Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-04-11; Planning Commission; MinutesPLANNING COLWISSION MINUTES CITY OF CARLSBAD April 11, 1979 - Page I. 11. 111. One (1) CALL TO ORDER NOT OFFICIAL UMTIL APPROVED AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION The meeting was called to order at 7:OO P.M. by Chairman L'Heureux. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairman L'Heureux, Commissioners Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson, Wrench, Schick Staff present: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director; Bud Plender, Assistant to the Planning Director; Brian Milich, Assistant Planner; Mike Zander, Advanced Planning; Ron Eeckman, Director of Public Works; Les Evans, City Engineer; Dave Hauser, Engineering. AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS A. A letter from property owners adjacent to Carlsbad Meadows was distributed regarding unsafe living conditions and the lack of compliance to specifications of the City of Carlsbad by that development. . , The Commission directed staff to take the appropriate action and report back at the next meeting. B. A memorandum from the Planning Department regarding Planning Commission Resolution No. 1503 was distributed regarding non- IV . CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CT 79-1, Katoh, Carlsbad Tentative Map for subdivision of a 32 acre parcel in Palomar Airport Business Park. - Mr. Sud Plender presented the staff report and indicated the need for the rewording of condition #9 of the Staff Report dated April 11, 1979. Commissioner Jose asked if sewer should become available for this project in the future would the septic systems be abandoned. Staff indicated that any projects with operational septic systems would not be eligible for sewer allocation. Commissioner Larson asked that condition #3 be reworded to iricluds adequate screening of all visible rooftop equipment. The problem of traffic circulation within the interior of the between lots 1 and 2 in addition to the landscaped strip along the property lines. - lots was discussed. It was suggested that access rights be waived Planning Commission Millutes April 11, 1979 Page Two (2) Chairman L'Heureux asked if ultimately there would be an undivided center median along El Camino Real from Palomar Airport Road to Dove Lane. Staff indicated that as property is developing along El Camin0 Real the City is acquiring median commitments and does Ultimately intend to have an undivided median running the entire length of El Camino Real. Openings at appropriate locations would be provided. The problem of U-turn to enter lot #3 was discussed and it was stated that in order to U-turn one would have to proceed to Palomar Airport Road or Dove Lane. Mr. Bernie Gilmore, the applicant, representing Palomar Airport Business Park indicated his concurrence with the recommendations and conditions contained in the staff report dated April 11, 1979, and further indicated agreement with the revised condition #9. A motion was made recommending approval of CT 79-1 subject to the April 11, 1979 and with the further stipulations that condition #3 be reworded to include all visible rooftop equipment be screened from public view; condition #9 be revised as follows; and a new condition #21 be added waiving access rights between parcel #3 and - findings and conditions as contained in the staff report dated all adjoining lots. #9 - "Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the subdivider must obtain the approval of the City Engineer for all improvement plans, enter into the appropriate improvement agreements with the City, and post the required bonds for such improvements. Upon the completion of the improvements, the subdivider shall submit the original drawings revised to reflect as-built conditions." APPROVED MOTION: Larson SECOND : Jose AYES : Rombotis, Wrench, Marcus, Jose, Larson, L'Heureux NOES : Schick V. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CUP-88(A), Extension of Conditional Use Permit and addition of a parcel to the auto storage lot. - Mr. Bud Plender presented the staff report and recommended that Condition #7 be redrafted to allow the Planning Commission to Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1979 Page Three (3) reopen a public hearing if, at a later date, it is found that the applicant is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of this CUP. It was clarified that this CUP is being expanded to include both parcels of land. Commissioner Larson asked if the existing fencing is to be replaced or just the new portion fenced, and if the entire property is to be landscaped or just the additional portion. Staff indicated that only the new portion was included in the conditions of the staff report. It was further indicated that if that portion of the prior property were landscaped it may necessitate parking in the travel lane of Tyler Street. Mr. Matt