals are made. This
could lessen the degree of public input into the study and'review
process. The city would have to rely on other means of making the
people aware of the sites ,or areas under study.
The advantage of this concept is the ability of the citizens and
decision-makers to review the specific impacts of a proposed site.
Then, if approved, the proposed site would be fixed on the General Plan,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff does not .have a strong opinion on which of the two concepts
discussed above is the best. The pros and cons of each have been
discussed and the final decision ends up being a policy question.
Staff does recommend that one of the following text amendments be
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
(GPA-53)
SECTION 1: The land use element of the Carlsbad General
Plan is amended by the amendment of Chapter IV, Section (C) (6)
Public Utilities, at Page 28, to read as follows:
"(6) Public Utilities. The General Plan contemplates
that primary public utility facilities will be located in areas
that are classified U (Public Utilities). This category of land
use designates areas, both existing and proposed, to be used for
public or quasi-public functions such as the generation of
electrical energy, treatment or disposal of waste water, public
agency maintenance storage and operating facilities, or other
primary utility functions designed to serve all or a substantial
portion of the community. £sites delineated with precise boundaries
represent existing sites or sites which.have precisely been fixed
by General Plan Amendment^) Sites identified with a circular P-U
symbol do not represent specific locations. Such a designation
indicates that the city is studying a public utility facility in
an area which could be located within:
a) a one kilometer radius of the designation*
or
P QOSe . b) the sub-drainage basin of the designation of
one an a satellite sewage treatment facility to 'be
elxmina.te defined at time of approval ;others. or ^
c) the identified quadrant of the city in which
the designation is located.
Specific siting for such facilities shall be accomplished by a
change of zone, specific plan adoption, or master plan approval for
developments in the Planned Community zone or other similar actions
adopted by ordinance after duly noticed public .hearings."
EXHIBIT "A"
Memorandum f • • _ >
July 26, 1978 ^ . \ V
Page Three (3) •
approved for the following reason:
It is both necessary and desirable to have the
requirement of amending the General Plan be the
first step when locating primary utility functions.
If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the "floating
site" concept, their action would be to approve the attached
Exhibit A.
If the Commission wishes to approve the "fixed site" concept,
their action would be to approve the attached Exhibit B.
MZ: le
Attachments: Exhibits A and B
Staff Report, dated July 12, 1978
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
(GPA-53)
SECTION I: The land use element of the Carlsbad General
Plan is amended by the amendment of Chapter IV, Section (C) (6)
Public Utilities, at Page 28, to read as follows:
"(6) Public Utilities. The General Plan contemplates
that primary public" utility facilities will be located in areas
that are classified U (Public Utilities). This category of
land use designates areas, both existing and proposed, to be
used for public or quasi-public functions such as the generation
of electrical energy, treatment or disposal of waste water, public
agency maintenance storage and operating facilities, or other
primary utility functions designed to serve all or a substantial
portion of the community."
EXHIBIT "B"
r
STAFF REPORT
PATE:
TO:
FROM:
CASE NO:
APPLICANT:
''SUBJECT:
July 12, 1978
Planning Commission
Planning Department
GPA-53
City of Carlsbad
Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General
Plan to revise the text regarding the public
utility description to provide siting of both
existing and future facilities.
BACKGROUND
*
The City Council at their April 18, 1978 meeting, initiated a
.General Plan Amendment to provide for the siting of a satelite
.sewage treatment plants and directed staff to draft the
'appropriate amendments. The present description of the public
utility designation (page -28 of the Land Use Element) reads as
follows:
This category of land use designates areas -
currently being used for public and quasi-public
functions such as power generation, energy
transmission, and sewage treatment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT INFORMATION
A declaration of Negative (Non-significant Environmental Effect
has been issued for this project based on the following findings
1) The project'is an administrative matter that will have
minimal direct impact on the environment.
2) Any particular public utility facility proposal will come
under individual environmental review.
DISCUSSION .'.'.!
i
The proposed project is an amendment to the Carlsbad General
Plan Land Use Element to revise text regarding public utility
description, to provide siting of both existing and future
facilities. The City Council directed amendment expands the
present, definition of "Public Utilities" to include the general
location of future sites as well as those currently being used.
