Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-21; Planning Commission; MinutesP MINUTES Meeting of: PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McFadden called the Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman McFadden. RCLL CALL: Present - Chairman McFadden, Commissioners Erwin, Hall, Holmes, Marcus, Schlehuber, and Schramm Staff Members Present: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Gary Wayne, Senior Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Chairman McFadden reviewed the Planning Commission procedures on the overhead for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. CONTINUED PUBLIC' HEARING: 1) DC 88-l FRAZAR - Return with conditions of approval for a large residential daycare permit on property located at 7654 Galleon Way in the R-1-7500 Zone. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that at the September 7, 1988 meeting the Planning Commission recommended continuance of DC 88-l so that staff could prepare conditions of approval to allow the operation of a large residential daycare facility at 7654 Galleon Way. The conditions of approval are set forth in the staff report. The applicant or the applicant's representative was not present to make a statement. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. There being no person desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2741 approving DC 88-l based on the conditions and findings contained therein. Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: September 21, 1988 % Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers \ i COMMISSIONERS Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm ,!- T MINUTES September 21, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC RRARINGS: 2) SDP 87-6 BABCOCK - Request for approval of a Site Development plan to develop a three unit apartment project on property located along the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, between Cherry and Juniper Avenues, in the Beach Area Overlay Zone and Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Plan to develop a three unit apartment on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Cherry and Juniper Avenues. This area is located in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1 and is also in Carlsbad's Coastal Zone, which requires a Coastal Development Permit. The subject site is zoned R-3 with a General Plan and Local Coastal designation of residential-high density, allowing for 15 to 23 du'sjac. The growth management growth control point is 19 du's/ac. The proposed three units would have a gross density of 19.3 du's/ac, exceeding the growth control point. The property is currently vacant and is surrounded by a mix of multi-family and single-family uses, with the Pacific Ocean on the west. The project consists of a single two-story, three-unit structure measuring 25 feet at the roof peak mid-point. The units range in size from 1,760 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. The project would provide eight parking spaces, two of which would be open and designated for visitor parking. The project meets the minimum setbacks and access would be proposed by a 16 ft. private easement from Cherry Avenue. The major issues which staff focused on during review of SDP 87-6 were the project's compliance with development standards of the Beach Area Overlay Zone, the design features specified in the North Beach Study, and the need to justify exceeding the growth control point for growth management. The apartment project does comply with the minimum standards of the R-3 zone but does not comply with several components of the Beach Area Overlay Zone or the design criteria of the North Beach Study. Specifically, with regard to design, the North Beach Study contains criteria which states that "...new development should be designed to reflect the small scale image rather than a large monolithic building. Apartments and condominiums should preferably be contained in smaller mass buildings rather than large buildings and, where large buildings are used, they should be designed with vertical, horizontal, and roof articulation of the building faces. Where two-story structures are used, they should be back away from the street to provide both visual and pedestrian corridors...." Mr. Wayne directed attention to the project renderings posted on the west wall and stated that the building is a large monolithic structure with no articulation, is very boxy in nature, and does not appear to meet the criteria. In addition, the structure occupies 59.8% coverage--the R-3 zone allows for a maximum of 60% coverage of the property. There is no stepping back of the structure and does not, therefore, preserve view corridors or have a pedestrian orientation. Finally, the project does not implement the goals of the North Beach Study. The proposed project does not comply with a setback standard of the Beach Area Overlay which requires open parking to be ,P MINUTES September 21, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 set back five feet from the structure. The purpose of the five foot setback is to have parking which is not near or adjacent to living spaces. In this case, the open parking is not near living spaces immediately adjacent on either the proposed project site or the adjacent site but is located to the south and north. However, since the project is so tight, as evidenced by minimal setbacks and maximum site coverage, it cannot even be redesigned to comply with the technical requirement