1998-03-12
City of
Encinitas PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
AND MINUTES/SUMMARY
Civic Center - Council Chambers
Thursday, March 12, 1998, 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL. Alice Jacobson, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:10 PM.
Other Commissioners present: Frank M. "Rusty" Wells, Vice Chair; Lester H. Bagg, Anne Patton,
Robert E. Lanham. Staff Present: Bill Weedman, City Planner; Hans Jensen, Senior Civil Engineer;
Craig Olson, Associate Planner; Mark Hofinan, Planning Technician; Lea Kauflin, Administrative
Secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE led by Commissioner Lanham.
CWSING AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR
REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 2, 3
ADDED TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 8
CONSENT CALENDAR CLOSED AND ADOPTED AS AMENDED (Lanham/Patton)
VOTE: 5-0
1. Approval of Minutes for the Regular Meeting of January 8, 1998. Contact Person:
Administrative Secretary Lea Kauflin.
Approved on the Consent Calendar.
VOTE: 5-0
2. CASE NUMBER: 97-282 DR/CDP; FILING DATE: December 8,1997; APPLICANT:
Michael Galey; LOCA TION: Vacant lots on Ocean View Court; DESCRIPTION:
Design Review and Coastal Development Permit request for 4 detached single-family
residences on 4 vacant lots. Three of the homes are proposed to exceed the 26 foot
standard height limit, not to exceed 28 feet 8 inches high. ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: The project was previously found to be exempt from environmental review with
the approval of Tentative Parcel Map 89-034 on April 26, 1990 (Resolution No. OE-90-07)
as per Section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Miller,
Planning Technician.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Before public comment is received, disclose all outside
information and contacts upon which the decision will be based, receive public testimony
and adopt the draft Resolution approving Case No. 97-282 DR/CDP.
Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
TEL 760-633-2600 I FAX C"(,()-633-262- ')0') S Vulcan :"venuc. Encini¡as. California ')202~-,6.i.; TDD 7('()-635-2C"OU ~ recycled paper
Public Hearing opened at 7: 19 PM
Richard Nesdale, 351 Ocean View Ave., representing neighbors. Suggested that the
garage doors be on the side of the homes to maintain the style of the neighborhood.
Currently all the homes are custom. Newer homes have a certain style which is very
attractive (Ocean View Estates). These homes will look like beautiful expensive tract
homes. Applauds the variations in specific design motifs. Three-car garages are not
particularly attractive. Realigning the garage doors would increase curb appeal and should
net a 10% increase in price. Have no problem with the height issue.
Mile Galey, 1422 Harbor Ct., Leucadia. The garage locations of the front two lots are
oriented toward Ocean View Court with the front doors oriented toward Ocean View
Avenue. Most people like a backyard for outdoor activities/recreation. With a driveway to
the back, there would not be an area for recreation and entertainment. Design is sensitive
toward how the community is going to look. These are not typical tract homes and will be
an asset to the neighborhood. Commissioner Lanham asked if he felt changing the garage
doors would add $50,000 to the homes. Response (M.Galey): No.
Public Hearing closed at 7:25 PM.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Patton asked if the same wooden fencing as exits on Arbor Hills Estates
would be used on this project. Response (M.Galey): The fencing for this project will be
the same wood fencing, but will be stained.
Commissioner Bagg made the following comments which apply to both Items 2 and 3: AU
four sides being "similarly treated" is what is desired (Condition DR2, page 2-12). On
Item 3, the back side of the three houses up on a hill can be seen from Rancho Santa Rd. On
Item 2, do need to consider the neighbors. The elements featured on the front (window
treatments) should be included to the same degree on the rear of the homes. The revised
plans have not gone far enough. The Chair asked if the word "substantially" needs to be
removed from Condition DR2. City Planner: This is a standard condition approved by the
Commission. Commissioner Bagg is asking that the Commission be able to see the
elevations for the sides and rear before it is approved to verify the architectural treatments.
Could appoint a subcommittee to review the plans before building permits are issued.
Commissioner Lanham stated support for this review to be done by a subcommittee.
Commissioner Patton: Impressed with Arbor Hills Estates and how the houses do not
look alike -- would like to have seen a little more treatment on some of the sides. Disturbed
to see all the wood fencing exactly the same. Response (M.Galey): Arbor Hills Estates:
Each homeowner could put in their own fencing if a different style. Design Review
required privacy fencing to be same style. Also submitted on this project, but will not
requiring the same fence for all houses.
