HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-13; Planning Commission; Minutes-
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF CARLSBAD February 13, 1980
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chairman Schick.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairman Schick, Commissioners Rombotis, Leeds, Marcus, Larson, Friestedt, Jose
NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
Ex Officio members present: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director, Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney
Staff present: Bill Hofman, Karen Lee, Brian Milich, Charles Grimm, Joyce Crosthwaite
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was led by Chairman Schick.
AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Hofman requested that items 3 and 4 on the agenda be moved up and heard after the Commission decided on a date and time to consider the Housing Element, and the Chair concurred.
Chairman Schick explained to the audience the procedure of the hearing and advised the applicants of their rights of appeal to the City Council.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Housing Element Mr. Hofman suggested possible dates to which this item could be continued and places where it could be held, but not being certain of the availability of the library, Commissioner Rombotis suggested that this item be taken up again later in the meeting. i?
B. CT 79-23/CP-32, Kupfer, 18 unit condominium development on Altisma Way in La Costa.
0
I
I
-
Staff Report Mr. Hofman advised the Commission that the applicant had redesigned the project and submitted new plans which staff had not had time to complete a total review of and therefore recommended that this item be continued to February 27, 1980 at which time staff would be prepared with a recommendation, Mr. Hofman further advised the Commission that the applicant, although not present, was in agreement with the continuance.
Motion:: A motion was made to continue CT 79-23/CP-32, Kupfer, to February 27, 1980.
MOTION: Jose SECOND: Romotis AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Jose, Leeds, Marcus,Friestedt, Larson
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CUP-88(B), Hall, Request for an addition of a storage build- ing to an existing dismantling and impound yard located on the west side of Tyler between Oak and Walnut.
Staff Report: Ms. Karen Lee presented the staff report, advising the Commission that staff was recommending approval of CUP-88(B), with conditions as stated in the staff report, plus an additional condition, #ll, which would require the removal of all lean-to, temporary or illegal structures from the proposed building.
Commissioner Jose questioned if the review period would remain the same, every five years from the approval date of the present application, and Ms. Lee replied that it would be from the approval date of the original application.
Chairman Schick questioned whether or not Condition #4 was redundant, since the property was in the redevelopment area, in that staff would have no legal stance to oppose any improvement district within the redevelopment area. Ms. Lee said that while that may be true, the condition was required by the Engineering Department. Mr. Hofman added that it was a condition required by the Engineering Department and with no objection from the Redevelopment Department. Mr. Dan Hentschke added that it was also a means of waiving property owner protests that may come up in the future.
2
Applicant Presentation Matt Hall, 2631 Galatia, Carlsbad
Mr. Hall stated that he was in full agreement with the staff report, excepting the condition regarding lean-to's, which he felt was unjustly included at the last minute. Chairman Schick apologized to the applicant for the late- ness of the addition and inuqired of staff what they had in mind. Ms. Lee informed the Commission that it referred to a small enclosed patio behind the existing building which did not have a building permit and was not included in the CUP application and was therefore illegal and should be removed. Mr. Hall questioned whether it was a building and indicated that it was merely a covering used dur- ing the rainy season which was not visable from the street. He admitted not having a building permit for it and stated that it was probably no more than 500 square feet and that it had been there as long as the building. He questioned why he was not previously advis- ed of this concern and why it was added at the last minute. He concluded that he had worked closely with staff and agreed with all of their other conditions, but felt that this last one should not be made an issue of.
Commissioner Rombotis asked staff if the structure was permittable and Ms. Lee advised him that the Building Code required a building permit for any structure over 200 square feet. Commissioner Rombotis then asked the appli- cant if he felt that it needed a building permit and Mr. Hall answered that it had been there for 7 or 8 years. Commissioner Friestedt then asked whether the new build- ing code was implemented before or after the structure was put up. Ms. Lee indicated that staff was referring to the 1976 Uniform Building Code. Mr. Hofman suggested that staff might rather add a condition that instead of removing the structure, the applicant would have to apply for and receive a building permit for it, and only have to remove it if he was unable to meet the UBC requirements.
Mr. Hall indicated that he felt the structure was only 200 square feet and that it was a trivial item.
