Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-11-16; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES Meeting of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: November 16, 1988 \ % . Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS Y CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McFadden called the Meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman McFadden. ROLL CALL: Present - Chairman McFadden, Commissioners Erwin, Hall, Holmes, Schlehuber, and Schramm Absent - Commissioner Marcus Staff Members Present: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Gary Wayne, Senior Planner Brian Hunter, Senior Planner Chris DeCerbo, Associate Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Don Rideout, Senior Management Analyst Phil Carter, Assistant to the City Manager Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer Steve Jantz, Associate Civil Engineer Martin Orenyak, Community Development Director PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Chairman McFadden reviewed the Planning Commission procedures on the overhead for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1) MP 175(A) BATIQUITOS LAGOON EDUCATIONAL PARE - Request for approval of an Amendment to Master Plan 175 (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park) to allow minor accessory structures within the rear yards of all Phase I single family lots (Planning Area "C") located on the west and south sides of Navigator Circle along the south facing Batiquitos Lagoon bluff edge and overlooking the desiltation basin. Chris DeCerbo, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to Master Plan 175 to allow minor accessory structures within the rear yards of all Phase I single family lots located along Navigator Circle in Planning Area "C". The existing Master Plan 175 requires that all bluff edge structures within Planning Area "C" be set back a minimum of 45-50 ft. from the south facing lagoon bluff edge. The required 45 ft. structural rear yard setback for residential lots located along this bluff edge was negotiated by staff for purposes of mitigating visual impacts of development along the natural scenic lagoon resource and preserving a buffer between development and the sensitive coastal habitat located along these bluffs. This setback provision of MP 175 would not allow the construction of any typical minor accessory structures such as spas, spa equipment enclosures, decks, barbecues, trellises, above , 1 . - p MINUTES November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION 4 Page * COMMISSIONERS \ grade planters, or any other typical minor uses within what would be the rear yards of these identified lots. Staff believes that this prohibition of common property rights could ultimately result in a significant code enforcement problem for the City. In accordance with this concern, MP 175(A) sets forth guidelines detailing what accessory structures may be permitted within the setback area, where specific structures may be constructed in the setback, and design guidelines relative to permitted heights and dimensions of permitted structures. 1. All permitted accessory structures must be set back a minimum of 3 ft. from the existing manufactured or natural lagoon bluff edge, whichever is closest to the residential structure, after grading. 2. With the exception of the landscaped trellis which may be constructed to a height of 9'6' and extend 8 ft. from the rear wall of the residential structure, no other accessory structure greater than 36 inches in height, including spas, barbecues, planter boxes, garden walls, are permitted to extend more than 15 ft. into the 45 ft. setback area. 3. All other uses or structures permitted to encroach more than 15 ft. into the setback may not exceed a height of 10 inches, including decks, spas, or patios. Staff believes that with these specific use limitations and height encroachment design guidelines, there will be no biological or visual impact to the Batiquitos Lagoon. This ensures compliance with the original purpose and intent of the 45 ft. setback requirement of MP 175. As part of the negotiations with applicant, Sammis Properties dedicated to the City of Carlsbad on August 9, 1988 a Grant Deed for the purpose of establishing a 45 ft. setback open space easement over the rear yards of these Phase I Batiquitos Lagoon bluff edge lots. This easement will enable the City to clearly regulate and ensure that any accessory structures proposed by a homeowner within the 45 ft. setback will be in strict compliance with the uses permitted by this amendment and guideline criteria, thereby providing a means for enforcement. It should be noted that the project applicant is not in total agreement with two aspects of the proposed amendment: (1) they would prefer that the 5 ft. wrought iron rear yard fencing be located along the property lines of the bluff edge lots instead of at the top of the manufactured lagoon bluff edge as permitted by this amendment, and (2) they have requested that swimming pools be permitted within the 45 ft. setback area, up to 5 ft. of the bluff edge. Staff cannot recommend support of either request. Staff believes that the bluff top location is preferable for the fence for the following reasons: (1) it will ensure that no structures such as a deck could encroach over the bluff edge, (2) it will prohibit encroachment of small domestic animals into sensitive coastal habitat, and (3) locating the fence at the top of the bluff will not prejudice any ultimate recommendations regarding the location of the Batiquitos Lagoon nature trail. The alignment alternatives for the trail are currently under review as part of the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project. The permanent alignment of the r MINUTES November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 nature trail will be identified with the approval of the EIR in 1989. City staff, as well as Coastal staff, cannot support the request to allow swimming pools in view of potential erosion and water runoff impacts along the bluff edge of the lagoon where pools could ultimately drain over the bluff. Since Coastal staff has indicated nonsupport, this amendment will also require a separate Coastal permit. Mr. DeCerbo concluded his staff report by adding that staff would like to recommend a minor change to the wording of Exhibit "B", page 7, Section (D) to replace the requirement for 18" below ground non-corroding wire mesh with two rows of concrete block. In addition, staff recommends that the Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Assessment Form, page 3, item 8 (Land Use) be corrected to read No instead of Maybe; and on page 7, item III, lines 11 and 15be corrected to read has been instead of will be. Commissioner Hall inquired about Exhibit "C" and if the 45 ft. is accurately shown or if the 45 ft. could be located down the slope. Mr. DeCerbo replied that the graphic is staff's best attempt to provide direction to the variety of lots being affected. Many of the lots only have 15 ft. from the structure to the manufactured bluff edge but some of the lots go up to 45 ft. The 45 ft. was used because it is the greatest distance from any pad to the manufactured bluff edge. Each lot is different and the graphic could be misunderstood. Commissioner Hall was concerned that the audience understands that the rear yard area varies from lot to lot and the 45 ft. is not always where the land drops off. Commissioner Hall inquired if fences are considered a use, i.e. can a property owner there build a fence in his back yard. Mr. DeCerbo replied that a property owner can build a fence since fencing is always part of a development. In this case, fencing was never shown on the site plan which is why staff is recommending that it be incorporated into the amendment. Chairman McFadden inquired if this was referring to uniform fencing. Mr. DeCerbo replied that it was. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, added that most fences can be built without a permit. However, in this project, if assorted types of fencing were used it would create a visual impact, which is why staff is recommending uniform fencing. Commissioner Holmes referred to the recommended change to Exhibit "B" on page 7 regarding the concrete block. Since there are all sizes of concrete block, he would like the wording to be more specific. Commissioner Holmes recommended the block be either 8" or 12" in height. Staff would prefer the 12" block. Commissioner Erwin referred to Exhibit "C" and stated that the asterisk at the 45 ft. could be misleading. He would like to see the asterisk and the reference handled differently. Commissioner Erwin referred to page 2 of Resolution No. 2767 (Negative Declaration) and recommended the following changes: Line 6 to read, " . ..bluff edge, either manufactured or natural, whichever is closest to the residential structure, p MINUTES “I November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 COMMISSIONERS thereby not permitting...'. Line 9 to read, "...structures within specified portions of the 45 foot setback...". Commissioner Erwin referred to page 2 of the Resolution No. 2768 and recommended the following change: Under Conditions, item 2, line 5, to read, '...(b) permit within specified portions of the 45 foot setback/open space...". Staff agrees with the above recommended word changes. Commissioner Hall inquired if staff had received a copy of the letter dated November 15, 1988 from Attorney John F. Kirsch which mentions that Lots l-3 were not included in the original plan. Mr. DeCerbo confirmed that Lots l-3 were not included in the original Master Plan. The lots, which are the closest lots to the freeway, are somewhat hidden because they are located behind a topographic knoll. The setback provision was not applied to Lots l-3 but staff now believes they need to be included with the amendment to avoid possible visual impacts and preclude homeowners from constructing accessories atop the knoll. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, informed the Commission that the City holds rights in Lots 6-35 by virtue of the open space easement. The Commission is now considering an amendment to that easement to allow structures within the setback area. The location of the fence is not being mandated. Instead, under consideration is whether to allow the property owner to build a fence in a certain location and if the fence is built, requiring the fence to meet certain specifications. The City does not have any rights in Lots 2-5 and that is an entirely different issue. Those lots should have been included in the original Master Plan but were not. If the property owner is agreeable, they can be included. However, those lots are not the same as Lots 6-35 which are already encumbered by an open space easement which was part of the chain of title and part of the conveyance of the land when it was conveyed to the subsequent property owners of Lots 6-35. Chairman McFadden inquired if Mr. Ball was aware that staff has recommended that Lots 2-5 be included in the amendment. Mr. Ball replied that property owners of Lots 2-5 must comply with the conditions of the Master Plan. However, their lots are not encumbered by development constraints of the open space easement and the City cannot now impose a new condition on those lots after the property has been conveyed and permits have been obtained, without the agreement of those property owners. The property owners can build structures in that area as long as those structures comply with existing laws. Chairman McFadden's interpretation is that if the lots have not changed hands from the developer to the third party, then the Commission can go forward and rule on the staff recommendation. Otherwise the individual property owner must agree to it. Mr. Ball concurred. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, added that since the Master Plan actually prohibits any structures whatsoever in the setback area and since Lots 2-5 must comply with the Master Plan, those property owners would be unable to add accessory structures of any kind unless they agreed to the amendment. Commissioner Schlehuber added that if the property owner is not physically here to agree to the amendment, he doesn't see c+- MINUTES T\ November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 how the Commission can act on the staff recommendation to include Lots 2-5. Mr. Ball replied that Commissioner Schlehuber is correct and that the amendment must be done by petition of the property owner and a motion of the City Council. Commissioner Hall requested Mr. Grimm to read aloud that condition of the Master Plan. Mr. Grimm replied that he did not have the exact wording with him but it basically states that no structures will be allowed in the 45 ft. area from the bluff edge. Chairman McFadden inquired if that refers to the natural bluff edge. Mr. Grimm replied that the intent of the Master Plan is the natural bluff edge. Mr. DeCerbo added that the wording in the staff report is quite accurate when it states that all structures in Planning Area C will be set back 45 ft. from the bluff edge. The only problem he sees is on the approved Tentative Map because the setback line is not drawn across these four lots, but he feels they are still subject to that provision. Mr. Ball has not seen the map but would be willing to look at it and make a ruling. Mr. Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, looked at the maps brought to the meeting and stated that they do not delineate the setback area as does the Tentative Map. Commissioner Schlehuber commented that the Commission should be very careful in taking action on Lots 2-5 if adequate information and maps are not available at this meeting. He would like to see a continuance on that part of the amendment. Chairman McFadden introduced the following letters into the public record: 1. 2. 3. 