M.Galey: Window treatments: Changes made to all of the side elevations. Did not put
shutters on the back elevations for a couple of the plans because there are many different
windows not oriented above each other, they are not symmetrical. With shutters, the backs
G:\MINUTES\031298PC.DR (04/03/98) 2
would be very busy. Did add some window treatments to the backs: sills and headers,
pop outs, etc. Did not put window grids on the back elevations (and even on some side
elevations). People do like a view through an unobstructed window. Did not add pot
shelves -- would be too busy. Other comments were respected. Sides of the houses which
are visible match the fronts. Tried to leave the backs, which are privacy areas, with only the
main architectural details but not with all the shutters, grids, etc. Commissioner Bagg:
Agrees to not adding grids, but in OIivenhain where there is a long view, those designs
which have shutters and other features on the front need those features on the back also.
Commissioner Wells supports subcommittee review of the changes. The Chair asked
M. Galey if he is willing to meet with a subcommittee to work out a little more satisfactory
position. Commissioner Bagg: If the applicant agrees to put shutters and pot shelves on
the back of all buildings which have shutters and/or pot shelves, there would be no need for
the subcommittee. Commissioner Patton added that the fencing needs to be amended to
allow variety. Response (M.Galey): Can state that the fence will not be same design as
Arbor Hills and can come up with a more creative fence design. There are only three fences
which will be put in at this point. Will not require the homeowners to put in the same style
of fencing. Agreed to conditions as articulated by Commissioners Bagg and Patton. City
Planner: Add Condition SCB on page 2-11 and on page 3-10: Fences in the private yard
areas shall be of a varied design.
MOTION: Commissioner Lanham to approve Case No. 97-282 DR/CDP as amended: As
stated above, additional features on the sides and rears of the homes and
amending the fencing requirement to allow for variety.
SECOND: Commissioner Wells
VOTE: 5-0
3. CASE NUMBER: 98-015 DR; FILING DATE: January 27, 1998; APPLICANT:
Michael Galey; LOCATION: 13th Street, North of Rancho Santa Fe Road;
DESCRIPTION: Design Review application to allow 3 detached single family dwellings
to exceed the standard height envelope to a maxImum height of 30 feet.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt from environmental review as per
Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. STAFF CONTACT: Jim Kennedy, Junior
Planner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Before public comment is received, disclose all outside
information and contacts upon which the decision will be based, receive public testimony
and adopt the draft Resolution approving Case No. 98-015 DR.
Modifications to the draft resolution:
Page 3-10, Condition SCB: Fences in the private yard areas shall be of a varied design.
Page 3-11: Add Standard Condition L2 (see page 2-12) after Standard Condition G7.
Page 3-9, Discussion, first paragraph: Height corrected by staff for one of the homes.
MOTION: Commissioner Bagg to approve Case No. 98-015 DR as amended: As stated
above, additional features on the sides and rears of the homes and amending
the fencing requirement to allow for variety.
Discussion: Staff review before issuance of building permits will assure that the
amended conditions have been met.
G:\MINUTES\031298PC.DR (04/03/98) 3
--------- - - -
SECOND: Commissioner Patton
VOTE: 5-0
4. CASE NUMBER: 97-229 MUP/CDP; FILING DA TE: January 14, 1998;
APPLICANT: Pacific Bell Mobile Services; LOCA TION: 111 "C" Street;
D ESCRIPTI 0 N: Major Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit request for
installation of a cellular facility and flag on a pole (replacing an existing flag pole to be
removed). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt from environmental
reVIew as per Section 15311 of the CEQA Guidelines. STAFF CONTACT: Tom
Curriden, Senior Planner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Before public comment is received, disclose all outside
information and contacts upon which the decision will be based, receive public testimony
and adopt the draft Resolution approving Case No. 97-229 MUP/CDP.
Commissioner Bagg asked about decreasing the diameter of the pole beginning a third of
the way up so that it more closely resembles a flag pole.
