Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-02-09; Planning Commission; MinutesCOMMISSIONERS CITY OF CARLSBAD MINUTES OF MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION- DATE OF MEETING: .February 2, 1971 TIME OF MEETING: ' 7:30. P.M. PZACE OF MEETING: City Council Chambers ROLL CALL: City staff present: E. J. Olinghouse, R. A. Johnston, J. E. Spano, R. S. Osburn, Fire Chief Anear, Interim Attorney Lewis A. Moe, Councilman C. A. Lewis, City Manager J. B. Arnold. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: . Minutes of the regular meeting 0 January 26, 1971 were approved, as corrected (Page 1, last paragraph-change date 1/26/71 in two places, to 2/9/71. ) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (a) The secretary read a letter received from a M. Potter, Carlsbad(no address or telephone number listed dated '1/28/71 re location of Cit.y reservoirs in reside tial areas and his opinion this should not be done. Th Chairman then requested clarifi,cation of Mr. Olinghous as to what stage the City's planning for reservoir sit was in. Mr. Spano volunteered that none of the propos sites for reservoirs had been approved as yet and that all future sites must be located in lower elevations within the City. Mr. Olinghouse answered Cmr. Domingu question whether or not. there was a hearing process fo such site selections, stating a public hearinq was re7 quired under the code(Artic1e 14-Selection of Sites of Public Utilities.) The Chairman then requested a reply be prepared for M. Potter, based on the answers given in this discussion of his complaint. A motion was for mally made and received voice vote approval to this. -it of business. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None * i PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) CONTINUED - SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP - To consider Unit-A of Loma Laguna, a Planned Community fo 44 Units; Applicant/Owner: Becrah, Inc./Allan 0. Kelly located South of El Camino Real and East of Southerly terminus of Kelly Drive. I The secretary read 2 items of outside corresponden as follows: (I) Letter fro'm J. B. Askew, Director of County Public Health, San Qiego, stating this plan. had been reviewed and was accepted under the following con ions: 1. All domestic. water supplied to this condomini development. comes from the Carlsbad City Water Cohpany 2. All buildings constructed in this development are connected to *the Carlsbad Public Sewer System. 3. The sewer and water lines are not laid in the same trench in any part of this condominium development. 4. Proper drainage is. mai-ntained throughout the condominium deve opment so as to prevent ponding and/or storage of surf water. The second letter was from Gordon J. Baker, Carlsbad, dated 1/28/71 to the Commission, wherein he stated he would be unable to attend the public hearing on 2/9, but wanted his comments read at khat time. Mr. Baker went on to state that when he moved to Carlsbad some .6-1/2 years ago they had become property owners, but if moving here now at his income, he could not qua for any new home in the city or even purchase the one 'they are now buying. The same thing would be true of a new school teacher or any of the employees at Plaza Present Bbsent Yotion 9 yes absent n fotion 3 yes Ibsent c- e f Y \ 1 7 ! \ \ I Y Y r r CITY OF CARLSBAD -2- .* Camino Real. Inasmuch as Loma Laguna proposes housing in the $17 to $20,000 bracket to meet the middle-.income housing needs, Mr. Baker hoped the City would not try to exclude all newcomers but those in high-income brack by eliminating all but housing for tha-t bracket. Mr. Olinghouse then read the Staff Report of 1/19/; presenting the background for this 5.19 parcel of land proposed for some 44 units under the P-C zone. This waE reclassified to P-C on 1/6/70 when the owner submitted 9 Master Plan-.for approximately 40 acres and Unit-A represents proposed de.velopment for a portion thereof, The report also presented the City's approached to P-C zone developments and how this relatively new zone in the city is hoped to work. A list of deficiencies for this particular plan were listed, all of which were said"to affect pride of ownershi-p, the total living snvironment, and community attitudes, which can in turz affect the effectiveness of the homeowner's assocation, 2nd ultimately, 'the City of Carlsbad." The recommendi tion to deny this application, the reasons therefor, and a request for continuance if approved were all reac rhe Chairman did ask the department that a complete rei be forthcoming in the future, rather than a request foz :ontinuance if it were the decision to approve, and a vaiting period for engineering conditions of approval. MR. LOUIS CHASE, one of 'the principals in BECRAH,Ih vas present and stated