for parking setback. The access to the property has not yet been completely resolved. Although the property fronts along Carlsbad Boulevard, Engineering has recommended that access not be taken from there due to safety reasons. The applicant is proposing that access be taken via a private easement from Cherry Avenue; however, this access has not yet been secured by an agreement. The alternative to an easement would be via a dedicated alley of 20 ft. which would need to extend all the way from Juniper to Cherry Avenue. A dedicated alley would probably cause some hardship to the applicant as well other property owners since an alley requires even further setbacks. Therefore, the applicant does not wish to pursue the idea of an alley and is still working with the adjacent property owners to secure access from the north. It is not possible to gain access from the south since the tri-plex to the south utilizes the entire rear yard for parking on a regular basis. An easement or alley would not allow any room for rear parking for the tenants of the tri-plex. The only available access, then, would be from the north but an easement agreement has not yet been finalized. Staff recommends denial of SDP 87-6 because it exceeds the growth control point and does not comply with the design guidelines of the Beach Overlay Zone. Consideration was also given to the fact that the applicant has not yet been able to secure proper access. Mr. Robert Babcock, 723 Balboa Avenue, Laguna Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and referred to a letter dated April 20, 1987 from Martin Orenyak which states that uncovered parking may be located in the 10.6 ft. rear yard setback. He contends that this would make it impossible to place the parking 5 ft. from the building. The proposed parking in the rear yard would be covered by a second story overhang. He maintains that the proposed project conforms to all height, land coverage, and setback requirements and that the building will be a beautiful structure with a sundeck in front. Mr,; Babcock passed out a photograph of some recently constructed buildings on Carlsbad Boulevard and stated that his proposed project will have more eye appeal than those in the photograph. He is concerned that when he purchased the land, it was zoned for 33 du's/ac, was later reduced to 23 du's/ac, and now the growth control point is 19 du's/ac. If he is only allowed to build two units, the land cost per unit would be extremely expensive since it represents a 50% decrease in du's/ac from 1986. When he first began making plans to build on the property several years ago, someone from Engineering told him he would-have to make arrangements for access.at the rear of the property rather than Carlsbad Boulevard. He has been having problems getting his neighbor, Mr. Monroy, to agree to an easement. Mr. Monroy has stated that the easement is worth at least $50,000--almost double the appraisal price. A copy of the appraisal conclusion from Arthur T. Ammon, Certified Appraiser, is included with these minutes. Mr. Babcock stated that the $50,000 price is not to purchase the property, but only to use that strip of land for MINUTES September 21, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION 4 Page 4 COMMISSIONERS \ ’ access. He accused Mr. Wayne of being a friend of Mr. Monroy and passing pertinent information to him, which has resulted in negotiation problems regarding the easement. Mr. Babcock contends that this is a conflict of interest. Furthermore, because of the heavy expense projections for the easement, the Babcock's did not feel they could afford to have the plans drawn by a professional architect and so he drew the plans himself. Mr. Babcock stated that he would be willing to build two units if he could be assured access to the property without additional expense. Commissioner Erwin inquired if Mr. Babcock had advised the Planning Director of his concerns and/or requested another planner to work on the project. Mr. Babcock replied that he had written a letter to Mr. Orenyak. Commissioner Holmes inquired why Mr. Babcock had hired a professional to do the landscaping and not the architecture. Mr. Babcock replied that he was worried about putting a lot of money into the architecture until he could determine how much money it would cost him for an easement from Mr. Monroy. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Anne Nelson, 3648 Carlsbad Boulevard, Apt. C (the tri-plex located to the south of the proposed project), addressed the Commission and stated that she is concerned about access to the Babcock's property via an alley. Her apartment is located at the rear of the building. If an alley goes through, she would lose her privacy, parking, and quiet enjoyment. Mario R. Monroy, 3610 Carlsbad Boulevard, owns the property to the north of the Babcock property. He is concerned about the accusations made against Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, and stated that his only association with Mr. Wayne is through the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation. They have never socialized with one another. Regarding the information which he has been privy to, Mr. Monroy stated that all documents and information are a matter of public record which he is entitled to see. He has been negotiating with Mr. Babcock regarding an easement but he cannot grant an easement to him or anybody else until he finds out what the City will allow him to build on his own property. He has his architect with him