Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-10-27; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES Pil!ffl'D«; OF: PI..AlfiII«i CXMD:SSIOI October 27 , 1982 7:00 P.M. ~ OF flEE'l'IN;: TUE OF MEETJ:M:; 1 PLACE OF flEE'l'IN;: City Council Chant>ers 'lhe neeting was called to order by Olairman Farrow at 7:06 P.M. R>LL CALL Present -Olairman Farrow, CClmlissialers lblix>tis, Rawlins, Jose and Schlehuber. camdssia,er Friestedt arrived at 8:30 P.M. Absent -Cbnlnissioner Marcus. Staff Ml!nt)ers present were: Bill Rofman, Principal Planner <llarles Grinlll, Principal Planner Mi.Jee Howes, Assistant Planner Palll IUukas, Assistant Planner David Hauser, ~.ssociate Civil Engineer Ex--Officio Ml!nt)ers present were: Michael Rolzmiller, Land Use Planning Manager Daniel Hentsc:hke, Assistant City Attorney Piax.B OF AI..L83Im::E was led by Chairman Fart"Olli. Olairran Farrow explained Planning camdssioo procedures in its capacity as an advisory Onnissioo to the City c::omcil, and identified those matters delegated to the Planning Q:anissioo for a f inal decisioo. Olaiman Farrow further expla.ined the procedure observed by the <nnnissioo cllring public hearing item:;. ~ ITEM Ital No. 2 -PCD/GfC-14, General Plan Consistency oeterainatioo for the 1983-87 capital I~t Program (CIP). Michael IIOl•iller indicated to the canissioo that this ital ... going to be brought back at a later date. o,-iaaioner Farrow inquired i f anyooe in the aooienoe .-. pr:uent to aMress the item • ... JIIXR>OO SY8'1'l!M Q\aiian Parrow indi cated to the ca..issioo that a new reacxding eyata 11118 being installed, therefoce, oausing the votin; ayata to be out of order. 'ltlis being thn '9N, the YOt•.,.. takal by a hand raiee. 1. er f2-~5&Nla:J:UJALL -Request foe a 10 lot/ 7 iii! Y8 1«.it lllp Im planned \a\it ~, located on the ncrtheaat aide of the ~ ... i:'NCtion of Park Drive arllt Adas StrNt in the a-1 -15,000 acne. MINUTES October 27, 1982 Page 2 Mike Howes gave a staff report on the matter. He indicated that staff is recarmending approval of the project, with the additio., of the following two conditions to Resolution No. 2046, the tentative tract map and planned unit develOEJllent, under Land Use Planning Conditions, and the awlicant is in agreement with same: 1. "Any street lights provided on the private streets and driveways shall be shielded so that there is no direct glare onto adjoining properties." 2. "'Ille location of hares and the pad elevations for lots 3, 4, 6 and 7 shall not deviate ITOre than 10% fran that shown on the approved site plan." Otairman Farrow opened the public hearing and extended the invitation to speak. 'Ille Ccmnission recognized Allen MacDougall, applicant, 4550 Park Drive, Carlsbad. Mt·. MacDougall indicated that a::&R's are proposed for the project and would reflect the tree saving measures on the lots. He added that an extensive landscaping plan is proposed for the project. '!he carmission recognized Girard Anear, 1728 Calavo Court, Carlsbad. Mr. 'JI.near indicated to the carmission that a previous condition was required when the property was first subdivided stating that the property owner ente~ into a future street agreement. He further explained that at the present time 5 houses have been built since that agreement was made, and the city is still trying to put street iq>rovements in. He made referenc,,; to a clause which reads: "Park Drive in'provements shall be installed prior to occupancy of any new units within the subdivision." In conclusion Mr. Anear reooornended that street iq>rovements be put in as soon as (X)SSible, due to a recent major accident in the area. In addition, Mr. Anear had sane concern regarding an open ditch on the eouth side of Calavo Court be in'proved. 'lbe camlission recognized Mary Ann Haasl, 6441 Via de La AeiM, &:>nsall, CA., ment>er of the Board of Directors of the Bristol Cove Property CM'lers Association and property owner. Mt-s. BMsl's 11111in concern was that the open ditch 00 calavo Court he enclosed. She also spoke in <JRIOSition of Mr. MacDougall 's seoond +-.entative map IIJPOVal, due to the fact that in'provements oo Park Drive are not OClll)leted and erosion oontrol measures not taken care of. In reepcnae, DilVid Hauser indicated that the ditch oo the north aide of the property will be taken care of and ll drainage ayata installed aloog with all other pJblic: 1np.cwu1nt:a at the ccmnenoement vf all other 1J1prowants. PAINUTES October 27, 1982 Page 3 'ltle Comlission recognized Steven L'Heureux, property owner. Mr. L'Heureux had several concerns. He expressed concern over ex>ndition no. 10, regarding the site trees. He reccmnended to the Ccmnission that this condition be reworded to i.nclude the Torrey Pine. With the aid of a "811 exhibit, Mr. L'Heureux dipicted the location of the project and explained that since these were sifll>ly pads for custan hemes, that pad locations be tied dowrl and be made definite. He further explB:.ned that t1«> additional guest parking spaces be added to make it a bette-:- developnent and if possible, rroving pads further back. In addition, Mr. L'Heureux reccmnended that dense landscaping be provided for privacy. In conclusion, Mr. L'Heureux expressed concern over the lighting proposed for the project and whether or not the existing fire hydrant is sufficient to serve this project. In respa,se, Mike Howes stated that the Fire Department has indicated t..~at the one fire hydrant is sufficient to provide adequate fire protection for this project. 