Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-06-04; Planning Commission; MinutesCITY OF CARLSBAD PLANWING COMMISSION MINUTES June 4, 1979 Page One (1) I. 1 CALL TO ORDER NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 'The meeting was called to order at 5:05 P.M. by Chairman ~ L' Heureux . 11. ROLL CALL 'Commissioners present: Chairman L'Heureux, Commissioners Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson, Wrench and Schick. I Staff present: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director: Bud Plender, Assistant to the Planning Director: Ron Beckman, Public Works Administrator. Chairman L'Heureux turned the chair over to Vice-chairman Schick and excused himself from the hearing because a client of his owns property in the vicinity thereby causing a possible conflict of interest. rc 111.' CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING A. PDP-2, Lake Calavera Hills Sewer Treatment Plant Mr. 'Bud Plender presented the staff report. He stated that this was a continued item from the April 11th meeting: at the April 11th meeting, the Planning Commission had recommended a zone change and to continue the Precise Plan pending the City Council direction on policy matters which were contained in the EIR and the project report. The Council dis- cussed those policy matters and gave basic directions to staff and the Commission. He stated that one of the directions was that the site the Commission had approved in the zone change was the preferred site by the Council. From the other policies of the Precise Plan, staff redrafted the conditions and submitted those conditions to the Commission on June 1. He further stated that the conditions had been discussed in detail at various times with the Vice-chairman of the Planning Commission, planning staff and the Public Works Administrator as well as the applicant. He advised that some minor changes for clarification are necessary. He also noted that possibly one condition should be added regard- ing the prohibition of back flushing water softeners. The Vice-chairman then asked for discussion relative to the project. - Conu$issioner Jose wanted clarification of finding 4d of the recbmmendation which states that the proposed facility will be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 4, 1979 Page Two (2) P financed by those utilizing the facility; he stated that if the City is to reimburse the applicant for the construction of this plant, then the City being the taxpayer, all taxpayers would be assessed, - Staff replied it appears as though the proposed financing agree- ment would provide that financing would be a part of the sewer permit fee, therefore paid only by those using the plant. Commissioner Jose then questioned condition 38 relative to the disposal of sludge and wanted to know if anything had been resolved on this matter. Ron Beckman, Public Works Administrator, stated that discussions were going on presently with the Encina Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) seeking to work out a solution that would be applicable to all the satellite plants which would include this one. If nothing happens there, the sludge would have to be treated at the site and hauled to a landfill, but they are trying to work out a solution whereby all the joint facilities could have a coordinated program. However this has not been finalized. He stated that whatever was resolved with regard to Encina, probably the City would try to "piggy-back" on their efforts . Commissioner Larson felt that the word "appurtenances" in condition number 10 needed clarification. Staff explained that this condition had been discussed earlier and concurred that some of the appurtenances should be defined further. He stated that a CUP process should be established for any major projects such as the discharge basin in Agua Hedionda. However, no CUP would be required for a small pump station; probably just a review by the Planning Commission to be certain it would not be detrimental to surrounding properties. r Commissioner Larson questioned whether the six foot height on the fence was adequate for security and safety. Staff replied that six feet was the minimum height allowed; how- ever if the State Water Quality Control Board requires more, then that requirement would be met. Commissioner Wrench, in regard to condition 9, questioned who would make the decision as to whether or not the ponds would be preferable to an effluent failsafe line. Ron Beckman stated that he was working on that now. He stated that there is a requirement of the Regional Quality Control Board that the plant not be operated beyond its ability to effectively dispose of the effluent without pumping; to put it into the ground and draw it out. It must be able to be put into the ground and taken care of or flow by means of a failsafe effluent disposal - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 4, 1979 Page Three (3) - line, to the ocean outfall. Some engineering work is underway now to establish the limits and capabilities of the aquifer the Montgomery Report identified as being in the Agua Hedionda shed. He said he was unable to give a definitive answer now, but feels they should be able to develop a program which would allow for percolation in aquifers (groundwater recharge) without the need for constructing a pipeline all the way to the ocean. If that's the case, then the alternatives will be