Susan Gregg, 6170 Cornerstone Ct., San Diego 92121, representing Pacific Bell
Mobile Services. The same diameter (10.34") the whole length accommodates cabling for
the three antennas. Each antenna has two cables -- all housed within the pole. The cabling
for raising the flag is also inside the pole. The radome, with a diameter of approximately
16", houses the antennas and will look larger if the pole's diameter is reduced. Response
(Commissioner Bagg): Would rather have the cables on the inside rather than a thinner
pole with some cabling on the outside, but, perhaps the diameter could be reduced.
Response (S.Gregg): Will look into reducing the diameter some. Commissioner
Lanham asked if the pole and the 5'6" base transceiver cabinet will be on this property.
Response (S.Gregg): The equipment cabinet will be adjacent to the front of the building
painted the same colors. Commissioner Wells: Would the diameter of the pole have
something to do with the structural support? Response (S.Gregg): To protect the signal,
cannot have any movement of the pole. The flag will cause some wind load which could
cause some movement if the structure is not solid.
Approved on the Consent Calendar.
VOTE: 5-0
5. CASE NUMBER: 97-280 MUP-MOD/DR/CDP; FILING DATE: December 4, 1997;
APPLICANT: St. Andrews Episcopal Church; LOCA TION: 890 Balour Drive;
DESCRIPTION: Major Use Permit Modification, Design Review Permit and Coastal
Development Permit requests to remodel an existing church facility to add 3,325 square feet
to the sanctuary, 1,500 square feet to the daycare facility, and 1,000 square feet of office
space (5,825 square feet total). ENVIRONMENTAL STA TUS: Exempt from
environmental review as per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines since less than
10,000 square feet of additional area is being added to an existing facility. STAFF
CONTACT: Craig Olson, Associate Planner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Before public comment is received, disclose all outside
information and contacts upon which the decision will be based, receive public testimony,
and adopt the draft Resolution approving Case No. 97-280 MUP-MOD/DR/CDP.
Approved on the Consent Calendar.
G:\MlNUTES\031298PC.DR (04/03/98) 4
VOTE: 5-0
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR BY THE PUBLIC
See Items 2 and 3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
REGULAR AGENDA
6. CASE NUMBER: 98-004 DR; FILING DATE: January 9, 1998; APPLICANT:
Keystone CommunitiesIDon Williamson; LOCATION: 2600 Block of Lone Jack Road;
DESCRIPTION: Design Review Permit request for 10 single family residences within the
Stratford Knoll subdivision. Two lots fronting onto Lone Jack Road are proposed to be
placed into an open space easement for the drainage channel and recreational trail
improvements. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was
adopted for the Tentative Map on April 25, 1989 (Resolution No. PC-89-16) as per CEQA
Guidelines. STAFF CONTACT: Craig Olson, Associate Planner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is anticipated that the Subcommittee will reach an
agreement with the applicant on the design issues discussed above and will recommend that
the Commission adopt the draft Resolution of Approval as conditioned by staff.
Subcommittee Report presented at 7:45 PM by Commissioner Bagg. The subcommittee
met twice with the applicant and received some revised drawings which were a little difficult
to adequately review in the meeting. The applicant agreed additional enhancements would
be appropriate: shutters, pot shelves, etc. as shown on the revised drawings. Given the
expanded difference of appearance of the homes, the condition that no two floor plans be
adjacent or across the street from each other should be removed. Condition SCD (page 6-
10) will read: "No two structures with the same architectural style or color scheme
may be placed 'immediately adjacent to or across the street from each other." Moving
the ends of the pipes inboard, hopefully 2' if structurally feasible, will make the access to
the tract appear to be a bridge. Engineering Services is satisfied with the appearance of the
bridge and the safety features. Response (Sr.Civii Engineer): The railing as discussed for
Lone Jack Road will be smooth on the inside. The head wall and end wall for that set of
pipes can be done. Commissioner Bagg: Suggested the same masonry as is being used
on a project under construction on Cedros Street, almost to Via de la Valle. This is a very
nice artificial stone with a dry-laid appearance. Commissioner Patton complimented the
applicant on their innovative design ideas and cooperation with the subcommittee.
MOTION: Commissioner Wells to approve Case No. 98-004 DR with modifications made in
subcommittee.
SECOND: Commissioner Lanham
VOTE: 5-0
BREAK AT 7:55 PM; RECONVENED 8:10 PM.