'ltle Comli ssion recognized Pat Clark, 4315 Sea Bright Drive, Cllrlsbad. With the aid of a wall exhibit, Mr. Clark dipicted the location of his property ar.rl stated that if a t1oO-Story house is constructed there, his view of the lagoon 1«>uld be taken away. Since no one else wished to speak on the matter, Chairman Farrow closed the public hearing. O::mnission discussion related with regard to additional gu~;t parking, traffic SAfety and fire problems and staff respcnded to Ccmnission questions regarding same. 'ltle Ccmnission approved the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and adopted the following resolution, approving CT 82-~1/PUD-45, based on the findings and subject to the ex>ndith.,'(ls contained therein, with the ad:Ution of the t1«> ( 2) added oondit iOl\S under Land Use Plannning Conditl(Yls; a la.'ldscape program to include the preservatim of the existing palm trees and Torrey Pine and also to include tree planting alalC} the north property 1 ine to screen the adjacent hemes , t110 additiooal gueqt parking spaces near lots 3 and 41 and fire hydrants per City of carlsbad standards. 2. (A) (8) RESOWl'IQ<I 00. 2046 -APP~ A TEN IDr/SEVffi UNIT iffiiiTiw TiW:'i' MP AND PI.NH:D UNIT DE.VELCl>Mml' Q<I ProPER'lY camRALLY LOCATED NF.AR 'fflE OORTBEA5T SIDE c, THE I ~Q<I OF PARK DRIVE AND ADAMS STREET. CXX:IIBll'AL l:>RPERl'IES MP-133(A~ CITY c, CARLSBN> -Request for the repeal of a mu r plan on property generally located in the vicinity of Interstat e 5 and Poinsettia Avenue. SP-7~Al, JDiBT1' -Requftst for the repeal of a apec f c plan to the City Cnlncil for property located on the northwest, aouthwest and southeast c,:xnera of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane. Iurbotis Schlehuber Farro,., Rawlins Jose X X X X X X MINUTES October 27, 1982 Page 4 (C) (D) ( E) CT 81-5/SP-186, JEJiETI' -Request for a 17 lot tentative tract map and a specific plan for 17.6 acre tourist oamnercial/cormunity area generally located on the northwest corner of Interstate 5 and Poi nsettia Lane. ZC-233/CT 81-6~SDP 82-3, JEJiETI' -Request for a zooe change franc~ to C-2~1 a tentative subdivision map to create ten oamnercial lotsi and a site developnent plan for cormunity c.Q'llllercidl developnent on property generally located on the southwest corner of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane, east of Avenida Encinas. ZC-232, JEJiETI' -Request for a :rone change fran gener1j ccmoorcial (C-2) to neighborhood camiercial qualit>ed (C-1~) on property generally located on the southeast corner of Interstate 5 and Poir.settia Lane. With the aid of a transparency showing the location of the property, Bill Hofman gave a staff report for each individual property, essentially as contained in the written report. With the aid of a transparency showing che location of the property regarding the deletion of the master plan, Bill Hofman indicated that t he master plan covers 383 acres and was approved in 1970 and this was prior to the approval of the city's current Land Use Element of the General Plan and as such, the land use plan as approved is sanewhat outdated a."ld inoonsistent with the land use element and, therefore, recannending the deletion of the master plan. Mr-. Hofman further explained that by deleting the master plan, you will also be deleting certain very inportant oonditioos which include: park, fire and school site dedicatioos, Poinsettia Bridge overcrossing and the reintiursement agreement to the Occidental Land Coopany for the in&tallation of an oversize sewer line. He indicated, however , that these oonditionP are oonsidered under a separate agreement between the city and affected land owners and there i s no longer a need for the master plan. In conclusion, Mr. Hofman stated that because of these reuona staff is recx:mnending deletion of MP-133(A). With regard to the specific plan (SP-7(A)), Mr. Hofman indicated that the specific plan only covers the 3 oorner parcel• and Wll8 a oaaercial speci fic plan. ~-Hofman further explained that this was aw,:oved i n 1969 and is ~t outdated and inoonsistent with the land use el.ant and, therefore, staff is reoannending the deletion of SP-7(A). *• Hofaln oonclucled his presentation on the deletion of the .. ter plan and specific plan and expressed lfilliniJMP to respond to any questions. Ooaiuicner ~is questiooed as to lllhether or not all of the aontractual obligations i:ire satisfied with the city and no longer need to oondition the bridge over the ri_,t-of-..Y oc the dedication of park land and school aite. MINUTES October 27, 1982 Page 5 In response to carmission query, Michael Holzmiller indicated that Occidental Prope,rties was required to furo a certain portion of the bridge (2 lanes) and approaches to the bridge. He further added that financial obligations are paid for that portioo of constructioo and the rest of the bridge ~ld be paid out of other sources such as public facilities. With the aid of a wall exhibit outlining the proposed project, Bill Hofman gave a brief presentatioo on the three corners. '!be first oorner {southeast of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane, ZC-232). Mr. ll:>fman indicated that the property is 5.5 acres in size and the C-1--Q is OJnsistent with th~ general plM category of neighborhood ccmnercial on the site. He added that the Q Olrerlay zone will ensure that the Planning carmission review and approve a site developnent plan prior to any building permits being issued on the property and, therefore, staff is reccmnendi.ng approval of the za'le change. Mr. ll:>fman concluded his presentation on the first oorner and expressed willingness to i:-espond to any questions. carmissioner Rawlins questioned as to 1otlether or not the existing dirt storage area is going to be used in the other sections of the project. Mr. ll:>fman suggested that the applicant respond to this question during the public testilrony. 