1998-11-30
APPROVED 1/14/99
City of
Encinitas PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
AND MINUTES/SUMMARY
Civic Center - Council Chambers
Monday, November 30, 1998, 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL. Alice Jacobson, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00
PM. Other Commissioners Present Anne Patton, Vice-Chair, Lester H. Bagg, Harold Grossman.
Commissioner Absent Frank M. "Rusty" Wells. STAFF PRESENT: Bill Weedman, City
Planner; David Moore, Senior Deputy Fire Marshal; Blair Knoll, Associate Civil Engineer; Craig
Olson, Associate Planner; J Dichoso, Planning Technician; Lea Kauflin, Administrative Secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE led by Commissioner Patton.
CLOSING AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR
CONSENT CALENDAR CLOSED AND ADOPTED AS AMENDED (Patton/Grossman).
VOTE: 3-1-1 (BaggAbstained; Wells Absent)
1. Approval of Minutes for the Regular Meeting of October 22, 1998. STAFF CONTACT:
Lea Kauflin, Administrative Secretary.
Approved on the Consent Calendar as corrected.
VOTE: 3-1-1 (Bagg Abstained; Wells Absent)
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR BY THE PUBLIC - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- None
REGULAR AGENDA
2. CASE NUMBER: 98-264 MUP/DRlCDPIEIA; FILING DATE: September 23, 1998;
APPLICANT: Neil Immergart/ Jehovah's Witnesses; LOCATION: 1821 S. El Camino
Real; DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing to consider a Major Use Permit, Design Review
Permit, and a Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a 4,400 square foot
Church facility (Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall) with seating fer 200 individuals and
associated improvements for access, on-site parking, project grading, and landscaping on a
1.37 acre portion of a 5.45 acre property located within the Residential-3 (R-3) Zoning
District. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: An Environmental Initial Assessment (EIA)
has been prepared in conjunction with the application, which determined that, with the
incorporation of the proj ect design and adherence to mitigation measures established by the
TEL 7(íO-(í33-2600 ! FAX --(,I!-(,Y>-262'" 50" S. \\tlcan .-\venue, Enciniras. California 9202+3633 TDD 760-633-2700 ~ recycled paper
EIA, the project will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is thus recommended for adoption with any project
approval pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The separately noticed pub lic review period for the EIA ran from October 1, 1998 through
October 30, 1998. STAFF CONTACT: Craig Olson, Associate Planner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Before public comment is received, disclose all
information and contacts received outside the hearing of this matter upon which the
decision will be based, receive public testimony and adopt the draft Resolution approving
Case No. 98-264 MUP/ DR/CDPÆIA.
Staff Report presented at 7:05 PM. The Chair asked if an EIR was required on the
projects for the property on Sage Canyon and on Pacific Ranch. Originally there was an
application for homes on this property and an EIR was required. Asked why an EIR is not
required now. Response (Associate Planner): An EIR was done on the Sage Canyon
property. Does not know if the County required an EIR for Pacific Ranch. The previous
proposal was a much more extensive utilization of the site, encroaching considerably into
steep slopes and would have had a considerably larger impact upon the Coastal Sage Scrub
resources. At that time the gnatcatcher was not listed as threatened, but Coastal Sage Scrub
was considered a sensitive resource. The EIA indicated that a more in-depth review of the
proposal was needed. The EIA for this project found that the environmental impacts can be
reduced below the level of significance. As passed out to the Commission, there are two
new conditions to be added on page 2-17:
SCF: Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, a right-of-way
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineering office and
appropriate fees paid in addition to any other permits required.
SCG: The developer shall obtain the City Engineer's approval of the project
improvement plans and enter into a secured agreement with the City for
completion of said improvements prior to issuance of any building permit with
this project. The improvements shall be constructed and accepted for
maintenance by the City Council prior to occupancy of any building or any
unit within the project. The improvements are: frontage improvements on EI
Camino Real, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and AC paving, curb face at 53' east
of centerline on EI Camino Real.