7. CASE NUMBER: 97-275 ADR/CDP; FILING DA TE: December 3, 1997;
APPLICANT: Ray 1. Evans; LOCA TION: 110 Verdi Avenue; DESCRIPTION:
Administrative Design Review and Coastal Development Permit request to exceed the 26
foot maximum height standard by a maximum of 6 inches for three skylights located atop a
G:\MINUTES\031298PC.DR (04/03/98) 5
barrel roof of an existing single family residence. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Exempt from environmental review as per Section 15303(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Hofinan, Planning Technician.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Before public comment is received, disclose all outside
information and contacts upon which the decision will be based, receive public testimony
and adopt the draft Resolution approving Case No. 97-275 ADR/CDP.
Staff Report presented at 8: 10 PM. The actual height difference is somewhere between
1.5" and 3.5". The applicant is asking for a maximum of 6". The issue is whether the three
skylights preserve some of the view enjoyed by the adjacent properties. Commissioner
Lanham referred the Commission to the packet prepared by "Neighbors". Testimony
tonight should be held to design review of the 6". Need to schedule another meeting for all
the policy problems raised -- these procedural problems need to be addressed. Most of these
items would be forwarded to the City Council with a Planning Commission
recommendation. Commissioner Patton: Because of the number of requests to exceed
height limitations, the Commission needs to hold a general discussion on height limits. City
Planner: Material received the day of the meeting does not allow time for Commission or
staff review. This is not a variance; the findings cited are not appropriate. This item
referred to the Planning Commission because of controversy; normally it would be a staff
decision. Commissioner Bagg: How height is measured needs to be addressed. Need to
separate this project from the overall issues of height. The Chair asked the City Planner to
schedule a special meeting (workshop) to discuss these items. This hearing is regarding the
skylights and the finding the Commission needs to make.
Bob Bonde, 1620 Haydn Dr., Cardiff 92007. Every item in this blue packet ("Neighbors"
packet) was sent to staff December 13, 1997 when it was asked that a special hearing on
these very same items be set. These skylights revolve around building heights. They were
added without permit. The applicant is asking the Planning Commission to legalize illegal
installations. A few inches make a big difference in a view (ocean) corridor. Commissioner
Bagg asked if there would be a problem without the skylights. Response (B.Bonde):
Don't know. The first two survey reports were rejected after neighbors pointed out
inconsistencies within those submittals. Some of the elevation points come from improved
areas -- on top of patio slabs and driveways. These are not natural points from which the
Code calls for measurements to take place. Need a method by which the City can double
check a contested certification. Suggested the skylights be put off until after the workshop.
Commissioner Patton: Page 7-4, third paragraph: Need to determine if some of the
significant views enjoyed by residents of nearby properties are preserved. Prepared to
discuss the 3.5" and views. Staff (Planning Technician): There is a height certification
for the building which is just under 26' and there is another height certification for the
skylight being just over 26'. The method of measurement is what is contested.
Commissioner Bagg asked what the difference is if using the absolute lowest point to
measure the skylights. Response (Planning Technician): Less than 6". Commissioner
Bagg: Noted that even if the skylights were 4' wide (not the case), the issue is 1.5" high for
only 12'. The Commission needs to determine if some of the neighbors' significant views
are preserved.
Public Hearing opened at 8:25 PM.
G:\MINUTES\031298PC.DR (04/03/98) 6
~
Ray Evans, 110 Verdi, Cardiff 92007. Never intended to go 1" over the standard. The
house was brought down as required. Did everything possible to stay within the height
limits of the Municipal Code.
Pat Harris, 1605 Summit Ave., Cardiff 92007. His view not affected. The Evans
variance application should be rejected for several reasons. They did their utmost to destroy
neighbors' views when they could have done otherwise. Proper measurements should have
been taken at the beginning. Why did Bob Bonde have to become their enemy? Why did
the City not pursue the correct measurements in the beginning?
Bob Bonde. Showed a picture of the Rutherford view over the Evans house prior to
construction (see page 3 of the packet). Sitting in the living room, looking through the
window, the ocean view is almost totally blocked. There were a multitude of ways this
project could have been constructed which would not have absolutely destroyed the
Rutherford's ocean view. They have lost a substantial portion of their view because of this
project with the skylights barreling across the roof The predominant feature is these
approximately 4'x6' skylights, black in color, and now on a light colored salmon roof,
creating a major problem during daylight hours. With lights burning from dark until dawn,
not only do they lose their daytime view, but they lose their night time view as well. This
issue ought to be considered.