'lhe seoood corner (northwest oorner of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane). Mr. fbfman indicated that the property is for a 17 unit subdivision and a specific plan. He indicated that the property is 23.5 acres in size and the general plan designation is a ooot>ination district of travel service aannercial and cannunity carmercial. Mr. ll:>fman explained that anytime a ooot>ination district is on a prq,erty, a apecific plan is required. Hr. fbfman addressed two issues of in'portance regarding the access rights along Poinsettia Lane and Avenida Encinas and the seoondary access to the project. He indicated with reapect to the access rights, that staff is reamnending a aondition that access rights be waived along Poinsettia Lane and Avenida Encinas for lots 1-11. With respect to the seoondary acoeBB, Mr. fbfman indicated that staff is r:eooaending a oonditioo that a seoondary access be proYided fran the north at the tiJne C\IIIU.lative traffic vollaff reach a level of 3,000 AIJr/per day and added that thia is in line with the city's policy regarding single 1100188 to projects. With regard to the specific plan, Mr. ll:>fman stated that _... A 61115 C would be designated u tourist ccnnercial, allowin9 -,t.ela, hOtela, restaurants or service stations a,i9 area B Wld C are designated aa OClllllll'\ity camiercial, allowin9 a:.:e general retail type cxaaercial uses. He did that the specific plan has a n\1111:>er of developnent .~, Wld if illpleanted, IIOU.ld result in a very high quality dlft.l01M"t• He explained that the only issue on the apeclfio pl• is the Ntback requinnent. He further -1&1.Md that off of Avenida Bncinaa and Poinsettia Lane ttalf i.a N/lDM ~ina • aet:lack of 30' fraa the right~f-.., 1M .,-, ad]~E to Interstate 5, staff ia rec- MINUTES October 27, 1982 Page 6 armending a Bf"tback of 10' frcn the building and parking line to the freeway right~f-way line. He also indicated that along the interior street, staff is recx:mnending a 15' setback fran the right~f-way line to building and Pftrking setback and added that these setbacks are similar to other oannercial projects that have required a site developnent plan and, therefore, staff feels it is inportant to create a very ,i.sually attractive developnent. He conclooed that staff feels their greatest concern is how these developnents will~ to adjacent properties and the Interstate 5 right~f-way. Mr. Hofman concluded his presentatia1 on the second corner and expressed willingness to respald to any questions. Ccffl'nissiooer Farrow questiooed if conditioo of a second access is based upoo the voll.llle of Poinsettia or will cane about after a traffic count is basically taken or if conditioo of traffic is a hazard. In respoose, David Hauser indicated to the c.armissk:-i that it would be based upoo an engineering estimate of traffic generatioo rates of proposed developnent as it occurs. He addea that the present MJr is approximately 1500 vehicles per day, allowing only 1500 other vehicles to be allowed on this road as a result of this subdivision and the ooe to the southwest. 'lhe final corner (southwest corner of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia lane, east of Avenida Encinas). Mr. Hofman indicated that this property is 22.9 acres in size and the general plan designatioo is ccmnunity ccmrercial. He indicated that a conditioo is required to waive access rights along Avenida Encinas. He further indicated that two issues of inportanoe are the requirement of a secondary access to the proj~ oo the sooth and the locatioo of the entry driveway to the project. With 1-egard to the secondary access, Mr. Hofman indicated that this provisioo would caiply with the cily's policy when a project only pt'Ol,'ides ooe access point. In regards to the locatioo of the entry point, Mr. Hofman stated that staff is reoanending that it be located 600' to the south for two reasons, the first reasoo is that at its present locatim it aligns with the entry to the Lake Shore GardMs ~ile Hane Park entrance and at that particular point it cre..tes an intersectioo and will be encouraging traffic IIOVelllmt& fran the IIIJbiJ e bane park across Avenida Bnoinaa, which will increase the nlllt)er of conflicts oo Avenida Bncinas. Se<xxldly, Mr. Hofman pointed out that it 1• located oo the inside of the curb of Avenida Bncinu, thus making the site distance very pooc for cars ooailllJ out of the develqaent. He continued that if loollted 600' to the eouth, it will solve lx>th of the prob).-arlCI will not seriously affect the design of the ilubcSivi•ion. Be further continued that the only issue oo the eite dwelqaent plan is the set.badt issue because it la the ... setback requiraMH1t as the specific plan. Mr. ll0flMr\ ldl.1ed that the site developaent plan contains bMioally the ... developaent standards that are in the ..,.alfic plan for the property to the north and the only ' MINUTES Oc..tober 27, 1982 Page 7 difference is the site develOEJ!lent plan does not govern uses like the specific plan, but the uses that would be allowed would be the uses allowed in the C-2 zooe. Mr. Hofman indicated that the site develOEJ!lent plan is set up to require individual develOEJ!lent plans on individual properties and those develOEJ!lent plans would be sutmitted to the Land Use Planning Manager for his approval and would be consistent with the regulations of the 01Terall site develOEJ!lent plan. Chairman Farrow opened the public hearing and extended the invitation to speak. 