Chairman Schick said that he resisted the condition and would poll the commission on it. Chairman Schick further stated that he felt it was unfair to the applicant, the way it was handled, and that there were other ways the city could take corrective action in the normal course of events.
3
Commissioner Rombotis indicated he would strike the condition and the remainder of the commissioners agreed. Commissioner Rombotis stated that the building depart- ment could demand a building permit. Commissioner Jose added that any structure had to have a building permit even before the 1976 adoption of the recent code, but that he would strike the condition because he could sympathize with the applicant and also felt it was unfair to add it so late. Commissioner Larson said that he would prefer to have the building department handle it, but he wondered if that would mean another amendment to the CUP. Chairman Schick said that would depend on the applicant's reactions, but that he felt the applicant would comply with the building requirements and that the building department or engineering could take care of it.
Public Input Mr. Jack Swern, 7217 San Lucas, Carlsbad, questioned whether or not this would set a precedent in the event a structure was alleged to have been constructed prior the the 1976 Code and thus not enforceable by the City. Mr. Hentschke answered that it would not set a precedent; there were a number of ways to make non-conforming buildings comply, depending on the circumstances.
Motion: A motion was made to approve CUP-88(B) with existing conditions, striking condition 11.
MOTION: Friestedt SECOND: Marcus AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Jose, Leeds, Marcus, Friestedt, Larson CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Housing Element, After receiving word back on the availabil- ity of the library, the Commission continued to discuss a date and time to continue this item. Mr. Hentschke suggest- ed that if a time and place could not be decided, that the item be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting where public input could be taken or it could be renoticed, and he voiced concern that it be noticed properly so that public input could be taken. Mr. Hentchke further indicated that as far as time constraints in adopting the Housing Element, they were established by the State Housing and Com- munity Development Department and that as far as the City Attorney was concerned, it could be extended because the
4
city was diligently pursuing its' adoption, so there was no problem from a legal standpoint.
Mr. Jack Swern, 7217 San Lucas, Carlsbad, indicated that he had come specifically to discuss the Housing Element and was distressed over its continuance, since it was on the agenda to be discussed. Mr. Hentschke said that in order to be fair to all the citizens who had come to discuss this item, perhaps their comments could be taken now if they felt they could not come on the 27th. Chairman Schick indicated his willingness to go along with that. Commission- er Rombotis suggested that the audience be informed that on the 27th, a meeting time and place to discuss it would be decided, but that the item would probably not be discussed thereafter. Those interested citizens could be notified by mail of the actual date of discussion rather than coming to the meeting of the 27th.
Mr. Joe Bastone, 7225 San Lucas, Carlsbad, asked the Chairman if the Commission didn't in fact have to report back tothe City Council in three weeks and was informed that was not the case. Mr. Bastone expressed further concern over whether the members of the Commission had even read the Housing Element. Commissioner Rombotis assured him that he, at least, had and Chairman Schick closed the discus- sion.
MOTION: A motion was made to continue the Housing Element to February 27, 1980.
MOTION: Rombotis SECOND: Marcus AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Jose, Leeds, Marcus, Friestedt, Larson
C. CP-36, Shape11 Industries of San Diego, Inc. 119 unit condo- minium development on Piragua and Venado Street
Staff Report: Mr. Brian Milich presented the staff report, advising the Commission that staff had recommended denial of this item because the units created the outward appearance of single- family dwellings, yet the basic amenities were not provided, stating that the January 29, 1980 design submitted by the applicant was the best design to date, but that still staff felt the applicant had not gone far enough in utilizing the majority of the property. Mr. Milich also asked that the Commission delete finding 2(d) as it was adequately addressed in finding 1.
__ .f Chairman Schick noted that the applicant had come a long way and asked whether staff was still working with him. Mr. Milich expressed the opinion that he felt the applicant had come as far as he was willing to come at this time. Commissioner Rombotis questioned what the difficulty was with the parking, ,in that the .applicant seemed to meet the parking requirements. Mr. Milich replied that his objection was that in order to provide accessible visitor parking, the applicant was proposing a number of--parking spaces off of the private driveways; in many cases, located directly in front of a number of attached units, so that you have a very small rear yard with parking taking up what used to be the front yard. Commissioner Rombotis said that he felt the applicant had set the houses back an excessive distance and that it seemed staff was having a difficult time articulating exactly what their problem is because, in fact, they just don't like the design of the project. Commissioner Rombotis further stated that he didn't feel the problem. was one of density or parking or anything other than design, and that staff should try to articulate exactly what they wanted.