4. Letter dated November 11, 1988 from John D. and Bette Garber, P. 0. Box 1313, Ranch0 Mirage, CA 92273 stating that they are in favor of fencing at the rear property line and that a wrought iron fence presents corrosion and maintenance problems and is not compatible with the natural look of the bluff; they would like the Homeowners' Association to determine and enforce the landscape/fencing plan. Letter (no date) from Dee Donato, 7147 Linden Terrace, Carlsbad, CA 92009 stating she is in favor of fencing at the bottom of the slope at the property line, and that she feels the Homeowners' Association Board of Directors can monitor and enforce rules and regulations. Letter dated November 15, 1988 from John F. Kirsch, Attorney at Law, 900 Third Street, Oceanside, CA 92054 representing Marge Tomlinson, owner of Lot i/3 stating that placement of the fence at the manufactured bluff edge would effectively result in a “taking" of his clients property, and that swimming pools and spas should be permitted according to the restrictions in the CC&R's. Letter dated November 10, 1988 from Dolores Welty, 2076 Sheridan Road, Leucadia, CA 92024 stating that she is opposed to the amendment due to the absence of mitigation measures in the Negative Declaration. MINUTES h November 16, \ % 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 . COMMISSIONERS 5. Letter dated November 15, 1988 from Board of Directors of the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation requesting that the fence be located at the top of the bluff edge and that a condition be placed in the Master Plan amendment to establish the precise alignment of the nature trail prior to approval of any other permits. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Roger Anderson, representing Sammis Properties, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that Sammis agrees with staff on all issues except two. (1) Pools - Sammis believes that pools should be allowed within 5 ft. of the bluff edge except when there is a fill condition, in which case allowable within 8 ft. Since drainage appears to be the main concern, Sam&s has provided a gunnite ditch behind the lots which drains into the storm drain system and empties into the storm drain at the street. (2) F encing - Sammis has recommended a uniform fence which will be unobtrusive, and takes exception to the two rows of concrete block recommended by staff due to the visual impact. Sammis also feels that the fence should be located at the property line and that homeowners should be entitled to use their entire yard. He showed slides on the type of fence being used at the models and views of the fence from across the lagoon. Commissioner Holmes inquired if Mr. Anderson was aware that the block fence base recommended by staff would be below grade to keep dogs and domestic animals from burrowing under the fence. Mr. Anderson was not aware that the block was to be buried. Mr. Grimm replied that the idea was to have one foot above grade and one foot below grade. Chairman McFadden commented that this was in the minutes of the last meeting. Commissioner Hall inquired if the fence shown in the slide was located on the property line. Mr. Anderson replied that the fence is located 10 ft. in from the property line. Chairman McFadden inquired if Sammis still owns Lots 2-5. Mr. Anderson replied that those lots are still owned by Sammis Properties but they are in escrow at this time. The new buyers have indicated that they do not want these lots included. Dee Donato, 7147 Linden Terrace, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he purchased a unit at 7548 Navigator Circle and would like to see the Homeowners' Association Board of Directors responsible for approving and enforcing outside property improvements. He currently lives in Sea Cliff which has more than five times the slope area of the Sammis project. In the last four years the only damage to the slopes was caused by ground squirrels and gophers. He does not believe that a fence at the top of the bluff would discourage these animals. He would like to see the fencing on the Sammis project located at the bottom of the slope where it will be less visual to homeowners and persons viewing the area from across the lagoon or freeway. Wendel Van Atta, 7583 Navigator Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he owns Lot 33. He presented a list of signatures that concur with Mr. Donato's statement; he was unable to contact 13 of the property owners. He cannot concur with the constant reference to water runoff when all the lots are graded so that they drain to the street. P MINUTES November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION . Page 7 COMMISSIONERS \; John Kirsch, 710 Fern Glen Road, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission on behalf of his client, Marge Tomlinson, owner of Lot 3 of the Sammis project. He inquired if action would be taken on Resolution No. 2768, Conditions 2(a). Chairman McFadden replied that action will be taken but Lots 2-5 may be deleted from the resolution. It is also possible that a portion of the resolution may be continued. Mr. Kirsch continued by saying that Lots 2-4 are longer than 45 ft. (approximately 80 ft.) and if the amendment is approved it would be taking away a significant portion of the property owner's rear yard. He opposes locating the fence along the bluff edge and is concerned about how the homeowner would be able to use that portion of property beyond the fence. He would like to see the fence located along the property line. Further, he believes that swimming pools should be allowed in the rear yards and stated that most pools are drained every 6-7 years while spas are drained annually. John McCoy, 390 Oak Avenue, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is on the Board of Directors of the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation and that the foundation recommends that the location of the nature trail be determined before construction is allowed to continue. The foundation would like to see the trail located along the bluff edge. Nick Miller, 860 Cofair Court, Solana Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that he has purchased a home in the Sammis project. He would like to know if the homeowner will have a liability problem should someone be injured on the slopes behind their fence. On his lot, Lot 12, the property dips and the block portion of the fence will totally inhibit the view from his first story level. He feels that these changes should have been made before the escrows closed and that to change them now is unfair. Chairman McFadden inquired if Mr. Miller had knowledge of the open space easement when he purchased his property. He stated that he did not, although he was given a mass of documents at the time his escrow closed and something may have been included. Ted Georges, 7581 Navigator Circle, Carlsbad, Lot 32, stated that he supports Donato's comments. He feels that the view from across the lagoon and the freeway will be much better if the fence is placed down from the bluff edge. Dolores Welty, 2076 Sheridan, Leucadia, addressed the Commission and stated that her written comments have been introduced into the record. She is a homeowner on the opposite side of the lagoon and is also on the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation. The foundation was under the impression that Exhibit "C" was being approved with the original Master Plan. Subsequent to the original approval, Sammis requested permission to grade the property to provide a delineation between the private yards and the public access, which was satisfactory with the lagoon foundation. What resulted, however, is that the 45 ft. setback goes flat against the house and many of the current homes only have 12-15 ft. in their rear yards. Recently, Sammis graded some of the slopes on a 2:l basis which is greatly different than the original idea. She takes issue with the Negative Declaration and feels that there is a massive impact on the slopes; she believes that the developer should be required to provide a environmental impact report on this amendment prior to action by the Planning Commission. f- MINUTES November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 Karen Kaden, 1611 Codor Street, Leucadia, addressed the Commission and stated that she lives across the lagoon and watches the construction every day. She strongly believes that the 45 ft. setback should be adhered to due to wildlife preservation and the views. She doesn't want to see spas and pools due to draining problems that accompany them. She believes it is impossible to control the drainage into the lagoon when pools and spas are allowed; she sees problems now in her own neighborhood. Henry Thompson, 330 Chestnut, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is a member of the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation but is speaking as an individual. He agrees with Mr. McCoy. There is supposed to be a nature trail, which was the purpose of the easement. Now staff is proposing to build fences, barbecues and pools. He believes that the nature trail needs to be delineated before the property owners are allowed to build accessory structures since, after they are built, there will be no room for the trail and there will be no way to remove them once they are built. Because the State law requires it, he is certain that the purchasers of the properties were given disclosures and had to be aware of the effects. He believes the public is entitled to the 45 ft. easement and its use. Joe Reed, 1008 Daisy Avenue, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he has looked forward to seeing a trail along the bluff edge. There is no other place that you can have that view. He does not believe that any accessory structures should be allowed in this open space easement. Larry Adams, 7577 Navigator Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he would like to build a patio in his back yard--primarily to have something other than a mud puddle. He used to live in De1 Mar with a pool on a bluff. He feels there could be damage caused by pools since he had a problem himself. He believes the proposed fence is of outstanding quality but doesn't think the block base will do anything other than deter small rabbits. He believes there is room for a compromise. Chairman McFadden asked Mr. Adams if he had a recommendation. He replied that he believes the fence should be halfway down the slope. He would like to see room left for a trail. Roger Anderson, representing Sammis Properties, applicant, was given time to respond. He stated that he has been working with the Coastal Commission and the City regarding the location of a nature trail for a long time. He realizes that the view is spectacular and, although, several ideas for the trail have been discussed, he has never heard any intentions to locate a nature trail in people's back yards. Chairmen McFadden commented that on the map the Commissioners received the nature trail was omitted. Mr. Anderson replied that this was an oversight because the exact location of the trail is unresolved. At the time the open space easement was signed, it was intended to be a scenic view corridor rather than give the City the right to acquire footage located in that corridor. Chairman McFadden inquired if Sammis understood when they granted the easement that there would be a trail. Mr. Anderson replied that Sammis understood there would be a trail around the lagoon but did not understand it would be in the back yards of the property owners. MINUTES November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 Chairman McFadden inquired if the purchasers signed a statement that they have been told about the open space easement since one of the speakers, Mr. Miller, did not seem to understand what the open space easement meant. She has also heard, in previous testimony, that people did not understand what the open space easement was or meant. Mr. Anderson replied that in the excitement of purchasing a new home, people sometimes overlook comments by the sales agent. Sammis requires that purchasers sign an acknowledgement stating that they were told about the easement. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, commented on the November 15, 1988 letter from the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation. In his opinion, Item 3 is not part of the considerations tonight but should be addressed separately. Regarding Item 4, he does not believe the City has the power to prevent further construction on the project if those parts have already obtained the proper permits and approvals. The easement speaks for itself and is governed by its words--the operative words being setback and open space purposes. The easement does not say it is for any other purpose, i.e. hiking, public use, etc. He believes Mrs. Welty's letter of November 10, 1988 and all attachments (including the six pages of staff responses) should be made a part of the public record. Chairman McFadden asked Mr. Ball about the liability issue and his comment that the open space can be used for nothing. Mr. Ball replied that the open space and related purposes does not include use by the public--just open space. By virtue of the easement document, the public has no rights in the private property. Maybe by virtue of the Master Plan or the Coastal Permit, the public might have rights. Staff probably needs to address this. However, the actual words of the easement do not convey those rights to the City. As far as the liability goes, the homeowner is always subject to the possibility of third party lawsuits which is why there is homeowner insurance. It would be entirely unusual for the City to indemnify a private property owner in a situation such as this. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened at 7:58 p.m. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he is not prepared to grant anything at this point. He understands the problem on the trail; however, the City could make an agreement with the owners. If anything is granted tonight, it eliminates the possibility of a compromise. He believes this should be sent back for further negotiation. If no compromise can be reached, then we should permit no structures in the rear yards. He would like to see it come back in a month or so after an attempt has been made to reach a compromise. He believes a tentative trail needs to be set with the property owners. Commissioner Erwin has mixed feelings. His concern above and beyond the trail is that this is one of the last stopovers left in our hemisphere for migratory birds. He feels sorry for the property owners. He doesn't understand why the COMMISSIONERS P MINUTES -1 November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 COMMISSIONERS location of the trail was not determined earlier. He feels that has created most of the problems. Commissioner Hall agrees with Commissioner Schlehuber in that negotiation is needed with the property owners. He would like to see it come back in 30 days. Commissioner Schramm concurs. She believes that more information is needed from staff. She thinks a meeting is needed between the City and the property owners. Commissioner Holmes read an excerpt from Coastal Development Permit 6-85482, dated June 1985, page 9 and 10, paragraph 13, regarding access to the Batiquitos Lagoon which states that Navigator Circle shall not be limited to private use and that continuous public access paths shall be provided along the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon. Chairman McFadden requested a comment from Mr. Ball who stated that the Commission may inquire of staff if there is a recorded document or deed restriction since, in his opinion, the open space easement does not grant rights to the public. Mr. Wayne replied that staff has contacted the Coastal Commission and Document No. 86-39394 has been recorded against the property and contains the wording exactly as Commissioner Holmes quoted. Therefore, these property owners have a deed restriction placed on their land which states that the public trail system shall go at the top if it can't go at the bottom. This deed restriction is existing and was recorded prior to the transmittal of the permit. It has been with the land and with the developer since he got his building permit. If an amendment goes forward tonight, this will require an amendment of the Coastal Permit 6-85-482 and in conversations with the Coastal Commission, it is their intention in the Coastal Permit review of this amendment to ensure that whatever is taking place in the allowance of structures will not preclude the positioning of the trail at the bluff top. That is one of the reasons why the fence was placed back from the natural bluff. Chairman McFadden liked what was said about this going forward tonight instead of putting it off again. She would like to see staff come back and show how the fence could be set closer to the property line with an 8-10 ft. allowance for a trail since she feels the fence will look much better against a slope than at the top of the bluff. She believes this will have to be done lot by lot. In exchange, the homeowners will clearly give the easement for public access. If not, no structures will be permitted in the rear yards. Commissioner Schlehuber feels that now is the time to define the trail placement with the property owners; he doesn't think it is necessary to wait for the enhancement plan to define it. There are advantages on both sides to getting this matter resolved and he believes a compromise can be worked out. He thinks that staff should be able to return in 45 days with a mets and bounds description. Chairman McFadden believes that the Commission needs to give more direction than just requesting a compromise. Martin Orenyak, Community Development Director, stated that staff does need more clear direction. If staff has the ability to move the fence down the slope and reserve a portion of the drainage channel, there is room for a trail. In that case, Mr. Orenyak feels that staff can return in 30 days with a solution. f4 e MINUTES Chairman McFadden commented that before a motion is made, the Commission needs to speak to Lots 2-5. Commissioner Hall stated that Lots 2-5 are still governed by the same standards in that homeowners cannot build anything in their rear yards. On those lots, the depth of the rear yards would have to be considered. Commissioner Schlehuber feels it will be difficult to contact all of the property owners within 30 days, especially with Christmas. He believes that the first meeting in January would allow sufficient time for contact. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue MP 175(A) to January 4, 1989 and that staff will return with the placement of a nature trail along the northerly side of the Batiquitos Lagoon; and if the location cannot be negotiated, that no accessory structures will be permitted in the rear yards of Planning Area C located on the west and south sides of Navigator Circle; staff will also return with information regarding Lots 2-5. November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 11 COMMISSIONERS Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 8:21 p.m. and reconvened at 8:28 p.m. 2) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 24 - Request approval of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 24 on property generally located south of future Cannon Road, west of El Camino Real, north of College Boulevard, and east of Macario Canyon. Phil Carter, Assistant to the City Manager, began the staff report and stated that the presentation would include a brief introduction to the zone plan, the background and zone overview, compliance with Proposition E, and a discussion of those facilities which will require further explanation, i.e. parks, open space, circulation, sewer collection, and water distribution. The financing will be the final item to be discussed. Brian Hunter stated that LFMP Zone 24 is located in the northwest quadrant of Carlsbad adjacent to El Camino Real, to the southeast of the proposed extension of Cannon Road between El Camino Real and I-5, and north of the industrial Zone 5. The zone is essentially residential. Of the 201.5 acres, 181.7 acres are residential, 14.4 acres are general plan open space, and the remaining acreage is the circulation element roadway of El Camino Real. This plan is consistent with the methodology contained in the 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan and the provisions of Proposition E which was approved by the citizens of Carlsbad on November 4, 1986. Parks The precedent that was set with the adoption of Zones 19, 20, and 22 included projecting a five year deficit of park suPPlY* This was accomplished in previous zone plans by a combination of property dedication and park improvements. At this time, the adopted future park inventory in the northwest quadrant does not require additional dedication. Therefore, Zone 24 has been conditioned to improve and maintain 2.1 acres of park land which would provide sufficient acreage to . L * . MINUTES November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 meet their phasing demand through 1992. This is consistent with previous zone plans. Open Space The performance standard for open space is either existing or approved open space as identified on discretionary development permits or where it is defined as nonconstrained general plan open space. At the present time in this zone there is a shortage of one acre of open space. The plan has been conditioned as follows: All future development within this zone shall be required to show how it contributes to meeting the open space performance standard above and beyond meeting all other city standards and development regulations and that the approval of a development does not preclude the provision of performance open space buildout of the zone. The reason that there is an existing shortage in the zone is somewhat of a perceived shortage. There are presently in the zone three single family homes which are on very large acreage parcels. Because these are neither shown as general plan open space nor on a discretionary permit issued for either of the single family homes, there is a perceived open space shortage which will be rectified with the first development which comes in. He added that typographical corrections which have been pointed out will be remedied before the zone plan goes to the City Council. Steve Jantz continued the presentation. Circulation Traffic analysis presented in the zone plan determine whether or not the circulation system impacted by traffic generated in Zone 24 conforms to the adopted performance standard. The study indicated that two circulation element roadways are impacted by traffic from Zone 24, i.e. Cannon Road and a portion of El Camino Real. Currently, all circulation element roadways serving the existing development in Zone 24 meet the adopted performance standards. With respect to the future development in Zone 24, traffic analysis assumed full width improvement of Cannon Road from I-5 to El Camino Real to major arterial standards, i.e. Cannon Road will soon be completed and operational prior to further impacts of traffic generated by Zone 24. With the assumption that Cannon Road is completed, the analysis indicated that 20% of the traffic generated from this zone impacted only Cannon Road and El Camino Real. With respect to El Camino Real, the analysis indicates that El Camino Real frontage must be constructed prior to the year 2000. Construction of El Camino Real will be conditioned to the development adjacent to El Camino Real; however, the construction must be completed prior to the year 2000 to assure conformance with the performance standard. This plan is specifically conditioned that prior to the recordation of the first final map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever is first, the financing mechanism guaranteeing the construction of the necessary circulation improvement must be approved by the city. Sewer Collection According to the performance standard, trunk line capacity must be provided concurrent with development. The current Carlsbad sewer master plan identifies specific sewer basins, analyzes capacity of existing sewer intercepters, and also proposes new intercepter systems to serve certain sewer . . . r‘t MINUTES November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 13 basins. Zone 24 is located entirely within the south Agua Hedionda sewer basin. Initially, the sewer analysis looked into draining through an existing sewer intercepter serving the north Agua Hedionda basin. However, sewer generated from Zone 24 would utilize capacity in the north Agua Hedionda intercepter which is necessary to serve future development in the north Agua Hedionda basin. This could preclude development in the north Agua Hedionda basin due to the diversion of sewage from one sewer basin to another. Therefore, this zone is conditioned to provide for the construction of the south Agua Hedionda intercepter system and necessary trunk sewer to serve future development in Zone 24. This zone requires that prior to recordation of the first final map or issuance of the building or grading permit, that the construction of the south Agua Hedionda intercepter necessary sewer trunk system is guaranteed. Also, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any new residential development within Zone 24, the City Engineer must make the finding that the south Agua Hedionda intercepter is operational at the time of need to serve future development within this zone. Water The analysis of the water demand of this section remains the same in that only the mitigation has changed. The change centers around the acquisition of the Evans Point reservoir site. The site is located within the boundaries of Zone 8. The Costa Real Municipal Water District has indicated that prior to the approval of any further development in Phase B of Zone 24, the Evans Point reservoir site must be dedicated to the district. If the site has not been dedicated to the district, future development within the zone must acquire the site and dedicate it to the district. If this occurs prior to the approval of any development within Zone 8, Zone 8 property owners must reimburse the Zone 24 property owners for all costs incurred for the Evans Point reservoir site. Phil Carter continued the presentation. Financing This zone plan provides a similar financing matrix that the Planning Commission and City Council have seen on previous zone plans. The financing matrix provides a breakdown of each of the eleven public facilities, those facilities that will be required between now and buildout, the approximate costs for those facilities, and potential funding sources in priority order. Although the zone plan does not specifically set the financing of public facilities, it does provide a basis for identifying the financing mechanism to ensure that the facilities are in place at the time of need. The Zone 24 plan, although long, has been conditioned heavily for public facilities. Prior to the recordation of the first final map or issuance of building or grading permits, the developers within Zone 24 will be required to guarantee the construction of approximately $42 million in public facilities. Those are adequate measures to ensure that the performance standards will be maintained. LFMP iI24 complies with the growth management ordinance, meets the requirements and analyzes the public facilities to ensure that as development occurs within the zone, public facilities can be provided to meet the adopted performance standards. Staff recommends approval. P MINUTES T7 November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 14 COMMISSIONERS \ Commissioner Erwin commented that he has a major problem using leased land to satisfy the park requirements. Brian Hunter replied that the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan had identified Carlsbad Unified School District facilities for the use of park facilities. This has been incorporated into all of the previous plans. There is agreement with the CUSD for the use of those school facilities since 1982. It is a lo-year agreement which can be renewed on a yearly basis after that. Commissioner Erwin stated that since the agreement is not in perpetuity, at best we have a temporary fix to satisfy the requirement. Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, responded that the CUSD can terminate the agreement with a 180-day notice. Chairman McFadden cannot understand why leased land can be used for the Parks performance standard when it is not used for any other facility, especially since Parks will be down by 24.7 acres. Regarding the projection for the Pine Street School (page 7), she mentioned that one of the members of the CUSD Board of Trustees told her that no one has ever approached them to purchase this school and they were rather put out to read about it in a report. Phil Carter replied that the Board of Trustees may not be aware of previous discussions between the City, the School Superintendent, and/or the CUSD Business Manager. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Doug Avis, P. 0. Box 9000-266, Carlsbad, CA 92009 addressed the Commission and stated that he is representing the applicant, a partnership. He stated that there were three major issues which arose during negotiations with the city: (1) the traffic on Cannon Road which is being assessed at 20% of the total traffic and which they disagree with, (2) the proposal to use existing sewer transmission pipelines which staff did not agree to, and (3) the proposal to use an interim measure to deal with water until the reservoir is dedicated to the city, which staff also did not agree to. Mr. Avis stated that Zone 24 is the smallest zone in the city and yet they are faced with $14 million in improvements. He mentioned the alignment of Cannon Road and that the partnership would like to be sensitive to the desires of the Sippel family (relatives of the Kelly family) regarding the alignment of Cannon Road. The Sippels are also concerned about their portion of the assessment for Cannon Road. He feels that the assessment should be made at the time of the property sale. He concluded by saying that there are no imminent plans for development and that the outcome of ultimate developability must be negotiated due to the high cost of improvements. With him tonight are Bill Hofman and Sheila Donovan to answer any technical questions which may be presented about the plan. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Chairman McFadden stated that the plan was well prepared but she has a problem with the park standard. She cannot support the plan for that reason and would like clarification from the City Council. She would like to see from staff how they are going to fund acquiring additional park land which is needed. She can see using school land in the interim but she feels that a permanent solution is needed. MINUTES November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 15 Commissioner Schlehuber can accept the staff report as presented. Commissioner Erwin has a problem with the leased land to satisfy the parks requirement. He inquired if an approval of LFMP iI24 would preclude the Commission from coming back regarding the park situation. Chairman McFadden replied that the plan can, and probably will be, amended a number of times. In that case, Commissioner Erwin can support it. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2791 recommending approval of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt Resolution No. 2793 recommending approval of Local Facilities Management Plan 24. Chairman McFadden requested that the record show that she could not support the plan because she is questioning the performance standard for parks. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3) CUP 88-16 HAWTHORNE - Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 5,423 sq. ft. building and construction equipment rental yard at the southwest corner of Camino Vida Roble and Las Palmas Drive in the P-M Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting permission to build an equipment storage/rental yard at the southwest corner of Camino Vida Roble and Las Palmas Drive in the industrial area. The lot has been previously graded and is currently a vacant lot. It also has a 200 ft. wide SDG&E power line easement at the rear of the property which also contains a parking lot next to the Carlsbad Redevelopment building. The proposed building of 5,423 sq. ft. would be for office/maintenance use and would be constructed of a split block and smooth block concrete. Some minor equipment maintenance would take place at this location, i.e. changing tires, oil changes, etc. More extensive maintenance would take place at the Keamy Mesa facility. Approximately 12,000 cubit yards of dirt will be exported from the site in order to lower the pad area, enabling it to be better screened. The project is being conditioned to preserve most of the existing landscaping which includes considerable mature trees, as well as adding additional trees. The site is being fenced for security reasons with a combination of wrought iron and chain link fencing. The majority of the site will be paved, with two different types of pavement depending on the weight of the vehicles to be stored. Staff feels that this project meets the requirements of the P-M zone and General Plan for this area. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired where the signage would be located. Mr. Grimm replied that the applicant is proposing a two-way monument sign to be located near the entrance/exit. Commissioner Erwin inquired why the CUP prohibits major maintenance on the site. Mr. Grimm replied that it would be undesirable due to possible noise pollution in the proximity of other office buildings. Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm MINUTES November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION 4 Page 16 COMMISSIONERS ’ \ Commissioner Hall asked for clarification on the use of the split/smooth block. Mr. Grimm deferred answer to the applicant. Chairman McFadden inquired if the parking lot which the city uses is part of this project. Mr. Grimm replied that the parking lot which the city uses is located on the property but is within the SDG&E easement. Chairman McFadden inquired about the external lighting for the parking area and if it would extend to the city's parking area. Mr. Grimm replied that this was not the intention. Chairman McFadden would like to see the applicant include lights for the easement area as well as landscaping. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Tom Hawthorne, Hawthorne Machinery, 2681 Ocean Avenue, Carlsbad, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he was quite pleased with the detailed report given by Mr. Grimm. He has no objections to any item. Commissioner Hall requested Mr. Hawthorne to describe the exterior of the building. Mr. Hawthorne replied that the stone blocks have a rough and a smooth side and that the rough side of the block would be used halfway up the building and then the smooth side would be used from the midpoint to the roof. He showed the Commissioners one of the blocks to be used and stated that the appearance of the finished building would be similar to City Hall. Commissioner Hall inquired if the office portion of the building would be a combination also. Mr. Hawthorne replied that the first 12 ft. would be rough block and the remainder smooth. Chairman McFadden inquired if windows have been added for relief. Mr. Hawthorne that windows have been added. Commissioner Erwin inquired where the equipment maintenance would be performed. Mr. Hawthorne replied that major repairs are performed at a larger facility. At the seven smaller locations throughout the county, only preventive maintenance is done. Commissioner Erwin inquired if the weight of the machinery has ever caused road damage. Mr. Hawthorne replied that he has not experienced road damage at his current location which is on State Street in downtown Carlsbad. Only small machines are available. Commissioner Holmes inquired if he rents cement mixers. Mr. Hawthorne replied that he does not rent cement mixers nor does he stock sand or gravel. In addition, he is not open on Saturday or Sunday. Commissioner Schramm inquired about the quantity of machines which would be available for rental. Mr. Hawthorne replied that he has 200 machines of various shapes and sizes; however, he usually has only 30-40 machines on the lot at any one time. Commissioner Schramm stated that she did not see a trash enclosure in the plans and wondered if there will be one. ’ . ,P MINUTES November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 17 COMMISSIONERS Mr. Hawthorne replied that there is one planned near the back fence. Mr. Hawthorne commented that the staff report mentioned pile asters between the wrought iron fencing. He requested consideration to have the pile asters located only at the ends since they are needed primarily for security. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Chairman McFadden inquired how staff felt about Mr. Hawthorne's request for the pile asters at the ends of the wrought iron fence. Mr. Grimm replied that staff could accept Mr. Hawthorne's suggestion since he feels it will look better with the pile asters at the ends only; there has also been discussion to eliminate the need for slats in the chain link fence which staff can also accept. Commissioner Erwin inquired about the trees in front; he would like to see all of the mature trees retained. Mr. Grimm replied that he is sure that something can be worked out regarding the trees; staff would also like to keep the shrubbery low enough so that the building will be visible. Mr. Hawthorne responded that he does not plan to remove any trees unless it is necessary for grading. Commissioner Schramm would like to see the landscape plan revised to retain the mature trees on the northwesterly frontage. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2790 approving the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and Resolution No. 2791 approving CUP 88-16 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the changed conditions that all mature trees will be retained, that slats may be omitted from the chain link fence, and that pile asters will only be required at the ends of the wrought iron fence. 4) ZCA 88-9 CITY OF CARLSBAD - Request for a Zone Code Amendment to allow concurrent processing of Local Facilities Management Plans and Master Plans. Phil Carter, Assistant to the City Manager, reviewed the background of the request and stated that ZCA 88-9 is being requested to allow concurrent processing of Local Facilities Management Plans and Master Plans. At the present time, the Growth Management Plan ordinance does not allow for Master Plans to be processed concurrently with Zone plans. Although much of the city is P-C (Planned Community), developers are required to prepare a Master Plan as part of their approval process. The city currently requires the Zone plan to be prepared on an existing General Plan; once -that plan is prepared and brought before the Planning Commission for public hearing and consideration, and then to the City Council for approval, the developer is required to come back in and do a Master Plan on the property which creates a great deal of duplicate work. The City Council specifically allowed the Pacific Rim Master Plan to be included for concurrent processing with LFMP #lg. The City Council also determined that the Scripps Hospital application could be processed concurrently, however LFMP #18 has since been withdrawn by Scripps Hospital for additional work. Staff is Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm P. MINUTES November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 18 requesting that the ordinance be amended to allow for the processing of Master Plans concurrently with the LFMP's. Staff feels that this would allow for a more specific planning document to come forward with the LFMP. At the present time, development entitlements are processed concurrently with the Master Plan but it is felt that if the LFMP and the Master Plan are processed concurrently, then entitlements should come in during the second stage. This would make for a much smoother process since all planning would be done in one stage, with entitlements to follow. Staff recommends approval. Chairman McFadden inquired if this would also trigger an amendment to the General Plan. Mr. Carter replied that the land use would be refigured with the Master Plan. Chairman McFadden doesn't see how this can be done without changing the facility needs. Mr. Carter replied that it will be much easier to ascertain compliance with the performance standard because the LFMP and Master Plan would show a much more accurate projection. He showed on the overhead which LPMP's do not yet have Master Plans in place. Chairman McFadden is worried about processing all of these items together since she feels that planning decisions will wind up being based on development. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, replied that the reason the need for this ZCA came up is that staff has been instructed by the City Council to rereview all Master Plans in the city. It is felt that the concurrent processing would create a more effective planning process and staff cannot legally rereview these Master Plan's unless a LFMP has been completed. Chairman McFadden is curious who pays for the rereview's. Mr. Holzmiller replied that the city would be responsible for the cost because the the City Council has stated that every Master Plan must be reviewed every three years. The cost to rereview a Master Plan is approximately $50,000 each and there are six Master Plans which are waiting for the three year rereview. Commissioner Schlehuber can support the staff recommendation. Chairman McFadden doesn't think this ZCA is needed since there are many zones where a Master Plan already exists; she could go along with it on those zones which do not already have a Master Plan. Chairman McFadden inquired if the fees would be recovered. Mr. Carter replied that staff is currently reviewing the fee schedule. However, growth management is somewhat different in the way that costs are established and recovered. It is felt that by allowing concurrent processing of the LFMP and the Master Plan it will enable full recovery of the costs. Commissioner Schramm inquired if the plans are done concurrently whether it would reopen the Master Plan for public hearing again. Mr. Carter replied that it would. The ZCA does not mandate that a Master Plan will be done concurrently with the facilities plan but allows for the property owner to have that option. Staff believes that it provides a great amount of detail which the zone plan does not always have. He referred to LFMP #12 which took one year to prepare. The Master Plan was required before the zone plan could be completed; now the Master Plan is back in being revised. November 16, 1988 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 19 COMMISSION Commissioner Schramm inquired if the city now receives some fees for processing the Master Plan. Mr. Carter replied that the recovery process for a Master Plan is not the same as that for the zone plan, since the zone plan provides for dollar-for-dollar recovery. Much of the staff work is now being duplicated without recovering all of the costs. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. George Williamson, 702 Fourth Street, Oceanside, the indicated plan preparer for Zone 25. The property owners in that zone have desired to go on record that they concur with the staff recommendation to process the LFMP and the Master Plan concurrently. They have been unable to move their zone plan forward due to an old Master Plan. He feels that the public facilities can be more accurately projected when both plans are processed concurrently. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Erwin asked staff to repeat the cost recovery for new Master Plans and those being rereviewed. Mr. Carter replied that the city is liable for the costs of a rereview if it is city-initiated, i.e. three year rereview. When the zone plan and the master plan are done concurrently, the developer would pick up the fees since it is staff's opinion that it would then be part of the growth management program. Therefore, it could offset some of the costs for rereview of Master Plans and would allow a more efficient way to recover costs. Commissioner Schramm feels that added Subsection (13) in the ordinance is awkward and should read the same as the staff report. Mr. Carter will check with the City Attorney to make sure that it follows the staff report language. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2796 recommending approval of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director on November 9, 1988 and Resolution No. 2797 recommending approval of ZCA 88-9. 5) SDP 88-5 HEMLOCK - Request for approval of Site Development Plan to develop a four-unit apartment project along the north side of Hemlock Avenue, between Garfield and Washington Streets, in the Beach Area Overlay Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a site development plan to develop a four-unit apartment project along the north side of Hemlock Avenue between Garfield and Washington, however Washington does not exist as a through street at this time. The area is in the Beach Overlay Zone, LFMP tl, and the Coastal Zone. The proposed project is in compliance with the provisions and conditions of LFMP l/l and also the Coastal Plan. However, the primary issues which staff focused on in its review were the development standards of the Beach Overlay Zone. There are two main issues which were considered. This project consists of two duplex units which forms a four-unit structure. The total structure is three levels high with the garage on the Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm X MINUTES November 16, 1988 PUNNING COMMISSION Page 2o COMMISSIONERS \ : grade level, the living area below grade, and the sleeping area on the third level. Staff's interpretation of the Beach Overlay Zone is that structures can only be 25 ft. or two stories, whichever is less; covered parking is counted as a story and shall be included in determining building height. Living areas are also counted as a story. When the Beach Overlay study was done, the height issue did not focus solely on height and views but also intensity of use. Staff has determined that this project, although only 25 ft. from grade level to the rooftop, is three stories and higher than what is allowed in the Beach Overlay Zone. The second issue is that staff feels that the proposed project does not adhere to the design standards in the beach area because it is too boxy and massive. Staff recommends denial. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Gary Cohn, 2110 Glasgow, Cardiff, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he disagrees with the staff's recommendation for denial. He feels that by having some of the living area below grade that it allows for a smaller footprint and, hence, a less massive structure. He pointed out that the setbacks for this project are greater than the requirement and that the below grade portion of the building is below grade only in the rear, which is not seen from the street. Mr. Cohn noted that the North Beach Study did not become available until two months after this project was submitted. He feels that this project complies with the majority of requirements and requested consideration by the Commission. Albert E. Blasic, 260 Hemlock, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he owns property next door to the proposed project. He noted that all homes in the area are now single family and he is opposed to a multi-family structure primarily because of the traffic problems in the area at the present time. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Schlehuber cannot support the project because he does not feel that it complies with the requirements of the Beach Overlay Zone. Commissioner Hall has looked at a lot of projects in this area and feels that this project has merit; however, it does not meet all of the design standards. He believes that the applicant is on the right track and would like to see the application denied without prejudice so that it can be returned in the near future. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2788 approving the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2789 denying, without prejudice, SDP 88-5, based on the findings contained therein. Chairman McFadden announced that the time was 9:55 p.m. and the meeting is supposed to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm /- MINUTES Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue past the adjournment hour in order to hear Item #6. . November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Paw 21 COMMISSIONERS \ ’ Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm DISCUSSION ITEMS: 6) AV 88-7 WEISS - Appeal of Planning Director's denial to allow an increase of fence height to seven feet on a 27 foot portion of a side yard fence at 3554 Sitio Baya in the PC Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 11. Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is appealing the Planning Director's denial of a request for an Administrative Variance to allow a seven foot fence on a 27 ft. portion of a side yard located at 3554 Sitio Baya in the La Costa area in LFMP tll. This item was referred to the Planning Department by the Code Enforcement Officer who received a complaint from a neighbor. After the fence was constructed, the applicant applied for an Administrative Variance but the required findings could not be made and the variance request was denied. The applicant is now appealing the Planning Director's denial of the Administrative Variance. Staff recommends that the denial be upheld since there are no exceptional circumstances to be considered and approval could establish a negative precedent. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Mark Sternfels, 3556 Sitio Baya, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and requested that the Commissioners uphold the denial. He passed out photographs of the fence and yard area. Jerry Smith, 7690 El Camino Real 11206, Carlsbad, representing the applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Steven Weiss, addressed the Commission and stated that this appeal is due to a dispute between two neighbors, that an agreement for the fence was made and breached, and then a complaint was filed. He did not feel that the staff report addressed all of the details since staff had previously approved the spa and fence and his client had reasonable belief that they had a legal fence. Since a 6 ft. fence is required around a pool area, if his client is forced to cut l-1/2 ft. from the fence it will not meet the required height. He does not feel that this problem should be heard by the Commission since it is a dispute between two neighbors. If the Commission upholds the denial, his client will be forced to seek resolution in court. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if Mr. Smith felt that ignorance of the law could preempt adherence, or if two parties could contract to waive the law. Mr. Smith replied that he felt there was implicit approval of the spa and fence by staff, and he is well aware that two parties cannot contract to do something which is improper. Jackia Sternfels, 3556 Sitio Baya, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she and her husband only agreed to the design of the fence, not the height. She was advised by her attorney to file the complaint so that it would no; cause a problem should they sell their property at a later date. MINUTES November 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 22 , COMMISSIONERS \ There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Holmes sees no reason for the fence to be more than 5 ft. and feels that it should be the legal height. Commissioner Schlehuber requested that the photographs of the fence be introduced into the record. Motion was duly made , seconded, and carried to uphold the decision of the Planning Director and adopt Resolution No. 2795 denying AV 88-7 based on the findings contained therein. Due to the lateness of the hour, Commissioner Schlehuber suggested that the remaining items on the agenda be continued to the December 7, 1988 meeting. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that Items #7 and #8 both need to be expanded for notice purposes to comply with the Brown Act which requires a reasonable description of the item. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue Items 117, i/8, and #9 and approval of the minutes to the to the bottom of the agenda for December 7, 1988, and to expand the public notice on Items f7 and i/8 to comply with the provisions of the Brown Act. Chairman McFadden inquired if it would be necessary to have a Planning Commission meeting on December 21, 1988 since it is so close to Christmas and the agenda is very light. There was no objection to holding the meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Schlehuber polled the Commissioners to determine if the meeting needed to be adjourned to the Friday morning meeting regarding noise. Only three Commissioners would be attending the Friday meeting so a normal adjournment is satisfactory. By proper motion, the meeting of November 16, 1988 was adjourned at lo:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL HOL%IL& Planning Director BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm . -1 - -*- .-. . I- - .- .-_.- .--r..*cs.-.9 &-.-.w- ./-. _* _. -% i by/ y8l -,,,I “. ..‘,.) :’ ., - *I ._ / -7 _ 2 .i’ -J/K- ?’ - -yc - /-f-q . t CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Amendment to Master Plan 175 - Bataquitos Lagoon Educational Park. Item "D" - Fence location. Units involved are at the West and South sides of Navigator Circle, along the bluff edges. On October 5, 1988, at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Chris DeCerbo stated several reasons for locating the fence at the top of the bluff rather than at the bottom as is being requested by homeowners. He said that the fence at the top of the bluff would prevent anyone from constructing anything on the slope area. I would like to suggest an alternate idea that would also prevent - any construction on the slope area and could be acceptable to both the Planning Commission and the homeowners: The integrity and aontrol over the slope area can be obtained by adhering to the Project's CCR's, Page 19, Article 6, titled Architectural and Landscape Control. The wordage is "NO building, fence, wall, structure, or improvement of any type shall be constructed, erected, placed or painted, repainted, refurbished or altered.". The Homeowners' Association Board of Directors can incorporate this wordage into the Homeowners' Rules and Regulations, subtitled under "Bluff and Slope Restrictions". This will be monitored by the Board,of Directors, Architectural Committee, and the Rules and Regulations Committee. This will assure that there will be no construction or alteration on the slope-bluff areas. Also, the Rules and Regulations are backed up by a fine system and enforcement through court procedures, if necessary. Mr. DeCerbo also stated that the fence would deter pets from damaging the slopes. As a resident-owner and member of the Board of Directors at Sea-Cliff for the past 4 l/2 years, I have walked the slope and bank areas of Sea-Cliff dozens of times, with the Landscape Committee on inspection tours. Sea-Cliff has more than five times the slope area than the Sammis project. The only damage we ,detected was caused by ground squirrels and gophers. A fence at the top of the bluff would be of no value whatsoever in discouraging these animals. Page 1 of 2 In conclusion, I would ask the Planning Commission to approve locating the fence at the bottom of the slope at the property line, where it will also be less visable to both the homeowners and persons viewing the area from across the lagoon or from the freeway. In contrast, a fence located approximately l/2 way between the house and the rear property line appears to represent an "overkill" to a potential problem that can be controlled by more compatable methods. Thank you, ; ~;.- ‘/ -> I,‘.*‘ C’S ?cj d3 Dee Donato 7147 Linden Terrace Carlsbad, CA 92009 (6191438-8426 cc: Michael Holzmiller Planning Director Jeanne McFadden Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 JOHN F. KIRSCH Attorney at Law 900 Third Street 0 ceamide, CaIifmnia 92051 Telephone (619)722-1700 November 15, 1988 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 1200 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Batiquitos Lagoon / Rosalena Bluff Resolution # 2768 Dear Council Members: I address you on behalf of myself, as a resident of the City of Carlsbad, and Marge Tomlinson, owner of Lot #3 of the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park in regard to the above referenced matter. Although we are given to understand that Lot #3 is presently excluded from the 45' setback restrictions which are the subject of Resolution #2768, we also understand that the Planning Department has recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution W2768 subject to the condition that MP 175(A) include bluff edge lots 2-5 of CT 85-14. It is in view of your following the Planning Department's recommendation as to condition 2(a) that we wish to address our remarks. Assuming that Resolution #2768 is adopted as recommended, its passage shall result in various structure restrictions, as well as the construction of a proposed fence. Of particular concern is the 1) composition and location of the fence, and 2) the prohibition of homeowners having a pool in their back yards. I shall address these points separately. LOCATION OF TEE FENCE The Planning Department has recommended that the fence be placed along the natural bluff edge. Presumably this location shall protect the bluff habitat and prevent homeowners from constructing decks out over the bluff edge, i.e., curtail code enforcement problems. Locating the fence along the bluff edge and across a significant portion of each homeowners' property would effectively result in the "taking" of their property, a Fifth Amendment violation. Other collateral effects would be: L . Page 2 Carlsbad Planning Commission Re: Resolution # 2768 Nov. 15, 1988 1. Partial obstruction of each homeowner's view of the lagoon; 2. An invitation to others to trespass upon that portion of each homeowner's property that is "outside" the fence, and yet inside the property line; and 3. A fence upon the horizon that is obtrusive to the public's view down this particular corridor. All things considered, we ask the Council to located any proposed fence along the property line. Since most of the property lines are below the bluff edge, a fence located below the horizon would be much less obtrusive when viewed from the property and much less noticeable from the view corridor, as it would blend in with its background. Homeowners would get full use of their property with minimal encroachment upon the habitat and the public would enjoy a much greater scenic view. COHPOSITION OF TEE FENCE The Planning Department has recommended that the fence consist of a 2' block wall with a 3' wrought iron fence atop the wall. The Department reasons that the block wall will help keep the wild animals out and the domestic animals in. Once again there are less obtrusive means in which to accomplish this objective. The same results can be achieved with a fence that is entirely wrought iron with an 18" non-corrosive chain-link portion below ground level. A 2' high block wall does nothing more than distract from the natural surroundings. PROBIBITION AGAINST POOLS The major concern of the staff in prohibiting the installation of swimming pools is the fear of homeowners draining their pools over and down the bluff edge. It is argued that this "speculative fear" justifies taking away a common property right of the homeowners to use and enjoy their back .yards; a fear that the homeowners will do something that is against their own interest. We encourage the the Council to allow pools in accordance with the restrictions set forth in Section 2.1.18 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, and a soils engineering report. The restrictions contained within the CC&R'S are reasonable restraints that were accepted by each homeowner at the time of sale and are consistent with the Master Plan. Page 3 Carlsbad Planning Commission Re: Resolution # 2768 Nov. 15, 1988 As an example of the unjust result of the the proposed sweeping restrictions, consider Mrs. Tomlinson's situation. She would like to install a lap pool, shallow in depth, yet nonetheless a "pool". Is there such a difference between a pool and a spa? Is it fair to deny one homeowner the right to have a pool when they have sufficient space because another homeowner's lot can only accommodate a spa? Is there not a legitimate difference between these two homeowners that justifies the larger lot owner greater use of their property, for which they presumably paid a greater price? Perhaps "use" restrictions can better be adapted to accomplish the objective without invoking such harsh sweeping results. Furthermore, the use of additional restrictions to further constrain each property owners legitimate use of their property is unnecessary under the present circumstances. The CC&R'S already provide use limitation (Article Two) that specifically address the issue of pools. See Section 2.1.18. These restriction provide for enforcement (Article Six) by way of removal of noncomplying structures and the levy of special assessments. See Section 6.8.4. Based upon the foregoing, we ask that if the Council is inclined to adopt Resolution #2768 as proposed, please consider locating the fence al'ong the property'line and allowing pools and spas according to the restrictions already contained within the CCGR'S. It is submitted that a balance between the need to preserve the lagoon and to protect the adjacent property owners' rights can best be achieved in this manner. Respectfully, LAttorney at Law JFK:ms DATE NOVEMBER 10, 1988 s-,,. . . ,, - ?,I b. i ~ . .--* is.. . 1. ,.: , TO: PLANNING COXl4ISSIOY F ROH : Dolores Welty 2076 Sheridan Poad Leucadia, CA 92024 1 SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION concerning MP 175(A) - BATIQUITOS LAGOON KDUCATIONAL PARX - Request for approval of an Amendment to allow accessory structures within the 45 foot setback area along the south facing Batiyuitos Lagoon bluff edge and overlooking the desiltation basin. Dear Commissioners: , Thank you for sending ine the notice of the Negative Declaration concerning the.amendment to the Sammis project, i"laster Plan 175. I am appealing the Negative Declaration for the reasons found in the document (attached) which you received previously. Additionally, I wish to point out ,t hat loss of mitigation measures is viewed by the courts as a serious matter. It is not appropriate to approve a Negative Declaration based on a requirement that future studies will suggest mitigation measures, said mitigation measures not incorporated into the project at the t i:ne the Negative Declaration is issued. Studies are to be completed before the Negative Declaration is issued (Sundstrom vs County of Xendocino, June, 1988, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296). I Respectfully, Dolores Welty 942-9897 DATE OCTOBER 21, 1988 TO: PLANNING CO>lldISSION i7 RO?,? : Dolores Welty 2076 Sheridan Road Leucadia, CA 92024 SUT)JF:CT: NiGATIVE DECLARATIO?l concerniny KP 175(A) - EATIQUITOS LAGOO?l EDUCATIOPJAL PAFS: - Request for d;J;?rOV21 of an Amendment to allow accessory structures within the 45 foot setback area along the south Lacing i3atiquitos Lagoon bluff edge and overlooking the desiltstion basin. 'Dear Commissioners: I have received a notice of the public hearing scheduled fOK Novewber 2 before the Planning Commission, but I have not yet received a notice concerniny the re-opening of the ,-,eriod of comment concerning the negative declaration. Never thelccs, I accept ttle public !Ioaririlj notice ;Is zn inA iciition t L-1 a t 1”1/ CO::lilltiIltS concerning the negative declaration will be found acceptable at this time, and that the city will resporld to tiiis asi>oal. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. I object to the Granting of a negative Jeclarntion on this i>KO- posed az~cndrllent, and I request that the builder be required to ;JroVide a SUp;IlC?lil~I7 ta1 Environliiental. Iillildct Repuft a5 LtiqUiKed :j; CEQA to evaluate changes in the >!aster Plan. ;.1 1 *1 reaso,ns follow: 2/7 **Comments concerning the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. Page 6 of the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II, item 18 should be checked "Yes," for the following‘ reasons: A) The 45 foot setback was mitigation for the visual impact of the project. I refer you to the project's original Environmental Impact study, pages 11 and 12, . im!a Yisul Aestlcs and to page 54, part 3. T+i+ua+ (Exhibits "A" and "B," &closed]. part c., Mitigation The 45-50 foot buffer area was intended as open space, not rear yards. There were to be no structures in this buffer/setback area, and the understanding of the public was that this area would be left in open space, that it would not be private property, that it would serve as a visual buffer for adjacent property as well as for scenic highways, and that it was part of the buffer space required between construction impacts and the lagoon wetland.. The environmental study also recommends that building height adjacent to the bluff be limited to 15 feet. Until these dwelling units began to rise, the public believed that the builder had been held to this requirement. Bluff edge houses were supposed to be one-story dwellings. B) Within the 45/50 foot setback, a lo-foot wide public access trail was required. (Exhibits "A" and "B") Public access to water bodies is protected by state law. Sammis was required to designate land for a possible trail along the top of the bluff. This requirement is a condition put on his project by the Coastal Commission. It is part of his Coastal Commission permit. (Exhibit "D") Placement of rear yard structures within the 45' setback area as requested by Sammis would eliminate the possibility of any trail along the top of the bluff. This amendment could allow fences and other structures to be placed on the trail by homeowners. This amendment is therefore not acceptable. Placement of the trail at the top of the bluff was recommended as a mitigation requirement of the project (Exhibit "A" page 12, B&olod and was part of the mitigation requirements (Exhibit "B", page 54, a.). 3/J Cl The purpose of the proposed landscaping adjacent to the homes on the top of the bluffs was also part of the mitigation for the visual impact of this project on scenic I-5,. Batiquitos Lagoon, and the surrounding area. (Exhibit "B" page 54, c.) As the trees are now placed, that is, ON THE PROPOSED TRAIL SITE, they will not adequately mitigate the visual impact. Instead, they merely block the proposed trail site and adversely impact the ocean view of homes east of I-5 which overlook the project. , II. Page 6, item 21. e)of the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II is not 100% correct. This item says "the dwelling units are already constructed and occupied." Actually, NONE of the dwelling units on lots 10 through 24 have been built. Foundations are not yet poured for these lots. Lots 10 through 24 are the lots that were graded to unacceptable levels and which the builder reduced somewhat in height in compliance with a previous plan amendment. Lots 10 through 24 are also the lots where we most fear losing the public access trail since so much of the 45 foot setback is used up in steep manufactured slopes. After all, when a lot is raised 11 feet above the original bluff, 22 feet are used up by the manufactured slope in order to comply with city regulations of a 2:l slope ratio. It is true that the dwelling units along the siltation basin have been constructed and are occupied. The problems facing the builder are more knotty here than they are on the bluff edge. III. We agree with alternative d), page 6 of the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II: "The only other environmentally acceptable use for-the site would be open space." In fact, the mitigation measures which were agreed upon by the builder at the time of the acceptance of Master Plan 175 reau that the site be open space. (See Exhibits "A" "B" and "D") C 4/7 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II, page 7, item 22; Mandatqlry find- af'sianificance,: Items (a), (b), and (c) should all be marked "yes." It is true that the project amendment has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment (a). It has the potential to impact the environment over the long-term (b). Most signifi- cantly, the 'project amendment does have impacts which seem individually limited but are cumulatively considerable (c). This conclusion was also reached by the environmental study for the project. (Exhibit "B" pages 50 through 54) V. We concur with staff and the developer See Exhibit "C" dated August 17, 1988, of the staff report - (enclosed) that the 45/50 foot buffer zone should be measured from the bluff edge of the manufactured slope, as indicated on the drawing. However, in reality, the setback area is NOT measured from the edge of the manufactured bluff. Therefore: VI. Staff EXHIBIT 'C' is misleading. The drawing on Exhibit "C" of the City of Carlsbad Planning Staff Report indicates that the 45' setback area is measured from the top of the manufactured bluff edge. This is not correct. Instead, for the majority of all lots, the 45' setback area is measured from the top of the remaining natural bluff edge--that is, the lowest edge. We have enclosed a corrected drawing. (See Corrected staff report Exhibit "C" attached) Measurements which are calculated from "the bluff edge" can be misinterpreted, and should be restated so that there is no room for misunderstanding among staff, builder, and public as to which bluff edge is indicated--the natural bluff edge or the WC- tured. bluff edge. s/7 Please see column "C" of Exhibit "C." There is no reason to allow these structures to be built within 3' from either bluff edge. Again, we stress that putting structures this close to the bluff edge and within the 45/50 foot setback/buffer area does two things: 1) It violates the Coastal Commission permit condition which requires the builder to set aside 10' for a public access trail, and 2) it eliminates the purpose of the setback as mitiga- tion for loss of view and for protection of the wetlands. None of the Accessory Uses suggested on Exhibit "C" should be allowed within the buffer area. The builder should be required to honor the development standards of his Master Plan. For these reasons therefore, we object to the granting of a negative declaration on this proposed amendment and request a supplemental Environmental Impact Report as required by the California Environmental Quality Act to evaluate proposed changes in the Master Plan. This amendment is a request for a substantial change in the project. It signifies a substantial change in the circumstances under which the project was approved. This amendment is not the only concern that needs to be addressed regarding this project. Since the approval of the original Master Plan 175, Sammis has asked for and received many amendments and special considerations. In the first year following approval of his Master Plan, Sammis asked for the following amendments Exhibit E: Memorandum dated October 28, 1986, to Dick Chick, city council): 1. That the proposed gymnasium and sports complex be moved closer to the hotel 2. That the size of the sports complex be increased from 29,200 square feet to 88,900 3. That the gymnasium be reduced from 60,000 square feet to 24,600 4. That the hotel be accessed by an additional road onto Carlsbad Blvd - in addition to Ave. Batiquitos f ” ,-. 