Hall, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He related his belief that staff had thrown him a last minute curve in the rewording of this final condition. He indicated that in August of last year he had approached the City regarding the expiration of his CUP and had been assurred that the City would contact him and that the CUP would probably be extended. He noted that at no time was he appraised of the fact that his use may be terminated without a proper abatement period. Chairman L'Heureux explained the workings of the CUP process and related that the City has 'the right to set a termination date on any such non-conforming uses in its sole discretion. He indicated that it is staff's belief that the use should be reviewed every five years in order to assure continuing compatibility with the General Plan, zoning, and redevelopment. Should staff believe that the use is no longer compatible within the area, the use may be terminated at that point, but a reasonable period of abatement would be allowed. Commissioner Schick reminded Mr. Hall that if the City should elect to exercise its rights of eminent domain, that the laws of the State of California in regards to redevelopment would assure a reasonable abatement period, and, in fact, would supply funds and assistance for relocation if applicable. THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:20 P.M. Speaking in opposition: Mr. Harold Clarke, 824 Camino Del Reposo, Carlsbad, indicated opposition to the proejct in that: 1. The use is not compatible in an area so close to the beach, and certainly not in a residential area. He urged the Commission to take a close look at the problems created in Ponto. I 2. The use is not compatible as it is too close to the Barrio area of Carlsbad, and would not work to upgrade the low cost housing. -. Planning Commission Mi1,dtes April 11, 1979 Page Four (4) 3. Five years ago the applicant was appraised of the fact that the use was conditional and at that time it was indicated that if the applicant met the conditions the use could go on in perpetuity. 4. The use is a blight generating factor in the redevelopment of the Village area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:25 WITH NO FURTHER PURLIC TESTIMONY. A motion was made approving CUP-88(A) under the terms and conditions as set forth in the staff report dated April 11, 1979, and with the following conditions: That additional landscaping be provided in front of the existing fence as well as along the new property, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. - Condition #7 be revised to indicate that the Planning Commission will review this CUP every 5 years, commencing five years from the date of this approval, to determine if the conditions of approval are being met and that the use is compatible with surrounding land use, the General Plan and zoning. If the Planning Commission determines that the use is incompatible for any reason a public hearing may be set to determine a reasonable abatement period. APPROVED MOTION: Rombotis SECOND: Schick AYES: Rombotis, Schick, Wrench, Marcus, Jose, Larson, L I Heureux Chairman L'Heureux reminded the applicant that the decision of the Planning Commission shall be final unless appealed to the City Council. ' B. CT 79-2 and CP-2, approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map for eight airspace condominium units and approval of a condominium permit. - Mr. Bud Plender presented the staff report and corrected the parking requirements to read eight covered spaces and twelve uncovered, for a total of twenty spaces. IC Planning Commission Min,ces April 11, 1979 Page Five (5) Commissioner Larson indicated his belief that the recreational area proposed seems unrealistic in proportion to the amount of equipment intended for the small area provided. He asked the applicant if he would be amenable to marking parking areas for visitors only. Mr. West, the applicant, indicated that he would mark visitor parking spaces appropriately. He further indicated that although the recreation area may be cramped, he felt that all the proposed amenities could be provided in the area indicated. THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AND CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. WITH NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. Commissioner Jose related that he would have to vote for denial of the project due to the fact that said conversion would reduce the amount of rental units within the City, and further that due to the fact that the apartment building is less than a year old conversion to condominium units at this time is not appropriate. Commissioner Wrench indicated his concurrence with Commissioner Jose in that the building has not existed long enough to demon- strate its character for a viable condominium development. He further related his opinion that this is a case of excessive intensiveness of a use and