Commissioner Lanham asked if they have another view. Response (B.Bonde): Their
other view is not the sunset view. It is off to the south. Commissioner Lanham: They do
have another view. Bob Bonde: There is a small house down below which will be
remodeled, too. Hope that story poles could be considered in this discussion. They are
required for new construction. They should be required for major remodels that approach
26' so neighbors know what is going on. During this project there were four major building
permits and four modifications to the permits. Any addition to the top of that 26' is, in the
neighbors' opinion, going to set a precedent, Any modifications over that 26' need to come
to the Planning Commission so that at least the public has an opportunity to speak.
Otherwise, decisions are made by staff without public review in a forum setting. Information
can be submitted but nothing is scheduled unless citizens put forth the request to have that
information brought before the Planning Commission. Unfair that only the 1.5" can be
addressed at this hearing.
Dennis Cole, 1571 Summit Ave., Cardiff 92007. Seems some Commissioners have made
up their mind -- 1.5" could be 1.5 feet because of the way measurement of this building was
done. Two measurements were rejected and there was a question about the third
measurement. Before this is approved, the City should have the applicant pay for an
independent person to measure the height of that building or the City should have the ability
to go out and measure the building.
Commissioner Lanham: The Commission can only deal with the issue in front of it -- the
6". It is within the purview of the Commission to make a determination between 26' and
30'. The only standard is whether or not some significant views of the neighbors are
maintained. In this instance, they are. Response (D.Cole): House not measured correctly;
do not approve until the house is measured correctly. Those skylights face his house. Used
to be able to look out at the ocean at night. Now see the skylights lit up. Commissioner
Lanham: Do you still have some significant view? Response (D.Cole): Oh, sure.
G:\MINUTES\031298PC.DR (04/03/98) 7
Absolutely. This application should not be approved since the Commission does not know
if the house is measured correctly. Commissioner Lanham: That is the standard that has
to be applied. Even if measured incorrectly and it was 2' or 28', as long some significant
views are enjoyed by the neighbors, the Commission would still approve it. Response
(D.Cole): You do not have to approve it? Commissioner Lanham: No, the Planning
Commission doesn't have to approve it. Not going to shut down a house for 1.5".
Response (D.Cole): I don't think it is 1.5". I don't think we know what it is.
Meg Kleeb, 1647 Haydn Dr., Cardiff 92007. The Rutherfords have lost a significant
amount of property value. A great guideline is 26'. Staff should not have discretion to add
four more feet -- four more feet can substantially affect a view. You may say 3" won't, but
4' will make a difference. Remodeled three years ago and stayed strictly within the Code
(26'). Preserving the neighborhood and character of Cardiff is important. View is
minimally affected -- white water view affected a little bit. Asked the audience how many
views affected (10-12 people raised hands). Setting a very unusual precedent -- three
properties directly west of her are waiting for this decision. The next people will want the
4'. A view preservation ordinance is needed in this community. A simple solution is to
slide the skylights down the roof so they do not protrude above the ridge. They should not
be above the 26' unless there is a safety, fire, health or other "burning" reason. Need to
hold firm to preserve Cardiff as a very special place.
Ed Obermeyer, 930 Woodgrove Dr., Cardiff 92007. Staff reports refers to 6". Asked if
the Planning Commissioners have been inside any of the homes to see how the skylights
affect the views. Skylights could be placed lower on the roof As property values soar and
owners attempt to squeeze every last inch out of the construction envelope, it is imperative
that development standards be clear and complete. It is also critical that the City have an
independent method to verify measurements and not to have to rely solely upon a
developer's honesty. Support suggestions made by "Neighbors". In the absence of the
Community Advisory Boards, the Planning staff needs to take a more active role in
encouraging developers to seriously consider view corridors and to have more empathy for
neighbors. As older, smaller homes give way to megaboxes, the City must take a leadership
role in helping people cope with progress. By maximizing every inch of height, even to the
extent of adding parapet walls to the tops of gabled roofs, they did not leave themselves
enough room to add skylights. Now they want to legalize their illegal act of building
without a permit. In the race to the sky, say "No" to the foxes that outfox themselves and
"Yes" to an involved planning process and staff. The Commission needs to look at this
request very carefully.