'lbe Co-mission recognized Don Agatep, 2956 lo)sevelt Street, carlsbad, ca., representing Mr. Secil smith, R.C. Jewett Cmpany, applicant and Occidental Land. Mr. Agatep gave a brief background on the project and concurred with staff's recc:mnendation on the deletion of the master plan, reZIOlling of the 3 parcels fran their existing zates to the requested uses and adoption of the specific plan. He indicated that the only area they have objection to is the tentative maps. Mr. Agatep added that the tentative map for the southwest and northwest quadrant have 4 oonditions that are camon to both and continued that they objected to those 4 oonditions in terms of Eiiilosophy, specifically in the burdens being placed on a developer to i.nplement a progran over which they have no control. He made reference to a letter that was passed out to the carmissioners regarding the 4 oonditions. Mr. Agatep explained that oondition no. 9 of Resolution No. 2033 an..1 2035 r equire a progran at this time to indicate those eucalyptus trees which will be saved as part of this program and fouoo this oondition to be unreasonable. Mr. Agatep continued that oondition no. 32 and 35 of Resolution NO. 2033 and oondition no. 23 of Resolution N0.2035 basically deal with waiver of access rights along the major thoroughfares. He stated that they have no objection t::, waiving access rights to Poinsettia Lane, but object to waiving access rights to Avenida Encinas. Mr. Agatep requested that access rights not be waived as part of this tentative map, but that access rights be determined at the time developnent is proposed for each individual lot, specifically in areas A, B, C and as well as on the southwest 20 acres when that developnent plan is iresented to the Planning Ccmnission for site approval. !ik". Agatep felt that 3000 daily trips is an unreasooable criteria to establish for the extension of Avenida Encinas to the north or to the south and proposed aligrnent of street C in its pcesent fom. He further objected to the requireaents for setbacks of 10' on Avenida Encinas and 15' on interior streets and a program which wuld allow each individual to vary its setback to as little as 15' behind the sidewlk on cases where onsite circulation is necPNl'Y, to aa alCh as 25 ' behind sidewalk in select 1.ocationa, but 11111intain an average of 15' to 20' on Avenida Bneinaa. In oonclusioo, Mr. Agatep ooncurred "1th ataff's ree:azndatioo oo the wter plan, role d\lllge8, deletion of specific plan and awroval of the tant:atiw alP with the exception of the 4 itea discussed in hi• letter of October 26, 1982 presented to the o,aiNion. ' l MINUTES October 27, l982 Page 8 Camlissioner Jose questioned as to whether or not the applicant would have any objection should a traffic light be needed at sane future date, should the camu ssion buy the proposal of having access to the southwest cxmnercial area across fran the nooile hane park. !bl Agatep stated it was his belief that traffic signals were paid out of the public facilities fees. 'lbe camdssion recognized Will Hall, 7217 San Miguel, Carlsbad, CA. Mr. Hall expressed concern OYer the cxmnercial zone and traffic that would be generated with the new entrance. 'lbe Cmmission recognized Terry Racket, representinc:J the Sea BlJff Comunity. He indicated that the only concern they had is with the southwest property. His concern is the widening of Avenida Encinas and the potential extension of Avenida Encinas. He explained that they have set an alignment with the people on the other side of the ATCSF railroad tracks and McDaniels Engineering pt"epared 'l bridge study for clarification, because the way the tract map reads now, there is an unqualified condition upon the applicant to l:x>th widen Avenida Encinas and extend it tht'Ol>3h their property. He also indicated that if they are able to proceed diligently with thejr map and with the people on the o+-her side of the railroad tracks, if it is coma, to put a <..lOOdition on the map that indicates they will contribute funds to widen Encinas or if it beo:Jmes a lien on the property or if it should be jointly oonded. In conclusion Mr. Racket questioned how they should handle the wideni1'¥] and extension of Avenida Encinas and questioned if staff thou;Jht it to be appropriate to make an additional condition to the map for guidance. Since no one else wished to speak on the matter, Olairman Farrow closed the public hearing. Crmldssioner lalh:>tis had concern as to whether or not there would be a reimbursement agreement on the project. Q:laaissioner Farrow stated that if for sa1I? reason the pr:esent iq.plication did not require the extension to have accesses i.q>rol,ed, should there be an ag1.eement of joint pa~t- In response, David Hauser indicated that :101:mally it is ii> to the developer to install whatever inprtlYell!ellts are required. He further indicated that there a,:e no proviaioos for reillbursenent agreements through the city on privately or publicly developed streets. He continued that noaaally there is a condition on the map to provide foe the circulation of the develO{a!nt and developers ..ork out issues together. ri MINUTES October 27, 1982 Page 9 Dan Hentschke stated that there is a provision for reinbirsement that the Ccmnission should be made aware of. He explained that the city can inpo& only those requirements that are necessary to serve the needs of the subdivision. He continued that what we have here are t,oo developers that are undoubtedly