/
Commissioner Jose asked that the record reflect that he was absent at the January 9th meeting and therefore was not privy to what was discussed at that meeting, although he had read the January 9th applications, the January 9th minutes and the revisions made thereto.
Applicant' Presentation :
Mr. Y. R. Effinger, President of Shape11 Industries of San Diego.
Mr. Effinger gave a brief background on the project, stating that he had acquired the property in 1977, 21 complete lots fully graded, and had been told that it would be okay to build condo's on each of the individual lots as they related to the then existing ordinances. He stated that they have been in the planning stage ever since, submit- ting more plans to the City of Carlsbad than all of the plans he had worked on in the County of San Diego in six years. He stated he had used three architects, $300,000 in design fees, $200,000 in engineering fees, and still was not any further than he was in 1977. He agreed with Commissioner Rombotis that it would be helpful if staff could tell him just what they want and he commented on the fact that there had been a frequent turn over in staff since 1977. He then informed the Commission that the gentleman now working on the project was-with the County for 27 years, Chief Zoning Administrator, and he under- stands the process and even he was frustrated. He
P. C. Minutes 2/13/80 Page 6
-
further stated that he felt he had a marketable product that would be good for the community and he was willing to do anything the city would like him to do. He admitted that the design was not a very good one but that it had been changed to meet city specifications many times. He said maybe the city staff had reached a stalemate but that Shape11 had not and was more than willing to address itself to city specifications if the city would only articulate them. He further stated that because a condo is not attached, does not mean it is not a condo and went on to cite examples.
Chairman Schick sympathized with the applicant's frustrations and noted that this was the second time it was before the Commission. He said he felt he spoke for the Commission when he said he would like for the applicant to get a marketable product. He said he felt it seemed as though there was an open door still for the applicant to work with staff. Mr. Effinger then stated that one of the difficulties might be that in looking at the Master Plan of La Costa, no longer does it resemble what the Master Plan was and perhaps the Commission should take a tour of the area to see what the actual complexion of the area is now. Chairman Schick informed the applicant that all of the Commissioners had been out to the site and had a feel for it.
Mr. Effinger again stated that Shape11 was willing to work with staff but was having difficulty understanding what staff wanted and that perhaps it was a problem of semantics, particularly when one of their complaints was that it was not attached, and he challenged the statement that it is not compat- ible with the design criteria stating that what Shape11 was proposing was condo lifestyle in a single family type structure.
Commissioner Larson stated that he agreed with Commissioner Rombotis and felt that the issue of density could be dropped altogether. He also said he didn't feel the problem was the side yard, the front yard, or the visitor parking. He stated he was concerned about the very small sideyards separating units which give it, maybe, this substandard single family appearance. Mr. Effinger then asked Mr. Beights to handle the particular questions from the Commission.
Mr. Voyd Beights addressed the Commission and referred to a drawing of the project which he placed on the board to show the guest parking, explaining that they tried to dispurse the guest parking throughout the development and that Shape11 opted for shorter driveways rather than cutting back on land- scaping. He suggested that perhaps the Commission could have more latitude in taking a broader interpretation of the ordinance in question than would staff.
7
Referring back to Commissioner Larson's question about the sideyards in between the detached units, Mr. Beights said that on a map of this scale, the side yards do look very small, but that they were 10 feet and that 90% of the single family dwellings in San Diego observe either 3 or 4 feet side yards and that if Shape11 agreed with staff and glued those together, or put 3 or 4 of them together, then they would have no separation other than a common wall.