the amenities of homeownership are not present in this instance. I Commissioner Rombotis indicated that the developmental design of the building precludes use of amenities by homeowners, and that the project was just not designed as a condominium project. A motion was made denying CT 79-2 and CP-2 for the reason noted in the discussion. DENIED MOTION: Wrench SECOND : Jose AYES : Rombotis, Schick, Wrench, Marcus, Jose, Larson, L'Heureux Commissioner Schick asked if a standard ratio of apartments avail- able for rent in the Carlsbad area was available. Staff indicated that the rental vacancy rate in Carlsbad is approximately 5%, but that we have no indication of what is a proper vacancy rate for the City. Chairman L'Heureux indicated to the applicant that the matter would automatically be forwarded to the City Council and no appeal is necessary. -. A five minute recess was called at 8:55 P.M. Planning Commission Mi tes April 11, 1979 Page Six (6) c L- The meeting was reconvened at 9:00 P.M. by Chairman L'Heureux. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. MS-394, approval of a panhandle lot as required in Section 21.10.080, located at 2629 Wilson Street.- Mr. Bud Plender presented the staff report and indicated that this item was being taken out of order in order to expedite the agenda. The Commission expressed concern regarding a street system to the lots in this area. The possibility of an interior street design was discussed. Commissioner Larson noted that approval of this request may prohibit development of a street system to the north, giving access to those long, narrow, underdeveloped lots. Staff indicated that this idea had been pursued in the past and had gained no enthusiasm from the residents in the area at that time, but that the Planning Commission must base this decision on a long term planning basis. c- Allen Morris, the applicant, indicated that he has resided in area for the last 15 years and it is his experience that his neighbors like the block the way it is and don't wish a street system per se. Staff related that most of the large, underdeveloped lots could be served in the future by a street system from the south, but it is doubtful if such street could serve the northerly lots. A motion was made approving MS-394 subject to the terms and conditions as contained in the staff report dated April 11, 1979. APPROVED MOTION: Schick SECOND: Rombotis AYES : Rombotis, Schick, Wrench, Marcus, L'Heureux NOES : Larson, Jose VII. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) A. zc-203, PDP-3, Lake Calavera Hills, zone change from p-c (planned Community) to P-U (Public Utility); and a Precise Development Plant for a 1.2 mgd oxidation ditch wastewater treatment facility, including effluent line and percolation ponds . PLANNING COMMISSION MI TES April 11, 1979 Page Seven (7) - Chairman L'Heureux indicated that he would be abstaining on this item as in the past, and turned the meeting over to Vice-chairman Schick. Vice-chairman Schick related that the EIR on this project had just been certified by the City Council on April 3rd, and staff was subsequently directed to add the item to this meeting's agenda. He reaffirmed that due process had, indeed, been exercised in the noticing of this public hearing and indicated that many extra hours of staff preparation had gone into the processing of this project in time for this meeting. He further expressed concern in that there is no policy guidance from the City regarding such things as growth management, financing of the project, and water reclamation on a Citywide basis, and wondered if the Commission could adequately address these issues at this time, prior to some guidance by the City Council. James C. Hagaman, Planning Director, gave a brief background of the project and indicated the concern of staff regarding a lack of guidelines in relation to Council policy on wastewater reclamation, growth management, and a financial plan. Mr. Hagaman, Planning Director, gave a brief background of the project and indicated the concern of staff regarding a lack c of guidelines in relation to Council policy on wastewater reclamation, growth management, and a financial plan. Mr. Hagaman reviewed the history of the Lake Calavera Hills project from its inception to the present, and indicated that these two applications, ZC-203 and PDP-3, are the end products of a series of applications the City Council and Commission have heard over the past year. The first application was an amended Master Plan wherein the idea of a satellite sewage treatment plant first was proposed to the City. The amended Master Plan included an Environmental Impact Report, an Economic Impact Report and land use revisions, including a satellite sewage treatment plant. The satellite treatment plant proposal in that Master Plan was denied for a series of reasons including the fact that said plant would only service the particular