a scale model had been viewed jy all of the Commissioners previously, but he would us it to present certain points of this development for' tk 2udience. Mr. Chase proceeded to approach and point 01 identifying landmarks for the 19racre portion under COI sideration at this time. This planned, unit'developmenl involves, according to Mr. Chase, a house, a'backyard, a:parking area, and a common recreation area(to be owne at one share per property owner.) He added the greatesi need and greatest market range would be met by this development. He said a 2-1/2 parking space per unit Waf sllowed for also. He referred to future units B, C, ant D, as well as additional recreation(3 ,e., swimming poo; etc. as determined by the owners.) The 1oca.tion of the future units in relation to the present one was noted, The offsets in building elevations 'was 'explained and :he number proposed in the ultimate subdivision was dis :ussed. Roof styles, const.ruction materials, number of lifferent elevations available, etc. were pointed out. dr. Chase then referred to a document outlining t+e . - L8 months' time spent by the owners and developers in r ;earth and preparation of this proposed P-C development leetings with City staff, results of these meetings, a :hange in attitude by staff, staff's reasons for denial :o-called "Addifional Deficiences" listed in staff repo :heir.decision to not install covered garages, but rath in adjacent parking pad instead (to save money for the >uyers), were all covered, concluding that the tenor of she staff report of 1/19/71 and staff's handling of the levelopers in this case were sufficient reasons why the :ommission should overlook staff recommendation to deny :his application. , MR. HERBERT BROOKS, .Rancho Santa Fel Engineering, an A .,,. ~ t" .. . . ".."l,",.-" . . ".. .. -. .. .. - .. - ~ . ... ..._ " "._ . .. ... . . . ..1 I - . ". . . .. . 1 .. . COMMlSSlONERS c CITY OF CAF?LSBAD T Pr0jec.t Engineer on this proposed development ,.-stated he had two points to cover: (1) topographyof the existi terrain and (2) access to this particular development. The existing ravine presenting the most logical access for the development and the green spaces throughout the whole area for clustering of condominium houses were pointed out on the scale model,. with Mr. Brooks stating why and with what effect these were proposed as shown. MR. ALLAN KELLY, 3455 Spanish Way, stated he would quote from The Housing Element of The General Plan in approaching what market and income range they were ap- plying to. Two specific ''Goals" contained in said Housing Element were 'read verb.atim referring to housin! needs of all residents being met and Mr. Kelly felt th. should mean everyone and not just well-to-do or those able to afford homes in the present market of Carlsbad He further did not feel they would contribute to the problem of urban sprawl in that they were located near Laguna 'Riviera, .which is already we'll established. He did feel however, this would originally have been bettc located near I-5, but existing zoning and availabillty of property prohibited this. He did not feel a majorit! of City resident$ housing needs were .met by the past a; present housing market and noted also, khat an average income of $11,00O/year was necessary to qualify for FHd housing, with average income in Carlsbad, according to 1970 census report, at $9,851, making this type housln! out of reach for average residents also. He cited ad- ditional examples of those who could afford to buy the proposed housing, including some 71 City employees eho cannot buy housing in the present price range. He con? cluded that he felt their planned developmen? met at least a portion of the City's housing needs: as pointec out by referenced Housing Element, and the s'tatistics just quoted. MR. ALLAN KELLY , SR., 4675 El Camino Real and propc owner in this application and considerable adjoining property as well, stated he did not feel it would reduc his property value, but would improve it with time. He referred to the hisittory of this rezoned parcel appl: cation'and staff's previous desire that the P-C zoning cept be utilised. here. There were 'no others present' tc speak in favor and the chairman called for those in op- position. MR. GEORGE L. LONG, 4890 Sevilla Way, stated fie wal speaking in- behalf of homeowners in Liiguna Riviera and he submitted a petition with signatures of those who yt opposed to this development. Mr. Long read a letter dated .1/28/71 addressed to the Commission and signed - by said homeowners, indicating their concern about the proposed development and listing'four(4) items they fei the Commission should consider in reaching a decision on it. Specifically, (1) a densi.ty of this caliber qnc income level. should be nearer publ5c transportation. I; no