6/7 5. That the educational facilities be separated from office and R and D uses, parking structures be eliminated, natural open space and other design amenities be reduced 6. That all references to the "law school" requirement be changed to read "educational entity." 7. That commercial uses within Planning Area "I" be increased from 22,000 square feet to 52,000 8. That, space for the student cafeteria be added to these totals 9. That the daycare center be moved from the south of Planning Area "I" to a spot adjacent to Lakeshore Garders, and that its size be increased by 4,800 square feet Sammis is considering further ammendments to put before you for your consideration: 1) A one-year extension to attempt to come up with a prestigious graduate school. 2) Relocation of Carlsbad Blvd. in order to accommodate his hotel. 3) A reduction in the amount of square feet dedicated to educational purposes. 4) A revision of the uses allowed in the industrial research sections of his project. 5) A;I elementary school as the cornerstone for his promised prestigious graduate school. All these amendments are a piecemeal approach intended to modify the Master Plan. As the project continues, Sammis ,is making piecemeal amendments to the Master P.lan which result in a substantial change in the project. This procedure is against the law in California. Piecemeal revisions which result in a substantial change in the project are not allowed under the California Environmental Quality Act. While individually each request for a change in the Master Plan requirements may appear to have a small effect, the cumulative impact is enormous. This present amendment request may appear to have a small effect, but the 45-foot-setback was a mitigation for the visual impact of this whole project. Puttipg structures in the setback and treating this area as if it were intended to be the homeowner's back yard eliminated the mitigation measures for the visual impact of this project. Allowing structures in the setback while not enforcing the trail allowance requirements and visual mitiga- tion requirements of the Coastal Commission Permit makes the conditions of approval meaningless. The Sammis amendments are an attempt to change the nature of this entire project. 7/7 Sammis must not be allowed to continue to come before the City of Carlsbad every couple of months for changes which individually seem to be minor, but which in essence change the nature of the entire project. This procedure violates CEQA regulations. At this point in the process, before Sammis is allowed to encroach further upon the required setback, construction should be halted, and the Master Plan should be reviewed as a whole and be dealt with as a whole, as required by the California Environ- mental Quality Act. I officially request a supplemental Environmental Impact Report as required by'CEQA to evaluate proposed changes in the Master Plan. Ve-ry truly yo,urs, Dolores Welty J 942-9897 Copies to: City of Carlsbad Planning Commissioners California Coastal Commission Chris DeCerbo, Planning Dept. Carlsbad Blacketer and Hile, attorneys Nov. 15, 1988 TO: Planning Gomission, City of Carlsbad Hrt: San&s Property Tho Board of rlirectors of the Dati&tos La&oon Foundation ---.-I__ -- --Ix - nt an adjourned meetl.xy held this date ur:animously recommended: ._--- 1. That the trail along the lagoon shall bs & or near the bluff sdge at the top $ust south of the proposed fence; 2. That sitter the city or %linmls prepare plans showing thR trail ard suhmft safd pkms to t'he public for review; 3. That A emdition be included in this mstw plsn by amendment that ti11. establish the precise al.ignmw& oP ,the trail. on the Sam& properky prior to approval of any other petits on the entire site; 4. And that no further construction of the prqject be pem&ttod until the .traj.lis in place. . ..’ B. CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1. Traffic a. Impacts. The Weston Pringle and Associates report (1985) (Appendix 8) indicates that a total of 26,500 daily trip ends would be generated by the uses associated with the proposed project. This total exceeds the traffic volumes indicated for the project area in the City of Carlsbad traffic model by 12,780 trips. However, the net increase to the external road system is 2,700 trips when internal trips are accounted for. This traffic volume will not exceed the capacities of any oft the project ,area roadways. Peak-hour impacts at various intersections will result from implementation of the project and will require improvements to mitigate the potentially adverse effects. The Weston Pringie and Associates report (1985) indicates’ that the proposed project can be accommodated by the planned road system with the improvements outlined below. b. Mitigation. Mitigation measures to avoid potential impacts at various intersections include (1) signalization and dual southbound left-turn lanes at the Poinsettia LanelAvenida Encinas inter- section, (21 improvement-s to Avenida Encinas, and (3) evaluation of the Carlsbad Boulevard/project access intersection, I-5 ramp intersections, and Poinsettia Lane should be completed when plans are available. Other measures recommended in the Weston Pringle and Associates report include monitoring of possible land use changes which could affect the traffic volumes and analysis of the internal roadway system when the design is available. 2. Land Use a. Impacts. The proposed industrial and research devel- opment associated with the university-type institution would not be allowed under the PC zone, since the underlying general plan designation fs not compatible. The greatest potential land use incompatibility Is between the proposed project and Batiquitos Lagoon and the e’xistfng residential use (Lakeshore Gardens) along the northern property boundary. b. Mitigation. Design measures which have been incorporated into the project to reduce these potential impacts include 45- and SO- foot setbacks from the bluff edge at the southern part of the property; 25-foot height limitations for buildings adjacent to the bluff; and a 15- foot landscaped buffer along the northern property boundary. 3. Topography and Visual Aesthetics a. Impacts. Approval of the proposed master plan and PC zone would allow a higher density development on the property than is currently allowed by the existing zoning. Consequently, the development will result in significant visual impacts associated with the height of structures adjacent to (within 50 feet of) the bluff. The future devel- opment will also affect the natural scenic views of BatiqUitOS Lagoon 11 from .Carlsbad Boulevard, a potential scenic highway in the City of Carlsbad General Plan, and from 1-s. which is part of the state scenic highway system. b. Mitlqation. Several design controls have been incor- porated- into. the .project to reduce visual impacts. Among them are bluff edge setbacks, building height limitations adjacent to the bluff, and an extensive landscaping program. In addition, it is recommended that building height in the area adjacent to the bluff be limited to IS feet and maximum building height be limited to 40 feet instead of 75, which is proposed in the plan. 4. Archaeoloqical and Paleontoloqlcal Resources a. Impacts. Archaeological sites have been dlscovered on the subject property as a result of previous surveys performed by WESTEC. Loss of these resources from future grading will result in a potentially significant impact. Potential impacts to paleontology resources is not known since specific grading plans are not available. However, the Santiago Formation, which lies about ten feet beneath the surface, is likely to contain fossils. b. Mitlqation. Potential impacts to archaeological re- sources on the subject property are currently being mitigated through a salvage excavation program under the supervision of Brian Smith. Oocu- mentation of this effort will require City of Carlsbad approval before the potential impacts can be considered mitigated and the project ap- ,* proved. Since there would be a potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources, it is recommended that a qualified paleon- tologist monitor grading in the vicinity of the identified stratum during project development. 5. f3fology a,. Impacts. Potential significant indirect blological impacts will occur as a result of the proposed passive and active .recre- ation areas: trails adjacent to the lagoon; viewpoints; picnic areas; interpretive center(s); and the amphitheater. These facilities will result in increased levels of human activity adjacent to the lagoon, which will have a direct effect on the lagoon’s productivity. Nesting of several shorebird species and foraging and resting of a variety of bird species, including three listed as rare and endangered by state and federal agencies, would probably be inhibited. b. Mitiqation. The potential impacts to biological re- sources can be mitigated by moving the proposed active and passive recre- ation facilities, to the top of bluff and deleting or moving the amphi- theater. In addition, it is recommended that the lagoon wetland habitat on the property should be deeded to the State of California to be incor- porated into the Ecological Reserve administered by the Department of Fish and Game. This would insure preservation of this important biologi- cal resource. 12 1 INCH=500 FEET (APPROX.) . . / 1. ‘. \ : !. ‘i, ‘. ., ‘. ‘: ‘! yyqy, yl, \,. \..... *.. \ I ‘~, ‘,\,\‘:\>, : ., ‘: : :,, ‘s. %:‘\ i ? t,, ! \\ ?f ’ \...... ! /y ,“,; ‘:,, LAG00 N i RESOURCE ;,cj ; ’ ,: .I ,i LINE \,‘,” j *,.. l *.- - . ...* ~ ,j : AGRICULTURE &y,;i ii”-- cbAT’ ““‘: WATER / I \+L EDGE 1 O&VETLAND 1 FRESHWAYER/ERACK~H MARSH 2 DISTURBED B DOMlNATEG 3 LAGOON: COASTAL SALT MARSH/ MUD FLAT 4 COASTAL SAGE SCRUB 5 RIPARIAN 6 EUCALYPTUS FIGURE 10. VEGETATION MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. I 488 2/13/8S SOURCE: WESTEC. 19.92 -I RECDN m California black-tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura californical , a subspecies with a population that is declining within its range, have been observed in the coastal sage scrub habitat on the bluff. The dense coast cholla may also provide habitat for the locally declining coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillum). - . Below the coastal sage scrub-covered bluffs, the property includes wetlands habitats within the lagoon, including coastal salt marsh, brackish marsh, mudflats, and open water. These habitats provide important feeding, nesting, and resting habitat for a high diversity of water-dependent bird species and important habitat for fish and aquatic invertebrates. Because of the importance of coastal lagoons to wildlife and because of the small proportion of originally existing lagoon habitat that has not been destroyed or degraded, this habitat requires special consideration for preservation. A number of sensitive species have been observed in the vicinity of the project location or on the site. Three species listed by state and federal agencies as threatened or endangered are reported to use the wetland habitats on the site: California least tern (Sterna albifrons browni) and California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) forage in the open water and rest on mudflats and Belding’s Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldinql) was observed In the salt marsh vegetation. The California least tern has nested at the lagoon mouth to the immediate south of the project site in recent years. 2. Impacts Implementation of the master’plan as proposed would result in the removal of current agricultural land, the small area of riparian habitat, and the eucalyptus grove. The loss ,of these resources would not have a significant effect on the biological resources on the property. The master plan calls for development in areas VIII, IX, and X which would Include . . . passive and active recreation areas including trails, view- points, . . . public access, outdoor entertainment facilities, interpretive center(s), . . . bike/pedestrian trail adjacent to lagoon, . . . [and] picnic areas . . . . All of these uses would be below the level of the bluff on the slope or adjacent to the wetland. These activities would result in the removal of coastal sage scrub habitat and an undeterminable amount of wetland habi- tat. This would be a significant loss. The loss of adequate buffer and the resultant indirect impacts associated with the increased levels of human activity directly adjacent to the lagoon would have a significant effect on the biological productivity of the lagoon. These uses would also be potentially damaging to the adjacent ecological reserve managed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Nesting of several shorebird species in the lagoon habitats on and adjacent to the site and foraging and resting of a variety of species, including three birds listed by state and federal agencies, would probably be inhibited. c . Any grading activity that contribut$s to runoff or erosion and sedimentation into the lagoon would have a significant adverse effect on the biological resources of the lagoon. .The deveiopment as proposed would not be consistent with the long-term goals of the City of Carlsbad for the lagoon and its resources. The City of Carlsbad Draft Batiquitos Lagoon Management Plan (August 28, 1984) identifies the portion of the property below the top of the bluff and including the fill bench in the southwestern corner of the property as a “lagoon resource” area. Policy statements that characterize the intent of the plan are as. follows. 301.03 Development should not take place within the lagoon resource line until satisfactory investigation can be accomplished to identify mitigation that reduces impacts to an insignificant level. This would include any proposed bicycle or pedestrian trails, which should be located outside of the Lagoon Resource Line and in the Critical Planning Area, as discussed below. 