Commissioner Lanham asked the applicant about sliding the skylights down. Response
(R.Evans): Didn't want to bring this up because, possibly, it might mean another survey.
The picture shows workman on the roof (blue packet), but they had to rotate the skylights
down the roof at least 4-6" because the skylights were too small. Wasn't going to bring the
skylights down because of the cost and the time factor (couple of months). Feels the
skylights are either at 26' or a fraction of an inch over 26'. Depends upon where it is
surveyed. Bob Bonde figured out that one spot on the west side of the house goes above
26' because of the slope of the lot.
Public Hearing closed at 9:00 PM.
G:\MINUTES\031298PC.DR (04/03/98) 8
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Issue of Measurement. The City Planner stated the applicant is required to retain a
qualified State certified engineer or licensed land surveyor. If false information submitted,
the City can so advise the State. Staff (Planning Technician): One surveyor surveyed the
project three times. First, there was a question about the appropriate spot to measure. After
site visits, met with the applicant and the surveyor. The height survey then showed the
height as under 26'. Sr.Civil Engineer: The original ground is not well defined. This is a
rebuild of an existing building that has been there many years. The reasonable thing would
have been for the original ordinance to have stated "use the slab". The dirt around the slab
changes. It is a matter of interpretation of the City ordinance. Would like to change it
because it doesn't work -- leads to animosity. The surveyor did not cheat -- he didn't
know better -- we didn't tell him any better. Commissioner Patton: In this case, to the
best of your knowledge, would it have made any difference? Response (Sr. Civil
Engineer): I don't believe so because of the way it started. A November survey states one
of the skylights is 2" high (done before the skylight was moved down). We do not know
where it is now. Commissioner Wells: When the surveyor came out at different times,
staff was telling him the different points from which to measure. Response (Planning
Technician): The initial height certifications were for the other structures. There was only
one height certification for the actual skylights. The original height certifications were for
the tower, the master bedroom, etc.
MOTION: Commissioner Patton to approve Case No. 97-275 ADR/CDP, request to exceed
the height limit by 6".
SECOND: Commissioner Lanham based on what is before Planning Commission. There are
significant views left for every neighbor.
VOTE: 5-0
Overall Issues: The Chair stated support for better parameters for measurement and view
corridors, etc. At the next meeting (March 17, 1998) a date will be set to discuss these
issues. The City Planner recommended a workshop to address height issues.
Commissioner Lanham: Need to set a date certain to review the things that have been
brought up in the packet submitted by the "Neighbors" and any other things related to those
Issues. The staff, Commission and public will be better prepared to discuss these issues.
Most items would involve a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City
Council. Commissioner Patton: It is not just Cardiff -- it is a city-wide issue. A thorough
discussion of how height is measured for the entire City is needed. City Planner: Will
agendize this item for discussion. The normal way to address these issues would be through
a Zoning Code amendment. A number of amendments are currently being prepared with a
time frame of about 3-5 months. Could have a workshop on just height measurement
issues. Would then ask the City Council to authorize the processing of any Zoning Code
amendments.
CONSENSUS - A workshop date is to be set at the March 17, 1998 meeting. (9:15 PM)
8. CASE NUMBER: 97-215 AN/TPMÆIA; FILING DATE: September 16, 1997;
APPLICANT: Gary Bukamier / Pasco Engineering; LOCA TION: Easterly terminus of
Dove Hollow Road; DESCRIPTION: Annexation request to be included in the corporate
G:\MINUTES\031298PC.DR (04/03/98) 9
boundaries of the City and Cardiff Sanitation District and a Tentative Parcel Map to
subdivide the 10.06 acre parcel into two single family residential lots (in excess of 2 acres
each) and a 5.7 acre open space lot. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Environmental
Initial Assessment (EIR) has been prepared for the project as per CEQA Guidelines. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. STAFF CONTACT: Craig
Olson, Associate Planner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Before public comment is received, disclose all outside
information and contacts upon which the decision will be based, receive public testimony
and recommend that the City Council adopt the draft Resolution approving Case No. 97-
215 ANITPMÆIA.
Approved on the Consent Calendar.