development. During this same period of time the Lowry report, an overview of the entire City, indicating potential areas for satellite treatment plants in general, was presented to the City Council. The Council indicated that before determining whether to proceed with satellite plants in the City, they wanted a detailed study of one basin. That was the origin of the Montgomery report which came to the Planning Commisison with the EIR for certification and subsequently the City Council, which certified the Environmental Impact Report. P At that same Council meeting staff presented a report prepared by Ron Beckman and James C. Hagaman dealing with several major policies contained in the Montgomery report. One major issue Planning Commission Mi- tes April 11, 1979 Page Eight (8) identified was water reclamation, accompanied with a series of questions as to community wants and desires in a water reclamation program; kinds of uses available for reclaimed water; how the distribution pumps, etc., will be financed and maintained. Another major issue identified was growth and the possibility of the City's exceeding the Series IV growth estimates as projected by CPO, and thus jeoparidizing the acquisition of federal and state funding. Other questions included what measures can be secured for the orderly development of land: does the City want to limit the number of satellite sewage treatment plants within the City; does the City want a growth management program or to allow the free market to determine development rates? Mr. Hagaman reviewed with the Commission the origin and back- ground of CPO Series IV population projections and their relation to the regional planning process. He indicated that the population forecasts have become a growth quota which presents the City with policy considerations on growth management. He indicated that with the expansion of the Encina plant and Leucadia County Water District releasing sewer permits, staff believes that some sort of phasing or growth management plan is City is currently receiving, but also to provide the City with the ability to service new developments. - vital, not only to protect federal and state funding, which the After reviewing the various policy considerations contained in the Staff Report dated April 11, 1979, Mr. Hagaman indicated that the City Council has not addressed these policy matters as yet, therefore it was his opinion that the Planning Commission had several courses of action available in the processing of the applications before them: . They could hold the applications to a time certain and request that the City Council give policy direction prior to the taking of any action. . The Commission could deal only with land use issues and forward the matter to the City Council with the recommendation that no decision become operational prior to said policy issues being decided by the City Council. . The matter could be held in abeyance until such time as a Financial Plan can be presented to the Planning Commission for consideration and then a recommendation would be made to the City Council. e After general discussion it was decided to move forward on the land use decisions and defer the policy decisions to the City Council. Planning Commission Mj-l.tes April 11, 1979 Page Nine (9) Mr. Bud Plender presented the staff report, dated April 11, 1979, indicating various changes to the conditions contained therein, including: Condition #3. delete "constructed by the Lake Calavera Hills associates, #4. delete entire sentence dealing with construction costs and who is responsible. New condition #4. A system for water reclamation or an effluent fail safe system to be constructed as part of this application to the satisfaction of the Public Works Administrator. (This is different from any present condition and has not been reviewed with the applicant) #5. delete "reclamation" in the first sentence. #7. last sentence, revise to indicate EIR wording. #lo. delete #11. delete c #12. revise to read "access easements if necessary for operation . . . 'I, delete free of liens and encumbrances. Staff is to draft a new condition under Administration to indicate some form of phasing or release of sewer capacity. The City would determine the amount and when sewer hookups would be available. #14. delete #15. change "accepted" to "issued". #17. add after "land", "lots for all land at the plant site and percolation ponds to be dedicated . . . #19. redraft to change "property line" to "perimeter driveway", and "buildable portion of a residential lot" to "any residence". #35. fence to be a minimum of 6' high. Mr. Roy Ward, the applicant, introduced his two consultants Ed Hayworth and Dennis O'Leary who will be available to answer questions, and presented a short slide presentation regarding the proposed project. - Ed Hayworth, of Hayworth, Carroll & Anderson, Inc., urban planning specialists, addressed the Commission. He referred to page 5 of