brought to Council. He informed the Commission that Council had withheld their policy decision on those until such time as further studies were done. Commissioner Wrench wanted to know what condition number 14 in- cluded or excluded. Staff replied that it includes all applications that have already been approved by tentative map or final map and excludes all pro- jects that need new applications, including those in the Master Plan area which have not already submitted tentative maps. Commissioner Wrench wished to know what area was served. Staff replied it was the project area of the Montgomery Report. Commissioner Wrench then asked how many dwelling units were already approved. IC Staff answered approximately 500, which includes those being pro- cessed by the applicant. Commissioner Wrench then questioned, in number 17, the tense of the verb "shall" being changed to "would" in a later sentence and asked if there was a reason for this. Staff replied that "shall" should have been used. Commissioner Rombotis stated that he noticed the failsafe line goes to El Camino and asked if that was a change from the previous condition. Staff responded that the previous condition 4 has not been changed and is a failsafe in some regards. It requires a force main to connect to the Encina line in El Camino Real. He stated that condition number 4 is there primarily to allow the City at a future time to connect existing developments that are west of El Camino Real into the satellite treatment plan; also, it allows for a malfunction failsafe. He stated that the failsafe system discussed in the EIR is the effluent disposal. The conditions in the recommendation indicate that until the satellite Master Plan is completed, staff does not know exactly where the effluent fail- safe should go or if its even necessary. PLANNING COMMISS- J MINUTES June 4, 1979 Page Four (4) _c Commissioner Rombotis said he thought conditions 12 and 32 should be made to coincide; that one requires 20 feet and the other 30 feet. Ron Beckman responded that one referred to the right-of-way and the other the paved width. Commissioner Schick asked if the City was comfortable that these conditions give adequate control on the development of the plant, wherever it might be located; he stated that the only place he could find it referenced as to tentative construction was con- tained in a March, 1978, draft of this project. He wanted to know how staff felt about the ultimate location. Bud Plender stated that the applicant had made a request, which is contained in these exhibits, and basically contained in condi- tion number 1. The application did not include all the necessary appurtenances to reclaimed water. The City Council indicated by their policy decision that reclamation was necessary. Condition number 2 indicates that, in addition to the approval of the develop- ment shown in exhibits, all other requirements and appurtenances as listed in the approval should be indicated on the final Precise Plan. Condition 5 indicates all wells, pumps, etc. to reclaim water from the recharged basins (plural) should be constructed as a part of this project, tying in the fact that this project also tion. He stated that staff does not know at this point where those appurtenances will be located. He stated that as indicated in condition number 10, staff would clarify which would require a conditional use permit and which would not. - will include reclamation that is not shown on the original applica- Commissioner Wrench said that he was puzzled as to how this could be considered a precise development plan if the number of percola- tion ponds and the location of them is not settled. Staff replied that the precise development plan was only for the water treatment facility, a requirement of the zone code; the water treatment facility requires a precise plan but the reclama- tion system itself, by zoning, does not require a precise plan. Staff is conditioning the precise plan to show that when they are ready for the reclamation phase, some other method would have to come forward to the Commission to approve that part. The applica- tion, as made by the applicant, did not contain water reclamation. Commissioner Schick then pointed out that this project is servic- ing some 4,500 acres, not just Lake Calavera Hills. He said that this particular site is located in Lake Calavera Hills, but that the other part, which is the reclamation capability, may be located somwhere else within this 4,500 acres that is addressed by the Montgomery Report. He then wanted to know what the City's position is once a location is pinpointed (i.e. right of Eminent Domain? etc.) relative to easement rights for moving the water r PLANNING COMMISSIEN MINUTES June 4, 1979 Page Five (5) back into the areas where it would be utilized. Ron Beckman responded that as it now stands, permission could be obtained from the State to operate at 0.5 mgd. He stated that the City would need a "reclaimed water master plan" which would differentiate between what each unit would have to do - extend lines or augment lines that bring the water to their particular site to use - as opposed to the basic system which is wells and pumps that bring the water out of the ground and take it to a central point from which it can be distributed to these develop- ments. Ed Haworth, representative to the applicant, then addressed the Commission. He stated that initial