Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-19; Planning Commission; Minutes. L CITY OF CARLSBAD + PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Meeting) June 19, 1980 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairman Schick. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Schick, Commissioners Marcus, Friestedt, Larson and Rombotis and Jose Absent: Commissioner Leeds Ex-Officio members JimHagaman, Planning Director, and Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, were also present. Staff present were Bill Hofman,-Associate Planner, Charles Grimm, Assistant Planner and Les Evans, City Engineer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was Ted by Chairman Schick, AGENDA ITEM COMM'UNI'CATIONS In response to inquiry by Chairman Schick, staff advised there were no items of communication for Commission consideration beyond those reflected in the Agenda. Chairman Schick outlined the Planning Commission Procedure, as contained in the Agenda, with regard to the public hearing process, rights of appeal, and those items delegated to the Corunission for an advisory recommendation to the City Council and those with which the Commission is charged for a final decision. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. GPA-50(B), Ecke' -' A General Plan Amendment 'changing the land use designation from NRR 'man-Re'sidential .Rese'rve)' 'to' TS (Travel Service Commercial) property located on the west side 'of Paseo de1 Norte, north of itlomar Airport Road. An introductory staff report was presented by the Planning Director, who explained the nature of the matter. The staff report was continued by Bill Hofman who detailed the June 19, 1980 staff report and explained the major planning issues. With the aid of a wall map exhibit of the preliminary site plan, Mr. Hofman explained the applicant's proposal for a 108 unit motel unit was compatible with the Commercial Travel Service designation .- uses. Page 1 With regard to the second issue, Mr. Hofman explained the location of the site in relation to Interstate 5 and Palomar Airport Road, and the respective flow of traffic and access. With regard to the third issue, Mr. Hofman utilized a location map and described the surrounding uses. In that same are travel-service oriented in nature, applicant's proposal was compatible. Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. and inquired if the applicant or other persons desired to speak. Public Testimony The Commission recognfzed John White, 3088 Pio Pica, Carlsbad, CA., who indicated the represented the applicant, Mr. Ecke. Mr. Wiant indicated he would be happy to respond to Commission questions. Since no one else wished to speak, Chairman Schick closed the public hearing at 7~16 P.M. Commissioner Jose inquired if any plans had been formulated for landscaping along I-5. Mr. white, indicated the proposed site plan would address the specific landscaping details. However, a major percentage of the area was anticipated for landscaping, as illustrated on the preliminary site plan exhibit as shaded areas. Commissioner Jose inquired if there was a road proposed along the west side of the project, Mr. Hofman responded preliminary staff review had considered same. However, no new roads are proposed at this time. Commissioner Jose remarked this project represented the type of development Carlsbad had anticipated for many years and expressed the opinion same was very desirable. Commissioner Marcus expressed concerns with the traffic elements indicating her concerns were predicated on traffic volume generated by other commercial developments in proximity to the proposed project. completion In this regard, Commissioner Marcus inquired when of Avenida Encinas to Cannon Road would occur. Mr, Hofman responded same would occur in connection with the Budge project. Page 2 - .- The Commission adopted Resolution 1653, recommending approval of an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan changing the land use designationfrom NRR (Non-Residential Reserve) to TS (Travel Services Commercial) on property generally located on the northwest corner of Paseo de1 Norte and Palomar Airnort Road. based upon the findings andconditions contained therein: MOTION: SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: JOSE MARCUS SCHTICK, JOSE, LARSON, FRIESTEDT, MARCUS AND ROMBOTIS None None LEEDS 2. EIR 80-3, Ca'r'lsbad Pac'i'fiti' Iiidus‘tri'al' Pa’&,’ Ko'l‘l Comp'any - An Environmental Impact Rep'o'rt' 'di'sc'iis's'ing' two' 'p‘oss‘ible 'impacts of the propos‘ed fndustr~ial p'ark. An introductory staff report was presented by the Planning Director who explained the nature of this matter and the relationship between Items 2 and 3 following on 'the Agenda. Mr. Hagaman summarized the history of the companion-matters and explained the sequence of events which must now occur, The staff report was continued by Charles Grimm, accompanied by a color slide presentation illustrating the relationship of the proposed project site, in its existing environmental state, to surrounding sites and uses from a 360 degree perspective. With the aid of transparencies, 1980 staff report, Mr. Grimm detailed the June 11, explaining the major issues concerned (1) traffic study recommendation that College Boulevard extension the south to Palomar Airport Road be completed prior to occupancy, rather than when 120 acres of the project had been developed (2) discussion of locating a wastewater treatment facility and reservoir on the project specific details of which must be addressed in a site specific EIR, if the project is approved in concept (3) mitigation of impacts on the vernal pools situated on the project site; and (4) drainage considerations which must be addressed in a master drainage plan to be submitted. Mr. Grimm concluded his report with the introduction of William Foley and Annette Sanchez, prepared the EIR. of Larry Seeman Associates, who had In response to inquiry by Chairman Schick, Mr. Grimm referenced the Specific Land Use Exhibit Map, explaining which areas currently are in the County which are proposed for annexation in conjunction with these projects. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Friestedt indicated College was intended as a four-lane road Les Evans to eventually join with Highway 78, Palomar Airport Road and I-5'to serve more than this project. The completion proposed by the traffic study would be an interim road to serve the project and provide access. Page 3 Chairman Schick then suggested Commission approach their review of the EIR on a page-by-page basis. Response to Comments Received on the Carlsbad Pacific Industrial Park Draft Enviromental Impact Report Page 9, Paragraph 6 Chairman Schick remarked the "adoption of the Carlsbad City Council of the City of Carlsbad Wastewater Reclamation Master Plan" was adopted in concept only and the document should be modified accordingly, since another connotation is implied. Page 19, Paragraph 1 Chairman Schicked noted the response to the comments of Jack Kubota regarding distribution and marketing of non-potable water indicating the project applicant is seriously considering the possibility of utilizing reclaimed water for landscaping, irrigation, etc. and remarked the provisions for dual water system reflected more than serious consideration; therefore a positive statement can be made. Appendix C - Revised Traffic Analysis Chairman Schick referenced Table 5 of the May 2, 1980 letter from Weston Pringle & Associates which exclude any mention of old Highway 101 (also known as Carlsbad Boulevard) The Commission recognized Mr. Foley, who responded that all of the traffic north and south along the coastal corridor was incorporated in the figures for I-5. Chairman Schick then inquired if the traffic studies had resulted in a nrognosis for imnacts from the Lake Calavera Hills nroiect impactini on College,* El Camino Real and Palomar Airport&Ro;d Mr. Foley responded the ultimate traffic volumes reflected in traffic analysis would include LCH and other projected land development. the Commissioner Rombotis inquired if the General Plan had been utilized to project traffic from undeveloped property. The Commission recognized Weston Pringle, traffic engineer, 2651 East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, CA, who indicated other developments had not been included. Mr. Pringle indicated this project alone would not cause problems on Palomar Airport Road. Ultimately there could be as a result of the number of developments that are being planned for the area. The traffic impact is a cumulative effect, with no one project being responsible. In response to Commission discussion, Les Evans indicated the traffic analysis in the EIR raises the issue re traffic. The conclusions and eventual recormnendations re mitigation of those issues are to be determined later. Page 4 r Summary of Findings - vii Commissioner Larson inquired if a water rehlamation facility and reservoir are approved and constructed, if the 105.8 acres of natural canyon area and grass land will all be preserved, as indicated. Ms. Sanchez responded the Summary of Findings was written prior to the responses and comments. If the facility is constructed approximately 18 acres would be lost; however, the reservoir can serve as some kind of water habitat, although the underlying site would be lost in its natural state. Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 18 - Mitigation Measure 18 Commissioner Larson questioned whether "concurrently with grading operations" was the right time to construct drainage and siltation facilities, or should they be constructed prior to grading. Mr. Evans responded the requirements of the City Ordinance, Master Storm Drain Plan and Coastal Commission requirements would insure appropriate timing. ' Page 23 - Mitigation Measure 12 Commissioner Larson inquired as to what a regular street cleaning program is and would it effectively prevent pollutants in the waterways. Ms. Sanchez indicated it is a recognized measure by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Page 25 - Plant Communities (diagram) Commissioner Larson indicated there appeared to be quite an over- lap of the plant conrnunities with the area intended to be preserved. Ms. Sanchez responded the issue of whether the reservoir will take any future plants would be addressed at the time a proposal and an EIR are submitted on the reservoir and treatment plant facility. This is a conceptual map and there will be a site specific study on the reservoir itself. The Assistant City Attorney indicated because the project under consideration, for which this EIR was written, includes the location of a site for a wastewater facility, you may feel it should be more fully discussed in this EIR. Because a location is specified within a certain distance from which this sewer plant and reservoir will be located, subsequent EIR discussion of the relation to location may be inadequate in that the determination has already been made for a specific location. Page 5 - In response to Commission concern and discussion, Mr. Foley explained the "catch-22" situation regarding consideration of this project in its relationship to the evolution of the concept of the satellite wastewater reclamation system. The approval of any specific plant in the site area is specifically not part of any approval for the immediate projects. Page 34 - Mitigation Measure 17 Commissioner Larson inquired if the Site W-123 will be preserved for all time. Ms. Sanchez responded the site is not within the developer's property. The mitigation measure was included because we didn't want grading operations to interfer with an existing mobilehome park on the site. Page 38 Commissioner Friestedt questioned how the expansion of Palomar Airport would affect this project. Mr. Grimm indicated that was a question which would be addre-sed in the Specific Plan. - Page 38 - Paragraph 5 Commissioner Jose inquired if the distance of the second runway to the north should be 700 feet, rather than the 500 feet reflected. Commissioner Jose indicated this was an FAA safety factor. Ms. Sanchez responded the figure had been obtained from CPO reports; however, it would be double checked. Chairman Schick then opened the public hearing at 8:23 P.M. and invited public testimony. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. The Commission certified that the Enviromental Impact Report has been completed in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State guidelines and has been reviewed, considered and evaluated by the Commission; that a copy of the minutes be incorporated and made a part of the Report; and that the Draft Report as amended and evaluated is accepted as the Final EIR and that the final EIR is adequate and provides reasonable informa- tion on the project and all reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto. MOTION: JOSE SECOND: ROMBOTIS AYES: SCHICK, JOSE, LARSON, FRIESTEDT, MARCUS AND ROMBOTIS NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: LEEDS Page 6 r RECESS The Commission recessed at 8:37 P.M. and reconvened at 8:42 P.M., with six members present. 3. GPA-50(A), Carlsbad Pacific Industrial Park, Koll Company A General Plan Amendment changing the land use designation on 558.6 acres from Non-Residential Reserve to a Combination District allowing industrial commercial and public utility uses. The staff report was presented by Charles Grimm, who explained the nature of the matter, background history and detailed the discussion of the planning issues as contained in the June19,1980 Staff Report. Mr. Grimm explained the subject site compared with that covered by the EIR, previously certified. With regard to the proposed combination district, Mr. Grimm explained same was allowed under the General Plan, subject to to a Specific Plan. Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 8:47 P.M. and public testimony. Public Testimony Commission recognized Bill Foley who, for purposes of clarification and perspective, explained the consultants' position with regard to the wastewater treatment plant. When the City Council adopted the Master Plan for Waste Water Treatment Plants, in concept, they also certified a Master EIR that identified the location of several plants. The "U" designation is a floating designation that is consistent with that Master Plan and with the certified EIR for the Master Plan. Therefore, the Commission could make sufficient findings to amend the General Plan. The subsequent specific location of the plant will require an application through the zoning code and a site specific EIR as called for in the Master Plan. The Commission recognized Bernie Fipp, principal of the Koll Company who expressed agreement with staff and recommended Commission approval. Mr. Fipp explained the proposed project would balance the community by providing employment in types of industry acceptable to the City and provide tax and revenue benefits. Since no one else wished to speak, Chairman Schick closed the public hearing at 8:55 P.M. Mr. Hagaman expanded on concerns regarding the sewer plant and "U" designation indicating same is for planning purposes in that the sewer plant could be located anywhere on the project site within a prescribed distance. Until there is a specific zone change, site specific eir and precise development plant before the Commission, the plant is still a proposal, although there is - a potential site. Page 7 -_ /- Commissioner Larson expressed further concerns relating to the elusive element in Condition No. 5. Dan Hentschke responded with references to the EIR on the Master Plan and companion Montgomery Report: suggesting that Condition 5 could be revised to reflect a finding that issue of the 'U" designation is adequately addressed in those prior documents. Commissioner Larson expressed concerns regarding the timing sequence in certification of EIR's, approval of GPA's and zone designations, and concurred with the references as suggested by Mr. Hentschke. Based on the findings contained therein, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 1651, recommending approval of an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan (GPA-50(A)), changing the land use designation from Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) to a combination district comprised of Planned Industrial (PI), Regional Service (RS) Cormnunity Commercial (C), Travel Service (TS), and Public Utilities (U) General Plan designations, on property generally located on the