Planning Commission Mj-,tes April 11, 1979 Page Ten (10) /I the Staff Report dated April 11, 1979, which indicated major concerns, two of which are within the pervue of the Commission and the third (Administration) perhaps should be held for deter- mination by the City Council, He noted that staff's conditions are appropriate and adequately cover the considerations of these areas. Mr. Hayworth indicated disagreement with the comment that the question of growth has not been adequately addressed, He noted that the Lake Calavera Hills Master Plan contained 50-60 conditions of approval, including a phasing plan, a fee with respect to public facilities, a triggering mechanism on that phasing plan which says that certain villages cannot be started before certain public facilities are available to that facility. He stated that if growth, in terms of management, relates to the ability of the City and/or the developer to provide adequate facilities, that has been addressed in great detail. As far as whether or not we would proceed to and exceed the population projections in terms of growth, Series IV, that issue has not been addressed. Mr. Hayworth suggested that if exceeding projections of CPO is a concern, possibly the Commission could establish a condition that this project, and others, would not be permitted to exceed any of the projections. He further indicated his opinion that not limited or allocated on a quadrant basis. - said growth projection was related to the city in general and In terms of policy administration Mr. Hayworth indicated that conditions #lo, #11, and #14 of the staff report give some direction as to what must occur prior to the plant actually being constructed and/or turned over to the City. In that context he suggested that those conditions remain as conditions of approval and not be deleted as suggested by staff. He further indicated that the 30 conditions of approval provide adequate safeguards with respect to the conditions which staff feel have not been appropriately addressed at this stage, and are adequately covered in terms of assurances that certain policy questions must be answered prior to this plan becoming a reality. In regards to staff's suggestion that all users of the treatment plant shall provide a guaranteed method of utilizing reclaimed water, Mr. Hayworth suggested that the gallons per acre require- ment be deleted and the usability of the water be based on a case by case consideration. Mr. Hayworth then passed out a memorandum dated April 11, 1979, stating his firm's position on the various conditions of approval as stated in the staff report, and in particular: Condition #3. Indicates that Lake Calavera Hills is to build the treatment plant. Does this include any offsite facility, or those outside the boundaries of Lake Calavera Hills. A more Planning Commission Mj-.tes April 11, 1979 Page Eleven (11) refined detail of what would be required for both treatment and reclamation is necessary. #3 and #4. Deals with some type of reclamation plan for the use of those waters. No disagreement, except would like to see the condition at least establish in a more flexible manner that Lake Calavera Hills has the responsibility of submitting a plan and that plan is then subject to review and approval by the Public Works Administrator and the Planning Director. Perhaps the verbage regarding ratio of gallons, type of land, escape areas, etc. is too broad and should be revised. Possibly in lieu of stating that as a condition, staff could look at it in the context of the EIR, in terms of giving flexibility on how to use the reclaimed water. #4, 10 # 11. Deal with methods of financing and should not be deleted. The words "assessed valuation" in the last sentence should be changed to "fair market value". #15. Should permit construction. Lake Calavera Hills Will put up in excess of $1,000,000 to build the plant and would like the opportunity of, at least, starting construction on some of the units. Possibly no occupancy permits Would be issued prior to completion of the plant, or even no sales until the plant is finished. #19. The tentative tract map has been approved, construction drawings finished and improvement plans are through plan check and awaiting final approval. Redesign would be difficult at this point. The nearest residential unit in this particular tract would be within the 100 yards, give or take a few yards. They would appreciate flexibility for these three or four lots if they should miss the 100 mark by a couple of yards, so that they would not have to go back and completely redo and redesign the tract. Possibly they could let those future property owners know that their unit is closest to the plant. For this reason conditions 10, 11 and 14 should be left in with general direction from the City Council on the financial matters. Mr. Hayworth questioned the new condition regarding phasing, as to how the phasing of future hookups