Regarding on-site amenities, Mr. Beights said he'd like to emphasize the topographic restrictions involved which made standard detached single family subdivision sort of amenities impossible. He informed the Commission that Shape11 felt that they had provided alot of recreational areas and that they were flexible in that regard. He said they had already made arrangements with the gas and electric company and with La Costa to put in a path to gain access to La Costa Canyon Park and they feel that all of the recreational areas, plus the yards they are providing, will be ample open space for the people who live there. He asked for guidance from the Commission and/or staff Commissioner Marcus indicated that she felt that if pools and spas were put in, it would be a headache for the home- owners association. She then asked if the condos were only actually clustered in Phase 2 and Mr. Beifhts answered yes, but that the original plan was to inter- sperse a fourplex but staff suggested that they try to condense them and concentrate them in one area. He said that he wasn't pleased with it either, but that it was the best place they could hide the cluster and the site was not conducive to big buildings. Commissioner Rombotis indicated that he'd like to see attached units throughout the project because he agreed with staff that it was a little cluttered looking. Mr. Effinger said that the grouping bothered the engineers because it would be difficult to get the cars in and out of the garages. Commissioner Rombotis further stated that the driveway that is a little longer would not bother him, but but the intent was to provide circulation.
Commissioner Friestedt stated that he could find no grounds for disapproval in finding #l. On the 2nd find- ing, the design criteria would be the only question that he would have. On finding 2A, he felt that the Commission had to consider that this is a condo development and in light of that, the integration of land, open space and the buildings should be done with landscaping and the developer is attempting to do that. If the Commission had a problem with that, Commissioner Friestedt said they should define very clearly for the developer and
8
that it should be broken down so it creates something desireable. He did not feel that it created a sub- standard front and rear yard. On 2C, he stated that referring to the the other functions of the development, we are speaking of open access recreational area rather than visitor parking. On 2D, he had no problem. He stated that he was not present for the January 29th meeting, but he felt the Commission should clarify finding 2 and 2C.
Mr. Effinger summarized that the Commission had indicated they were not disturbed by density and if Shape11 could interspurse some wider spaces within the units, that would be acceptable. Commissioner Jose added that he was leary of the length of several of the driveways and he would like to see the recreational area disbursed more than it is now. Commissioner Friestedt said that the Commission was looking for the development of a dispersed, accessible recreational area within the project that would meet the needs of all the people without them having to travel or walk a great deal of distance to the other side of the project. Commissioner Rombotis added that could be and/or open space. MOTION: - A motion was made to continue CP-36 to March 27, 1980
MOTION: Jose SECOND: Larson YES: Schick, Rombotis, Jose, Leeds, Marcus, Friestedt, Larson
D. CUP-171, Coast Waste Management, Conditional Use Permit to allow for the expansion of a non-conforming use in the RDM Zone.
Staff Report Mr. Bill Hofman presented the staff report, advising the Commission that staff was recommending approval of CUP-171, subject to certain conditions, plus a condition, #lo, that would require the removal of the additional structure prior to construction.
Applicant Presentation Mr. Griffeth advised the Commission that the structure was merely to be used to keep Coast West Management employees out of the rain and that it would cost more than the building itself to move to alternate site number 1. Also, blacktopping the area would be a big expense. Regarding site number 2, Mr. Griffeth asked
- c-4
_-
staff what was meant by "substantial impact on neighboring property". Mr. Hofman explained that it would block light to the neighboring property and would also have a visual impact. Mr. Griffeth stated further that the building would be removed within 5 years and that the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and he did not feel it was fair to have to put out a great deal of money for a structure that is worth half as much and will be removed after 5 years.
Mr. Arie De Jonq, owner of Coast Waste Management, express- ed concern also over the restrictions being placed on a project which was only to be up for 5 years. He also mentioned the expense involved and suggested that if he could be granted a longer CUP, it might be worthwhile.
Public Input Nick Banche, Attorney, 702 Fourth Street, Oceanside repre- senting Elsa Cannon.
Mr. Banche said Mr. De Jong should bave to adhere to the same requirements as everyone else. On behalf of Ms. Cannon, he asked that the Commission make him do that. Mr. Schick asked what Ms. Cannon's prime objection was and Mr. Banche repled it was the perpetual shade she would consequently get. He said the whole operation was ugly so it was ludicrous to say it was a visual complaint.