tonight, should the Commissioners have any technical questions they would like answered. Chairman McFadden inquired how Mr. Monroy feels about the proposed project being built alongside his property. Mr. Monroy replied that he has strong feelings about the Beach Overlay Zone and the Babcock's project does not follow the recommendations of that study. Therefore, he concurs with the staff recommendation of denial. Mary Babcock, 723 Balboa Avenue, Laguna Beach, co-applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that she is concerned about the two years they have been waiting for results from the City. She is under a great deal of stress because they can't seem to get approval to access the property from the rear or from Carlsbad Boulevard. She is concerned about the negative attitudes of the staff. She feels the proposed building is elegant and will beautify the area. Roy Blackford, 2942 Harding Street, Carlsbad, the architect working with the Monroy's, addressed the Commission and September 21, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 stated that the access being requested by Mr. Babcock will affect the use of Mr. Monroy's property. If a 16 ft. easement is granted, it would actually eliminate the use of 24 ft. from the rear property line. After also eliminating use of the front setback, there remains only 28 ft. of useable property on the ground floor. Any dwelling unit(s) would then have to be constructed on a second level. He has submitted two preliminary plans to staff for consideration. Chairman McFadden introduced into the record a letter dated September 13, 1988 from Roger V. Peterson, Certified Public Accountant, 180 Cherry Avenue, Carlsbad who stated that 1) access from Carlsbad Boulevard would be extremely dangerous and he is not in favor of access from Cherry Avenue, 2) sufficient onsite parking should be provided for residents and guests because side street parking is already a problem, and 3) he is concerned about large buildings which inhibit the views of current residents. The applicant had no rebuttal. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the date of the Beach Overlay study. Mr. Holzmiller, Planning Director, replied that the Beach Overlay Zone was adopted in 1985 and the North Beach study was conducted in 1987. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if staff had any comments on Mr. Orenyak's letter of April 20, 1987 which Mr. Babcock introduced into the record. Mr. Wayne replied that the letter was written before a site development plan was presented; it was a general response to basic questions. Commissioner Holmes inquired about the packet maps showing the Babcock property extending to Garfield Street. Mr. Wayne replied that the maps are incorrect. Commissioner Holmes stated that if the Babcock's cannot access the property, it results in a land-locked lot. He inquired if it would be possible to design a building that could be accessed from Carlsbad Boulevard. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, replied that heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic would make access from Carlsbad Boulevard dangerous. Mr. Holzmiller responded that the parcel is not landlocked. If the applicant proposed to build a single family residence, it would not need discretionary approval. Once the request goes to two (2) units, it then requires discretionary approval and standards must be applied. Commissioner Holmes inquired if the applicant has no options unless the project is a single family residence or rear access via an alley or easement can be attained. Chairman McFadden replied that if the applicant would request a single family or duplex, something could probably be worked out for access on Carlsbad Boulevard. She feels that design of the project is the consideration tonight, not the access. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he could not approve access off Carlsbad Boulevard for anything other than a single family since he feels it is too dangerous. Furthermore, the design criteria in the Beach Overlay Zone is very specific and the applicant is not the only person in MINUTES September 21, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS Carlsbad who has lost density. He feels that the specifics of the Beach Overlay Zone must be adhered to. Commissioner Schlehuber was concerned about the reference to Mr. Wayne and stated that many people in a small town know other people and stressed that decisions in Carlsbad are based on the facts and not personalities. He cannot support the proposed project and would recommend denial without prejudice so that staff and the applicant can work out the access and design problems. Commissioner Marcus agrees with Commissioner Schlehuber and cannot support the project for the reasons presented in the staff report. She would agree to denial without prejudice since she feels that development of the property would be an asset to the area. Commissioner Erwin agrees with Commissioner Schlehuber. Commissioner Hall thinks the building is too massive for the area and feels that the architecture should be improved. Commissioner Schramm agrees with the comments expressed by other Commissioners. Commissioner Holmes stated that the applicant needs professional help with the architecture and feels that the building must meet the Beach Overlay standards. Chairman McFadden agrees with the other comments given. She can support denial without prejudice since she feels that a workable solution can be reached. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2766 denying without prejudice SDP 87-6, based on the findings contained therein. Planning Director Holzmiller explained to the applicant that a denial without prejudice means that he can resubmit the project at any time, whereas a regular denial would require waiting for one year prior to resubmission. Commissioner Schlehuber remarked to the applicant that a professional architect is trained to deal with the requirements and could design something which is approvable. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 6:55 p.m. and reconvened at 7:09 p.m. 3) CT 88-l/PUD 88-l L&R PARTNERSHIP - To consider approval of a 27 lot/26 dwelling unit Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit development on property located along the south side of Park Drive, 500 feet east of Marina Drive in the P-C Zone and Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a 26 unit Tentative Tract map and Planned Unit Development located along the south side of Park Drive, approximately 500 feet east of Marina Drive in the Planned Community (P-C) Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm P /I MINUTES -1 . September 21, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS Zone, Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The area is designated in both the General Plan and the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal program segment for residential, medium-high density, 8-15 du's/ac with a growth control point of 11.5 du's/ac. The P-C designation normally requires a master plan for development except for undeveloped parcels under 100 acres in size; said parcels must, instead, have approval for a planned unit development permit or a condominium permit. The proposed project is located in the Agua-Hedionda boundaries and will therefore require a local coastal permit for construction which must be issued by the Coastal Commission. The project site formerly had a 46-unit tentative map and condominium project approved on it in 1982 by the City and the Coastal Commission. Since the tentative map was never finaled, it has subsequently expired. The proposed tentative map and PHD is located on a 6.3 acre site with a density of 6 du's/ac which is considerably lower than the growth control point of 11.5 du'sjac. The project would be designed as 13 duplex units, constructed as townhouses, ranging in size from 2,000 sq. ft. to 2,100 sq. ft. The architecture would be a light stucco with brown tudor accents and shake roofs. Each unit would have a private patio with decking. There wouid be a community recreation area with a lap pool, and space for RV storage. Access to the proposed project would be from a publicly dedicated street on the west side which would cul-de-sac at the lagoon. The project is surrounded by multi-family units along Park Drive, the lagoon further to the south, and a mix of single family to the north of Park Drive. Staff review has determined that the proposed project complies with all of the development standards and design criteria of the P-C ordinance. In addition, the Agua Hedionda LCP specifies that this particular property must: (1) be developed at a lower density, (2) have a 100 ft. buffer on the east side and the lagoon side to protect sensitive wetland habitat, said buffer to be fenced with protective fencing to inhibit uncontrolled access to the wetlands, (3) h ave a 30 ft. setback from Park Drive, and (4) must provide at least one-third of its frontage as an open view corridor to the lagoon. The proposed project meets the specifics of the LCP and the performance standards of the Local Facilities Management Plan. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Erwin inquired why a sidewalk is not being required along the south side of Park Drive when the road is being widened. Mr. Wayne replied that there is a1ready.a sidewalk along the north side of Park Drive. Mr. Wojcik added that Engineering felt a sidewalk was not needed until the adjacent Ferraro property is developed. Commissioner Erwin inquired how soon a sidewalk would be put in. Mr. Wayne replied that it would be a minimum of l-2 years but could be longer. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the 617 ft. distance between Laguna Shores and Marina Drive. He wondered if the short distance between the two streets combined with the curve of Park Drive could cause a problem. Mr. Wojcik replied that the site distance meets all requirements. Chairman McFadden inquired about the height of the buildings since nothing shows on the drawings. Mr. Wayne replied that it is 26 ft. to the peak of the roof. Chairman McFadden sees driveways in the abstract but inquired if there are garage door closers. Mr. Wayne replied that the P -J MINUTES September 21, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 COMMISSIONERS minimum setback is 20 ft. and therefore garage door closers were not required. Commissioner Holmes requested staff to elaborate on the fence between the lagoon and the project. Mr. Wayne passed out a diagram which shows the fence detail. Basically it is a 5 ft. high chain link fence at the bottom of the slope with a 42 inch high decorative fence at the top of the slope. This fence will eliminate access to the wetlands. The buffer must be landscaped. Jerry Rombotis, 1730 Calavo Court, Carlsbad, representing L&R Partnership, addressed the Commission and stated that the 5 ft. chain link fence described by Mr. Wayne will be on the flat area rather than down the bank. He indicated on the map