going to be served by portions of the sane road. He further continued that if the extension is necessary to serve their developnent, then they can provide that in any nmtler of ways. He added that they can either enter into an agreenent with Mr. Hacket to put the road in, they can wait until Mr. Hacket develops and puts in the road for them or they can request to form an assessment district. In conclusion, Mr. Hentschke stated that staff was not prepared to make a re<xxrmendation at th is time. Discussion related to potential problems regarding trees, realignment, traffic, traffic signal, median break, public facilities fees, waiver of access rights on Avenida Encinas, average daily trips, extension and setbacks, staff responded to Ccmnission questions regarding sane. David Hauser indicated that there is a provision in the SUbdivision Ordinance that will preclude it in any case that states •through lots shall not be allowed unless vehicular access rights are relinquished to one of the abutting streets as approved by the City Engineer.• He added that LOt 12 would not apply. Bill Hofman indicated that LOt 12, was left open for the possibility of providing access, because condition no. 40, Resolution No. 2033 enoourages the consolidatia. of driveways for LOts 12 through 17. Since no one else wished to speak on the matter, Olairman Farrow oontinued the public hearing. '!be cannission continued the matter to the meeting of Novelfber 10 , 1982 and directed staff to include all of A, B, C and D. OlAiz:man Farrow called a recess at 9:10 P.H., and the camu.ssion reoonvened at 9:22 P.H., with six IIIE!llt>ers present. 3. BIR 82-5, GPA-64~A), ZC-264, SP-185€he&XrffiER8 -RequeSt to certi y BIR 82-51 send land use element fran residennti al low mediln (RIM) density to travel service (TS), professiooal and related c:armercial (0), and open space (00) 1 ch41}9e the llOlling to oorresponding ~e3, and approval of a specific plan. With the aid of a transparency showing the location of the pcoperty, Q\arles Gri.nrn gave a staff report fer each ~iwcSal project, essentially as oontained in the staff report. Schlehuber X X Jose X lbltx>tis X Farrow X Rawlins X Friestedt X r '\ MINUTES October 27, 1982 Page 10 o:.nissioner Friestedt ooncurred with staff's nx:o.maidation regarding Ct11W.ative i.Jlt>acts both in the environnenta.l. assessment and other possible nonsignificant i.Jlpacts, however, suggested that a criteria be developed to lll!aSure and judge these inpacts so we don't establish ~ by having an arbitrary or a non-qualified assessment of what Cl111Ulative really means. C'.allnissioner Schlehuber questioned as to what part of the developnent is within the floodplain itself. catherine Tobias, Consultant for Westec Services addressed the Camdssioo. file indicated that the floodplain is shown on page 14 of the draft environnental in'pact report. She explained that it is sanewhat different fran the applicant's new proposal and was reluctant to sketch the floodplain due to the fact that she had not seen it until tonight. Discussion related to potential problems of the gravel pit on residential zooing and increased traffic on Marron ~ and Rancho Del Oro. In respalSe to camlission query, David Hauser stated that the traffic study is basically incnrplete because there is a need to run oarp.1ter traffic nodels which should be cnrpleted next March. He added that at that time we can see the inpact on the road system with or without Rancho Del Oro. He indicated that the engineering staff felt this project would create enough traffic to fill out Rancho Del Oro and not really present much of a relief to either College or El Cmlino Real. CDlmissioner Schlehuber had acme roncern as to whether or oot the floodplain floods and when was the last time it flooded. In regards to the major circulatioo question, camdssioner Friestedt questiooed whether or not this ·3hould be part of the enviroraental i1lpact report. QJlllissioner Farrow questioned as to whether the percentages listed on page 3 of the environnental inpact report regarding the 601 unaffected and the 401 fer office profeesiOMl ~ travel service 11ere approximate. He oootinued that oo ~ 3 of the specific plan of Lightfoot .w,d As80Ciates the figures wre different and questioned if this is based on t110 different proposals. Pol" clairifioatioo purpoees, O\arles Gria stated to the QJllli.SBion that the specific plan r-.flects the first sutaittal and the sWf report reflects a new plan ..tlich reduces the developaent area of the site to address sane of the ooncema in the envirorw.nta.l. ilpllct. repo.rt. He turt;ber explained that the awlicant and staff agree that thal:e _. rot enough tia to 1lllke any changes to the ~ific plan ot" Mite it •tc:h the new proposal, but ooly requeated that it be brought before the Planning QJllliuion ta,ight eo that the cx..ai88ioo is aware that a apeoific plan is ptopoeed fa: the dte. @ ' 1 MINUTES October 27, 1982 Page 11 Olarles Grimn explained to the Camlissioo that the major issue was whether the developer has mitigated the inpacts identified in the envirammtal inpact report by reducing his project. He further explained that even if the Cnaissioo and Council approve the general plan amerdnent as proposed, a statement of overriding considerations would still have t o be prepared indicating that there is still a significant inpact oo the envircnnent. Q:anissioo discussioo related to riparian habitat and the significant iq)act on the environnent, on/off ranp3 proposed on Rancho Del Oro, and overpass, staff responded to Cotmisi>ion guestioos regarding same. r ' Qxmdssioner Friestedt questioned whether caltrans had or would fund a feasibility stooy and enviroomental inpact for: the overpass, and i f in fact they have, does the applicant and city 1ax,w that the funds a-e provided for the feasibility stooy and the envircnnental i.npact for the overpass. In response to Camlissioo query, Cllarles Grinrn indicated that he spoke with Don Iamerg of caltrans and his attitude was they were not funding anything and loOU.ld only take a look at it, if the need arises. 