STAFF REPORT - GPA-t>3
JULY 12, 1978
PAGE TWO (2)
This GPA will provide for the general siting of satelite sewage
treatment plants, such as the reclamation plant proposed in the
Calavera Hills development. That particular project, and any
others to be developed in the future, will be thoroughly reviewed
for environmental impact on an individual basis. The proposed
GPA creates the possibility of a "floating" Public Utilities
designation, but does not identify a specific site.
The General Plan Amendment is an administrative action that
establishes policy direction for the legislative body, but does
not in itself directly impact the environment. Any proposal
for a particular public utility facility would be individually
reviewed for environmental effect.
'RECOMMENDATION'
Staff recommends that GPA-?53 be APPROVED as set forth in
Exhibit "A", attached, for the following reasons:
1) It is both necessary and desirable to have the requirement
of amending the General Plan be the first step when locating
primary utility functions. •' -
Attachment " ••
Exhibit "A"
.2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
(GPA-53)
SECTION 1: The land -use element of the Carlsbad General
Plan is amended by the amendment of Chapter IV, Section (C) (6)
Public Utilities, at Page .28, to read as follows:
"(6) Public Utilities. The General Plan contemplates
that primary public utility facilities will be located in areas
that are classified U (Public Utilities). This category of land
use designates areas, both existing and proposed, to be used for
public or quasi-public functions such as the generation of
electrical energy, treatment or disposal of waste water, public
agency maintenance storage and operating facilities, or other
..primary utility functions designed to serve all or a substantial
portion of the community. Sites delineated with precise boundaries
represent existing sites or sites which have precisely been fixed
by General Plan Amendment. Sites identified with a circular
P-U symbol do not represent specific locations. Such a designation
indicates that the land use element of the general plan contemplates
that a public utility facility will be located in the future in
that general area. Specific siting for such facilities shall
be accomplished by a change of zone, specific plan adoption or
master plan approval for developments in the Planned Community
Zone or other similar actions adopted by ordinance after duly
noticed public hearings."
EXHIBIT "A"
1200 ELM AVENUE El £$7 , f:3 TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 llfcfcil/tf M 1714)729-1181
•PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERSAugust 9, 1978 Citp of Carteba&
PAGE ONE (1) C
I.. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Rombotis. -
II. ROLL 'CALL - Chairman Rombotis introduced the new Commissioner Mary
Marcus, who will be present but not voting at this
meeting.
• •
All other Commissioners were in attendance
' III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 26, 1978
A motion passed approving the minutes of July 26, 1978 upon the
correction of two typographical errors.
APPROVED
MOTION: Jose • •
SECOND: Larson
AYES: L'Heureux, Jose, Larson, Schick
ABSTAIN: Rombotis, Wrench
J.V. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS ' --
.A motion passed approving Resolution No. 1457, GPA-52, Sewer Service
Availability. .
APPROVED
MOTION: Jose
SECOND: Larson
AYES: L'Heureux, Jose, Rombotis, Larson, Schick, Wrench
A motion passed approving Resolution No. 1458, ZCA-98, Public
Facilities.
•
APPROVED . "
MOTION: Larson
SECOND: Jose
AYES: L'Heureux, Jose, Rombotis, Larson, Schick, Wrench
V
A motion passed approving Resolution No. 1459, V-282, John McDonald.
APPROVED
MOTION: . Larson
SECOND: Schick
AYES: Jose, Larson, Schick
ABSTAIN: L'Heureux, Rombotis, Wrench
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 9, 1978 — ' ' '
PAGE TWO (2)
A motion passed approving Resolution No. 1460, CUP-42(F), Herb Motz.
APPROVED
MOTION:. Jose
rye;: SECOND: schick
AYES: Jose, Larson, Schick
abstain; L'Heureux, Rombotis, Wrench
A motion passed approving Resolution No. 1461, Village Area Redevelop-
ment Plan. •
APPROVED
MOTION: L'Heureux
SECOND: Jose
AYES: L'Heureux, Jose, Wrench, Schick
ABSTAIN: Larson, Rombotis
A motion passed approving Resolution No. 1462, Village Area Redevelopment
Plan.