the access points to the desiltation basin; the access points would also be used for pedestrians and visitors. The open space will be maintained in perpetuity by the homeowners. The recreation area contains a lap pool as well as a spa and a cabaiia. The driveways are long in order to provide off-street parking for guests. Chairman McFadden inquired about the kiosk and drinking fountain. Mr. Rombotis replied that the kiosk to provide information on the wetlands is required by the State Department of Fish & Game and Coastal Commission. It is presumed that the information in the kiosk will be provided by them. Commissioner Holmes inquired about the statement that the homeowners will maintain the 100 ft. setback. Mr. Rombotis replied that the homeowners own that property and must maintain it. Commissioner Erwin inquired why a lap pool was planned rather than a standard-size swimming pool. Mr. Rombotis replied that a recent market survey indicates that lap pools are used much more than regular pools. Commissioner Erwin inquired why it was decided not to install sidewalks within the project. Mr. Rombotis replied that the project is only 200 ft. long and is gated so there will be no (foot) traffic from the outside. Commissioner Erwin inquired if he foresees a problem with the public access walkway so close to the homes. Mr. Rombotis replied that the proposed location for the public access walkway was the only place to put it. It will be gravel walkway and could possibly be moved once the desiltation basis is no longer required. The desiltation basin is the joint responsibility of this project and Laguna De1 Mar and can be filled in when the City determines that it is no longer needed. Commissioner Erwin remarked that it appears the entire backyard of the units is patio. Mr. Rombotis replied that there is a lot of open space surrounding the units however the only useable space would be the patio area. Chairman McFadden inquired about the reference to "one phase." Mr. Rombotis replied that this means all grading, public improvements, and on-site improvements will be done in one phase. The homes may be built in two phases. r‘~ -$ MINUTES September 21, 1988 Commissioner Holmes inquired about the size of the RV parking. Mr. Rombotis replied that it would accommodate two RV's. Commissioner Schramm inquired if the entire walkway is crushed rock. Mr. Rombotis replied that only the easement is gravel; the remainder is regular pavement. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. There being no person desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commissipn members. Commissioner Marcus inquired if items 49 and 50 of Resolution No. 2757 are duplications. Mr. Wayne replied that she was correct and this will be fixed. Mr. Holzmiller noted that items 30-33 are also duplications. Chairman McFadden noted that the date in Finding tll should be changed from July 20 to September 21, 1988. Chairman McFadden feels that the proposed project is very crowded. She is concerned about the height of the units and questioned if all residents within 600 ft. were properly notified. Mr. Rombotis replied that the 600 ft. notification was made and he also had spoken to adjacent homeowners. Chairman McFadden is happy to see that a geologist will be called in for soil recompaction studies. She would prefer to see the public access completed now rather than waiting for improvement of the property to the west (Ferraro). Mr. Wayne replied that Ferraro has granted an easement for public access which will be improved as soon as an agreement is reached between the State Department of Fish & Game and the Coastal Commission. Chairman McFadden inquired if the applicant would be willing to improve the public access before the Ferraro property is developed. Mr. Rombotis replied that he could do this but would need to get a reimbursement agreement from Ferraro for half of the cost prior to starting the work. Commissioner Holmes referred to Condition 1113 and would like to add a statement that the CC&R's be delivered to the homeowners in escrow. Mr. Ball replied that the CC&R's automatically become part of the chain of title and it is up to the property owner to read them. Commissioner Schlehuber likes the design of the units, the shake roofs, and the low density. He accepts staff's explanation on the sidewalks and can accept the staff recommendation. Commissioners Marcus and Erwin agree with Commissioner Schlehuber. Commissioner Hall remarked that he was happy the project was delayed several years to enable a density reduction from 46 to 26 units. Commissioner Schramm would like to see the walkway moved as soon as the desiltation basin is filled in. PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 R, MINUTES September 21, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 Commissioner Holmes and Chairman McFadden can both accept the project as proposed. Chairman McFadden would like to see the public access improvements expedited. Michael Holzmiller remarked that the access improvement should be included as a condition of approval. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2758 approving the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2757 approving CT 88-l/PUD 88-1, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with an added condition that as soon as agreements can be made for the public access from Laguna Shores Way to the lagoon that the applicant will provide access improvements and be reimbursed for one- half of the costs by the adjacent property owner. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 4) ENCINA PHASE IV PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, stated that the Encina joint powers, comprised of six agencies in North County, has been working for the past two years on a facilities plan to expand the Encina treatment plant to the year 2020, commonly referred to as the Encina Phase IV Expansion Plan, to allow for future development within the Encina service area. The project will be presented to the City Council next week. Following that, the project will go into the final design phase and precise details will be presented to the Planning Commission at a later date. Using an aerial photograph of Encina, Mr. Hubbs pointed out where additional facilities will be located at the treatment plant. He stated that the Phase IV expansion will take the plant from 22.5 to 36 MGD/liquid and 38 MGD/solid capacity. This expansion will attempt to equalize the outfall capacity with the influent hydraulic capacity. Leucadia is the lead agency in preparation of the environmental impact report. The EIR is now being presented to all six agencies. All impacts except two have been mitigated: (1) sludge processing, and (2) growth inducement impacts. Secondary treatment of sludge processing is still an open issue since it has not yet been decided how to dispose of the sludge. As far as the growth inducement impacts, the Phase IV expansion exceeds the SANDAG scenario because all of the agencies projected their needs and the result exceeded the 3% growth forecast by SANDAG. The past growth experience has been 12%. Mr. Hubbs stated that when the Phase IV expansion is completed, there should be approximately 7 years of capacity available. Since growth management requires 5 years availability, it will then be time to begin planning for another expansion. The next expansion will require moving the administrative offices to provide room for additional treatment capacity. That expansion will also deal with paralleling of outfall. Mr. Richard Graff, General Manager of Encina, and Betty Meyer, Technical Director of Encina, were present to answer questions. Chairman McFadden inquired about the reference in the Executive Summary regarding 10,000 homes which are not Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm r‘ ?, MINUTES September 21, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page l1 COMMISSIONERS sewered. Mr. Graff replied that 10,000 homes is merely an estimate and Encina is the only major wastewater plant to accept septic haulers. Encina accepts 12 trucks per day, six days per week, which equates to about 35,000 homes but only 30% is estimated to be from the Encina service area. He predicts septic will phase out in developed areas but will probably continue in the back country. Chairman McFadden inquired about the reference on page 12 to "treatment capacity needs to incorporate septage flows from outside the service areas" and if this related to the septic haulers currently being serviced. Mr. Graff replied that it did. Commissioner Holmes inquired about sludge presently being trucked to a local county landfill, page ES-l, paragraph one, and wondered why it was not used as a soil amendment. Mr. Graff replied that 90% is hauled to land application sites in Yuma, Riverside and Imperial Counties for use as a soil amendment under contract arrangements. Up until 1985, land application was used 100% in this county but the City of San Diego would not let us continue due to their needs. Commissioner Holmes inquired about the difference between soil amendment and compost. Mr. Graff replied that soil amendment is not exposed to human contact while compost must be heat treated for safety. Commissioner Holmes inquired about outfall lines and how the system would work if there were no ocean. Mr. Graff replied that without a river or ocean, wastewater treatment would have to use percolation beds for evaporation or saturation. Commissioner Holmes inquired about the reference to a potential engineering alternative for the waiver scenario utilizing chemical additives, page ES-3, paragraph two, and if the sludge would still be reusable with chemical additives. Mr. Graff replied that chemical additives was an alternate proposal but the costs and other factors are not acceptable. Commissioner Holmes inquired how often the ocean outfall is tested. Mr. Graff replied that ocean outfall is dumped 1.5 miles from shore and the last 600 feet has a diffuser with ports down the sides which results in a wide disbursement. Outfall samples are taken on a regular basis: sediment is tested quarterly, fish are tested semi-annually, water samples are tested monthly, and the beach is tested weekly. Betty Meyer, Technical Services Director, added that the discharge is tested daily. Commissioner Erwin inquired what happens when the parameters are exceeded. Ms. Meyer replied that it happens rarely and is usually traced to a problem with the sampler. There has been no safety violations within the past five years. Commissioner Holmes inquired about the mention of a minor but increased risk of permit exceedence for bacterial content in the discharge effluent particularly during the winter months, page ES-S, paragraph two. Mr. Graff replied that it relates to the receiving waters during summer being warm on top and cooler in the deep water which results in a wider disbursement. During the winter months there is less disbursement which could increase the probability of human contact. MINUTES