Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-19; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes January 19, 2011 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: January 19, 2011 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson L'Heureux called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Baker led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson L'Heureux, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Montgomery, Nygaard and Schumacher Absent: None STAFF PRESENT: Don Neu, Planning Director Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Van Lynch, Senior Planner Scott Donnell, Senior Planner Chris Garcia, Junior Planner Chris Sexton, Planning Technician Don Wasko, Wastewater Superintendent Tecla Levy, Associate Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from January 5, 2011. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Schumacher, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2011. VOTE: 5-0-1 AYES: Chairperson L'Heureux, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Montgomery, and Commissioner Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Nygaard Chairperson L'Heureux directed everyone's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the Commission would be following during the evening's Public Hearing. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. Planning Commission Minutes January 19,2011 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson L'Heureux asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item. 1. CUP 02-19(B)x1 - VIGILUCCI'S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE - Request for a ten year retroactive extension of CUP 02-19(B) to allow the continued operation of Vigilucci's Seafood and Steakhouse at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Senior Planner Scott Donnell would make the Staff presentation. Chairperson L'Heureux opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Mr. Donnell gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Baker asked if all restaurants in town are subject to the new condition requiring the grease interceptor. Mr. Donnell stated yes and added that as part of the adoption of the Fats, Oils and Greases Ordinance, in 2007 and 2008 the City did inspect all of the restaurants in the City and this condition is a result of that inspection on this restaurant. The Conditional Use Permit provided the opportunity to add the condition. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any other questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Jack Henthorn, Jack Henthorn and Associates, PO Box 237, Carlsbad, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, Chairperson L'Heureux opened and closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Schumacher, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6751 approving a retroactive ten year extension of CUP 02-19(6) based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the errata sheet. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson L'Heureux, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Nygaard and Commissioner Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson L'Heureux closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 2. ZCA 10-06/LCPA 10-05 - REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS ORDINANCE - Request for a recommendation of approval for a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to add and enact Chapter 21.87 to the Zoning Ordinance, creating procedures and regulations governing requests for reasonable accommodations by people with disabilities to ensure consistency with the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 2011 Page 3 Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Junior Planner Chris Garcia would make the Staff presentation assisted by Senior Planner Scott Donnell. Chairperson L'Heureux opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. Mr. Garcia gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Baker asked if future property owners would have any reason to know that the property was not in compliance with existing regulations and that the property had a special exemption. Mr. Garcia stated that some permits require that a Notice of Restriction be filed on the property; however, this action would not require that a Notice of Restriction be recorded on the title. In the situation where the modifications to the property were not easily removable, the City would typically not ask that it be removed when the property was vacated. Future property owners would be in the same situation as other property owners where there are legal non-conforming uses and would be subject to the existing non-conforming uses code. Commissioner Baker stated that if that is the case, the new property owner might not be able to make any changes to the structure if it is a non-conforming use. Mr. Garcia stated it would be consistent with the existing non-conforming uses code. Commissioner Baker commented that if the use of the site is intensified with the modifications per this ordinance, the future property owners would have to bring the entire site into compliance. She is concerned for future property owners that purchase a property and are in a situation with a legal non-conforming use. If those property owners then wish to remodel the house, they could run into problems. Commissioner Baker feels that a subsequent property owner should be aware of the situation up front. Mr. Garcia stated that, either through this ordinance or through prior construction, there are many properties throughout the city that are legal non- conforming and there is no current disclosure. Commissioner Baker stated that is somewhat different because in order to make accommodations for people the City is having to change the process as to how the approvals are granted. In response to Commissioner Baker's