APPROVED
MOTION: L'Heureux
SECOND: Jose
•AYES: L'Heureux,.Jose, Wrench, Schick
ABSTAIN: Rombotis, Larson
v. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .
Mr. Plender related that there was an item of business to be discussed
under New Business, i.e. the proposed LAFCO agricultural lands policy.
•
VI. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS .
A. GPA-53, Public Utility Revision
Commissioner Jose related that due to the fact that; the tapes of the
first public hearing dealing with this matter were unavailable, he
will abstain from voting.
*
Chairman Rombotis related that he has listened to the tapes of the
public hearing and therefore feels qualified to vote on the matter.
Mr. Mike Zander gave the staff presentation.
Mr. Roy Ward, 3088 Pio Pico, Carlsbad, related that in order to
afford City government the maximum flexibility in the siting of public
facilities, and in the interest of neighboring residences, the
floating "U" designation should be restricted to certain areas, and not
outside the drainage basin. He therefore agreed with staff recommen-
dation of approval of Exhibit B, in lieu of the origianl proposed Exhibit
• A.
Mr. Steve Kissick, 7912 Las Nueces Place, representing Move the Sewage
Plant Corporation, expressed concern over the floating site concept
and urged maximum "people protection" efforts. He further indicated
that his corporation feels no sewage treatment plant should be sited closer
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUT~* -
August 9, 1978
PAGE THREE (3)
:
; than 3000 feet from existing residences,- and indicated that recently
Leucadia County Water District had agreed to a 2500 foot limit. He
related that the fixed site proposal would give the populace at least
a general citing area for such wastewater treatment and thus alleviate
the element of surprize. He strongly urged the 800 to 950 meter buffer
zone between such a plant and the nearest residence.
Mr. Harold Clark, 824 Caminita del Reposo, indicated that he would
increase such a buffer zone to 1 to 1% miles.
Mr. Roily Ham, 2804 La Gran Via, noted several reports indicating the
sewage treatment plants are more often than not detrimental to neighboring
residential areas and that all plants emit odors.
Mr. Roy Ward, 3088 Pio Pico, reiterated that the City of Carlsbad is
•out of sewer capacity and therefore is in serious trouble. He noted that
those sewage treatment facilities with related problems are normally
those facilities which were built a number of years ago and without
the advanced technology available today. He stated that to impose a
buffer zone as referenced above would condemn thousands of acres of
Carlsbad from developing. •
THERE BEING NO FURTHER TESTIMONY THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Larson reminded those present that this particular General
. N Plan Amendment applied to not only sewage treatment plants, But to
public services in general.
Commissioner L'Heureux noted that1 possibly -there should be some sort
of determination as to the types of compatible uses surrounding the
Public Utility Zone, i.e. commercial," residential, etc.
Commissioner Wrench pointed out that there is always the possibility of
some odor and therefor the due process of debate, deliberation should
be precisely spelled out so that no actual citing could take place
without the full public hearing procedure. He felt that the terminology
of the proposed amendment was. too strong, the quadrant to large and the
reference to the sub drainage basin to ambiguous.
Commissioner Schick expressed his agreement with Commissioner Wrench's
comments.
Commissioner Larson indicated the need for a separation between sewage
treatment plant siting and other public facilities.
•
A motion was approved forwarding staff's recommended Exhibit A General
Plan Amendment (GPA-53) to the City Council with the following
modifications:
1. Any mandating language should be revised to conditional qualification
language with express provisions for public evaluation, debate, etc.
2. The floating designation should be restricted only to sewage
treatment facilities.
August 9, 1978 • •
PAGE FOUR (4) - . -, • ; . . '
• *
i 3. The one kilometer radius of the designation is accepted.
3 as a means of defining the area.
4. The final paragraph should contain conditional language
requiring public hearing, debate and due process prior to
any actual siting.
Commissioner Wrench will meet with staff later this week to finalize
the exact wording of said resolution.
APPROVED
MOTION: Wrench .