efforts, a plan smaller in size, had been submitted and at that time the plan, in terms of percolation ponds, was adequate. Thereafter, the City and staff decided that the facility should be larger and City Council wished to take a look at the additional percolation ponds in the Agua Hedionda basin. He also felt that one other point should be clarified, namely, that City Council was looking at the demand factor of the use of reclaimed water and the applicant had indicated that he (the applicant) could use all the reclaimed water on his own site. In fact, he could probably use even more. The question was raised by the City Council as to whether or not there were higher priority potentials in terms of the use of the reclaimed water, which has been left up in the air. Mr. Haworth then commented on the conditions of approval, which have been gone over with staff. The first condition suggested for modification is condition 7; the applicant suggest a guar- anteed plan and method. Also relative to this condition, he feels that instead of saying "The land guaranteed by utilizing the reclaimed water shall be...", that these be indicated a prelim- inary guidelines. He said that this should be a guideline rather than a condition of approval. - Relative to condition 11, Mr. Haworth suggests that the first sentence be modified to state that "the applicant shall provide necessary easements on his property and pay his fair share of the costs for a disposable effluent failsafe system (deleting line) as such system is determined to be necessary." Relative to item 15, he suggests a clause be added at the end stating "providing the City agrees to take over the facility." With reference to item 17, he would like to set a time stipulation so that the City would not have an open end time in terms of issuing or accepting discretionary action applications. Mr. Haworth further stated that condition number 34 of the staff report dated June 4, 1979 should be expanded to include not only - the City Engineer but also the Planning Director. PLANNING COMMISS7 MINUTES c June 4, 1979 Page Six (6) P With respect to number 36 of the staff report, he feels the word "appropriate" lighting for security purposes should be used. Commissioner Larson had a question relative to condition number 26, whether or not the grading would take place during the dry season and was answered by Mr. Haworth in the affiramtive. Commissioner Larson then asked if the six foot fence could be made a minimum of eight feet or higher; Mr. Haworth again answered yes. Mr. Haworth said that the condition relating to the prohibition of soft water was a condition of the existent Master Plan. Mr. Roy Ward, the applicant, wished to summarize and review the concept of both the sanitary treatment facility and its changover to reclamation. He then sketched on graphics for the Commission to see the area which comprised the drainage basin. The basin includes a small portion of Oceanside. He explained that the appli- cation had started in a simple manner, a 500,000 gallon plant essentially to serve Calavera. He stated that subsequent to the study of the Montgomery Report and others, it was decided that a plant would be built to serve the entire drainage basin, an area of about 4,100 acres; that in order for the plant to do that through the year 2000, it would have to have a capacity of approxi- mately 1.2 mgd of treatment facility. He said that after much research, it was agreed that the plant would be put on a five acre site (indicating on the graphic the location). He said that according to their basic concept, two things had to be done. First, to build a collection main through the lower southeast corner of his property in order to make available the collection of all wastewater, or to at least provide for that collection. After the water has been collected by the plant, then it can be reclaimed. He pointed out that there must be a service main along the southerly boundary of his property in order to collect the bulk of the whole basin. He said this was an appur- tenance that is required to collect the water. The other line was down Tamarack Avenue, hopefully a reversible force main, which would serve two functions. One, to be able to pick up the 250-300 acres in the west side of the service area and free up the existing capacity at Encina in order to start treating it at the new satellite treatment plant. The treatment facility consists of oxidation ditches and all that it takes to make them function and turn out the highest quality water available, and the clarifi- cation process (to separate the sludge and liquid which is then put into a chlorination system to eliminate the viral problems). He said that at this point the water could be used on open space ares but that this was not good enough. He said because of the need to dispose of water, they had developed hydrogeological works to ensure that in this area (pointed out to Commission) enough ,e- capacity was developed to service his needs. The actual capacity PLANNING COMMISS:-l MINUTES June 4, 1979 Page Seven (7) of this area to accept water and percolate it is approximately 700,000 gpd. He further stated that this would be limited to 500,000 gpd until such time as they could prove the true capacity of the aquifer to accept water and dispose of it down the Buena Vista Creek. He explained that at this point, they were attempt- ing to put the water into the