Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-08-25; Planning Commission; MinutesCITY OF CARLSBAD MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE : August 25, 1976 TIME: '7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Commissioners Nelson and Larson absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of August 11, 1976 - Approved with following addition to page 3 under Mr. McMahen's statement: "He told the Commission that the ' horses were not a problem and he was aware he might have to move them sometime in the future, but he had room to do so.'' WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Memorandum from the Parks and Recreation Commission given to the Commissioners re the Buena Vista Lagoon Duck Landing. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director Agatep briefly outlined the Ordinanc that will be presented to the City Council on Septembe 7, 1976 regarding ZCA-79 (Additional Freestanding Sign in the C-2 Zone and Community Identity Signs). PUBLIC,HEARINGS Continued Case Nos. SP-l46(B) and CUP-122,' Santa Anita Develop- ment CorD. - Reauest for approval of a drive-thru restaurant and amendment to' Specific Plan to incorpora site plan modifications. Case No. SP-'146(A) Supplement, Santa Anita Development Corn. - Reauest for aPDroval of architectural elevatio ". . forrMcDonald's Restaukant. I ~ ~ ~ Planning Director Donald Agatep said that the appli- cant by letter dated August 20, 1976 requested with- drawal-of the above applications. He stated that the Staff concurred with the applicant's request and recommended that the applications as submitted be withdrawn and the fees received not be refunded. A motion was made that SP-l46(B), CUP-122, and SP-146( Supp,. be withdrawn and that no fees be refunded. The Commissioners then discussed that at their June 23, 1976 meeting, Condition No. 1 of the Staff Report regarding SP-l46(A) Supp. required the following prior to final occupancy: ''A landscaped barrier separating the Standard Station from the westerly driveway of Haymar Drive, but providing for a two- way ingress-egress." A Minute Motion was made on June 23, 1976 deleting this condition and di.recting staff to incorporate this condition into the Specific Plan Amendment (SP-l46(B). Since SP-l46(B) was with- drawn, the Commission wanted some assurance that this condition would be met. 'resent Ibsent qotion lye s Motion Ayes Abstair Absent 1 I I ! X X X X CITY OF CARI..SBAD. MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE : August 25, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 2 A Minute Motion was made directing the Staff to report to the Planning Commission at their September 8, 1976 meeting regarding the above condition.' Case Nos. SP-179, GPA-41 and EIR-329, Agua Hedionda Lagoon Request for approval of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment and certification of an Environmental Impact Report. It was noted for the record that Commissioner Rd'mbotis would abstain from the proceedings. Planning Director Donald Agatep stated that in January of 1976 the City of Carlsbad entered into a contractua agreement with the California state Coastal Commissfon to prepare a Pilot Program for the development of a Specific Plan that would be consistent with local planning policies and the relevant policies of the proposed Coastal Plan. SP-179 was a joint effort among the property owners, the California State Coasta Commission and the Planning Department. The long range objectives are to preserve and enhance the natural and man made aspects of the lagoon's environ- ment, and to ensure their mutual compatibility. Mr. Agatep stated that the project had been divided into two distinct boundaries, the first and larger boundary being the study area of about 1000 acres, which in- cludes the lagoon and most of its viewshed. This en- larged area was determined so that such factors as traffic circulation and existing trends in residential development could be more fully considered. The smaller area, on which it is proposed to adopt the Specific Plan, is approximately 700 acres and includes all parcels which have a direct impact on the lagoon and the fragile wildlife habitat. Mr. Agatep then outlined the intent and purpose of'the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report By use of graphics, he indicated the areas involved and the proposed changes. Director Agatep also read to the Commission a letter from Commissioner Eric Larson with his comments regardin this project. (This letter will be made a part of the record). Chairman L'Heureux commended the people who worked ver hard in putting together these reports. He felt these documents were extremely thorough and documented, and the project staff should be commended for an excellent job in preparing an EIR for a concept such as has been presented. He commended Dana Hield Whitson and Joe Sandy for their fine work. Dan Gorfain, Chief Planner, San Diego Coast Regional Commission, 6154 Mission ""_ Gorge Road, Suite 220, San rewarding several months in which all groups had work- ed together and that among the 9 pilot programs, this one was the farthest along. He said that there were several areas of interest and concern to the San Diego Coast Regional Commission and these 10 areas were spelled out in a letter dated August 17, 1976 from E. Jack Schoop, Chief Planner of the State Commission and from Dan Gorfain. He then read this letter to the Commission (This letter will be made a part of the record). Motion Ayes Abstain Absent - X X .- X CITY OF CAR!