301.04 Active recreation should not be allowed on the lagoon. 301.05 Passive recreation on the lagoon should only be allowed if there is no substantial adverse impact to wildlife. (In other words, habitat protection has priority over recreation). Much of the remainder of the property is within a Critical Planning Area. Within the Critical Planning Boundary ICPBI, the goals for future development include 201.00 Minimise impacts on wildlife habitats that are function- ally related to the lagoon resource. Policies for development withln the CPB include 201.02 Human activity should be designed/controlled so that it will not substantially adversely affect wildlife habitats that are functionally related to the lagoon. 202.04 Development should be setback from surrounding bluff edges. 203.03 There should be limited public access to the wetlands shoreline. Access should only be at locations where there could be minimal impacts on the lagoon ecosystem. 204.01 Human uses of the critical planning area should be com- patible with the primary use of the wetland as a natural wildlife environment. 52 , - 7%’ 205.01 There should be a bicycle trail Or lane around the lagoon. On the north, a bicycle trail adjacent to the lagoon may not be possible. It is the policy of this plan to have a bicycle trail extending from El Camino Real’ to Carlsbad Boulevard as near to the north shore of the lagoon as possible. The limited access points mentioned in policy 203.03 above should be accessed by bicycle, auto and foot, and should be properly signed, Additional guidellnes are provided in the management plan for development standards: 201.021 All structures shall be setback a minlmum of SO-ft. from the Lagoon Resource Line (LRL) (see Figure 10). 202.040 All structures shall be set back from bluff edaes and ridgelines a minimum of 45 feet. No portion of any structure within 100 feet of a bluff edge shall exceed one story (15 feet) maximum height from the elevation of the bluff. 203.021 205.011 205.021 205.022 Public viewing points and a trail system (bicycle and hiking) shall be established around the lagoon within the Critical Planning Area. California Department of Fish and Game shall be allowed to restrict public access to sensitive habitat areas. RF Large scale recreational facilities that require fencing or structures or that attract large concentrations of people shall be set back a minimum of 300 feet from the Lagoon Resource Line. Small scale active recreational facilities (eg. family tennis courts and swimming pools1 shall be set back a minimum of 150 feet from the LRL. All active recreational facilities shall be screened ,by landscaping. 205.031 Passive recreatlonal facilities shall not require a setback from the landward edge of the LRL. (Fencing may be necessary to restrict access to sensitive habitat areas). 3. Mltlqation Mitigation of impacts to biological resources resulting from implementation of the proposed master plan for the property can be accom- plished through incorporation of the policies and goals of the Batiquitos Lagoon Management Plan into the project design. The following specific measures would substantially reduce the impacts of the project. 53 , ‘I a. No development. including bicyde and pedestrian traits, should occur below the top of the bluff. The proposed bicycle trail should be located at the top of the bluff along the entire length of the property. In addition, this trail should be set back at least five feet from the edge of, the bluff between the western edge of the drainage canyon’to Highway 101. The setback would provide minimum buffering for a high bird activity area within the wetlands habitat of the lagoon. The construction of any structures or grading and filling in the floodway could require a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Because of the use of the property by federally endangered bird species, the 404 Permit process would also involve consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Also, diversion of natural flow or change in the channel, bed, or banks of any river, stream, or’ lake will require notification to the California Department of Fish and Game in accordance with Sections 1601-1603 of the Fish and Game Code. b. The area of disturbed sea-flg covered fill in the south- west corner of the property should not be developed for either active or passive uses because of its proximity to sensitive wildlife and foraging habitat. In addition, this area should be analyzed for feasibility of restoration as a California least tern or Eelding’s Savannah sparrow nesting area. c. All buildlngs should be set back a minimum of 45 feet from the edge of the bluff. Construction should include measures to minimire the impact of increased noise and light levels on the lagoon habitat. The area between the bluff top and development should be land- scaped to minimise the apparent presence of human activity to wildlife on the lagoon except at certain limited view access points. d. The amphitheater proposed for location in the small north-south drainage in the south-central portion of the property should be located at least 300 feet outside the lagoon resource area to minimise the effects of noise and high levels of activity on the wildlife in the lagoon. The freshwater marsh habitat lost during construction of the detention basin in the drainage should be reestablished. e. The grading plan should incorporate measures to prevent runoff or erosion and sedimentation into the lagoon during construction and a design to permanently control these potentially damaging impacts to the lagoon, including the prohibition of grading from October 1 through April 1. Also, native drought-tolerant vegetation is recommended for landscaped areas. f. The lagoon .wetland habitat on the property should be deeded to the State of California to be incorporated into the Ecological Reserve administered by the Department of Fish and Came. This would insure permanent preservation of this important biological resource. 54 EXHIBIT 'C' DATED AUGUST 17, 1988 - i Setback Area 1 I I c I B,A: I I I I I I I I BATI@JITOS LAGOON *Maximum 5' high wrought iron fence to be constructed by ACCESSORY USES PERWITTED SETBACK AREA "A" (8') "B" (15') Landscaped Trellis 1. Max 9'6" Ht. 2. Per approved bldg plans. 3. Anything per- mitted in Areas "8" & "C". Spas Barbecues Planter Boxes Garden Walls Spa Equipment Enclosures 1. Max 36" Ht 2. Anything permitted in Area bn c *I . (UP TO 3' FROII) "C" (BLUFF EDGE) Decks Spas (shall be 5' from bluff edge) Patios Hardscape 1. Max 10" Ht g-&f E,;-rL 1 EXHIBIT 'C' DATED AUGUST 17, 1988 Setback Area 1 I I C : e, Ai BATIQUITOS LAMON *Maximum 5' high wrought iron fence to be constructed by developer. ACCESSORY USES PERNITTED SETBACK AREA "A" (8') Landscaped Trellis 1. Max 9'6" Ht. 2. Per approved bldg plans. 3. Anything per- mitted in Areas "B" b. "C". "B" (15') jpas Barbecues 'lanter Boxes harden Walls ;pa Equipment Enclosures I. Max 36" Ht !. Anything permitted in Area I* c *I . (UP TO 3' FROM) "C" (BLUFF EDGE) Decks Spas (shall be 5' from bluff edge) Patios Hardscape 1. Max 10" Ht. age9of 10 6-85-482 z&Ml /;t Lid SPECIAL CONDITIONS - continued: option of paying such fees in accordance with the three (3) phases of the project as specified in the Master Plan. Such evtdence shall be submitted prior to the transmittal of the coastal development permit and shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Executive Director. 12. Siqnaoe. Prior to the transmittal of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit a comprehenslve sign program for the project which shall include the use of freeway directional signs and other conxnunity Identification or directional signs to direct traffic to the site via the Avenida Encina access rather than the Carlsbad Boulevard access proposed for implementation in Phase 3 of the Master Plan. The sign program shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Executive Director.- . '4 13. Publfc Access. Prior to transmittal of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit a public access plan for the project which assures compliance with the following requirements: (A) The public access vista point proposed for area C shall be maintained for public use and shall be appropriately marked with public access identification signs at the vista points and other areas to dfrect the public to those sites. (B) To provide access to the public access vista points proposed in area C. Navigator Circle shall not be limited to private use as currently indicated on project plans. (C) A continuous public access path shall be provided along the north shore o f Tie location of such access path %-hall be detennined subsequent to Comnission review of the aiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Plan. Should the approved enhancement alan include me aerermination that oublic access alono the base of -~_ .~~~~ ~~~ .~~ the bluffs is appropriate, provision'of a path in that-alignment shall be the responsibility of the applicant or, at the discretion of the accepting agency, the agency which accepts the offer to dedicate an open space easement over the area pursuant to Special Condition #2 of the permit. or, any other party identified as resposible for such improvements in the Enhancement Plan as approved by the Coeveission. * Should the aporoved Enhancement Plan include the determination that -. a continuous public access pathong the base of the bluffs would Interfere with the nabltat value of.the laaoon resources, t,& continuous path shall be provided within the bluff-top setback area along the top of the lagoon bluffs in areas &, H. K and L respectively. In either case. A path of adequ feet1 shall be q 1 at; width (minimtLmJ,D reasonable acce md with sufficient improvements to provide ss along the north shore of the lagoon. MEMORANDUM @ - E&ihit ‘i ” 1/3 DATE: OCTOBER 26, 1986 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR VIA: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: BATIQUITOS LAGOON EDUCATION PARK - Revisions requested. This memorandum addresses the proposed Master Plan and other tentative map/site development plan revisions that Sammis Properties is requesting since the City Council approval of this Master Planned project in October of 1965. These requested revisions ere briefly discussed below. (1) A general plan amendment and amendment to MP-175 and CT 85-37 to make major land use changes whereby the proposed gymnasium and sports complex would be moved southward into Planning Areas "G" and "I", where the proposed student housing and teachers condominiums were formerly located. The teachers condominiums would be deleted and the student housing would be relocated to Planning Area "I", adjacent to the Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park within the northwest corner of the site. This change has been requested in order to locate the proposed sports complex in closer proximity to the hotel. It is noted here that the applicant is also requesting to increase the size of the sports complex from a maximum of 29,200 square feet to 88,900 square feet. The gymnasium has been reduced in size from a maximum of 60,000 square feet to 24,600 square feet. (2) Amendment to MP-175 and to CT ES-38 to allow the construction of an additional project access from Carlsbad Boulevard into the proposed hotel which is located west of the railroad tracks within the southwest corner of the property. This access from Carlsbad Boulevard onto the property would be in addition to the one proposed at Avenida Batiquitos. ./ 1 , .* ,/ _ ,/ ~ ‘/ ;j /’ (31 (41 (5) (6) Amendment to CT 85-14/CT 85-37/SDP S5-5/SDP 85-15 to reorient educational, office, research and development structures within the center of the approved ring road (Windrose Circle). This reorientation would result in all educational structures being located within a node in the immediate center of Planning Area "A". Parking lots would surround the educational structures with office, research and development structures located adjacent to Windrose Circle. This change would result in: (a) segregation of educational uses from office, research and development uses, (b) elimination of parking structures, (c) increased pavement coverage, and (d) a reduction of natural open space and other desiyn amenities within the inner circle. Amendment to Master Plan 175 to delete all references to the applicants requirement to provide a "law school" as the primary educational component of the educational institute. The project applicant is unable to reach agreement with a law school at this time and has requested that all references to a law school be replaced with the wording "educational entity.. In accordance with this request, the applicant has submitted letters of intent from five other schools which may satisfy the requirement that an educational entity will occupy Phase I of the project prior to residential building permits being issued. In association with this requested change, Condition No. 17 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2487 may also have to be amended. This Condition currently states: "The proposed law school must be constructed and operating prior to the issuance of building permits for the other proposed office, research and development facilities." Amendment to MP-175 to increase commercial uses within Planning Area "I" from a maximum of 22,000 square feet to 52,000 square feet. In addition, the applicant is requesting to develop a student cafeteria which staff contends was originally included as a portion of the 22,000 square feet of commericial approved with the Master Plan. Amendment to MP-175 to move the proposed dnycare center from the southern extremes of Planning Area "I" to the northern extremes of Planning Area "I", adjacent to the Lakeshore Garden Mobile Home Park and the condominium approved in Planning Area "F". The applicant is also requesting that the daycare center be increased from a maximum area of 10,000 square feet to 14,800 square feet. / I/ _‘. ;’ / (7) Revision to Planning Area "B" (CT 85-14/PVD 90) in order tot (ai change the product type from stacked flats to a combination of townhomes end stacked flats, (b) reduce the height of the dwelling units from three-story to two-story end, (cl relocate the approved recreation area. CD:dm