SECOND: Larson
AYES: L'Heureux, Rombotis, Larson, Schick, Wrench
ABSTAIN: Jose
B. GPA-Sl(B), Lake Calavera Hills . "
Commissioner L'Heureux related that because he has represented landowners
who have property contigious to, or who are in the same drainage basin
as the project, he will abstain from voting.
Commissioner Jose related that due to the fact that there are no tapes
. -available on the subject proposal he will abstain from voting.
Mr. Mike Zander presented the staff report.
Commissioner Larson questioned staff as to the method of public
noticing for such projects. - -
« •
Mr. Zander answered that a public notice is sent to the newspaper and
also to all property owners within a 300 foot radius. In this particular
case he also contacted interested proproperty owners beyond the normal
300 foot radius.
0 ' •
Steve Kissick, 7912 Las Nueces Place, indicated that while the one
kilometer radius is an arbitrary measure, it also just happens to include
all the best possible sites for a sewage treatment facility in the Lake
Calavera Hills project. He noted that the edge of the radius intersects
with Rancho Carlsbad and that in some instances the plant would be located
in the resident's backyard. He-once again stressed the importance of
people protection.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER TESTIMONY THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
A motion was approved denying applicant's proposed Exhibit A, and
.. ' approving staff's recommended Exhibit B, dated July 21, 1978 attached
hereto.
APPROVED .
MOTION: Larson . ' •
SECOND: Schick1 . AYES: Rombotis, Larson, Wrench, Schick
ABSTAIN: L'Heureux, Jose .
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 9, 1978 ' . . -• • '
Page Five (5)
'I. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS '
A. CUP-154, Pacific Telephone
Mr. Don Rose presented the staff report.
Mr.•Don Payne, representing Pacific Telephone, indicated his
' concurrence with the staff report and urged commission approval.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER TESTIMONY THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
A motion passed approving CUP-154 to permit expansion of existing .
telephone compnay electronic switching facilities as per staff's
recommendation.
APPROVED
MOTION: Larson _
SECOND: L'Heureux
AYES: L'Heureux, Jose, Rombotis, Larson, Wrench, Schick
B. V-283, Bruce Pahl
•Ms. Justine McGill, 4340 Highland, related that another property in the
same neighborhood had recently been denied a similar request. She
wondered if- a rezoning was in.order fur such types of projects.
Chairman Rombotis answered that the neighbor is welcome to reapply
after one year and staff must accept a variance application even if
• denial is assurred. :_...
A motion passed continuing this public hearing item until the August
23, 1978 meeting to allow the applicant to submit a revised tentative
parcel map.
— —-APPROVED """ '
MOTION: Jose ...
SECOND: L'Heureux
-....• AYES: L'Heureux, Jose, Rombotis, Larson, Wrench, Schick
VIII..'NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Bud Plender presented the draft agricultural lands policy from
• the Local Agency Formation Commission for commission review and input.
Mr. James Hagaman, Planning-Director/ related that if the commission
desired, staff would give an update on the status of the Agua
Hedionda project.
The commission indicated that would like such an update.
IX. There being no further business Commissioner Jose motioned to adjourn
the meeting, Commissioner Wrench seconded the motion and the meeting
adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
ms "
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
RE: GPA-53
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing at the City Council
Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 7:30 P.M.
on Tuesday, September 19, 1978, to consider an amendment to
the Land Use Element of the General Plan by revising the text
of the Land Use Element regarding public utility description
to provide siting of both existing and future facilities.
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLISH: September 6, 1978 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 12, 1978
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1978,
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.
As per State Law and City Policy, the general plan may be amended
only three times a year. To meet this restriction general plan
amendments (GPA's) are sometimes grouped at one public hearing.
This is generally the case at the September 19, 1978, City
Council meeting where there are three GPA's scheduled (one GPA
is in two parts giving a total of 4 actions).
Two of the GPA's are interrelated dealing with land use with
satelite sewer treatment plant siting (GPA-51) and the text
amendment that would permit siting of such sewer plants (GPA-53).
The other amendment (GPA-52) also deals with sewer, but in an
altogether different manner. This amendment clarifies the cities
position as to the availability of sewer on a City wide basis.
It is a companion action to ZCA-98, which is also on the agenda
for adoption of documents.