VOTE: 5-0
9. CASE NUMBER: 97-219 TMÆIA; FILING DATE: September 19, 1997;
APPLICANT: Chris Lloyd/Conway Engineering; LOCATION: 2572 Lone Jack Road;
DESCRIPTION: Tentative Map to subdivide a 41.29 acre parcel into 12 single family
residential lots (in excess of 2 acres each). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: An
Environmental Initial Assessment has been prepared for the project pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. STAFF
CONTACT: Craig Olson, Associate Planner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Before public comment is received, disclose all outside
information and contacts upon which the decision will be based, receive public testimony
and adopt the draft Resolution approving Case No. 97-219 TMÆIA.
Staff Report presented at 9: 15 PM. Main issue is a recreational trail.
Page 9-12, Condition. SCF:
1) Add after the first sentence. "The property owner/developer shall improve the
recreational trail during the first phase of the map's development in accordance with
the City's Trail Standards in effect at the time the grading permit is issued."
2) End of second sentence: Change "Community Development Department" to "to the
standards in effect at the time the first grading permit is issued for the site."
Page 9-11: Delete Condition SCA. The lot line is existing and is not being created or
moved by the tentative map's design. The structural encroachment is outside of the
map's boundaries.
Page 9-15, Condition H2, Affordable Housing: Commissioner Lanham asked if this
condition would be met by an accessory unit. Response (Associate Planner): Usually
met by an accessory unit.
Public Recreational Trails: Present easements reviewed and possible west-to-east linkage
options discussed (see page 9-2). The Sr.Civii Engineer stated that the IOD was to be for
the road with 10' for a trail (vacating IODs for roads before City Council May 13). Can
ask the City Council to retain the trail portion of the IOD.
Public Hearing opened at 9:30 PM.
Chris Lloyd, 2572 Lone Jack Rd. Prefer the Double LL Ranch Road alignment for the
trail. Others alignments, though simple in some respects, compromise the subdivision. This
is the trail people are using. If the easements needed cannot be obtained, forcing the trail to
G:\MINUTES\031298Pc.DR (04/03/98) 10
one of the more northerly alignments, the subdivision will be compromised even more.
Would probably object to all-weather crossings that may be proposed which could delay
this project. The City needs to do all within its power to obtain the Double LL Ranch Road
alignment. Commissioner Lanham proposed a modification to Condition SCF (page 9-
12) to state "whatever the City's trail standards are at this time". Response (C.Lloyd):
Would accept this condition if it were "set in stone" that only a "fa~r weather" crossing is
attached to this map.
Commissioner Patton asked about negotiating with owners of Parcels 2 and 4 of Parcel
Map 17446 (second paragraph, page 9-2). Response (Associate Planner): Would need to
do so only if unable to retain a portion of the IOD (City Council action 5/13/98).
Doug Goad, 2921 Lone Jack Rd. The third alignment along Lot 12 is an important link
that can be accomplished very quickly and easily to create a loop. Would simplify the trail
issues in that part of the city. Cannot resolve a trail issue which depends on future actions
of the City Council, but could add a substantial benefit to that corner and to the overall
Trails Master Plan by adding that third option along Lot 12. Favors "see through fences"
(to be addressed during Design Review).
Babala DeMasters, 1180 Via Di Felicita, President of the Encinitas Trails Coalition.
The Double LL Ranch Road would be the preferred connection -- has been accessible
"pretty much" all year. Would need a guaranteed easement to connect with Carlsbad.
Don't want to risk not having an east/west crossing because of the section without
easements. Pointed out the two trail options which would be acceptable. Asked about the
standards for a "fair weather" crossing. It would be wonderful to have both trails options.
Public Hearing closed at 9:40 PM.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
City Planner asked about a gate across Double LL Ranch Road and if the trail would be
impacted. Response (Sr.Civil Engineer): The Council approved a tentative application;
have not seen the plans for the gate, but there would be a pedestrian/horse opening on the
side. Neighbors coming in with an application. Associate Planner: If a trail easement is
provided along Lone Jack Road, the City would not preclude public access to a public trail.
Chair: The Planning Commission can't guarantee that access; is a City Council decision.
Chris Lloyd: The trail along Lot 12 is preferred for one neighborhood and then other
neighbors want the Double LL Ranch Road alignment. Ludicrous to ask for both trails. The
City needs to be consistent now that we know it is going to be a private street and
vigorously seek out that alignment. Stated he would build this trail if reasonable.