-SBAD - MEETING: PLANNllIG COMMISSION MEETING DATE : August 25, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 3 Bob Ladwig, Rick Engineering Company, 3088 Pi0 Pic0 Drive, Carlsbad, representing the property owners, stated they had nothing further to add other than to compliment the City-Staff and the Coastal Staff and they had enjoyed working with both groups. The Commission then discussed the cost of such an undertaking to the citizens of Carlsbad. They wished to know who would maintain all the open space areas, the park lands, paths, etc. and who would pay for this maintenance. Also interested in the dredging of the lagoon periodically and who would be responsi- ble for this - felt that these matters should be presented to the Commission in the form of an Economic Feasi bi 1 i ty Study. Public Hearing opened. Ed Gabrielson, Land Engineering Supervisor, SDG&E said that he had two statements to make, one by Owen Menard on generalized planning issues, and his pre- sentation which would be on a couple of specifics. "Tonight I would hope that you would give some firm direction to your staff. In 1971, the SDG&E Company. adopted a zone for our property called P-U. This was at the request of the staff of Carlsbad and the Plan- ning Commission and under that agreement, there were approximately 15 different types of conditions. The City staff is proposing to negate a part of this agree ment. This is particularly important to us when the conditions could cost us upwards of six million dollar We .believe the City has a moral responsibility to SDG&E Company to reflect appropriate conditions for appropriate Specific Plan. That is to say, they should uphold their side of the agreement. On pg 106 of the EIR states that discussions are going on con- cerning HUB Park - those discussions would ususally be with myself and I haven't had any discussions. The Specific Plan says that a bike path or other public access should be encouraged around the north side of the outer lagoon. First of all, there is a real steep sdope there and second, SDG&E has purposely tried to keep people out of that area. We find kids over there digging holes and we would certainly ask that you consider no bike paths or no type of access for the public around just that portion of the outer lagoon on the north side. It has some potential to jeopardize our'security at the power plant. In the. conditions for approval, nothing is said of the con- ditions set out to establish our present Specific Plan (SP-144). The staff should recommend specific condition changes within Ordinance 9279 to reflect any proposed zone change. Again I want to stress that SDG&E total holdings at Encina are for utility purposes first and foremost and any other use is of secondary nature. We agree to compatible, multiple types of uses particularly when those benefit the City granting us the permissi-on to operate in their jurisdiction. However, any use presently shown on the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan cannot be construed as any obligation by SDG&E to continue the use as outlined by that.Specific Plan especially a plan that we feel is inadequate and in,appropriate. Regard- ing conditions of approval, item no. 4 talks I about a moratorium on development. We have a power plant undergoing construction in this Specific Plan area and I would hope that that moratorium is not an asking for us to stop all work in that I. CITY OF CARL-SBAD MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 25, 1976, TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMEERS Page 4 "-1 particular area or the area east of 1-5 where we have some substantial transmission relocation go- ing on. I would ask that the Planning Commission give staff some guidance as to those conditions as you saw them back in 1971 that are applicable.to the development west of 1-5 and those conditions that we obviously agreed to east of of 1-5 that predi- cated upon some sort of a development by SDG&E east of 1-5. Extension of Cannon Road, right-of-way by Cannon Road, and the park - some of those obvious- ly lend themselves to some type of development east of 1-5. The Cannon Road improvements from Carlsbad Blvd. to'I-5 and full improvements on Carlsbad Blvd., the landscaping that we have done around the plant - obviously those things are directly related to the development west of 1-5. This plan does not intemtl to change any of those uses that we presently have. We are not asking for that. We just think those things east of 1-5 should be considered and given some direction." "Item No. 34, the Cannon Road link betwe.en the City HUB Park and existing Cannon Road. We certainly have some problems in changing our zone which the Zoning Ordinance clearly shows as P-U and the proposal is for OS that,some change in the conditions on the dividing of that right-of-way and providing for the improvements themselves should be reallocated in some fashion." "We would prefer that our Specific Plan as shown and as adopted remain as it is." i Owen Menard, Planning Consultant, 454 West Claire- mont - working with SDG&E on Marcario Land. "Have worked with SDG&E and City of Carlsbad over the past 1% to 2 years. During this time we have learned to greatly respect and admire the administration and planning that takes place here in Carlsbad. We are also very respectful of property rights, whether they be individual property rights on some land ownerships or large land ownerships or whether or not they be private or governmental rights. In this particular case, we are talking of the property rights of a large land owner and a public utility (SDG&E).II "My role in the last several days has been to review the Specific P-lan and the EIR. From that point of view, I will hope to speak to the issues of the EIR in very general terms, the plan itself, current coastal legislation as I understand it, zoning and its many ramifications as it is being applied to the S.P. and Land Use. 