September 21, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page l2 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Holmes inquired if it is time to seek a sludge disposal alternative plan to the sewer outfall system. Mr. Graff replied that effluent is currently advanced primary and is 95% clean. Sludge is a different problem, and is being worked on. Encina is currently in the site procurement stage. Commissioner Holmes inquired about the hauling distance referred to on page ES-8 and if it is time to find a permanent alternative to diminishing landfills. Mr. Graff replied that this is being look at now but there are many issues to consider. Commissioner Holmes inquired about the reference to other potential mitigation measures and the acquisition of adjacent land areas to provide an odor buffer zone, page ES-lo, paragraph two, and how this can be accomplished with onshore air flow. Mr. Graff replied that the land under consideration would be south of the plant, however it is not currently a mitigation measure. Commissioner Holmes inquired how heavy metals being extracted are disposed of. Mr. Graff replied that industrial discharge is pretreated. Because North County is not a heavy industrial area and since trunk lines are monitored quarterly, it is relatively easy to track down a continuous discharge. However, it would be hard to detect a one-time offender. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Jane Skotnicki, 3535 Bedford Circle, Carlsbad, representing the North Coast League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission and stated that she is in favor of building a phased program but thinks that a 20 year plan is over-reacting to the present crisis. She is in favor of the phasing alternative mentioned on page 7-5 of the EIR, a plant built to meet the needs of the year 2000, with a modular plant for the next expansion. She feels that the 12% growth experience is irregular and that growth will be more in line with the 3% SANDAG forecast. There being no person desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Erwin inquired if future technology has been considered. Mr. Graff replied that the present technology is more than ten years old. Some alternative technologies were considered but the engineers have recommended continuing with the present process since it is a natural process. Commissioner Erwin would like to see something done to improve the odor control which, he feels, has deteriorated in recent years. Commissioner Schlehuber can accept the City Engineer's report. He feels that the growth management has been considered but the expansion is very much needed. He can support the recommendation based on the testimony heard tonight. Chairman McFadden concurs with Commissioner Schlehuber September 21, 1988 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Page l3 CoM and, although she can see the concerns about growth inducement, it is always necessary to build more than you need at the present time. ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: Charles Grimm reminded Commissioners that the General Plan subcommittee would meet on Thursday at 7:00 a.m. and the Project Control subcommittee would meet on Friday at 7:00 a.m. MINUTES: The Planning Commission approved the minutes of August 17, 1988 as presented. The Planning Commission approved the minutes of September 7, 1988 as presented. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of September 21, 1988 was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL HOLZMILLER Planning Director BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2015 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAO, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 Otliceot the Clfy Engineer TELEPHONE (619)4X5-1161 8 CIitg of Chrfsbnb April 20, 1987 Robert H. Babcock 723 Balboa Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Subject: Development of Property on Carlsbad Boulevard In response to your third letter, dated April 13, 1987, I would like to summariie the City's requirements for a three-unit development on your property. I The Planning Department requirements, per City Ordinance, for a t three-unit condominium would be a minimum of eight parking spaces, six of which must be covered, two uncovered. The uncovered parking spaces can be located in the side or rear,yard setbacks. The setback requirements for your property would be 20-feet in the front yard,, 5.3-feet on the side yard, and 10'.6-feet in the rear yard. Your height requirements would be's maximum of 25-feet, or two stories. If your parking is located underground or on the first level, it will be counted as one story. As far as the Engineering requirements, 'those have been stated in the letter from Robert Wojcik, dated April 7, 1987. The Engineering Department has already compromised and will require only a 20-foot I access9asement to the rear of your property, as no access to Carlsbad Boulevard will be allowed. If you have any further questions, please call me at 438-1161. M/k&&L Community Development Director MO:jb .- c: Planning Director _ .- City Engineer .- . . -- ; _. __._ i ; _ . .._ . :- -. . - ..--. _._ ,..a. ..