concerns, Mr. Neu stated Staff would handle it similar to a Variance, whereby a Variance was granted and it changed the standard that Staff would not necessarily deem the structure as legal non-conforming. It would be shown as allowed by a Variance and that it conforms. Commissioner Baker stated that this ordinance would be for an individual and not for the property. Mr. Neu stated the distinction with this ordinance is that there would need to be a determination made regarding whether any of the improvements would be easily removable. In the case where a bathroom was added to a house, for example, Staff would make the determination that it is not easily removable. In the case of a ramp for wheelchair access, for example, where it could be removed, Staff might condition the project differently. Mr. Neu commented that the way the ordinance is structured it gives Staff the ability to apply conditions that describe whether or not the modification needs to be removed in the future should the individual requiring the modification no longer occupy the premises and the new occupant not need the facility. It is a case where Staff will need to analyze each situation. Commissioner Montgomery asked how the City will deal with any potential abuse of this ordinance. Mr. Garcia stated the application requirements do require either a doctor's certification or proof that an individual does have a disability and that the accommodation requested serves to that disability. Commissioner Montgomery asked if a property owner were trying to abuse this ordinance, could he or she get a doctor's note from a friend who happens to be a doctor for example. Mr. Garcia stated there could be abuse on many of these issues; however the City is simply requiring the doctor's certification. With this ordinance, there are many legal issues to be involved with. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, stated the Department of Fair Employment and Housing typically receives complaints from people who are supposedly disabled and claim they have been discriminated against. The Department requires verification from a doctor that the person is disabled, and on the Department's form, there is a space where the doctor can check if he or she would be willing to testify under penalty of perjury in a court of law to the nature of the disability. Ms. Mobaldi further stated that the Department does not necessarily require that the doctor be willing to testify in order to proceed with their investigation of the complaint or even to find that it is meritorious. Commissioner Dominguez commented that he sees improvements with this ordinance compared to what currently exists; however he does also see some problems. He would like to have added language to Title 21 that would add internal administrative relief in the case of a complicated process that would provide some sort of facilitation for issues such as Commissioner Baker pointed out. Ms. Mobaldi Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 2011 Page 4 reiterated that the Planning Director's decision, with regard to the disability, whether it has been adequately documented, and whether the requested accommodation is sufficiently related to that disability, is appealable to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council. Commissioner Baker stated that Commissioner Dominguez was speaking of any future buyer of a property that was modified due to this ordinance and what the process is for any issues they might have. Ms. Mobaldi stated that initially the Planning Director will be making these determinations and if his decision is not satisfactory to whoever does not like it, there are appeal procedures in place. Commissioner Dominguez asked if verification of the need was adequately covered in the new ordinance. Ms. Mobaldi stated yes and that is a situation where it is a factually intensive inquiry and impossible to address every potential scenario. To a certain extent Staff will need to rely on the procedures that are in place for appeals of determinations on these issues. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any further questions. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, Chairperson L'Heureux opened and closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Schumacher, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6748 and 6749 recommending approval of a Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 10-06) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 10-05), based on the findings contained therein. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson L'Heureux, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Nygaard and Commissioner Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson L'Heureux closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 3. CDP 10-22 - BARELMANN PROPERTY - Appeal of a Planning Director decision to approve a Minor Coastal Development Permit to allow a 198 square foot garden shed for a community garden located on a vacant residential lot at 6479 Surfside Lane, south of Island Way and east of Carlsbad Boulevard, within the Mello II Segment of the City's Local Coastal Program and within Local Facilities Management Zone 22. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated the appellant's representative Adrienne Landers would make a presentation because the appellant has the burden of proof. Mr. Neu stated Planning Technician Chris Sexton would then make the Staff presentation followed by the project applicant. Chairperson L'Heureux opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 3. Adrienne Landers, 3746 Hillview Way, Oceanside, representing the appellant, gave a brief presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. David Seeley, 6491 Surfside Lane, Carlsbad, speaking on behalf of 13 out of 16 property owners on Surfside Lane, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer questions. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any questions of the appellant. Seeing none, he asked Staff to make their presentation. Planning Commission Minutes January 19,2011 Page 5 Ms. Sexton gave a brief presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the property owner could simply grow a garden on the site. Ms. Sexton stated that the R-1 allows agriculture as a permitted use and agricultural crops are exempt from having to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. Commissioner Montgomery referred to a slide in the appellant's presentation depicting a blighted garden and asked if that would be allowed without a permit or oversight as long as there were no structures on the site. Ms. Sexton stated yes. Commissioner Dominguez stated that one of the allegations was that a building permit was issued for the shed. Ms. Sexton stated that was correct. The building permit was issued in error before the Coastal Development Permit was approved. When it was brought to Staff's attention, it was determined that a Coastal Development Permit was required. Commissioner Dominguez asked if a stop order was then issued. Ms. Sexton stated yes. Commissioner Dominguez stated the determination was made that a Minor Coastal Development Permit was required. Ms. Sexton stated that was correct. Chairperson L'Heureux asked for the definition of a community garden. Mr. Neu stated the City does not have a definition for a community garden. The zoning code and the Table A for each zone list specific permitted and conditional uses. There is then a provision preceding the table that allows for Planning Director determination for like or similar uses in part because of changes in technology and development. In this case, the decision was made that agriculture is listed in the Table, and a community garden is a form of agriculture. Chairperson L'Heureux asked who gave this site the label as community garden. Mr. Neu stated that the applicant gave it that label initially and Staff concurred. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there are any design rules applicable to community gardens. Mr. Neu stated no and pointed out that the appeal which is before the Commission tonight is for the shed not for the agriculture or the garden use. The administrative approval letter for the CDP does not list anything that deals with maintenance, upkeep or appearance of the garden. The permit is strictly covering the structure. Ms. Mobaldi stated she wanted to focus the Commission. She stated the municipal code, 21.54.140, provides the procedures for an appeal of a Planning Director decision stating that an appeal be filed stating the reasons for the appeal. Anything not stated in that appeal as a reason for the appeal is deemed to be a determination made by the Planning Director and is deemed to be supported by substantial evidence. Ms. Mobaldi stated it is important for the Commission to focus on the actual appeal that was filed on November 22, 2010 which states the appellants do not agree with the Planning Director's determination that the garden shed does not have to comply with the requirements of the specific plan. The permit that was issued was for the shed. The Commission does not need to look at whether or not gardens should be a use on this property. The issue is whether or not the shed is subject to the architectural guidelines of Specific Plan 201. If in fact the Commission finds that to be the case then the Commission needs to consider if the shed is compatible with those guidelines. Commissioner Baker asked at what point are accessory structures such as sheds required to have a building permit. Mr. Neu stated he believes the threshold is at 120 square feet. Structures under 120 square feet are considered exempt. Commissioner Baker asked if the 120 square feet included the height of the building so it would be cubic feet of space. Mr. Neu stated that was correct and it would most likely exempt some amount of eave overhang; however, Staff would treat it subject to the setback and maximum height allowed for an accessory structure. Commissioner Baker asked if the City has any requirement for accessory structures to comply with design guidelines or if that issue would be subject to an applicable Specific Plan. Mr. Neu commented that it would tend to be up to the Specific Plan because the City's codes are more general and some degree of interpretation needs to be applied. He further stated that to the best of his recollection the Master and Specific Plans do not address accessory structures matching the architecture of a primary dwelling on a lot or a neighborhood in general. It tends to be that all of the guidelines deal with the primary dwelling unit. Commissioner Baker asked if the shed would be considered the primary dwelling unit because there is no other structure on this site other than the shed. Mr. Neu stated that in this case the shed does not qualify as a dwelling unit because it is a non- habitable structure. Staff's determination is that the shed does not have to comply with the architectural guidelines because in reading the specific plan, the guidelines apply to the primary dwelling unit and they do not apply to any sort of accessory structures. To his knowledge, Mr. Neu stated those guidelines have not been applied to any other properties in the specific plan as to their accessory structure should there Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 2011 Page 6 be one. If someone purchased a pre-manufactured shed from a home improvement store, it could be difficult to comply with specific plan design guidelines. Commissioner Dominguez commented that he has trouble with something labeled as an accessory structure when there is nothing on the site for the shed to be an accessory to. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Margaret Barelmann, 6510 Franciscan Way, Carlsbad, gave a brief presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Nygaard inquired as to why they chose that size of a shed. Ms. Barelmann deferred the question to Mr. Barelmann. Commissioner Baker asked if there was any opportunity to move the shed to a different location on the site. Ms. Barelmann stated it would be difficult but possible. Commissioner Baker asked if Ms. Barelmann would be amenable to moving the shed. Ms. Barelmann deferred the question to Mr. Barelmann. Bob Barelmann, applicant for the community garden shed at 6479 Surfside Lane, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Nygaard inquired as to why they chose that size of a shed. Mr. Barelmann explained that it made more economical sense to build a larger shed. He also stated that during the winter time, he could possibly plant seeds in the shed to grow seedlings and have enough space to do so. Commissioner Schumacher asked about the garden on the.property across the street from this site and if the tools which are being used for that garden will be a part of this garden as well. Mr. Barelmann stated that garden is not associated with this site. He further stated that all the tools for his garden will be stored in the shed once he has a permit and is completed. Chairperson L'Heureux asked Mr. Barelmann why he chose to put the shed in the current location. Mr. Barelmann stated that the location is close to the street and it is easier to access the shed opening for loading. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Marion Donahue, 6458 Surfside Lane, Carlsbad, stated that while she is not opposed to the community garden, she is against having the garden shed on the site. Lisa Roop, 3060 Blenkarne Drive, Carlsbad, representing the Carlsbad Community Gardens Collaborative, stated their support for the community garden and the garden shed. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if Ms. Landers wished to make any final comments. Ms. Landers stated there were many references to the Planned Development Ordinance (PD Ordinance) because that is the portion of the zone code that addresses small lot subdivisions. She stated that is the similarity between La Costa Downs and the PD Ordinance. It was not intended to take the structure or the regulations from the PD Ordinance and insert them into the La Costa Downs Specific Plan but it was used as a framework and something to bounce ideas off of. She stated that Mr. Barelmann was correct in that all of that land was in agriculture for tomatoes, and at that time there was an R-1-10,000 separate section of the zone code. Ms. Landers stated that was a carryover because of all of the large property owners in the old part of town. At one point, in 2006, all of the residential zones were combined into one zone and the uses were delineated within that one R-1 zone. Ms. Landers further stated that community gardens as a concept is a great idea but she would not want to live in a small lot subdivision with one. Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 2011 Page 7 She commented that the applicant mentioned there were members from other neighborhoods coming to the garden. She stated she is not sure if the other people who live on the street are so willing to be so generous as to have other people come into that site to add more traffic to the neighborhood. She feels that is asking a lot of the neighborhood to accept something like that, particularly when they have stated they do not want to be part of a community garden. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any questions of Ms. Landers. Commissioner Dominguez asked which property owners she dealt with during the deliberations for the La Costa Downs Specific Plan. Ms. Landers stated she worked with Mr. Barelmann and Mr. Donahue. Commissioner Dominguez further asked if there were ever any discussions about a protective convenance, CC&Rs or Home Owners Associations for self protection. Ms. Landers stated no and that at that time, the City was very early in many of the programs and this was the first project that had architectural guidelines. She stated this was the first project that had any Notices of Restriction that she wrote. She further commented that she tried to pay close attention to detail but there is always one item that slips through the cracks. Ms. Landers feels a protective convenance could have been beneficial to have CC&Rs but because it was not a planned development, it was not thought of at the time. If the Commission decides to not support the appellant's request, she' stated she did provide some conditions to Staff. Ms. Landers commented that she was not sure if Staff had discussed the conditions with the applicant. She further stated that she questions the term "agricultural use" because she feels it is being used to allow the shed on the site. It seems to her that the shed is rather large for the size of the lot. She commented that the conditions she provided Staff will protect the existing property owners on the block from issues such as noise, dust, and hours of operation. If the garden is going to truly be a community garden, she feels that everyone within the development should have a key to the shed. The refuse should be picked up once a week and should be stored out of site and screened. Chairperson L'Heureux closed public testimony on the item. DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery commented that as he reviewed this project, he noticed there is no Planned Development permit, there are no CC&Rs and no guidelines that can construe this to not follow other aspects of the R-1 zone. The R-1 zone allows agriculture as a use and allows accessory structures as a secondary use to that primary use of agriculture. He stated that if the garden is done correctly, it could be a great addition to the community. Commissioner