'I "In regard to the EIR, the kind of which our firm ha.s done a great number, we have found in California that a general practice by Cities is that project authors/d signers are not to also be authors/designers of the EIR. In our wo'rk with the 800+ acres of Jap.atu1's business center, the City of Carlsbad made it rather clear that the EIR on that project was not to be accomplished by ourselves since we w,ere project de- signers - an outside objective consultant would be required to accomplish that EIR. However, in this particular case, the designers/authors of the S.P. are also the designers/authors of the EIR which we feel' is quite unusual and I quite frankly feel that the lack of objectivity that we found within the EIR was precisely because of that reason. our re- CITY OF CARt-(SBAD.. - f\&?\%\/%\*, 5 cqf- \< 9 +\@ \ MEETING: PLANNllvG COMMISSION MEETING fl''%$) ci$$$/pg DATE: August 25, 1976 TIME: .7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 5 , -k%k c 7c I view of the EIR admittedly has been cursory to date. I think it appears to be a justification of a plan accomplished prior to the design of the plan. We don't know at this particular time whether or not the document will be certified. We don't know quite, frankly until we have accomplished more additional review whether or not such certification would be challenged. We do feel at the present time that there certainly is cause to look at that very seriously." "In regard to the EIR itself , we wonder why SP-144 which is legally adopted and until a short time ago an accepted specific plan is mentioned in only I a very small portion of the EIR. Considering the fact that it covers a very major portion of the land under the Specific Plan, it would seem to me that that particular legal document would be considered I in the Land Uses and that alteration would be con- sidered in the EIR process a great deal. We take exception to the map preceding page 55 which would portrays SDG&E's land as agricultural as its primary use and it sho.ws no use whatsoever for its primary use which is the use the land was purchased for and created for - that of utility and transmission of' li.nes. I! They are not portrayed in any respect." "As Mr. Gabrielson pointed out to a certain degree, th. present SP-144 had accomplished virtually every aspect of the subject that the S.P. is speaking to in broad terms (retention of natural resources, access to the I II beach, the lagoon itself, recreational use, open space use, agriculture use). Our question is really rather simple since the plan is geared in these particular 'i areas, since the SP-144 and P-U zone which has been in effect for a considerable period of time has accomplished all the basic intents and purposes of the SP you are now considering, why have you literally included San Diego's land and water areas in the S.P. It would seem to me that the purpose was accomplished prior to this S.P. and the real purpose of the plan is to provide some particular kind of a S.'. for private1.y owned land on the north side of the lago3n and perhaps it would have been better to simply devel03 that and focus all of your attention in those particular areas. 'I "In regard to zoning, at the present time SDG&E enjoys Public Utilities (P-U). (He then reiterated these uses for the P-U and OS zoning) Since the focus of the S.P. seems to be at this point primar.ily agricul- tural, it seems somewhat unusual that this was not con- sidered as an open space use until a zoning ordinance I amendment was adopted a short period of time ago. Also., under the OS zone after the granting of a CUP ~ there.would be allowed utility facility structures ~ or easements and this we assume under that terminology are the transmission lines which are the primary use of the land; howev'er, the primary use would be granted only after the accomplishment of the conditional use permit. It would appear to us that the land uses whici have been enjoyed as a matter of right for a number of year's in the P-U zone as compared to the land uses ~ which will not be allowed under the OS zoning except b,y virtue of CUP that there is in reality few QS uses that are allowed as a matter of right other than agricultural for which SDG&E has utilized the land as a secondary use for many years. I would also question , .I -. I I I I I CITY OF CARLSBAO - MEETING: PLANNllvG COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 25, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 6 \ why there is the requirement of a CUP when the primary function of the land has and is anticipated for the future to be public utility. Is it to condition a transmission line, and if so, I .am in the dark as to. how one conditions a transmission line, or is it ,to provide the opportunity to deny additional transmissio lines. I would also seriously question whether the basic and inherent utilization of the CUP is appropria ly anticipated in this particular case." "I am quite certain I am not making a mis- take in determining what is really behind the City's utilization of OS and the utilization of that terminol on the SP. If OS zoning were in reality applied to th property, I think that within a very short period of time in the public's mind and in the public's eye .this become in their determination public land. It would b zoned OS.and would have a primary use of OS and agricu ture and the primary use for which it was purchased as public utility and transmission lines would become secondary. 