'ltJ1I Hutfman, Consultant Biologist for westec Services, i"ldicated that they have identified a s ignificant J.nt,act, "1ich is basically the loss of any of the riparian v:xxiland on the site. He indicated that riparian habitat is a very sensitive resource in the San Diego Region and it is very oomoon that this habitat 1oK>Uld have to be pr-eserved in its entirety. In addition, he indicated that oo page 52 of the EIR, it shows a breakdown of the acreages. He stated that there is 32 acres of riparian v:x>dland within the proposed project, 27 acres loOU.ld be retai ned and a loss of 5 acres, therefore, this has been identified as a significant i.npact. He oontined that an ~te buffer :lll:Xle should also be provided a.-ound the riparian v:xxiland. In oonclusioo he added th·1t another biological iJ1')ilCt would be the crossing of Rancho Del Oro A::,,ad through the riparian area. Qaaiuialer Schlehuber had ooncern over the effect of reeidential next to a riparian preserve as c:gx,eed to office. In reaponae, 'lall Huffman indicated that fran a biological •~int, office use would have less adverse affect. Dll'I Hantach)ce indicated that iJlpacts, when they have been dlfined by law u being significant, the question arises, do you reduce than to a level of insignificance and you cm'\ detemine that they are reduced to a level of lnaicjlnifia.\01! if they are reduced to 41. He oontinued that thia ia --■thing you oan D'.ilcP, if you feel that there are ~h facts to justify that determination. MINUTES October 27, 1982 Page 12 With regard to the riparian habitat, Comlissioner Friestedt questioned if it was Jm:,wn, over the oourse of ~e ;ast 5 years, if the habitat had changed its dimension tn sue. Hr. Friestedt also had concern as to what is an adequate buffer for such a habitat 'Ian Huffman, Consultant, indicated that the riparian habitat is made up primarily of willow trees which grow very quickly and any time you get enough water there, this habitat can reestablish itself sane-what quickly, so the boundaries oould change nore substantially than if you had riparian habitat consisting of oak trees or sycanore trees. He added that the actual boundary could of changed, but personally, l«>Uld not think it has changed dranatically over the last five years, but the actual border could of changed slightly. In regards to the exact. buffer ZO"le needed, Mr. Huffman indicated that it varies among experts, sane people say 100' sane say 1000' sane say greater than that, it depends on what you have on the surrounding area. Mr. Huffman continued that in the EIR an average buffer was identified at 200' and sane areas it will not have to be 200', but in sane areas it was warranted to be greater than 200'. Mr. Huffman continued saying that the purpose of the buffer was to protect the habitat, but the outlined area adjacent to actual edge of the riparian growth is inp:>rtant fran a functional standpoint for the wildlife that you will see in the actual riparian habitat, also you don't want to have developnent located i.nmediately adjacent to the habitat because of the element of hllll!ln disturbance, and also other factors like runoff fran urban pollutants that affect the water quality. i't('. Huffman further e>..-plained that the california Department of Fish and Game wrote a leLter in support of the 200' buffer ZO"le. camlissioner Friestedt had concern as to whether there was a significant difference between the two type of land uses relative to i.npacts. 'lt.rn Huffman, Consultant, indicated that there is a difference, as stated in the EIR. He indicated that there is a difference between the i.npacts you 1«>Uld see with residential developnent as oppoeed to office professialal. 'lhe actual distance that you l«>Uld need to buffer projects for each has not been docllnented in any at:lldies and is difficult to say exactly how many feet needed for one use as oppoeed to another. He continued that what they have done in the EIR is identified a buffer PW! on the office protessional use and what they felt is neoeasary. In diacuasiR:J his qualifications, 'lt.rn Huffman indicated to the ocanisaioo that he wee representing Steve Lacey, Senior Biologist of westec Services who is an expert on habitat.a in San ojego County with 10 years experience. Mr. tllfOlan added that Mr. Lacey prepared the report and it ia hie opinion, based on documentation presented in the BIil n a m.lllber of eouroes ref renced in the EIR, that auct1 a buffer is neoessary. Q\airan Parrow opened the public heariR:J and extended the invitatioo to peak. @ MINUTES OctoLer 27, 1982 Page 13 '1he Cl:llllnission reoognized Nick Banche, Lawyer, representing the applicant. ~. Banche in respoose to scae of the questions raised by the Camdssion indicated that the question of Rancho Del Oro is asalm!d an illlpcctant issue, which it really doesn't deserve at this particular time because it is not in the Circulation Element of the City of carlsbad and it is in the Master street Plan for Oceanside. He added that no matter what Carlsbad does, Rancho Del Oro will be a reality in the City of Oceanside. He continued that in the applicant's Standpoint this project oould very well go all office ?