The following is a synopsis of these amendments in the order as
they should be considered by the City Council.
GPA-53. Siting of satelite sewer treatment plants. This amendment
modifies the text of the land use element permitting the City
to site both existing and proposed public facilities on the land
use map. The proposed siting may "float" within a described area
not exceeding one kilometer from the spot on the land use map.
This will provide flexibility in specific siting at time of
development. GPA-53 needs to be adopted to provide for the
consideration of any future public facility sites.
GPA-51, Land use amendment at Lake Calavera Hills development
areas. This action is actually in three parts which are as
follows:
EIR.'-4Q3 . Prior to any action of GPA^Sl,
the City Council must certify the EIR, This
EIR is the environmental document for both
GPA-51 and the subsequent master plan presently
being considered by the Planning Commission.
GPA-51(A). This action is for land use in
subject area except for the location of the
proposed sewer treatment plant.
GPA-51(B). Is the separate action for the
locating of the proposed sewer treatment
plant. This action ties in with GPA-53 in
that 53 permits the City to consider such
facilities and 51-(B) is the actual siting.
GPA-53 must be approved before the City could
GPA-52 Sewer service availability. As stated earlier GPA-52
is connected to ZCA-98, not to any of the other GPA's.
BP/ar
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Cttp of Cartebab
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TELEPHONE:
(714)729-1181
TO: COUNTY CLERK
County of San Diego
220 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES
1416 Ninth Street
Room 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814
LOG NO. 483
PROJECT TITLE:GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PROJECT ADDRESS: Entire Sphere of Influence
PERMIT APPLICANT:CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
WILL/MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
STATUS OF. PROJECT
\±br APPROVED
DENIED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NONE COMPLETED PURSUANT TO CEQA
COMPLETED PURSUANT TO CEQA
D
D
A copy of the (Tffiegative Declaration [~"j EIR with supporting
documents is available for public review at the Planning Department,
City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
DATE; 4— d
y /Planning Directo
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY
DATE: June 20, 1978
TO: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
FRCM: Dave Abrams, Assistant Planner ^
SUBJECT: GPA-53, PUBLIC UTILITY REVISION*, ENVIRCNMEMMj REVIEW,
LOG NO. 483
The proposed project is an amendment to the Carlsbad General Plan Land
Use Element to revise text regarding public utility description, to
provide siting of both existing and future facilities. The City Council
directed amendment expands the present definition of "Public Utilities"
to include the general location of future sites as well as those currently
being used.
This GPA will provide for the general siting of satellite sewage treatment
plants, such as the reclamation plant proposed in the Calavera Hills
development. That particular project, and any others to be developed in
the future, will be thoroughly reviewed for environmental impact on an
individual basis. The proposed GPA creates the possibility of a "floating"
Public Utilities designation, but does not identify a specific site.
The General Plan Amendment "is an administrative action that establishes
policy direction for the legislative body, but does not in itself directly
impact the environment. Any proposal for a particular public utility
facility would be individually reviewed for environmental effect.
RECOMMENDATIOM
It is recommended a Declaration of Negative (Non-Significant) Environmental
Effect be made regarding this project. ,
JUSTIFICATION
The project is an administrative matter that will have minimal direct
impact on the environment. Any particular public utility facility
proposal will come under individual environmental review.
DA/ms
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ORDINANCE OF 1972
DECLARATION OF NEGATIVE (NON-SIGNIFICANT) ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT
* •
APPLICANT City of Carlsbad '
•
TYPE OF APPLICATION: General Plan Amendment " •
PERMIT AND/OR FILE NO GPA-53
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR: - "
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Council directed amendment to revise text of land use element
regarding public utility description to provide siting of both existing and future •
. facilities.
PROJECT LOCATION Entire sphere of influence ' _____ -
I declare that I have examined the information for the above project
as submitted by the applicant, and on the basis of the Environmental
Impact Assessment questionnaire on file in my office as a public docume
it is my determination that this project will not have any significant
tmpact upon the environment within the meaning of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the Environmental Protection
Ordinance of 1972 for the following reasons:- '._*"•
» . •' •
The project is an administrative matter that will have minimal "direct •
• ' f
• "impact on the environment. 'Any particular public utility facility proposal' ."