would be accomplished. Commissioner Schick asked what the growth impact would be on the area in general. responded that Lake Calavera Hills is projected to of the projected growth in the area, although they - account for only 1/6 of the land involved. Growth management in the drainage basin could be added indicating that any areas outside the Lake Calavera Hills project must submit a growth management plan similar to the one just reviewed for Lake Calavera Hills. Planning Commission Mi- tes April 11, 1979 Page Twelve (12) Mr. Dennis O'Leary, 3505 Camino del Rio South, San Diego, addressed the Commission. He verified that the location of the plant conforms to the proposed site for a wastewater reclamation plant as adopted in Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan which was approved by CPO and the State Water Resources Control Board, and by the City Council. Commissioner Larson asked if a reversible force main would be sufficient if a fail safe line to Encina is necessary. Mr. 0' Learv indicated that that would be a feasible solution. Commissioner Larson asked as to the placement of the wells for reclaimed water. Mr. O'Leary stated that the wells will be 30 to 50 feet downstream from the percolation basins on the Lake Calavera Hills property. Commissioner Schick referenced the letter from the Department of Health Services regarding the fail safe line being constructed up-front. Mr. O'Leary indicated that the ability to percolate effluent into the ground provides a flow up to, and in excess of 25,000 gallons of the fail safe is basically a method of disposing of effluent during wet weather. That water can be pumped out of the ground during the summer periods, along with the regular flow of effluent. Should there be a malfunction of the facility, which is not expected due to the duplication of facilities within the plant, that effluent can also go over to the percolation beds, and be heavily cholorinated. It would then percolate into the ground and will not cause odor nuisances, The water that is pumped back out of the ground will be of equal quality to water which is pumped out normally, The system, as planned, provides a fail safe system under operating conditions up to a little more than 4 million gallons per day. Once you get over the 3 million gallons that fail safe feature does not exist, because there is not enough storage capacity for effluent during the rainy periods. c a day, and, as such, provides a built in fail safe. The purpose In regards to the fail safe connection to the ocean, Mr. O'Leary indicated that wastewater reclamation plans which are built inland do not have backup connections to the ocean, but instead have storage ponds which store the effluent on the surface of the ground, which is substituting a subsurface storage area for the storage ponds. Here you get the added benefit from that subsurface storage area by filtration of the effluent before it gets utilized on the land. /c He stated that the fail safe connection to the ocean is necessary, but if it is done at an early point in the project, before the flow reaches the + million gallons a day, ,it is going to be an expensive construction. As the area expands the cost could be spread out against additional homes. Planning Commission Mi"tes April 11, 1979 Page Thirteen (13) /" He further indicated that waste discharge requirements from the Regional Quality Control Board indicate that would have to be a part of the program (capacity for $ million gallons a day in the reclamation facility). Staff indicated that this last condition had not been included as a condition of approval, but would be added if the Commission so desired. THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 10:45 P.M. Speaking in favor: Mr. Don Brown, Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, indicated that their Board of Directors favor the proposal as the type of and quality of alternate sewage treatment project needed in the community and generally approves the project. THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON ZC-203 AT 10:47 WITH NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY. A motion was made continuing the public hearing on PDP-2 to the meeting of April 25, 1979, to allow further staff input. The motion passed unanimously. L Commissioner Wrench indicated his opposition to ZC-203 for the following reasons: 1, A change to the land use at the site would be a surprise to the existing residential property owners in the vicinity. Too many persons would be impacted by such an action. 2. The basic concept is bad and would perpetuate other satellite treatment facilities. 3. Wastewater reclamation need not be pursued for a variety of practical and engineering reasons. 4. Uncontrolled growth within the City is unacceptable. There must be some sort of phasing. The project as proposed would lead to uncontrolled growth. 