=Ofessiooal and oould be served by Marron~. the existing street system. He further added that saneday Rancho Del Oro oould go through and serve the City of carlsbad and the City of Oceanside. In conclusion he stated that office professia1al is an excellent use for this site. 'lhe camti.ssion reoognized U>u Lightfoot, President of Lightfoot and Associates, 708 4th Street, Oceanside, CA. Be explained that what is being proposed overall in addition to an EIR, is a Land Use Amenchent to the General Plan, zoning, specific plan and also an amendment to the Circulation Ele111ent of the City's General Plan to include Rancho Del Oro. He added that any residential put on this site ,o,ould act as an adverse situation as far as noise inpact is concerned. He continued that office and tourist serving a:mnercial uses seem to be the nost appropriate, but the problem with this is the traffic problem and were trying to avoid additia1al problems for the city. He further responded to sale of the issues raised by the camlission regarding the growth of the riparian habitat, traffic and many concerns on the envircnnental in{lact report, specific plan and visual inpacts. Be also indicated that the purpose of Rancho Del Oro interchange is to inprove the access to this proparty so there is the potential to develop travel service connercial uses. He felt that in doing this that the interchange also i.Jttm:,ves the entire circulation system in the City of Carlsbad. During this time aer•ai photos and topography maps were circulat ed for Camdssion and staff review. In ooncluaion, Mr. Lightfoot re<Xl1lllellded to the camlission that awrova1 be made on the general plan amencnent, P1ing and ooncured with staff that the specific plan still needs WOl:'k and expressed willingness to take a 2 or 4 welt oontinuance oo the specific plan and ,o,ould cane back with a speci f i c plan that the Connission would be a::atortable with. ~. Lightfoot adcSed that the floodplain is the WO 100 year fl~ain. He aleo added that you ally create hydrolic p:obl-if you start filling in the floodway, .idch ia llhen the wter actually flows in non-flood aonditiona and he stated they were not filli ng in the floodwaY in this cue, only in the floodplain. '1tw co.inion recognh.S Bob Sargent, W:l ldan ' ANOCiatN, Traffic Analyst, 3633 C:lffli~ Del Rio South, Sin Diego, CA. ~. &argent indicated that they aasllled then would be no other connectiona to the site othef' than NlrtOft 111,ad and did not ocnsider any of the travel MINUTES October 27, 1982 Page 14 service <nnercial that is located between the freeway and riparian habitat because to serve that you would need the alternative access of Rancho Del Oro. He added that the entire 1400 trips per day when added to the existing traffic oo Marron lblld could be ac<Xlllllk)dated at the Marron lblld and El CMdno Real intersection. He further added that ooe alternative is providing a right turn lane which would bring the level of service to level of service D "'1i ch is acceptable in many urban areas, but the City of Carlsbad would prefer to see level of service C where p:)SSible and mitigatioo to acocq>lish that would be to provide dual left turn lanes oo Marron lblld. He added that either of these two alternatives oould be accniplished within the existing curb to curb width, alt:holJJh the lanes would have to be squeezed sanewhat. He oontinued that he concurs with the City's Traffic Engineer Consultant in regards to installing a median oo Marron lblld to reduoe access to sane of the driveways into the Plaza that are very close to the intersection, but agrees that it could still be acocq>lished within the exiting right-<>f--way. In his professional opinion, he indicated that the Marron Ibid and El camino Real intersection can q>erate at level of service c with all of the traffic fran this developnent. 'lbe Collnissioo recognized Ray York, Brown & Vogt, 630 Alta Vista Drive, Vista, CA. Speaking on behalf of South Coast Asphalt, he referenced a letter signed by Dave Branch. For clairification purposes on the alignment on Rancho Del Oro, Mr. York explained that the aligrment on the southerly portion would be at least half on the South Coast Asphalt property and in the EIR it indicates it is entirely on the subject property and not on South Coast Asphalt property. He further explained the aligrwnent on Marron~ and its extension easterly ooto property owned by South Coast Asphalt. He indicated that it is inaAm)priate to discuss the easterly extension as any kind of way to solve the inmediate problem that may be caused by the generation of traffic caused by the proposed ~ject. He added that it is a circulation element t-oad .-Id pr-eslftllbly will be built ultimately, but it his concern that if the easterly extension does go through the south Coast Asphalt qierating facilities there is potential illpllCt, not just in terns of South Coast Aaphalt, but oo the public. He oontinued that if the property is to be developed, South Coast Asphalt would IE9fer the nonresidential uses to the residential for obvious reasons and agrees with the applicant's land use planner that that is the best use for the property. 81.noe no aw else wiahed to speak oo the matter, Chairman rarrow cloeed the public hearing. '1tle ocadasion adopted the following Resolution: MSCUJTI<lf ti>. 