-’ ‘_ -. ,, ._. -I,. ---. -.. ,- -._ ” .. , _. . -... __- ._.,_. -, .,-,. -. .I- - . i , t ROGER V. PETERSON CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT 180 CHERRY AVENUE CARLSBAD. CALF~~WIA 92008 (6 19) 434-5635 September 13, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California Re: Babcock/SDP 87-6, Proposal for site development I write this letter in response to receiving a notification of public hearing on the above referenced development and the reservation of the following issues regarding this development. As a property owner since 1980 and resident of Cherry Avenue at 180 Cherry Avenue, I have concerns that are based on observations I have made daily; 1. Access should not be allowed on Carlsbad Blvd. because there is already to much traffic traveling at speeds in excess of the posted 35 MPH. r 2. Sufficient onsite parking should be provided for residents and guests since there is no immediate parking available on Carlsbad Blvd. This should be over and above the current requirements because this location would impact side street parking which I according to the City is already at a premium. 3. Access to this lot should not be from Cherry Avenue because our street already has the highest per lot use for the area. I am also unaware of any alley access available because the Monroy home seems to occupy and has fenced off where the alley from Juniper would connect. Should there be a time when Juniper has a similiar density as does Cherry, I would , understand the need for an alley that went through from Juniper to Cherry. thM+4 . The height restrictions that have been placed on this area may not be ammplishing what you Case in point would be the James rernoae~-?Gi- arfreld just south of Tamarack. Should you walk through this house you will find it is three stories with an attic as the third floor that has been outfitted with roof decks, doors and windows, and finished off to the point that any reasonably educated person can tell that it is a habitable third story which is not intended as storage with limited access and has circumvented the intent of the City Council's decision to limit to two (2) stories the development in the Beach Overlay Zone. As you have down zoned the area and changed the height restrictions, no concern or.variances have been made available to properties that have had their VIEWS inhibited by the newest structures to our area. This proposed development and the Nob Hill project on Carlsbad Blvd. and the three (3) story condo project on Juniper will severely impact MY VIEWS of the Pacific Ocean and OUR coastline toward Mount Soledad. I want a fair and proper chance to have what I paid for and am being indirectly assessed for through my property taxes, MY VIEWS of OUR coastline that were here when I bought and have been unjustly taken away from me through your allowing development and then not allowing the next guy to do the same by changing the rules AND with no just compensation. 5. Architecturally, I am from the school of thought that variety is the spice of life and if I wanted everything to look the same I would live in Ranch0 Bernard0 or a large development where everything looks the same. Thus, I am not at issue '-- with any architectural restrictions that may become an issue. 6. Parking in this area is not really a problem except for several times a year when weather and holidays create a higher than normal demand for our 3 6 1 c . r - beaches and this is tolerable. Because of this and the fact that I live here, I am opposed to any provisions for this development that would provide for onstreet parking and/or the storage onsite/offsite of large vehicles (ie: RV's, etc.) on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. It is bad enough that we allow RV's to park in our high density areas as it is. If you want to restrict something in the Beach Overlay Zone, do so by restricting large vechicles parking at anytime in this area (ie: RV's, trailers, diesel tractor trailers, etc.). Speaking for myself, I hope this letter covers all of the issues that come up with regard to this development in particular and the Beach Overlay Zone as a whole. Roger V. Peterson RVP/cj clsbadO1 cc: Claude Lewis, Mayor Ann Kulchin Mark Pettine John Marmaux Erii: Larson L’s41 State Street Suite 109 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 434-3177 SUBJECT PROPERTY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3610 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AND IS AKA ASSESSORS PARCEL #204-232-14. THE PROPERTY CONTAINS A LARGE CUSTOM 2 STORY RESIDENCE AND GARAGE FACILITIES. THE PROPOSED EASEMENT IS LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND CAN BE ENTERED FROM CHERRY STREET. THE PROPOSED EASEMENT IS APPROXIMATELY 20 X 60 FEET AND THE PURPOSE OF THE EASEMENT IS TO ALLOW THE OWNERS OF THE VACANT LOT NEXT TO 3610 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD TO HAVE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO AND FROM THEIR LOT THEREBY MAKING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY MORE FEASIBLE. THE PRESENT USE OF THE PROPOSED EASEMENT IS FOR PARKING FOR FAMILY AND FRIENDS ESPECIALLY ON WEEK-ENDS AND DURING THE SUMMER. THE PRESENT OWNER IS UNDECIDED AS TO WHETHER HE WOULD BE WILLING TO SELL THE EASEMENT RIGHTS AS IT WOULD TAKE AWAY PARKING AND WOULD REQUIRE HIM TO PUT UP A WALL TO INSURE PRIVACY OR THE ATTRACTIVE GARDEN WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL GARAGES FOR PARKING. CONCLUSION AFTER PERSONAL INSPECTION AND CONSULTATION WITH VARIOUS REALTORS AND TWO OTHER APPRAISAT, FIRMS, AS WELL AS REFERING TO THE MLS SALES DATA AND CMDC DATA IT 1s MY OPINION THAT THE PROPOSED EASEMENT HAS A VALUE OF $27 PER SQUARE FOOT OR A ROUNDED OUT VALUE OF $32,000. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ARTHUR T. AMMON ti -A I6 x 60 rr &h’StfMMd~ Q @k.Oo r5Q.W. = 25-,920 /