ground; that by putting the water into the ground into the aquifer, a polishing job is done on the water. He stated the best treatment that water can receive and make it potable is to be put into the ground and let nature take its course in clearing it of nitrates, phosphates, etc. Mr. Ward said that all the needs of Calavera could be handled with that pond but that the problem was that when they go to a 1.2 mgd, that isn't enough. So that now, just to fill in the system, the treated water from the plant must be pumped over the hill by a line to the top of the hill and then it gravity flows down. At this point all that is done is to treat the water, reclamation has not begun. Mr. Ward went on to say that the next phase is reclamation. For reclamation to occur, two things must happen. One is a series of wells at his property line or perhaps down stream; at this point the water becomes "well water." At the property line, a check dam underground must be built to provide a reservoir for storage water in the percolation area where the water can be contolled as to how much is allowed to excape down the Buena Vista escape channel. In front of the dam, a well must be placed to reclaim the water so that it can be readied for distribution into the areas. The City water management policy will dictate how this water is used. He said his part of the reclamation is to provide the facility to collect the water and put it into a storage situation, either a pond, a lake and/or a storage tank. rc Mr. Ward that at that point he felt the reclamation process stopped. The next point would be distribution. He stated that the Commission had conditioned the Calavera Master Plan (150A), if this system was approved, to require as a condition of every map, a dual water system. He feels that this funds for the City, free of charge, a distribution system within Lake Calavera Hills. It is not funded outside Lake Calavera Hills. Commissioner Wrench then asked the applicant if the two ditches depicted on the plan were 0.5 mgd or 1.2 mgd. Roy Ward stated that each ditch is 600,000 gallsons capacity. He said this was done for two reasons. First so they might be able to be phased in as required; and secondly, it gives an added failsafe during the first years of the project by providing a spare ditch to use in case of malfunction. Commissioner Wrench then asked that if they were provided this precise plan for excess capacity for the treatment, why were they recharge. - not also provided a plan for excess capacity of percolation and PLANNING COMMISS- J MINUTES June 4, 1979 Page Eight (8) c ,P Mr. Ward said it was because it would be five years minimum before there would be a need for excess percolation of over 600,000 gpd. He want on to say that the reason the Regional Water Quality Contol Board would only permit this project for five years, renewable every five years, if it is working pro- perly. He stated that this is the reason they have put a ceil- ing of 500,000 gallons maximum on the project so they can be assured that everything works. He stated further that excess percolation is a discretionary situation. He said it would cost another $3,000,000 for a failsafe, which might encourage shunting the water into the ocean instead of trying to come up with a solution to reclaim the water. Commissioner Wrench then inquired how long it would take to find the appropriate site and make a precise plan for the extra 700,000 gallon capacity. Mr. Ward answered that they were already testing it in Aqua Hedionda. He said they were trying to get the information together in order for the Public Works Director to be able to make a decision on whether or not they have the capacity. He stated there is additional difficulty in that they do not own the land and therefore must get permission from landowners, who were not always cooperative. P THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 6:20 P.M. Commissioner Larson then asked staff if they were in accord with the changes in the conditions suggested by Mr. Haworth. Staff replied they were with the possible exception of number 11 which Mr. Haworth wanted stricken; Mr. Plender said he would like to look further at that. A general discussion ensued which resulted in a consensus of opinion that the report should be rewritten and brought back to the Commission. The Commission asked if the re-write could include all the new conditions and clarify the existent conditions in question. Staff advised the Commission they would receive the packet on June 8, and asked whether the hearing would be continued until June 13th or if they wanted a closed hearing on the resolution. Staff wanted to know if this should be again in report form or finalized as a resolution for Commission's adoption. Staff advised that if the hearing was continued, the matter would go to the City Council the first meeting in July. After a discussion, the Com- mission decided they would like to have a resolution at the next meeting. A motion was made asking that the matter be brought before the PLANNING COMMISS”‘ T MINUTES June 4, 1979 Page Nine (9) P- Commission in resolution form at their next meeting, June 13th. MOTION: Jose SECOND: Marcus AYES : Rombotis, Marcus, Larson, Wrench, Schick, Jose ABSENT: L’Heureux IV. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 6:35 P.M. R pec fully ubmitted, Q /L+ J~N DAUBNEY Recording Secretary Y ATTEST : JAMES C. HAGAMAN Secretary