Commissioner Bagg asked about this sidewalk requirement. Had hoped that the sidewalk
would be on the west side of El Camino Real only as there will be very few people walking
anywhere along that street, especially the east side. Response (Associate Civil Engineer):
There are sidewalks on three projects in the area (one across the street) and a sidewalk will
probably be part of the Shelley (Sage Canyon) out-parcel. Commissioner Bagg asked
about the 5-6' drop off into the drainage channel, approximately 5' from the sidewalk and if
a guard rail would be needed. Response (Associate Civil Engineer): Will need cable
fencing if the drop off is significant. A minimum fence will be used if determined
necessary -- it is 3' with 3 wire cable which Caltrans uses on top of retaining walls. City
Planner. Will there be landscaping in front of this fence? Response (Associate Civil
Engineer): It is a minimal fence. Commissioner Bagg: Fifth line of Condition SCG:
G:\MINUTES/113098PC.MIN (12/17/98) 2
Delete "permit for any unit" so it reads,"... prior to occupancy of any building within
the project."
Vice-Chair Thought there were to be sidewalks only on one side of El Camino Real and
every effort was to be made to keep its scenic nature in tact. Spoke against sidewalks on
both side of the street. There is a long section which will not have a sidewalk because that
parcel will not be developed. Commissioner Bagg asked that the street cross section
indicate sidewalks on both sides if that is the required condition. The Chair asked that
Engineering Services take to the City Council the sidewalk standard for the east side of El
Camino Real, from Santa Fe Drive to Manchester Avenue. The Commission is not certain
why that is the standard on El Camino Real in this area. That area looks pretty
"hodgepodge". Response (Associate Civil Engineer): Would like to address both sides of
EI Camino Real. Vice-Chair. The Planning Commission would like this standard deleted.
Had asked that the medians be continued down that way.
Public Hearing opened at 7 :25 PM.
Ken Chernish, 3585 Grove Canyon Rd., Escondido 92025, representing Cardiff
Kingdom Hall and Jehovah's Witnesses Regional Building Committee. Passed out a
handout listing applicant responses to issues raised. Reviewed history of the project.
Condition SCE, page 2-17, restricts hours of operation and requested that it be deleted. Also
asked that a speaker be allowed at the front entry for those who need to exit the structure
during services. Noise from EI Camino Real will more than overshadow activities on site.
There will not be day care, bells, chimes or ancillary activities of any sort as part of this
neighborhood house of worship.
The Chair asked about parking should the church congregation grow. Response
(K.Chernish): Congregations are kept small-- 125-150 people. Other parking is for visitors
and special observances. City Planner pointed out that the last two pages of the handout
indicate the type of light standards to be used in the parking lot.
Public Hearing closed at 7:30 PM.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Discussed eliminating the condition restricting hours. The Chair asked if other churches on
El Camino Real have similar guidelines. Commissioner Bagg asked if there would be a
group which we would want to restrict hours in the future. Response (K.Chernish): Have
restrictions on another property and it has been difficult. We don't have a school, day care,
etc. that would necessitate this condition. The Vice-Chair recommended elimination of
this condition, but that the findings include why there would not be a limitation on hours
(no school, day care, etc.). The City Planner said this discussion would be added on page
2-8, regarding Finding l.a.
MOTION: Commissioner Patton to approve Case No. 98-264 MUP/DR/CDPIEIA as
amended: (1) Eliminate hours of operation within Condition SCE and
include the reason for this elimination in the findings discussion. (2) If
standards regarding sidewalks change, the sidewalk for this project will be
G:\MINUTES/113098Pc.MIN (12/17/98) 3
eliminated. (3) Add Conditions SCF and SCG as recommended. (4) If a
sidewalk is put in, include the fence per Caltrans above the drainage ditch.
SECOND: Commissioner Bagg
VOTE: 4-0-1 (Wells Absent) (7:40 PM)
BREAK; RECONVENED AT 7:45 PM.
3. CASE NUMBER: 98-247 MUP-MOD/DRlCDP/EIA; FILING DATE: September 3,
1998; APPLICANT: Encinitas Self Storage / Bob Halliday; LOCATION: 911 Encinitas
Boulevard; DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing to consider a Major Use Permit
Modification, Design Review Permit, and a Coastal Development Permit to allow the
construction of an approximately 20,768 square foot addition to an existing 153,625 square
foot Self Storage facility on a 5.25 acre property located within the Rural Residential-2
(RR-2) Zoning District. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: An Environmental Initial
Assessment (EIA) has been prepared in conjunction with the application, which determined
that, with the incorporation of the project design and adherence to Municipal Code
Development standards, the project will not result in any significant adverse environmental
impacts, and a Negative Declaration is thus recommended for adoption with any project
approval pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The separately noticed public review period for the EIA ran from October 1, 1998 through
October 30, 1998. STAFF CONTACT: Craig Olson, Associate Planner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Before public comment is received, disclose all
information and contacts received outside the hearing of this matter upon which the
decision will be based, receive public testimony and adopt the draft Resolution approving
Case No. 98-247 MUP-MOD/DRlCDP/EIA.
Staff Report presented at 7:45 PM.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Bagg asked about the location of the enhanced landscaping and R V storage.
Asked if any vehicles would be relocated to the facility on Olivenhain Road and if more RV
screening can be added to the facility on Olivenhain Road. Response (Associate Planner):
Basically, the enhanced landscaping is located to the east between the residence and the self
storage facility. Bob Halliday, 4285 Ibis St., San Diego 92103. Landscaping at the
0 livenhain Road facility addressed during that application process. There are restrictions of
open space and easements. Beyond that, will do what is reasonable.
MOTION: Commissioner Bagg to approve Case No. 98-247 MUP-MOD/DR/CDP/EIAas
amended by the Commission.
SECOND: Commissioner Grossman
VOTE: 4-0-1 (Wells Absent) (7:55 PM)
4. CASE NUMBER: 98-266 MUP/DRlCDP; FILING DATE: September 25, 1998;
APPLICANT: M&H Realty Partners III/Michael Comulada; LOCATION: 201 South
El Camino Real- De La Plaza; DESCRIPTION: Major Use Permit, Design Review, and a
Coastal Development Permit to demise the existing building to accommodate 3 or 4
tenants; add new entries for tenants; create new storefront at existing loading dock; and
G:\MINUTES/113098PC.MIN (12/17/98) 4
modify existing tile finish with new painted, cement plaster. The Major Use Permit is for a
proposed 32,184 square foot health club at the existing northwest entry and a proposed
35,570 square foot self-storage facility at the existing loading dock. The Design Review
permit is for the exterior modification and the proposed signage. ENVIRONMENTAL
ST A TUS: Categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301,
Class l(a) and l(g) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
STAFF CONTACT: 1. Dichoso, Planning Technician.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Before public comment is received, disclose all
information and contacts received outside the hearing of this matter upon which the
decision will be based, receive public testimony and adopt the draft Resolution approving
Case No. 98-266 MUPI DRlCDP.
Staff Report presented at 7:55 PM. The Chair clarified that the traffic generation figures
are for all the uses. Revised pages with changes highlighted have been distributed to the
Commission.
Public Hearing opened at 8 :00 PM.
Scott A. McPherson, 12555 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 385, San Diego 92130, representing
M&H Realty Partners. Bought only the old Target building and associated parking from
Dayton Hudson a little over a year ago including the high wall on the south side.
Public Hearing closed at 8:05 PM.