* *
• -vri.11 come under- individual environmental review.
The Environmental Impact Assessment will be available for public
revtew and comment for five working days after date of publication*
DATED
~^L^A+vS.^y ( _ ^j^l^g^g^^y^fiESC. HJfVGAMTtNJxPI ajmfingT Di recTbr
E.I.S. Log No. 483
Rev. 3/16/77
FORM PLANNING 42
NOTICE OF DECLARATION OF
NONSIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Carlsbad has issued Negative
Declarations for the following projects:
1. File No. ZCA-98. Zone Code Amendment that will require sewer
availability before the City can issue development entitlements.
2. File No. ZCA-97. The proposed amendment will revise the P-U
Zone to make sewage treatment plants a permitted use and at
the same time amend the zoning code to clarify that utility
uses in other zones are limited to accessory uses.
3. File No. ZCA-87. Zone Code Amendment pertaining to the
definition of "Lot Width" for reversed, pie-shaped lots.
4. File No. GPA-52. The proposed project is an amendment to the
Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element to recognize the fact
that sewer service is essentially unavailable in the City.
5. File No. GPA-55. The proposed project is an amendment to the
Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element to revise text regarding
public utility description, to provide siting of both existing
and future facilities. -
A copy of the subject Negative Declarations with supportive information is
available for public review at the Planning Department, City Hall, 1200
Elm Avenue. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments
in writing to the Planning Department by July 3, 1978.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM
Receipt No.jA^ EIA NO. 7 03
Date:
Name of Applicant; rT* &¥="
Address:
Permit Applied For : <<=EI^J^J\L_ P/LAti
Case Nos.:
Location of Proposed Acti vi ty;
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1., Give a brief description of the proposed activity (attach
any preliminary development plans).
2. Describe the activity area, including distinguishing
natural and manmade characteristics; also provide precise
slope analysis when appropriate.
TVte CcrY
3. Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into
the design and/or operation of the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM
II. Environmental Impact Analysis
Answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate
space.
Yes No
1. Could the project significantly change present land uses
in the vicinity of the activity?
•
2. Could the activity affect the use of a recreational
area, or area of important aesthetic value?
3. Could the activity affect the functioning of an . .
established community or neighborhood? M
4. Could the activity result in the displacement of
community residents?
5. Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity M
. area unique, that is, not'found in other parts of the t
County, State, or nation?-
6. .Could the activity significantly affect a historical or
archaelogical site or its setting? .
'* Could the activity significantly affect the potential
use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural, res-
ource? .
8. Does the activity area serve as a habitat, food source
nesting place, source of water, etc. for-rare or endangered
wildlife oivflsh species? \/s^1
9. Could the activity significantly affect fish, wildlife or ^
plant life? . f*..
10. Are there any rare or endangered plant species in the
activity .area? . '
11. Could the activity change existing features of any.of ,
the city's lagoons, bays* or tidelands? • • ' Su
12. Could the activity change existing features of any of • .
the City's beaches? >C
13. Could the activity result in the erosion or elimination
of .agricultural lands? '^
14. Could the activity serve to encourage development of
.presently undeveloped areas or intensify development
of already developed areas?
No
15. Will- the activity require a variance from established environmental
standards (air, water, noise, etc)?
16. Will the activity require certification, authorization or issuance
of a permit by any. local, State or Federal environmental control
agency?
17. Will the activity require issuance of a variance or conditional
use permit by the City?
18. Will the activity involve the application, use, or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials?
19. Will the activity involve construction of facilities in a flood
•plain?
20. Will the activity involve construction of facilities on a slope of
25 percent or greater? .
21. Will the activity involve construction of facilities in the .^
area of an active fault? YJ
22. Could the activity result in the generation of significant
amounts of noise?
23. Could the activity result in the generation of significant
amounts of dust?
24. Will the activity involve the burning of brush, trees, or
other materials? • .
25. Could the activity result in a significant change in the .
quality of any portion of the region's air or water resources?
(Should note surface, ground water, off-shore).
26. Will there be a significant change to existing land form?
(a) indicate estimated grading to be done in cubic yards._
(b) percentage of alteration to the present land form.