Montgomery stated his support of the applicant, of the garden and of the shed. Commissioner Nygaard stated that while the shed does not really fit with the neighborhood, the Commission's job is to examine whether or not it meets the rules and regulations of the City and as those are applied across the board for the entire City, not just one specific place. She feels the shed does clearly meet the rules and regulations; however she is concerned with the size of the structure. Commissioner Nygaard commented that it might help if the structure were placed further back on the site. She feels having a garden in a community is a wonderful thing. Commissioner Nygaard also commented that she would like to see a type of fence other than the existing chain link fence. Commissioner Baker thanked the neighbors for participating in the hearing. She stated that it does look awkward but there are other empty lots that look less attractive. Commissioner Baker cannot find any evidence that the structure should be torn down. She further stated her support for the applicant. Commissioner Dominguez stated his concurrence with Commission Baker. He feels this situation could have been avoided. The City does not have a definition of a community garden. He feels that, in the future, if a community garden is proposed in a neighborhood, particularly an infill development, that the City needs to make sure the garden is accessible to everyone. Commissioner Dominguez supports the applicant because the structure lawfully meets the criteria that the City has set out, but there should be some added conditions to moderate its impact. Commissioner Schumacher commented he does not feel good about this project. He feels there was an intention with the Specific Plan and the guidelines, but in the end, he agrees with his fellow Commissioners in that the original determination is sound and logical, and it is based and grounded in Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 2011 Page 8 what the Specific Plan and zoning allows. For that reason, Commission Schumacher stated he supports the project. Chairperson L'Heureux stated his concurrence with his fellow Commissioners. He sees this as a temporary interim use for the site. He stated he is not sure how one could apply the architectural guidelines to this structure. He further commented that the Commission's job is to focus on the grounds of the appeal and the appeal is for the shed not for a community garden or even where the shed is located on the site. Chairperson L'Heureux stated his support of the applicant. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Schumacher, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6750 denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Director to approve a Coastal Development Permit CDP 10-22, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the errata sheet. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson L'Heureux, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Nygaard and Commissioner Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson L'Heureux closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 3. RECESS Chairperson L'Heureux called for a 10-minute recess at 7:52 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson L'Heureux called the meeting to order at 8:04 p.m. with all Commissioners present and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 4. SUP 07-03/HDP 07-01/HMP 07-06 - SOUTH COAST MATERIALS QUARRY - Request for the consideration of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report previously certified by the City of Oceanside, adoption of responsible agency environmental findings and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Amended Reclamation Plan for the Former South Coast Materials Quarry, and request for approval of a Special Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Habitat Management Plan Permit for the grading of 42.1 acres to implement the Amended Reclamation Plan for the Former South Coast Materials Quarry generally located south of Highway 78 and west of College Boulevard in Local Facilities Management Zone 25. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 4 and stated Senior Planner Van Lynch would make the staff presentation. Chairperson L'Heureux stated that 25 years ago he was general counsel for the owner of the property. He has not been employed by them nor has he done any work for them for at least 20 years. Chairperson L'Heureux opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 4. Mr. Lynch gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any questions of Staff. Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 2011 Page 9 Commissioner Baker asked if the future use of the land is predetermined with the reclamation project. Mr. Lynch stated it is anticipated to be used as what the underlying land use of the property is but there is no preconceived use of the property. The reclamation plan is to restore the land to a future use. Commissioner Baker asked if the creek is in its original alignment currently. Mr. Lynch stated yes. Commissioner Schumacher asked about sleeving for underground utilities as well as a future road improvement to bridge the north side of the site to the south side. Mr. Lynch stated the reclamation plan does not anticipate a north/south roadway going across the site. Commissioner Schumacher asked if the City's Circulation Element contemplates having a north/south roadway on this site. Mr. Lynch stated that neither the reclamation plan nor the Circulation Element has a roadway connection from north to south but it is a consideration in the draft Master Plan that a roadway be provided across the creek. Commissioner Schumacher asked if it is possible that a roadway would not be constructed. Mr. Lynch stated that was correct. He further commented that presently it is a premature