Recreational trails belong off the street. An "all weather" crossing will be scrutinized by
Fish & Game and should not be required at this time. Feels the Double L Ranch Road
alignment will be worked out and the "all weather" crossing will not be needed. Would not
be fair to tie this project to that horse trail and lose the preferred alignment because of the
jeopardy of the "all weather" crossing.
Commissioner Patton asked if there would be a reason why the City Council might not
leave an IOD for the trail. Response (Sr.Civil Engineer): The City Council may want that
G:\MINUTES\O31298Pc.DR (04/03/98) 11
trail and say the City will vacate the IOD as a public thoroughfare except for the 12' for the
trail. Make the Double LL Ranch Road alignment a requirement of the map and see what
the City Council will do but do not delay this map. Associate Planner: The current interim
trail standards only require rock and gravel crossing of creeks at grade. May be requiring
"all weather" crossings on creeks through the Trails Master Plan. Sr.Civii Engineer: The
standards at the time of the tentative map approval would apply.
Commissioner Lanham: Need to state that the Double LL Ranch Road alignment is
preferred if the connection can be obtained at no cost. If not possible, could fall back to the
third option with a "fair weather" crossing which cannot be changed after the tentative map
is approved. C.Lloyd: Verified that there would be a "fair weather" crossing with the
assumption that the easements would be obtained. Associate Planner: California Fish &
Game and the U. S. Fish & Wildlife have reviewed the Double LL Ranch Road alignment.
They have not reviewed the alternate trail by Lot 12, but there is no identification of
resources or biological habitat in that area.
Modified Condition SCF (page 9-12): "The Final Map shall record the recreational trail to
be dedicated to connect existing trail easements along Lone Jack Road and the City's
boundary with Carlsbad as approved by the Planning Commission. The property
owner/developer shall improve the recreational trail during the first phase of the
map's development in accordance with the City's trail standards in effect at the time
of tentative map approval. The portion of the Lone Jack Road recreational trail on Lot 11
where it crosses the creek shall be improved to be a "fair weather" crossing of the creek in
accordance the standards in effect at the time of tentative map approval. As agreed
to by the applicant, the recreational trail link may be shown on the Final Map to be
provided on Lot 12 and the northeast corner of Lot 7 if the Double LL Ranch Road
alignment is not feasible after demonstration of a good faith effort to obtain the
necessary easements." (Changes in Bold.)
MOTION: Commissioner Lanham to approve 97-219 TM/EIA modifying Condition SCF as
stated in the paragraph above. Condition SCA on page 9-11 to be deleted.
SECOND: Commissioner Bagg
VOTE: 5-0 (10:00 PM)
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR BY mE COMMISSION - None
PLANNING COMMISSION/DIRECTOR REPORTS
Compliance: Three projects need review: (1) Chevron Station on Encinitas Blvd. - Design items not
installed. (2) Home Depot outdoor uses. Conditions state no outdoor merchandising. (3) Pacific Q
outdoor area. Railings are in but not planters.
CONSENSUS - To be scheduled.
Other items:
1. Gates - Gated communities need to be revisited. Concerned about a network of private roads which
have a gate. Commissioner Lanham mentioned that gates were to be considered on a site specific
basis. It was also mentioned there is no reason for a gate if a fence is not present.
G:\MlNUTES\031298PC.DR (04/03/98) 12
2. Freeway Signs - Need to check with the State regarding signs on the freeway. Sr. Civil Engineer
stated there will be a report on this issue.
3. Encinitas Ranch Subcommittee Updates to be agendized when there is something substantial to
report. Asked for feedback on Quail Run and what used to be MacKinnon Ranch.
4. West Saxony Planning Area, D.R.Horton - Commissioner Wells asked for an update on this
development. City Planner: A report will be made to the Planning Commission.
5. Field Trip Suggested: The City Planner suggested a field trip of projects under construction and
already built -- would need to be noticed as a meeting.
ADJOURNMENT - 10: 15 PM
Adjourned to the Special Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, March 17, 1998 at 7:00
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 of the 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, 4, 5 and 7 are located within the coastal zone and require issuance of a regular Coastal
Development Permit. The action of the Planning Commission in reference to the Coastal Development
Permit is not appealable to the Coastal Commission.
G:\MINUTES\031298Pc.OR (04/03/98) 13