(c) maximum height of cut or fill slopes.
.27. Will the activity result in substantial increases in the use of utilities,
sewers, drains or streets?
III. State of No Significant Environmental Effects
If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in Section II but you
think the activity will have no significant environmental effects, indicate your
reasons below:
IV: Comments or Elaborations to Any of the Questions in Section II.
(If additional space is needed for answering .any questions, attach additional
sheets as may be needed.)
Signature
Date Signed:
.,^_erson completing report)
Conclusions (To be completed by the Planning Director). Place a check
in the appropriate box.
(') Further information is required.
( ) It has been determined that the project will not have significant
environmental effects. ( ) You. must submit a preliminary environmental
impact statement by the following date . . ( ) You
• should make an appointment with the Planning Director to discuss
further processing of your project, in accordance with Chapter 19.04
of the Municipal Code.
DATE RECEIVED: (,-'l£,-
ning Director, or,
Revised 7-/S/74
FORM PLANNING 40
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 15, 1978
TO: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
FROM: Mike Zander, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment for Public Utilities.
Page 28 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan contains
the description of the "Public Utilities" designation as
follows:
This category of land use designates areas
currently being used for public and quasi-
public functions such as power generation,
energy transmission, and sewage treatment.
In order to expand this definition to include future facilitieSj
I would suggest the following wording:
This category of landfluse designates areas, both
existing and proposed, to be used for public
and quasi-public functions such as power
generation, sewage treatment, or other pri- *
mary utility functions. Sites delineated with
precise boundaries represent existing sites
and sites shown with a circular symbol represent
the general location of future sites to be
confirmed at time of development.
I suggest that this amendment be considered at the same time
as the GPA to be requested by Calavera Hills for their reclama-
tion plant. Please review this wording and let me know what
you think.
MZ:sb
MEMORANDUM lUSUflJBOSQ BU|UU8|d
DATE: May 25, 1978
IT
TO: Planning Director
Planning Dapartment
PROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RE SITING OF
SATELLITE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
The City Council at their April 18, 1978 meeting
initiated a general plan amendment to provide for the
siting of satellite sewage treatment plants and directed
staff to draft the appropriate amendments . We have met
and discussed the matter and I have incorporated the
substance of your . suggestions as contained in Mike Zander's
memorandum of May 15, 1978. The resolution amending the
general plan should incorporate the substance of the follow-
ing:
SECTION 1: The land use element of the Carlsbad
General Plan is amended by the amendment of Chapter IV,
Section (C) (6) Public Utilities, at Page 28, to read as
follows :
"(6) Public Utilities. The General Plan
-•vwft e<~ J&&^-jp£Zjs&x&-^^
Thi s
category of land use designates areas, both existing and
proposed, to be used for public or quasi-public functions
such as the generation of electrical energy , treatment or
disposal of waste water, public agency maintenance storage
and operating facilities, or other primary utility functions
designed to serve all or a substantial portion of the
community. Sites delineated with precise boundaries
represent existing sites or sites which have precisely
been fixed by General Plan amendment. Sites identified
with a circular P-U symbol do not represent specific
locations. Such a designation indicates that the land
use element of the general plan contemplates that a public
utility facility will be located in the future in that
general area. Specific siting for such facilities shall
Planning Director -2- May 25, 1978
be accomplished by a change of zone, specific plan
adoption or master plan approval for developments in
the Planned Community Zone or other similar actions
adopted by ordinance after duly noticed public hearings."
In the course of reviewing Section (6) regarding public
utilities, we also had occasion to discuss Section (5)
regarding governmental facilities. I would suggest that
this section be amended along the same lines as the
public utilities section. Section (5) has the same
problems, dealing only with currently used areas and con-
taining no provisions other than amendment for siting
governmental facilities in the future.
Please review the draft amendment and in the course of that
review you may want to submit it for comments to the
representatives of Calavera Hills since they will be the
parties most immediately affected by the amendment. Unless
you have any changes to suggest as a result of such a
review, I will assume you will take the steps necessary
to set the matter to public hearing before the Planning
Commission. ~
VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR.
City Attorney
VFB/mla