Rebuttal: Mr. De Jong restated his financial objections and added that from a visual standpoint, it would actually enhance the area because his workers would be doing inside what they have been doing outside. He said that in reference to the perpetual shade, some people welcome shade and that no matter where you put a building, you are going to have shade somewhere.
Mr. Hofman informed the Commission that there is an existing electrical outlet adjacent to the proposed location of alternative 1 which currently, a line runs to the supply building so obtaining electricity should not be a problem. He further stated that although the map was a little out of scale, staff had made sure that there was adequate circulation in and around the gas pumps. Commissioner Friestedt asked whether with regard to building one, if we understand its proximity north of the building two; is it possible that the entrance and use of that building could be on the long portion of the side of the rectangle as opposed to the smaller side. Mr. Hofman answered that he did not see any reason why it couldn't be
10
tilted 90 degrees and that in fact would free up some more space. Chairman Schick felt that it was not the Commission's province to readjust the entire operation. Mr. Griffeth again expressed the financial considerations. Commissioner Rombotis stated that the use was really incompatible with the only existing house in the area and that was the problem and he would support the staff on that basis. The other Commissioners agreed.
MOTION: A motion was made to approve CUP 171, per the staff report and subject to the conditions therein, including the additional condition #lo.
MOTION: Jose SECOND: Leeds AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Jose, Leeds, Marcus, Friestedt, Larson
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
B. CT 79-25/PUD-12 La Costa Land Company, Request for a 98 lot subdivision on 352 acres south of Alga Road and east of El Fuerte Street in La Costa.
Staff Report Brian Milich gave the staff report advising the Commission that staff was recommending the Commission-forward recom- mendation of approval of CT79-25/PUD12, and called the Commission's attention to a packet of information contain- ing several suggested condition modifications.
Commissioner Larson said that as far as design and the street lay out were concerned, he was not sure if it was adequate, and circulation was discussed.
Applicant Presentation: Mr. Fred Morey, Vice-President, La Costa Land Company, Carlsbad.
Mr. Morey told the Commission that this project was different from most and therefore has a significant number of little problems or situations which must be clarified and understood. Therefore, he prepared and distributed documents to the Commission, stating the applicant's position. Mr. Morey then asked that Mr. Naegle, the architec- tural consultant on the entire proposed project, be allowed to give a general overview of the proposed project as well as Mr. Goff of La Costa Land Company thereafter discuss some very specific conditions in the project. Further, Mr. Ladwick of Rick Engineering would be available for questions on low pressure sewer systems.
11
Dale Naegle gave a general overview of the project. Commissioner Jose, in reference to the gates and the guards,squestioned whethe accessible to emergency 4
the project would be readily ehicles and Mr. Naegle replied, yes. A discussion was had regarding a portion of the property which was dedicted to the City of Carlsbad and Mr. Morey assured the Commission it would remain so.
Jim Goff with the La Costa Land Company, brought the Commission's attention to a report he had prepared on the Rancher0 sub- division. Addressing Condition #2 in the staff report Page 8, he stated the feeling that condition was unnecessary. Condition #3 he felt was really unnecessary in that a build- ing permit is not even issued unless you have sewer permits and the San Marcos Sewer facility would most likely provide sewer. On Page 10, Condition #16, he felt that they were in agreement with the first sentence, but the second sentence should be deleted because it calls for a decision by the City Engineer based on aesthetic concerns and he did not feel the City Engineer should be put in a position of approving things on the basis of aesthetic concerns. If such a condition were required, he would want it spelled out in detail. Condition #20 on Page 10 of the staff report, calling for sidewalks on both sides of the Corintia Street, he felt would conflict with the rural, equistrian nature of the estate-type development and was unneces- sary, given the extremely low volume of pedestrian traffic. He therefore requested the condition be modified to delete the requirement on both sides of the street and require it only on the south side.
Condition #22, concerning a sidewalk on the east side of El Fuerte Street, he felt was unnecessary.
Condition #24, Page 11, he said he understood staff reason- ing, but that he would like to point out he felt a median break of some sort would be necessary and that while it was not a major issue, the Commission should recognize the need for coordination of where that break would be. Condition #27, he felt there was going to be a 300-unit project abutting the corner of his project and there should be some equity in sharing the responsibility for the traffic signal and the staff condition should reflect that.
12
Regarding the PUD conditions: Condition #9, Page 13, the way the condition is currently written, at the request of staff, the set back of the security gates from the major streets sufficient so that if someone turns off a major street to go through that gate; they are not backed up on the street so the gate ought to be set back 5 feet. They are satisfied with the clarity that the staff has provided in terms of the 6 foot height; however, the statement that dwellings and accessory structures may be allowed to within 35 feet of the front or street side of the property line was problematic insofar as the structure at the gate and that should be clarified.
Page 11, Condition 25, they are concerned that it does not have a radius for the side, and because of the rural nature of the project, they don't want to be arguing over a very urban site and hope that before the City Council were to act, that actual radius can be worked out.
Recommendation #ll, Page 13 of the staff report, calling for a continuous 42 inch high fence the entire length of the San Marcos Canyon to insure that the City does not incur liability for citizens moving into the canyon and hurting themselves; the applicant feels that is their concern but that he feels there would only be 20 homes abutting the canyon and with the security system, the general public would not just be driving through or coming close to&ose 20 homes. He felt there was no real justification for that type of expenditure, but if it was required, then the naxl, Condition #12, would be counter- productive as it says that no individual homeowner is allow- ed to build a fence.
Condition #16, Page 14, it is the understanding that the width of an equistrian trail is 10 feet and would be no problem in most instances except in the areas of steep topography. That should be clarified in the condition, because the horses could walk single file and they could avoid excessive grading. Page 14, Condition 20, he feels should read "all residences shall have a fire hydrant within 400 feet of each residence". Condition 22 should be amplified so that it be known just what the Fire Chief will find acceptable and there is a standard to meet. Page 15, Condition 27, the word non-potable should be insert- ed in that that is the nature of the water being referred to.
13
A question was then raised regarding the map used to notify adjacent property owners, and while the map may have been slightly in error, the noticing procedure was sound, as the applicant provided the names of the adjoining property owners.
Mr. Morey talked about the parkland requirement and felt that the staff report did not adequately address the issue. He expressed concern over Condition #30, page 12 of the staff report which says any additional requirements as per Chapter 20.44 may be imposed, because he didn't have the slightest idea what those were.
He also discussed the fact that when La Costa was annexed to the City of Carlsbad, it was a condition that the San Marcos Canyon would be dedicated to the City of Carlsbad when subdivision occurred. He suggested that they fully intended to do that, and as concerns the Parks Agreement, that be left out of the subdivision until they had a chance to determine the future with the City Manager and City Council. The location of a school site was briefly discussed, referring to Mr. Morey's written comments.
Commissioner Rombotis suggested that the Commission be polled concerning the conditions which the applicant objected to so that staff could come back with some more conditions and said that be didn't see how a motion could be made that would encompass all of those questions, plus the park agreement and clarification on the schools.
MOTION A motion was made to continue CT 79-25/PUD-12 to the meeting of February 27, 1980.
MOTION: Jose SECOND: Rombotis AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Jose, Leeds, Marcus, Friestedt, and Larson.
C. EIR ,80-2, An environmental impact report discussing the possible impacts on the environment resulting from implementation of the Wastewater Reclamation Master Plan.
Staff 'Report Ms. Joyce Crosthwaite presented the staff report, recommending that the Planning Commission make a minute motion recommending that the City Council certify the EIR. She then introduced John Larson of RECON and Bill Fannon of Lowry Associates.
-14-
.-
Commissioner Larson commented on the confusing numbering of the report, He then asked a question on page 6 of the report under Solid Waste Impacts, regarding the hauling of sludge. Mr. Bill Naner, Consulting Engineer with Lowry answered that the concept in the Master Plan is that each'satellite plant will have to provide the sludge hauled from each plant to an appropriate solid waste disposal area, and there was discussion about various places it could be hauled to, depending on whether it was a liquid waste or a solid waste. Commissioner Larson wanted to be sure that the problem with the sludge was recognized. Page 16, Commissioner Larson felt that further study might be done at the time individual sites are developed and built out regarding disposal of collective sludge.