'I "I would questjon why a road is termed scenic when it through a transmission line corridor. I personally fi chain link fence rather ugly. I don't think black vin improves it,at all. I don't think that black vinyl co ing would held the vandalism problems in regard to agr culture. It would make it very difficult for whoever got over the fence to be seen by those who might be patrolling." I would also like to talk about the integrity of plann integrity of zoning within a community. I think that SDG&E entered into the SP process and that plan was adopted in 1971, and they have to the best of their abiltiy lived up to the conditions of that plan. I think that privately motivated SPs are something that each City to the greatest extent possible should be trying to encourage. If those plans are not followed or only followed until such time to change them to the advantage of the government, it becomes obvious that planning will soon be lost. I think that is a situation the City should give some consideration to. 'I "Mr. Gabrielson has talked about the access to the bea and the open space, etc. that would be accomplished through the P-U zone and through the existing SP. I t that the alternatives that we are talking out here are relatively clear. One alternative is to remove the SD.G&E's lands in the lagoon from the SP and you continue to utilize that plan that was adopted in 1971 (SP-144). I think this is obviously the position that would most logically be desired by SDG&E and I think that 'it is an honorable approach. (2) A second - alternative would be to include their lands in this SPY but continue to use the P-U zone as it was intend- ed, therefore, primarily showing this land as public utility land wi'th the secondary uses of recreation, open space, agriculture as has been in the process ver successfully for the last number of years. (3)Provide a small amount of OS zone at the wat.er's edge which seems to be your main approach and to leave the remain of SDG&E's land in P-U. (4) Is to adopt the plan whic is an obvious land taking and therefore for the City t accept the ramification of such an action." "We also feel that the subject of the EIR, the kinds o considerations that have been made this evening, the great significance of the entire undertaking for both e- SY would - a oes d 1 er- - ng 9 h ink er CITY OF CARLSBAD MEETING: PLANNIlvG COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 25, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 7 the City and certainly to a very large land owner, SDG&E, indicates that the most logical approach at this time would be to continue the item to allow additional time for all of the parties involved to delve more deeply into the subject. I think that a plan tha,t has not considered such economics, i.e. costs, benefits, is an incomplete plan; therefore, I would suggest that those subjects brought up by the Commissioners are profound and should be followed definitely to a logical conclusion before adoption." Planning Director Donald Agatep in response to Mr. Menard's statement that he knew of no City who did EIRs for their own projects, stated "that the Specific Plan is not privately motivated. The SP is an effort to implement State policies with respect Coastal planning, General Plan at City level policies. I would take exception to the fact that an EIR is an obligation of the public agency to perform and there is no accepted practice in this City that I know of that says the author of the EIR or SP need not be the same. The City requirement is that EIR regardless of the author of the project shall be directed and prepared by the City. In this case my staff prepared the EIR and in this case, my s,taff directed the prepar tion of the SP. We are not the sole.authors of the SP. We are the singular author of the EIR." David McNabe, owns property on the corner of Adams Street and Cape Aire Lane, stated that he was in favor of the plan. ''1 think some of the points that were raised tonight need to be addressed. As a tax- payer, I am concerned about the economics, but the economics are going to get worse as we go further down stream, so I think we are addressing the plan at- a good time and the faster we can get it done the better off we are going to be." John McGill, 4340 Highland Drive, Carlsbad - "I would like to draw the attention of the public and the Plan- ning Commission to certain aspects which have been dis- cussed tonight and one is the right of property owners and the undeveloped property owners certainly have waited a long time and have seen a great deal of government intrusion upon what they would like to do. Some of the neighbors where I live have some concerns regarding the traffic plans. On page 65 of the EIR, it talks of 14,000 vehicles a day traveling down Hillside, Highland, and Tamarack. The plan talks about widening the street to four lanes. The CommissiDn should think about what this will do to the property owners on this street." "On page 42-43; it talks about noise. I address myself to the noise emanating from the boats on the lagoon. I think the Commission should look into this as the City of Carlsbad has a law regulating noise in housing -areas, but there is no mention of that in the EIR. My main concern' is the traffic." W'. Allan Kelly, Jr., 3455 Spanish Way, Carlsbad - ''1 will address our own property and our own desires on our property. The rest of the people along the lagoon have basically only one request and that is permission to build houses. The EIR talks about a number of al- ternatives for our property, General Plan for present density, wetlands, higher density, recreationa.1 vehicle park, mobile home park.'' .. I - CITY OF CAR!