2042, Rl!OMIH>:nl; CBRl'IFICATIClf OF llMidillirifJ, DIPAcr RBPCRl' (BIR 82-5) ~ A PRmX:T (IIIIRALLY n«::Ul)DI; A GBNBML PIM NIIIUl!Nl', ZCJm awr;B Na> SPIICIFIC PLAN ~ APPRlXIMTBLY 96 ACRES UX'A'ftl) <If 'ftll scxmt SIDB OF HIGIK\Y 78 JU91' ~ OF ~ [IUVZ. @ X X X X X X X MINUTES October 27 , 1982 Page 15 Cl::Jllnissioner Schlehuber indicated that nDre information "'°'11.d be needed before the Planning cannission could oonsider an approval of Rancho Del Oro. Olairman Farrow ooncun ·oo with ca.issialer Schlehuber, but felt the land use plan before the camnission tonight was a good one. Fbllowi.ng discussioo, a mtioo was made to approve General Plan Amenchent (GPA-64(A), and directed staff to make findings based oo the new sutmittal by the applicant, and bring back for approval with resolutioo identifying those findings and adopt foe approval the General Plan 1nentillent with the Q Ollerlay zone as an additiooal condition. A nw:>tion was made to approve the zone Change ( ZC-264) , and directed staff to prepare findings and bring back to make the Zl0l'le change oonsistent wit!'l the General Plan llllenchent. A. notioo was made to bring back Specific Plan (SP-185) back to staff for stl.lfy and consideration. 4. GPA-64(8), tDf AND ASSOCIATES -Request to amend the Land Use Element fran medillll and low--medillll density residential to planned industrial. With the aid of a transparency showing the location of the property, Cl\arles Grinm gave the staff report, essentially as contained in tJ!e written report and expressed willingness to respond to any questioos. CDmdss ioner Friestedt asked that staff point out the exact locatioo oo the transparency, showing the existing a:ine, residential areas on the boundaries of the subject property, those to the south and what is to the north along El canine Real. Q\aiman Farrow opened the public hearing and extended the invitatioo to speak. 'lhe o:.niaaion recognized Gaty Oellien, P.O Box 8086, RlnCho santa Fe, CA., speaking on behalf of the Bressi Rand\ 0olll)any. He gave a br:ief background oo the Bressi Randl CDlipanY. He indicated to the Catmission that he .c,uld like to take the opportooity to thanJt staff for their tiae and aaaiatanoe in processing the general plan •irdlllnt. He oontinued, holllever, that he did not agree with etaff'a rea: ____ .&t ioos and oonclus iona. He nfennced tw iuuee, ~ich raises two questions tl,at nlat• to tha, one, 1• there a uignificant justif ication fer the change in land uae and '°-lld the proposed change be ~tible with the aurrculding l and use in the area. 11t elt that the~ to these questions basically lies 1n taking a look at the property itself, topography, and eurrc~nUng land uaee in the area. He alao fel t that a Friestedt Schleh\Dr Farrow lt:ldlotis Rawlins Joee SChleh\i:ler Friestedt Farrow loltx>tls Rawlins Joee Friestedt SChlehuber Farrow lt:ld)otis Rawlins Jose X X X X X X X X X X X X X ]I X X X X X X X MINUTES ~r 27, 1982 Page 16 .:ir-. ~opt iate land uae boundary between the industrial ~ uiating in the area and the proposed residential ~ wuld 1 ie to the 110Uth of t-.he Palcaar Airport lkl8ineu Park, Ht futher explained the 3 criteria for tnmal'i• and dipicted the area on the -11 exhibit. In oonclU8ion he indicated that all they were propoelng tonight la " t'Nli~t of a t:nniary slightly to the aouth of.,. exiatlng t:nniary area and aleo indicated that they are willing to CJO along with the plamed industrial dNi9Mtion ex 8'0Ut a specific plan at a later date and ~ willingnHa to reapond to any questions. 'lbe Ooaluion recognised Joe Sandy, 2956 ltX>eeYelt, CKlllbad, CA,, r-epc:eWtting the Hunt Property and Mr. aana. Speaking on behalf of Ilk. eon's, Joe Sandy tllllde it clear to the Ooaluion that Mr. Bon' s had no objection to the propoeal pnNnted before you tonight. He &Med that the property owners both to the 110Uth, are oontelll)lating a aignificant portion of that property as nonresidential, office and ooiaercial and that is what they are looking at ultiMt•ly. 'lbe Ooalaaion recognized flt>rris Nickle, 16168 Beach Blvd,, tuttingta1 BNch, repnaenting property owners 1-diately to the weet of the property in question. Mr. Nickle en<.our~ the ac.aiaaion to lllllke a decision on thia Mtter ao that they oan aw:we forward on their project. Since no else wished to speak on the matter, Olairman Parrow cloeed the plblic hearing. ac.aiuioner Frieetedt asked if staff could verify the cruh acne that penetrates into the applicant's property • dipicted by the applicant's oonsultant's exhibit. Dia<Nuion related to potential hazard crash 7l008, flight path, and boundary line, staff respouded to Conllli.ssion queationa regarding aae. Michael HOlmiller stated that on a staff level, staff f•l• theA 1a a aignifioant IIIOUl\t of area that has been eet Mi.de around the airport fcx nonresidential reserve. Rt •tai.d that by looking at the general plan, it is an at.natly •iuble area. Ht aleo atated that we do have an •tlblillhed bolnSilry and cm,not just look at this as an iaolated 011N and ;:ry to dett!lrndne right at this location that one bcuwSary la better than the other, but alao have to look at the ovwall iJll)IICt of the general plan, OlP1Nl.oner Pri•tedt queationed the diagonal len;Jt.h of the ••-r;t cutting through the property owners pcapa-ty. lllalloWinlJ dlaouNion, the ca.iuion denied without judiol OPA-64 ) • '1be ca.iuion felt that m study • tbu --la ne0NNry before findings fcx ll(lpl'O'lal can bt ... X X X X X X X i MINUTES October 27, 1982 Page 17 Olaiman Parrow inquired if anyone in the audience that would not be able to attend the ffll!eting next week (Novaber 3, 1982), ,_. pr:uent to address any of the itaa. By proper imtion, the ~ting was continued to Wednesday, Novaber 3, 1982 at 12:10 P.M. Rlapectfully SUbltitted, Anita G. RIIIOe, Minutes Clerk