shopping communities (are) within a radius of three miles. (3) the added burden on the school system until Laguna Riviera school project is approved and construci (4) the added traffic burden on Kelly Drive. Mr. Long. also discussed each of these items briefly in further support of their opposition, and why it was considered a pxoblem. He concluded that Laguna Riviera homeownerr requested both the Commission and the Council wouPd noi i COMMISSIONERS \\ i " T CITY OF CMLSBAD $' i COMMISSIONERS -4- approve this development application. MR. JOSEPH D. DIMIMCANTANIO, 4826 Kelly Drive, SpC and stated the staff report recommendations and reason for denial were warranted and the Commission would be remis in notconsidering them seriously, as well as the points brought out in. Mr. Long's letter,previously int duced. MR. JOSEPH KIRKPATRICK, 2001 Cordova Place, Stated he was not unfavorable to low income housing, but one factor he personally felt should be looked into was tZ; matter of condominium maintenance as proposed for Loma Laguna homeowners ($1'80 per year/each, to maintain the whole subdivision.) He felt the City would lose contrc of major issues and perhaps the homeowner's associatic would not fulfill their obligati.ons to the remaining City, although Mr. Chase has told him there are by-law etc., as contained in the homeowner's assocation progz Mr. Chase attempted to explain the item in the "Covena of Loma Laguna prospectus, in that FHA and VA have to agree with any alterations or change whatsoever, as pz posed by homeowner's association and also, that this i a covenant upon the land itself. MR. MAX AMOS, 4810 Kelly Drive, stated he took exc tion to one of the statements made by the principals speaking in favor preriously, in that Loma Laguna vas separate community when in fact it was a part of the City as was Laguna Riviera and should not or could not be, isolated from anything else. He elaborated on th'e P-C zone which he felt presented unique opportunities for residential living for many families, for. many gen tions to come and, the overall effect of pdsent units in the City was covered as well. MR. PETER RILEY, 2001 Cordova Lane, concurred in a the previous comments in opposition ko this plan and asked just what the feasibility vas khat this developn; would even appeal to members of the low-income bracket and what income level was actually going to live there MR. JAY HOFFMAN, owner of adjoining property (Mayj Acres), stated he wished t.0 go on record as being oppo in that this was not the area for low-income. type dwel nor was it the. City of Carksbad's obligation to furnis such housing at all. .. MR. C. D. BAILEY, 4815 Kelly Drive, stated the re- zoning accomplished last year was something the people in Laguna Riviera had not been aware of, and there wer no assurances this development would not devalue their homes. There were no others to speak in opposition an public hearing was closed and Commission discussion en sued. .. Each Commissioner had viewed the scale model of th proposed development previously and had reason to stud the overall plan, possible problems and/or good effect of the development, and each commented on his opinion of it, posing additional questions of staff. and the developers as applicable. Each concluded there were opposed for various reasons, one of the primary ones being lack of garages for the homebuyer. Discrepancies in the former plan viewed by the Commission in discuss /". ... " _. _._. ,~,,, , . . " .._ _""_ ." ." " - .._..".-. . . . . . -. ~. .- . . . 7 .~" !. s 'l a- 9 ,- T' . CITY OF CARLSBAD -5- c . P 1 Y .i COMMISSIONERS .I the zone change to Planned Community (Dedember 1969) were noted from this present proposal and minutes of that former meeting were referred to by Commissioner Jo It was also commented that the first P-C use in this City should be one of "demonstration" of that zoning concept, in order to' prove the very good points of such use for future developments. The lack of mixed archi- tectural designs was .noted to add to the sterile situa- tion noted in this plan, which it was felt would defini set a precedent for future developments. The school situation existing in the whole area of Laguna Riviexa subdivision was cited,. as well as the traffic pattern to be increased on Kelly Drive and El Camino Real. The motion followed, recommending denial of subjeck applications and citing the reasons contained in staff report of 1/19/71 as well as one- other, as itemized bel ow : PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 689,a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad recomme ding denial of a Specific Plan and a Tentative Map for Uni.t-A (44 Units) of Loma .Laguna, a Planned Community, identified by title on1.y and further reading waived; subject denial recommended for reasons as: (1)Subject Specific Plan does not conform with that section of The Housing Element of The Genera'l Plan, entitled "urba Expansion", Page 40. (2) Subject plan lacks possibiliti in treating the existing topographical conditions. (3) Adoption of subject Specific Plan is not in the best interests of the general neighborhood, or the City 0-f Carlsbad. (Chairman Little requested a brief adjournm4nt at 9:25 P.M., prior to the next public hearing.) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - TO allow ConstrUCtiOn Of two(2) Fuel Oil Storage Tanks at Encina Plan; App-Zfcant San Diego Gas C Electric Company, located between I-5 and A.T.&S.F. Railroad. Mr. Johnston read the staff report of 2/03/71 Pn fu referring also to wall projection a*nd colored exhibit which showed the location of proposed tanks on SDGCE property, adjacent properties and strees, additional details of subject tanks, landscaping, buffer mound, etc. Staff recommendation to approve this application was substantiated with reasons for such approval, if granted. Correspondence was read by the secretary froe Mr. Art Harris, President of Terramar Association, whic stated the Association board was unanimously in favor of proposed installation of these tanks by SDGCE at the present operation. Questions followed Commission followed as to Condit No. 1 of subject report being "strong enough" to restri the type of fuels solely to be put in the new tanks and Mr. Olinghouse stated this would be a matter of enforce ment. Considerahk discussion followed on the point of whether SDGCE would store these fuels only or perhaps for some reason later. on need to store a high-sulphur. type fuel or transport such to another location for use This was satisfied in part in this discussion and later commented on by SDGCE representatives as well. e. el Y Motfon ayes Absent - S 1, r on t _- c COMMISSIONERS CITY OF CARLSBAD -6- MR. TED RICHMOND, representative of SDG&E Company was present, stating the need for this application at this time based on construction of additional tanks at Encina Plant for low sulphur fuels, which he stated pro ceed the need to provide low-sulphur fuels only. in the near future. He commented on the landscaping and dirt (buffer) mound, as well as additional screening planned for the tanks (i .e., .more trees planted at the tank sit all of which would ultimately lend a more pleasing ap- pearing for these tanks and, their plant. He stated SDG&E concurred with the staff report and all condition imposed therein. There were no others to speak in favo and those in opposi$ion were heard. MR. THOMAS GLASS, 720 Archer Street, San Diego, rea excerpts from a hearing wherein a Vice-preszdent of the utility company was present and answered questions abou their operations. The implication from this te%t' was that treatment was not availab1.e of any fuel after it reaches the tanks, at a below 1 .O content(su1phur) fuel MR. NEIL MARSHALL, 1496 Cuador Street, Leucadia, an a member of the San Diego.Clean Air Council of that cit read -comments from a statement presented to Carlsbad City Planning Commission on this council Is behalf (date 2/9/71.) Said statement will be incorporated in this application file. It dealt prima'rily with statistics of the air pollution rate, which has increased in the. county recently, with Carlsbad-Oceanside area vying wit El Cajon for top honors as "smoggiest" in the county. Al-so the demand for electric power increasing so rap'idl was cited, stating that.SDG&E was meeting this demand by plans to increase the Carlsbad facility by. 84% by 1973 but attempting to decrease the nearly 100% increas in effluents expulsed daily into the atmosphere. This concluded that the Clean Air Council stands ready to assist the City in this matter by providing specific plans that could be considered and expert consultation Dn this subject. He then read the latest comments from President Nixon regarding sulphur oxides emitting in th stmosphere and the terrible and long-range effect of these. MR. PETER SCEFFRINDI, 160 HemldCk Street, stated'he was concerned that SDG&E would increase their output by 84% by 1973 andcnly decrease emission of sulphur contam by only 4%. He stated Standord Research Institute .waul be monitoring sulphur oxides and he felt a moritorium should be placed on the utility company until it can be getermined the exteni: of damage to persons and the atmo phere by these oxides. There were no more persons to speak inopposition and public hearing was closed, with- Commission discussion following. After some disc~ission, Commissioner Jose suggested and ultimately made a motion, to continue this hearing for a report. back from this City's'Environmental Pollut Commission(E.P.C.) However, it was pointed out that any request for continuance must be satisfactory to the applicant, according to the code for public hearing ite At this time, Mr. FRANK DEVORE, SDG&E"s Land Department offered to clear up some points previously introduced in preceeding comments. He stated these tanks were for "emergency" storage of winter month needs only and, wou RO~ be used in lieu of gas fuels either. Also, suffici - ... , .. .