idea. In reviewing the project with the Wildlife Agencies, they are cognizant that there could be a request for a roadway to cross the creek in the future, and they acknowledge it is a possibility. Commissioner Schumacher inquired as to how much of the vegetation is salvageable in the creek channel. Mr. Lynch directed the Commission's attention to slide on the screen and indicated the areas that would be retained because of the habitat value. Commissioner Nygaard asked if the 100-year flood situation in the City of Oceanside was taken into account during the evaluation of the creek and the impact it could have on the creek bed. Mr. Lynch commented that the situation on College Boulevard is upstream from the project site. Mr. Lynch stated Staff reviewed the project boundary downstream as the City accepts water from outside the purview and scope of this project. Commissioner Nygaard stated that the flow could be different because of what happens upstream. Mr. Lynch replied there was a hydrologic model that was done for the project and there is more than adequate remaining areas to handle flood capacities. The channel is designed as such so that the channel will be improved, fully vegetated with anticipation of never going into the creek channel to do any kind of clearing, thinning or removal of habitat to allow flood flows. Commissioner Montgomery inquired as to how much of the vegetation will remain. Mr. Lynch stated any non-native plants will be removed from the corridor as well as from the area surrounding El Salto Falls. Commissioner Montgomery asked if it would be possible for the public to access those areas. Mr. Lynch stated no. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the vegetated habitat maps for the project are reflecting the existing habitat onsite without any additional enhancements outside of the channel. Mr. Lynch stated that the existing habitat on the periphery of the project will remain in its present state. Commissioner Dominguez asked how the security measures will be passed from one agency to another during this enhancement period. Mr. Lynch stated that the City of Oceanside added a condition to the project that during the interim period from the beginning of grading to the full restoration and acceptance of the habitat area by a conservation entity that a management plan be established for around the El Salto Falls area to manage and access any trash and graffiti, to make sure it does not become an attractive nuisance. The applicant is in the process of working up that management plan which is conditioned to be fulfilled prior to the first grading permit. There will be an interim management plan, and once that management plan is completed, it will be acted upon during the grading process. Once the restoration of the creek is completed and handed over to a management entity, that entity would then assume responsibilities for the management of the entire creek area. Chairperson L'Heureux asked what other enhancements or work will be done to the El Salto Falls area other than the removal of the non-native plants. Mr. Lynch stated he understands that no other work will be to the falls area and no restoration of the falls. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Ann Gunter, The Lightfoot Planning Group, 5750 Fleet Street, Carlsbad, representing the applicant, gave a detailed presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes January 19,2011 Page 10 Commissioner Baker asked about the timing of the project and the other necessary approvals for the project. Ms. Gunter stated they are anticipating starting the project this year but that depends on when the project receives the resource agency permits. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the permits from the Department of Environmental Health (DEH) and the other soils remediation and sparging activities would interfere with the realignment of the creek bed. Ms. Gunter stated it does not interfere with the creek bed but those permits and that work does need to be completed. Ms. Gunter stated the project needs to have all of the corrective action plan approvals from DEH before the soil piles are moved. There are parts of the site that can be worked while waiting for those approvals. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Chairperson L'Heureux opened public testimony on the item. Shelly Hayes-Carron, resident of the Buena Vista Adobe, Carlsbad, stated her concerns regarding El Salto Falls. She stated she would like to see more details about the buffer included in the final documents. Diane Nygaard, representing Preserve Calavera, stated that this proposed project is much better than what was previously proposed. She would like to have an added condition regarding the preference for locally produced plant seed mix or container plants for the biological buffer area. Mike Haslam, 3540 Simsbury Court, Carlsbad, stated his opposition to the project. Dennis Martinyk, 1537 Sleeping Indian Road, Oceanside and also a current Planning Commissioner for the City of Oceanside, stated his support of the project and reiterated the City of Oceanside's support of the project. Commissioner Dominguez inquired about the planning buffer. Mr. Martinyk stated that what was presented to the City of Oceanside was a 100 foot, planning buffer on either side through a recommendation from the environmental agencies for as much as 300 feet on each side. Mr. Martinyk stated that Oceanside Staff assured the Commission that 100 feet would be adequate as far as preserving what was already there. Because of what happened with the previous project, the Commission stated that in addition to the 100 feet on either side that an additional 50 feet should be added as a planning buffer for any of the wetlands areas. Tom Gibbs, 3433 Simsbury Court, Carlsbad, stated he is in support of the reclamation plan but is concerned regarding the removal of the soil under the tarps as well as the grading area proposed for the site. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to address any of the comments raised during public testimony. Ms. Gunter stated the suggestion by Ms. Nygaard to use local seed mix is acceptable but it is currently in the restoration plan documents and it is already anticipated by the project biologists. She clarified that the areas of the site that were previously mined or disturbed during the mining activities are the limits of the work that will be done with the reclamation plan. In terms of the soils on site, they are not considered hazardous soils but soils considered to have fuel contamination. The ground water contamination and soil contamination have been passively remediated. Commissioner Montgomery asked once the county issues a document accepting that the soil has been remediated if that soil is allowed to be used in the grading process. Ms. Gunter stated yes. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any further questions. Seeing none, he closed public testimony on the item. Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 2011 Page 11 Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Commissioner Schumacher asked if there is any way that these plans will change or foresee any violation of or impact to the reclamation plan. Mr. Lynch stated this plan establishes a conservation easement area that is recognized in the plan. That area will be preserved in open space and no encroachments of any physical structures or grading other than habitat improvements would occur within that area. There will not be a reduction of the biological areas. Commissioner Schumacher asked for clarification on the 50 foot buffer. Mr. Lynch stated that in the City of Oceanside's resolution it is specified that some of the ancillary uses such as parking, recreation areas, public trail along the top of the creek channel for more passive uses, the intent was to have uses that are more intense such as structures, buildings be further away from the upland habitat. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if this Commission had any ability to make any modifications to that condition. Mr. Neu stated that the future planning of the site has been alluded to and the City does have an application on file. It is one of the items that will be evaluated with the plan, and when that plan comes before the Planning Commission, the Commission could then weigh in on it. Mr. Neu commented that the condition is Condition No. 12 of the City of Oceanside resolution, and Carlsbad staff's reading of that condition is that it states future entitlements will specify the allowed uses which would be the Master Plan the City is working towards. Chairperson L'Heureux asked if there were any further questions of Staff. DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery commented that the intent with this project is to reclaim the quarry to its original nature without necessarily bringing the original habitat back. He feels it is a good design and he stated his support for the project. Commission Nygaard stated her support of the project. She feels the plan is a good design which will keep the original alignment of the creek and create a wide space for the channel. Commissioner Baker thanked everyone involved with this project and urged the public to stay involved with this site as it moves forward. She stated her support for the project. Commissioner Dominguez also stated his support of the project. Commissioner Schumacher commented that the site will become much improved with this reclamation plan. He further stated his support of the project. Chairperson L'Heureux stated that it is remarkable that the project has come this far and he feels the applicant has done an admirable job in restoring the site to usable state. He also urged the public to get involved with the project. Chairperson L'Heureux stated his support of the project. Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 2011 Page 12 MOTION ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: Motion by Commissioner Schumacher, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6743 adopting responsible agency environmental findings and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6744, 6745, and 6746 approving Special Use Permit 07-03, Hillside Development Permit 07-01, and Habitat Management Plan Permit HMP 07-06 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the errata sheet and the added condition for a preference for locally produced seed mix where feasible and to the extent possible. 6-0 Chairperson L'Heureux, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Commissioner Montgomery, and Commissioner Schumacher None Dominguez, ABSENT: Commissioner Nygaard ABSTAIN. None COMMISSION COMMENTS None. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS Mr. Neu stated that the City Council recently heard the El Fuerte View project which was recently before the Planning Commission. The Council heard the presentation and took public testimony, and then continued the item until the meeting of January 25, 201 1 . CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS Ms. Mobaldi followed up with the Commission regarding the issue of graffiti. She stated the City does not have a graffiti ordinance. The City does have a graffiti hotline which is for reports of graffiti on public property. If the graffiti is on private property, police notify the property owner to have the graffiti removed. There are no time limits for private property owners to clean up their property, however failure to comply has not been an issue to date. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of January 19, 2011, was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. DON NEU Planning Director Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk