Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-01; Planning Commission; MinutesCITY OF CARLSBAD - I Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Date of Meeting: October 1, 1980 Time of Meeting: 7:00 P.M. Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER was made by Chairman Schick at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: CHAIRMAN SCHICK, COMMISSIONERS ROMBOTIS, LARSON, LEEDS and JOSE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS MARCUS and FRIESTEDT Ex-Officio Members Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, and James Hagaman, Director of Planning, were also present. Staff members present were Charles Grimm and Patrick Tessier of the Planning Department PUBLIC HEARINGS Revisions to the La Costa Master Plan 7 Chairman Schick indicated this was a continuation of the meeting of September 16, 1980. Charles Grimm indicated that as a result of the need for clarification of the public facilities fee requirements applied to this matter, the City Council would be requested to make a policy determination. With regard to questions relative to protecting solar easements in the future which were raised at the last meeting, Mr. Grimm indicated that staff was working in the area of solar energy. Therefore, these questions would be addressed by the staff in preparation of an ordinance regarding solar energy. The Commission ,then recognized the City consultant, Mike Zander, retained to assist City staff in connection with the La Costa Master Plan revisions. Mr. Zander indicated another question raised at the last meeting relative to traffic signals at Levante and El Camino and Olivehain and El Camino prompted him to contact the County. In that these signals are completely within the jurisdiction, administration and implementation of the County, the time for installation would be determined by the County. Page 1 - Mr. Zander then proceeded to identify the basic changes to the Master Plan as reflected in the revised edition of September 22, 1980: Page I-6 An 11th area was added: San Marcos County Water District Reservoir. This was earlier referred to as the San Marcos Treatment Facility. Specifically, it is the reservoir for the reactivation of the treatment facility. The acreage covered by this item was added along with approving documents. Page III-3 Paragraph 3. b. had been amended to reflect that whoever has the final authority to approve tentative maps would also have the final authority to approve Site Development Plans. The first edition had reflected that the Planning Commission would approve; however, in that the City Council has the authority to approve tentative maps and the Commission approves site development plans, the language had been amended to provide a more open ended interpretation. Page III-5 Paragraph 3. no longer reflects the density bonus. /‘ Page III-6 through III-8 (Table III-l) Page III-9 Recreational Vehicles have been specifically defined under Paragraph F. 1. Page III-13 A density bonus has been included (Paragraph K.), but has not been limited to just apartment buildings, but also to low and moderate income housing projects. Areas appropriate for mobilehome development have been specifically pinpointed. Page V-2 All 10 traffic signals in connection with the Master Plan boundaries have been specifically set forth. Chairman Schick noted that there may be more than 10 traffic signals at some future time. Mr. Zander acknowledged the point. Page V-9 Language and graphics have been or will be amended to reflect a deletion Page 2 . mnomic Analysis of La Costa Master Plan .- The Commission recognized Mr. David Strong of Angus McDonald & Associates, Inc., 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 903, who had prepared the Economic Analysis Mr. Strong displayed transparent graphics on the overhead depicting the tables contained in the report. He indicated that the marketing section addressed only the Master Plan area. In the economic section, both existing La Costa and the Master Plan area to be built are addressed. Mr. Strong indicated the major findings of the report were contained on Page 2 and indicated those findings reflected that the proposed La Costa Master Plan is both marketable and fiscally sound. He then proceeded to detail the revenues and cost assumptions, as reflected on the overhead, which support the conclusion that the revenues will exceed the costs during the 20-year build-out period. Mr. Strong made a distinction between the annual (on-going costs) and one-time costs, both in terms of revenue to the City and City expenses. In response to Commission inquiry, Mr. Strong indicated that the revenue of the public facilities fee was computed and included - at the time it was anticipated to be paid. Property taxes on the other hand are deferred a year. Mr. Strong further explained the method in computing the need for public facilities in the incremental procedure in that the results of the earliest SUA study had been applied in term of projected population increase and resulting increase of public facilities. Mr. Strong indicated a result of cursory initial review of the analysis was a comment that development of La Costa in the north- west section would increase the demand on the resort. That in- creased demand would then result in the addition of rooms. That would then result in increased transient occupancy tax -- a revenue not reflected in the analysis. Additionally, the analysis did not address a significant capital improvement --that of street improvements on arterials. This would therefore affect the cost side of the revenue and cost assessment. In response to inquiry by Jim Hagaman, Mr. Strong referenced Page 29 of the analysis and explained how the demand and supply figures were computed per the CPI. Mike Zander further elaborated indicating that certain areas had not been included by Mr. Strong in his analysis in that they are not shown. However, they are identified as commercial/travel areas ,- and are anticipated to satisfy the demand. Page 3 RECESS The Commission recessed at 8:35 P.M. RECONVENE The Commission reconvened at 8:46 P.M. The Commission then resumed their discussion of the revisions to the La Costa Master Plan. Chairman Schick - Paragraph B 1. Questioned the intent of what would control in the event of a conflict between the Master Plan and the Municipal Code, in that there appeared to be a blanket authority. Mike Zander responded that it was not the intent of the language to accomplish anything other than to ensure that the provisions of Master Plan were accomplished in view of the built-in conflict in the Code. Charles Grimm suggested in order to clarify the matter that the words development regulations be added. Page 111 - 13, Commission.er Larson Questioned whether 70 feet was necessary in order to obtain the density bonus. Mike Zander responded that the figure was based on the general plan discussion regarding a maximum of 6 stories earlier set as a precedent. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Cormmission adjourned at 9:12 P.M. It was noted that the adjournment included a closing of the ublic hearing. The matter would be renoticed for public hearing at t E e regular meeting of October 22, 1980. Respectfully submitted, JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary to the Planning Commission - Page 4