PLANNIN G CO MMISSI 0 N D ISCUSSI ON:
Commissioner Bagg: Asked if only the white script "B" (about 16' square) on a 24' red
square was deleted or was the background also deleted. The red square also needs to be
eliminated. Response (S.McPherson): Removed the white script "B" at the request of
staff, leaving the color to give continuity with the other store fronts. Commissioner Bagg:
The entrance treatments of the two retail facilities pick up the same blue or yellow "arch"
treatment that exists on the diagonal as the main entrance to the old Target store. The
fitness center is red. Proposed the existing entrance be in red rather than the big red squares
on either side of it and the white script "B" be placed on that red background above the
entry. This entrance is proposed to be tan. Response (S.McPherson): Did not want red
letters with a red storefront. To accommodate Bally's, could line the exteriors of the store
front in red. Asked if a smaller red script "B" could be allowed on a pewter background in
another area. Chair: Suggested 4' red script "B" instead ofthe proposed 16'. Would not
see this logo from the street -- would need to be in the parking lot. Response
(S.McPherson): Would be willing to propose that to the tenant. It would be better than
removing the red color and having just the flat pewter. Commissioner Bagg asked if the
horizontal red stripes in the plaster recesses would continue on over to the corner. Response
(S.McPherson): Yes.
Commissioner Grossman suggested a continuance so that the applicant can talk to the
tenants regarding a smaller, less obtrusive sign.
G:\MlNUTES/113098PC.MIN (12/17/98) 5
S. McPherson: Would be willing to suggest two different scenarios to the tenant: (1) A 4'
red script "B" on a pewter background in another area. (2) Paint the existing script "B"
logo area pewter and have the pewter continue over the store front. The tenant would have
a red sign over the door and could include the same 4' script "B" in that area. If that color
is offensive to the tenant, there would be the option to remove that color in its entirety.
Commissioner Bagg: There would be "Bally's Total Fitness" in red letters above the door.
The Chair and Commissioner Bagg noted the red square would be gone. Commissioner
Bagg: In addition, there would be a 4' high script "B" on the peweter wall. Would need to
determine how far the red lines would go. Suggested that the lines stop before interrupting
the red script "B". Response (Michael Comulada, 13650 Portofino Dr., Del Mar.
92014): The stripes are cement plaster reveals which die into the side where the storefront
diagonal pops out. Would need to stop the reveals before the script "B". Would need to
look at that relationship. A 4' script "B" would be a little lost in the square that is there
now. City Planner. Proposed that either option could be implemented with staff approval.
Commissioner Bagg: Upgrade materials above stucco: The tile front does give a certain
level of quality or expense that is not achieved by stucco of any color. At least at the three
entrances, asked for an upgrade of materials -- whether tile or something else. Without such
an upgrade, would be taking a step backwards in the quality the building presents.
Response (S.McPherson): Vastly improving what is there now by removing that cage-like
garden center and putting in landscaping. Also adding landscaping in the front of the
building. Commissioner Bagg: If the Commission believes that something of a higher
quality than stucco would be a good thing to do on those three entrances, could ask the
applicant to come back with a presentation. Chair: Suggested a combination of materials
to bring it up a few grades -- a combination of stucco and another material to enhance the
entrance. Response (M.Comulada): Stucco does not cheapen a building; used and treated
properly, it enhances the building. Doesn't feel adding tile or some other material to these
masses will do more than the elements of the project with the painted stucco. Will not
enhance the building to any great extent and it probably would be at a considerable cost.
Response (Chair): Could' support stucco and the color choices aside from the big red
square. Need to see drawings showing the colors.
CONSENSUS: Satisfied with the proposed colors and the material being stucco.
The Commission discussed the colors and suggested that the lighter blue be picked up in
the concrete below it on the north side. Would like to see something other than gray
concrete. Could be a color or an exposed aggregate. Response (S.McPherson): Hoped to
not demolish all of the concrete. Want continuity with the rest of the shopping center.
Chair: More interested in landscaping to soften the west side of the building. Take some
sidewalk out and put in more shrubbery and trees. Would need to see the proposed
landscaping before supporting Commissioner Bagg regarding enhanced sidewalks.
Response (M.Comulada): In creating parking next to the building, there is not much room
for sidewalks. Commissioner Bagg suggested eliminating some parking for landscaping.
The project proposes parking spaces on the west side. There is plenty of parking in this
center. The west side needs more landscaping. Response (S.McPherson): Could revisit to
G:\MINUTES/113098PC.MIN (12/17/98) 6
see if there is another way to add landscaping. A little bit hesitant in taking out the best
parking spaces. Would not modify the handicapped parking spaces up against the building.
Discussed concrete, trash enclosures (3), metal sides on plastic faced, internally lit signs
need to be the same color as the plastic, access to the self storage and hours of operation for
the self storage and the fitness center, improving the high wall on the south side and signage
on Encinitas Blvd. and signage on El Camino Real. S.McPherson: Noted that the
proposed Bally's hours are 5 AM to 12 Midnight Monday through Thursday; 5 AM to 10
PM Friday and 6 AM to 8 PM Saturday.
Response (S.McPherson): The self-storage tenant has submitted changes which include
keeping the two roll-up doors. The front door will be in the northeast area where the two
doors are on the plan, which, logically, should be the store front. The tenant is also
considering using a dock in the back of the building (not a part of this submittal). This will
be a secure, internal facility which will operate normal self-storage hours (7 AM to 7 PM
daily). There will not be a manager on site other than during business hours. The building
will be locked during off-hours. Chair: Pedestrian access will be at the end of the railings
(two doors). Commissioner Bagg: Adjacent residents may be used to the quiet since this
building has been empty a long time. A self-storage will not create the noise of the former
Target store. Commissioners Grossman, Bagg and the Chair suggested that this tenant
be at the next meeting regarding sign, landscaping, etc.
City Planner: Asked that building permits which have been submitted be allowed to be
processed -- but not finish the final coat of paint. Since remaining issues are cosmetic, the
Commission agreed to this proposal.
CONSENSUS: Building Permits (interior and exterior) can be issued once plan checks
are complete.
Sign (8'x8') on Encinitas Blvd. Commissioner Bagg does not support. The Chair
suggested signage be smaller and is concerned about the kind and size of the sign. The
Vice-Chair supports signage on Encinitas Blvd. This sign could be made quite nice. City
Planner: The Code reads that a tenant with 50,000 sq.ft. or greater and which does not
have direct street frontage, can have a sign as long as there is 75' offrontage. The frontage
is 65-70', but with a Use Permit and/or a Design Review Permit, the sign regulations can be
modified. Response (S.McPherson): The lessees want identity on Encinitas Blvd.
Response (M.Comulada): The sign would help identify that driveway. Commissioner
Bagg verified that the materials would be a cement plaster and stucco sign to match the
building with plastic faced internally illuminated letters. Returns of the can and faces will
be the same color. The colors would be restricted to red, blue and black on a neutral
background. Chair: Could go along with the current request for this sign.
CONSENSUS: To support the sign on Encinitas Blvd. as proposed.
Issues for next meeting as summarized by staff:
1. Self-storage: Exact location of entries/exits and hours. Representative(s)to attend next
meeting.
G:\MINUTES/113098PC.MIN (12/17/98) 7
2. Signage limited to a white background with red, blue and black with the cans and faces
being the same color.
3. Bally's signs, logos and facade/entrances changes and hours.
4. High wall on the south property line.
5. Additional landscaping on the west side of the building.
6. Sidewalk treatment.
7. Location of trash enclosures.
MOTION: Commissioner Bagg to continue Case No. 98-266 MUP/DR/CDP to December
14,1998, to address issues as listed above.
SECOND: Commissioner Grossman
VOTE: 4-0-1 (Wells Absent) (9:25 PM)
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR BY THE COMMISSION. None
PLANNING COMMISSION/DIRECTOR REPORTS
At the City Council meeting to be held December 1, 1998 at 7 PM, the new Council Members will
be seated and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor will be appointed.
ADJOURNMENT - 9:25 PM
NOTES:
Final action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council accompanied by a
$100 filing fee within fifteen (15) calendar days (10 calendar days for subdivision applications).
The action is not final until the end of the appeal period, or, if appealed, the end of City Council
reVIew.
Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge the nature ofthe proposed action
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Encinitas at,
or prior to, the public hearing.
Items 2, 3 and 4 are located within the coastal zone and require issuance of a regular Coastal
Development Permit. The actions of the Planning Commission relative to these items are not
appealable to the Coastal Commission.
G:\MINUTES/113098Pc.MIN (12/17/98) 8