-SBAD MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE : August 25, 1976 TIME: .7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 8 - "We recognize that there are wetlands (wildlife preser- vation area). We don't mind for a period of time I this, we will sell it. We would like to get the three setting aside this land if someone wants to purchase year limitation on it. We do realize that at the end of three years, we would still be beset with the prob- activities, etc. At least we would at that time be lems of floodplain overlays, Coastal Commission free to start again. Our property really divides it- archaelogical site and that to the west. We are pro- self into two areas - t.hat which is east of the . site not be mitigated, but just covered up and left . posing for a number of reasons that the archaelogical for someone to tell me that I have a bunch of broken there. I don't feel I should spend a bundle of money ar'rowheads. If we go to higher density (the market' for higher density just doesn't make much sense at this time), we would like to have two uses on that tional vehicle park and a long term use for when we land - one, a short to medium term use for a recrea- would go to some higher density dwelling units. We would 1 ike to have the recreational vehicle park so transfers. ~ land cheaper." He was also concerned about density than surrounding property owners because we bought the future we can develop this land with a lower dens.ity I that we can have income on the property so that in the Break from 10: 50 to 10:55 - a1 1 Commissioners present as were present prior to the break. George Flanders,3765 Yvette Way, Carlsbad said that he had some concerns about certain aspects of the S.P. He was concerned about the net loss in Open Space in this plan as compared to the current General Plan, that there were no public beaches on the North Shore - suggested possibly trade some of the property for other City owned property. 'Also concerned about private boat ramps, encroachment on the wildlife pre- serve and the Community (HUB) Park being so far away from the population center of the City at this time. Did not see a recreational vehicle park as being a good use of-the land as it would cause increased usage of the lagoon and would not be compatible with single family homes in the area. Chairman L' Heureux then proposed that the hearing be continued to give the Commission and the public time to digest the information that had been presented and the staff time to give the information to. the Commis- sion that they requested. A motion was made that this hearing be continued to Motion X September 8, 1976. Ayes xxx X '. ', I I i ~ ~ ~ I i lit I 1 Abstain xx Absent X Commissioners discussed some items they would 11 ke to be this land and if so, at what cost to the taxpayers. the State or City will eventually purchase some of will maintain these areas, is it anticipated that ' I responsible for sidewalks, landscaping, etc., who i people that will be using the lagoon, who will be I included in the Economic Impact Report - number of I Case No. CUP-123, YMCA of San Diego - Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a residential care facility as provided for in Section 21.42.010. f I! CtTY OF CARCSBAD MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE : August 25, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS i, Page 9 Assistant Planning Director Bud Plender gave the staff presentation stating that the residence is located at 1212 Oak Street, has an existing residence on the property as well as a guest house. Project Ot will be operating the residential care facility. . He explained that Project Oz provides guidance and counseling services to runaway and neglected youths, ages 13-17, and their families. Youths are referred to Oz by the jstice system, and stay at the Oz facility for an average of two weeks. During that time, the family is counseled as well. Prior to the adoption.of ZCA-70, Project Oz was granted occupancy for four youths under the R-1-zone's provisions for room and boarding. The current request would allow a.n addition of two youths. The larger house would be used for the 6 youths and the smaller one for the . ' counselors. 'I Sharon Delfa, Director of the Project, was present to answer any questions that the Commissioners had regarding the project. I I1 1 The Commissioners were concerned about several items: weeds on the adjoining lot that was being used for recreation, the house needing a paint job, whether or not they.delt with handicapped or retarded children another means of physical escape from the upstairs area, wanted yearly inspections and that the approval for a residential use facility should not be assignabl at all. Ms. Delfa advised the Commission that they did not deal with handicapped or retarded children, that the Painters and Allied Trades Joint Apprenticeship Committee of San Diego-Imperial Counties had agreed to paint the house (letter of July 9, 1976 given to the Commission re same), that the house was equipped with fire estinquishers and smoke detectors, and that they would maintain the lawn. A motion was made approving CUP-123 per the recommen- dation, findings and conditions contained in the staff report and staff was directed to prepare the necessary documents to present to the Commission on September 8, 1976 with the following changes: Condition No. 2 to read that this approval is not assignable. Change Condition No. 3 to require yearly inspections rather than every three years. Add to Condition No. 4, Sect'ion (e) requiring that the house be painted with- in 6 months and maintained so as to be in keeping with the neighborhood. Add Condition #6 to state that the facility will not handle handicapped or mentally retarded persons. Add Condition #7 to requjre that an al.ternate means of egress from the upstairs be pro- vided. NEW BUSINESS Work Program - August 1976 --A Minute Motion' was made I to refer,this Work Proqram to the Citv Council for I review and approval. Staff also directed to set a Joint Session with Planning Commissi.on and City Counci to discuss the Work Program. ADJOURNMENT: The 'meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Motion Ayes . Absent Motion Ayes X X X X X X