5. He basically disagrees with the EIR's statement that such a plant would not present a significant odor impact. In all probability there would be malfunction of equipment, problems with sludge removal, etc. and those persons west and south of El Camino Real would be impacted, He is opposed to both the use and the zone change. - Commissioner Jose expressed sympathy with Commissioner Wrench's position, but related that in his opinion this zone change would be appropriate. Planning Commission Mi .tes April 11, 1979 Page Fourteen (14) .. - ~P Commissioner Rombotis indicated that he felt that the PDP-2 should be continued until the next meeting to allow staff time to rewrite the appropriate conditions, prepare an elaborate phasing schedule and respond to CPO population projections. The Commission expressed their desire for some policy guidance regarding growth management. A motion was made recommending approval of ZC-203 based on the findings contained in the staff report dated April 11, 1979. APPROVED MOTION: Jose SECOND: Marcus AYES: Rombotis, Schick, Marcus, Jose NOES : Larson, Wrench ABSTAIN: L'Heureux I Mr. Hagaman asked the Commission to reiterate their intent in relation to the four basic policy matters of a financial plan, water reclamation, growth management, and servicing areas outside the City. Commissioner Rombotis indicated that the Commission did not have the background to address the matter of financing as it is outside the realm of land use planning. IC Mr. Hagaman indicated that it would probably take at least 30 days to draft some sort of financial plan, and asked the Commission if they desired to impose some sort of condition regarding financial administration. Commissioner Rombotis made the motion that whatever plan, if it were approved, would only become effective upon the approval of a financial plan by the City Council. Commissioner Wrench seconded the motion which passed unanimously with Chairman L'Heureux abstaining. Commissioner Rombotis made a motion that it is the policy of this Commission that water reclamation is desirable for the City, and a system utilizing that water should be developed for study. Commissioner Wrench indicated that such a water reclamation system would have significant contractural, financial and technical implications which must be carefully considered by the City Council. Mr. Roy Ward stated that the City Council had taken the approach that both satellite treatment and reclamation would be considered on a basin by basin study and analysis. Mr. Hagaman indicated the need for further discussion regarding an overall integrated system. He further noted that phasing of an area by providing public facilities is not growth management. rc Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1979 Page Fifteen (15) e. - Phasing is in terms of sequence, not time. He cautioned the Commission on relating growth management or any other such growth control to sewer or public facility phasing because not all development is on sewer in this community, some is on to septic tanks. Also, it should be based on actual growth and not public facilities. What we are really faced with is how to manage growth, to assure that the public facilities needed for development will be available. Commissioner Rombotis indicated that the subject of growth management cannot be adequately addressed at this time, and asked staff to prepare a brief synopsis of the Series IV project. Mr. Mike Zander, Advanced Planning Section, distributed a memorandum outlining the methodology, history and future of the Comprehensive Planning Organization regional growth forecasts. (attached) - VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made approving the minutes of March 28, 1979, as corrected. APPROVED MOTION: Jose c SECOND: Schick AYES : Rombotis, Schick, Wrench, Marcus, Jose, Larson, L'Heureux IX. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution No. 1503, Non-conforming uses. A motion was made continuing this item to the meeting of April 25, 1979. CONTINUED MOTION: Jose SECOND : Wrench AYES : Rombotis, Schick, Wrench, Marcus, Jose, LarSOn, L Heureux B. Resolution No. 1504, ZCA-106, Aquaculture. A motion was made approving Resolution No. 1504 as read. APPROVED MOTION: Jose SECOND : Larson AYES : Schick, Wrench, Marcus, Jose, ABSTAIN: Rombotis Larson, L'Heureux Planning Commission Mi tes April 11, 1979 Page Sixteen (16) ,- C. Resolution No. 1505, ZCA-107, Community Identity Signs. A motion was made approving Resolution No. 1505-as read. APPROVED MOTION: Jose SECOND: Rombotis AYES : Rombotis, Schick, Wrench, Marcus, Jose, Larson, L'Heureux D. Resolution No. 1506, ZCA-108, Stock Cooperatives. A motion was made approving Resolution No. 1506 as read. APPROVED MOTION: Jose SECOND: Schick AYES : Rombotis, Schick, Wrench, Marcus, Jose, Larson, L'Heureux X. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Respectfully Submi>ted, Marga$kt Sackrider RECORDING SECRETARY ATTEST : JAMES C. HAGAMAN SECRETARY