west side of El Camino Real, north of Palomar Airport Road, with the change to Condition No. 5 and addition of sentence to read "site specific EIR will be required prior to development of any property in the "U" designation." /"‘ MOTION: LARSON SECOND: ROMBOTIS AYES: SCHICK, JOSE, LARSON, FRIESTEDT, MARCUS AND ROMBOTIS NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: LEEDS 4. SP-180, Carlsbad Pacific Industrial Park, Koll Company - A Speciric Plan establishing development standards and conditions on the 558.6 acre industrial park. The Assistant City Attorney indicated before the public hearing on this item could be opened, the Public Facilities Fee Agreement, pursuant to Council Policy No. 17, must be available in accordance with prior City policy. Mr. Bernie Fipp responded by executing the Public Facilities Fee Agreement. The staff report was presented by Charles Grimm detailing the June 11, 1980 Staff Report. Mr. Grimm utilized slides, transparencies and wall map exhibits assisting his description of the industrial areas, commercial areas, open space areas and proposed reservoir and treatment plant, and special landscaping areas. Mr. Grimm then detailed the additional conditions recommended - by staff as contained in the 3%item list distributed subsequent to Commission packets. Page 8 Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 9:37 P.M. and invited the applicant to speak. Public Testimony The Commission recognized Bernie Fipp who referenced the recommended changes, expressing the desire to discuss same with staff and the Commission. Condition 2 Mr. Fipp questioned this in relation to "growth management" indicating it would cause problems with financing. In response to Commission concerns relative to providing specific requirements, Mr. Hentschke indicated same could be accomplished; however, he could not offer at this point language which would protect the City, yet accommodate the developer. Following discussion, it was the consensus that staff work with the developer to establish appropriate language. Condition 4 Mr. Fipp indicated that the Specific Plan for the project exceeded the requirements in the CM-Zone Same was acknowledged by Mr. Hentschke who indicated item 4 should be deleted. Conditions 5 and 6 Mr. Fipp expressed concerns relative to inclusion in the Specific Plan now and plant is approved, there would be wording which would no longer be applicable. Mr. Fipp concurred with inclusion in the Resolution. Mr. Hentschke did not concur and it was agreed to make the recommended change. Condition 7 Mr. Fipp expressed concerns relative to completion of College prior to taking our first building permits. In support, Mr. Fipp referenced the traffic studies conducted by Mr. Weston Pringle which revealed the impact from Phase I is negligible upon the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. Mr. Fipp concluded this condition required them to solve a problem for which they were not wholly responsible. The City Engineer acknowledged Mr. Fipps concerns, explaining it should be borne by the Public Facilities Fee, however the City doesn't have the money; therefore, staff is suggesting the developer either put in improvements and City will reimburse or set up an assessment district to bear costs Page 9 _- /-- Condition 18 Mr. Fipp inquired as to the procedure later on if the developer wants to build a high rise building. Mr. Grimm responded should that occur, the appropriate vehicle would be an amendment to the Specific Plan and Zone Code Amendment. Condition 20 Commissioner Larson requested additional wording "landscaRing and irrigation will take place immediately after grading. Additional Conditions Commissioner Jose requested the standard condition with regard to lighting. Since no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at lo:33 P.M. ' The Commission continued this item to their Joint Meeting with the City Council to be held on Tuesday, July 9, 1980 at 7:00 P.M. - MOTION: ROMBOTIS SECOND: JOSE AYES: SCHICK, JOSE, LARSON, FRIESTEDT, MARCUS AND LEEDS NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: LEEDS Continued New Business 5. PCD-3(C), Capital Improvements - General Plan conformity finding for land 'acquisition. The staff report was presented by Joyce Crosthwaithe, who explained the acquisition of 2 acres of property east of library was proposed for the expansion of City Hall, with the matter being before the Commission for the purpose of a Planning Commission determination relative to the consistency with the General Plan of the property location, purpose and extent of acquisition. Ms. Crosthwaite also detailed the history of matter, as contained in City Council records. Commission adopted Resolution No. 1659 finding that acquisition of certain property within the City for construction of governmental offices is consistent with the General Plan. MOTION: ROMBOTIS SECOND: MARCUS "- AYES: SCHICK, JOSE, LARSON, FRIESTEDT, MARCUS AND ROMBOTIS NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: LEEDS Page 10 P ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Mr. Hagaman indicated the Housing Element has been amended based on the imput from HCD, which the Commission is to consider. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Commission adjourned at lo:49 P.M. to Tuesday, July 8, 1980 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Counkil Chambers for a joint meeting with the Council. Respectfully submitted, JAMES C. HAGAWN, Secretary to the Planning Commission. Page 11