~ . ..." .. ~ _.._ . .. .-I .. CITY OF CARLSBAD -7- ~~~~~~~~ ~ supply. of .low-sulphur fuels had not been available in the past and this application would meet this need. He attempted to clarify on the questions from Commissioner Dominques early in this hearing, about restricting said tanks to storage of low-sulph-ur fuel only and Condition No. 1 of the staff report being clear enough. Mr. Pevo than noticed former Counci1man.C. H. Neiswender in the audience and asked if. he wished to say anything at this time, in view of his being on the City's E.P.C. at pres MR. CARL H.. NEISWENDER, of the Environmental Pollut Commission of City of Carlsbad, stated this body was made up entirely of doctors and scientists who studied such problems and Dr. John Earl of Scripps Institute of Oceanography,was a specialist in "contaminants in suspe. which is involved in this case. He commented that ac- cording to reaent statistics the'fuels burned on the West Coast are considerably lower than those being burnl on the East Coast. He added the E.P.C. is satisfied thi the gas company 2s doing the best they can with the fue. they have available at this time. He concluded that the additional tanks should be allowed to meet the emergenc! demands and use cited above and they should be allowed to proceed as efficiently as possible. Also, ,the motio; to continue should be withdrawn for further E.P.C. repo: as this would only be his comments here tonite, reduce( to paper. Also, the next scheduled meeting of this bod! as in May and that would cause considerable loss of til nd money to the applicant, and was not necessary. (At his time, Mr. Marshall asked to speak again and the. hairman allowed this since the applicant had been allo- dditional time after cl.ose of public hearing also. He ook exception to. statements just made by MeFsrs. Devor nd Neiswender and said the Commission and the Ci-ty sho tudy this application further before deciding on it.) Commissioner Jose stated he would withdraw his moti, 0 -continue if the E.P.C. was already aware of SDG&E's lanned expansion and were satisfied, but suggested the ity avail itself of the offer from the Clean Air Count. 0 assist in future problems of this type. The City Ma. aid we already had a commission to handle this type of ituation and the Clean Air Council should go through hem. Commissioner Domingqez withd;ew his second of 'thl otion to continue also, stating this was not. just a oca1 probl-em but one that faced everyone in the countr! ut he was satisfied everything possible was bking done y the utility company, with what fuels were availabl'e. Additional discussion followed, with the motion bei made to grant a Conditional Use Permit for construction and use of two(?) additional fuel tanks at Encina Plant for the reasons and subject to conditions itemized in staff report dated 2/03/71. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO'. 691 - a Resolution 0 the Carlsbad City Planning Commission Granting a Condit ional Use Permit on Propetty located North of Cannon Ro between Interstate 5 and A.T.&S.F.Railroad, identified by title only and further reading waived. Reasons for approval and Cbnditions of Approval are as shown in Sta report dated 2/03/71. .* 1" ."* ---. : "-... """.""-, ~ .." - "".".. -: 1.- ~ "."""""__" 1 """ COMMISSIONERS ? si nn ?d d I 7 Yotion 4 yes 4bsent 9 € - -.".. ....." r h r CITY OF CARLSBAD -8- ~~~~~~ ~ NEW BUSINESS: None 3LD BUSINESS: (a) 'Continued' Items Attachment - Planning Director reports: (No changes or reports , except Items70.22 6i 7 70.22 Nuisance Ordxnance - Mr. Olinghouse commented on the meeting with Commissioners Dominguez and Forman 3t the initial meeting of this work committee, which had concluded-.with their recommendation that the first draft on the "Noise" ordinance be forwarded to C.I.C. €or their comment and report. In the interest of time, it was suggested this draft be mailed to the remaining Commissioners , although it was noted this was not its final form. 70.23 Architectural Controls/Review Board - Mr. Johns stated he had mailed out the material to the work com- mittee for this -proposed ordinance and asked that a dat 2nd time be agreed on at the next meeting on 2/23/71. ZOMMITTEE REPORTS: None 9DJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by proper motio receiving unanimous voice vote approval, at 10:27 P.M. Yespectfully submitted, L COMMISSIONERS .23.) on Motion Ayes Absent - . ... . _.