Also, on Page 16, Chairman Schick commented that he felt the health considerations should be high on a priority list as far as the EIR is concerned. Commissioner Larson Page 18, Land Use Impacts No. 2, the statement regarding potential maintenance of larger areas could have been expanded a little. This could be a potential source of information for the people developing the Agricultural Preservation Plan.
Page 19-21, the figure mentioned of a population of 45,000, are their figures correlating with the General Plan? Page 22, didn't understand the theory in paragrapl 2, and that;-.7irbbho~ti~p~emehha~ci:on~\6f~~her~maBCerr?~bap, the air quality might remain the same rather than continue to degrade. Mr. John Larson replied that there would be no major affect on air quality with or without the plan. He said the theory was that with the expected amount of growth, accommodation of that population must be accomplished whether in or outside of the City. Mr. John Larson further stated that rather than relating directly to the City of Carlsbad, it was more regional.
Commissioner Rombotis questioned whether some figure should be included in the report regarding water con- sumption was urban versus agricultural. Mr. Naner answered, that he thought that a figure was included in the engineering report, but that the general trend of irrigation for agricultural use would run around three feet per year. Urban usage on the areas that are actually irrigated is somewhat higher, about four feet per year. Commissioner Rombotis then asked about the Palomar site and if there was a reason for it being on such high ground. Mr. Naner then explained that when
they pump, the hydrolic gradient of the system has to be somewhere up around an elevation of 300 feet. They have a choice of, either treating it down and pumping the clarified water up to that elevation, or inter-
-15-
. . -
cepting the raw sewage, whatever is most readily available. Commissioner Rombotis then asked about the growth inducement and how it related to whether the EIR was defensible. He felt the argument was a little weak and that the EIR should be defensible all the way down the line. Mr. Naner explained that he felt strongly about the population figures which were used and the fact that they don't try to tamper with them at all.
Commissioner Jose on the bottom of Page 15, asked about the reference to other agencies and whether the San Marcos facility shouldn't be included. John replied that he could see where there may be some kind of agree- ment or arrangements for sharing of easements with that facility now, but when that paragraph was written, they just included those facilities they felt would be involved. Commissioner Jose then asked about the Encina Plant completion by 1985 or 1982 and why the difference in those two dates. John replied that 1982 was the date used in the report for completion and 1985 was one of the key dates in the Master Plan.
Commissioner Schick voiced the following concerns;
Regarding the introduction, in the second paragraph, how wuld it cover some small system that they might receive, if not already proposed by Papagayo. Mr. Fannen replied that they were up against the City Council and it was turned down on the basis of the fact they did not want to see a proliferation of San Marcos's Plant. He then aksed if the preservation of agricultural lands figured into the report and john replied that the county really didn't have a set mechanism for handling it and that it really depends on market demand.
In that regard, Commissioner Friestedt mentioned that a large portion of some of the county land is along the Palomar Airport Road which was likely to be developed at some time and that it would be helpful to address what the county is or is not doing.
Commissioner Schick, Page 5 felt it might be interesting that there are other facilities that take care of sewage as it relates to Carlsbad and Mr. Fannen agreed that there was a great deal of interlocking mechanism interlocking and that this was not the document to cover a region wide system. Commissioner Schick on Page 12, asked if we weren't concerned about the effect on the basins and what will happen as ground water is generated based on the population, the results of these processing plants, and it's sum effect on the ground water level as far as
-16-
f . .
the table is concerned. Mr. Larson answered that it was important to recognize that the intent is for a portion of the current potable water used for irriga- tion purposes to be 'replaced with reclaimed water. He said a very large 'effect on the ground water basin count not be predicted with respect to ground water quality, because the quality of water discharged into a basin is controlled rigidly.
On Page 30, Chairman Schick pointed out that there were no traffic figures for the Coast Highway and that the traffic there was picking up. It was agreed that traffic figures for the Coast Highway should be included.
On page 38, under Utilities, he noted that there was no mention that there were still septic systems which were acceptable.
On page 41, Table 6, Chairman Schick mentioned that there were a number of schools in the Master Plan area and that it might be important to know the number of students that they serve and the number of students residing in the Master Plan area.
On Page 93, Chairman Schick questioned the word "no project", and Mr. Larson defined it to be just that - no project, no expansion of sewage treatment capacity. Chairman Schick suggested that there might be a better way of phrasing it.
Commissioner Friestedt asked, "at what stage we now are in in the expansion of solid waste sewage referred to on page 84." Mr. Larson replied that it was changing very quickly. Mr. Ron Beckman, Public Works Administra- tor, addressed the Commission regarding the disposal of sludge and made the point that shortage of landfill is a reality and alternatives were being looked into.
pub‘l’,i’cl ‘,I n’p’u t,
Mr. Roy Ward, 1297 Elm Avenue, voiced concern over the statement in the Staff Report which stated that this master EIR will really not be a master EIR, but a guide. He inquired of staff whether each time a waste water facility comes before them, that they will have to go through the same routine. Mr. Charles Grimm replied that that was true. Mr. Ward commented that he felt there must be some way to prevent the voluminous reports and paperwork which only repeated what a previous report had to say. He
P. C. Minutes 2/13/80 Page 17
c
said further, that some statement should be made in the EIR, if it is to be a master EIR that future site specific EIR's should be able to include it by reference in toto and not have to go through the reproduction of all of the basic studies.
Mr. Larry Hunts said that the Commission had mentioned earlier that they did not want to proliferate small plants, but wanted to have a large Master Plan and the concept of the Master Plan was a guide. Hesaid that he had funded the program and would like to see it move as fast as possible. He felt the intent of the EIR for the Master Plan is to be used when we come up with a site specific, we prepare a new EIR specific to that site and supplemental to this one. He said specificity was not needed in this particular EIR be- cause you're going to get it everytime an EIR comes up for review. Mr. Hunts was concerned that the Commission not send it back for more studies.
Commissioner Rombotis pointed out that this was an EIR to back up the Water Reclamation study, not a master EIR.
/-
- 18 -
c
MOTION:
C
Commissioner Larson offered a minute motion that the Planning Commission ,recommend that the City Council certify EIR 80-2 for the Wastewater Reclamation Master Plan and for that to include the comments and public testimony taken at this meeting.
MOTION: Larson SECOND: Rombotis AYE: All
D. PCD-3(B). Capital Improvements, Coordinated Program of proposed public works, finding of General Plan Conformity.
S’t ‘a ff, aep’o:pt.
Joyce Crosthwaite presented the Staff Report recommending th3.t the Planning Commission approve an attached resolution finding that the coordinated program of public works is con- sistent with Carlsbad General Plan.
/
Chairman Schick commented that the intent of the program meant that the plan has served the requirements of the Gen- era1 Plan. It appeared that it had, although he didn't find any school project listed. He said it was in support of, and not in conflict with, the General Plan. He also said that he had a problem with the word coordination. He said that this
was a rubber stamp approach to projects which he hoped would be clarified in the 'future.
Commissioner Rombotis indicated that he would abstain on Items 8 and 21.
MOTION
A motion was made approving the resolution finding that the coor- dinated program of public works is consistent with Carlsbad's Gen- eral Plan.
MOTION: Jose SECOND: Friestedt AYES: Schick, Jose, Leeds, Marcus, Friestedt, Larson ABSTAIN: Rombotis
NEW BUSINESS
The Planning Commission acknowledged the receipt of a letter from South Coast Asphalt.
Mr. Dan Hentschke commented on continuing public hearing items, saying that the constitutional problem of due process must be
k adhered to. In that regard, Chairman Schick suggested that the J r a Planning Staff have a procedure reminding themselves when an item needs to be renoticed.
P. C. Minutes 2/13/SO Page 19
f- APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Jose made a motion that the minutes of January 23 1980 be approved as submitted.
MOTION: Jose SECOND: Friestedt AYES: All
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
A motion was made approving Planning Commission Resolutions 1571, 1579, 1580, 1582, 1585, 1586, 1596.
MOTION: Rombotis SECOND: Marcus AYES: All
THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:20 A.M.
- 20 -