Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-10; Housing Commission; Minutes (2)Minutes of: HOUSING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE REGULAR MEETING JULY 10, 1997 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Schlehuber called the Special Meeting to order at 7: 12 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairperson Schlehuber, Commissioners, Escobedo, Latas, Noble, Rose, Scarpelli, Walker, and Wellman Absent: Commissioner Calverley Staff Present: Evan Becker, Housing and Redevelopment Director Craig Ruiz, Management Analyst Bobbi Nunn, Housing Program Manager Elaine Blackbum, Project Planner COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. NEW BUSINESS: 1. BROOKFIELD MEADOWS - Application to satisfy Inclusionary Housing requirement with four (4) second dwelling units. Evan Becker said that this project is being presented to the Commission in the way of a Special Meeting because the project is of a size that got caught up in the City Attorney’s determination that the Housing Commission should hear it. In addition, there is a time limit on the project for which it has to be processed under the Subdivision Map Act. Mr. Becker reviewed the background of the request and stated that this project is similar to what the Commission had just considered with Pacific View, Le., similar size second dwelling units. He said that the Inclusionary Housing requirement is proposed to be satisfied with four lots that would include second dwelling units and a fractional fee to be paid of .35 of a unit. Mr. Becker described the second dwelling units as 393 square feet, second-floor studio units, with private exterior entrances appropriate for seniors or a single-person household. Their parking is satisfied by tandem parking in the driveways of the primary units. The affordability restriction is the same as described in the previous project and as required by the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance which is a rent that is affordable to an income level that is low income or 80 percent of the area median income. In addition, the lots are identified by way of the Site Development Plan approval, and they would be constructed concurrent with the market rate units. Staff believes that these units meet the Housing Commission Guidelines. The size is seven square feet below the minimum guideline, which relates to the discussion the Commission had about the units being located on the second floor where there is not an exact 20 x 20 dimension in all cases. In addition, the project is dealing with some significant constraints in terms of the property and the subdivision. Chairperson Schlehuber asked if there were any questions of the Staff. Mr. Becker stated that questions about the project could be addressed to Elaine Blackbum, Project Planner. Commissioner Wellman asked Ms. Blackbum about tandem parking. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES July 10, 1997 Page 2 Ms. Blackburn responded that tandem parking is where the required parking space for the second dwelling unit is provided in front of the garage. The Inclusionary Housing regulations do allow the parking space for the second dwelling unit to be provided in a tandem manner when there is a 20-foot setback in the front yard to ensure that the parked vehicle does not extend into the street. Ms. Blackbum added that the owner of the primary unit may prefer to park one car in the garage and another in the driveway and let the tenant use the other garage space for their car. Commissioner Wellman asked whether the tenants will be allowed to use the amenities. Ms. Blackburn responded that the use of the amenities would probably be regulated by the governing documents, Le., the CC&Rs and the Homeowners’ Rules and Regulations. The annexation of this project into the existing homeowners’ association could involve some rule changes if the developer of this project and the homeowners’ association board decided that they were necessary. If it came down to whether the residents of the second dwelling units have a legal right to the amenities, that would probably be a private matter between the association and the property owners that may take an attorney’s interpretation. If it was desired, it could be made a specific part of any rules and regulations, which would take a vote by the membership of the homeowners’ association. Ms. Blackburn added that the City does not have the right nor desire to enforce private contracts, which homeowners’ association regulations are. The City will enforce any rules and regulations that the City applies to a project. Commissioner Scarpelli asked if the Brookfield Homeowners’ Association is in existence and is in control of a board. Ms. Blackburn responded that this 29-primary unit parcel is part of a larger project that was proposed quite a few years ago, and the majority of the project was built. The homeowners’ association does govern over the portion of the project that has been built. Commissioner Wellman asked about the annexation of the project. Ms. Blackburn responded that in order for this project to get building permits, the developer has to achieve the annexation into the association. The City’s Planned Unit Development regulations require a certain amount of yard spaces, etc., but also allows some flexibility when there are PUDs immediately adjacent, provided the one with the recreation facilities actually has enough facilities based on ordinance requirements to provide enough for the additional development, and in this case they do. Commissioner Latas asked if PUD non-compliance issues stated in the original report to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 1996 (CT 9604PUD) have been resolved. Ms. Blackbum responded that these were some policy issues that only the Council had discretion over, and the Council has heard the project and feels the developer has satisfied the intent of their policies and therefore they voted to have Staff develop the Conditions for Approval. The reason this project went forward with a Staff recommendation for denial, was that Staff was applying the criteria of the policy, but Council has the flexibility to decide which specific elements of Council policy are to be fully applied and where they have some flexibility; and the reality is they do not delegate that flexibility to Staff or Planning Commission. Chairperson Schlehuber asked if this is the same developer as with the original development. Ms. Blackbum responded that no, it is not. Chairperson Schlehuber invited the applicant to speak. Ken Discenza, Site Design Associates (engineer for Okon Development) 7863 La Mesa Boulevard, Suite 20 1, La Mesa, 9 1941, addressed the Commission regarding the questions that were brought up. Regarding the tandem parking, HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES July 10, 1997 Page 3 Mr. Discenza stated that three of the four units (Units 10,20, and 2 1) have a wide enough driveway in front of the garage that they are not in tandem with the garage door, with a separate space on the side of the garage for parking. The fourth unit (#14) has an extremely long driveway in relation to the rest of the project, so that the parked car would not have to be right up against the garage with room to maneuver a car around it. The developer’s intention was not to have tandem parking in front of the garage door. In regard to the recreation and homeowners’ association, Mr. Discenza stated that the developer is in negotiations with the homeowners’ association. The developer has not requested a vote from the current association. Each one of the residents will have to vote on the annexation to bring this project in. The CC&Rs are on the project already and these four units would be mentioned in the CC&Rs as having full membership and full benefit of the homeowners’ association. They do participate in the use of the recreation facilities, and would have to have clearance before anything is annexed into their homeowners’ association. That is part of the negotiations and CC&Rs that have not been completed as of yet. The low-income tenant would have the ability to use all of the facilities as part of their rent to the landlord, but they would not be paying separate homeowners’ association fees. Commissioner Scarpelli asked if the homeowners of the second dwelling units would be paying a higher homeowner association fee. Mr. Discenza responded that nothing has been discussed on this issue. Commissioner Wellman asked about the sound proofing of the unit. Mr. Discenza responded that the second dwelling units are above the garages; therefore, the sound proofing is not an issue. Being a civil engineer, not the architect or the owner, Mr. Discenza stated that this issue is not in his purview. He added that the design of the units is such that all of the storage for the second dwelling units is essentially the wall between the second dwelling unit and the main dwelling unit; so there is a wall with a closet or pantry separating the units--not just a wall. Commissioner Wellman expressed concern about an interior washeddryer, and mentioned that the units are under the 400-square foot minimum. She suggested adding an additional seven feet for an interior washeddryer. Mr. Discenza responded that the second dwelling unit wardrobes are fairly large and one corner next to the pantry could accommodate a piggy-back washeddryer and not take away from the storage facility. Commissioner Wellman asked about a landing halfway down the stairs. Mr. Discenza responded that a landing was considered and was discounted to preserve the privacy of both units. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairperson Schlehuber declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Noble commented that in response to Commissioner Wellman’s questions, Mr. Bianci, the lawyer who addressed the Planning Commission, made a statement that the developer was considering putting landings on the stairs for the elderly or the handicapped and that there would be stacked washeddryers inside the second dwelling units. In response to a question from Commissioner Wellman, Commissioner Noble asked Mr. Becker if this project satisfies all the findings required to meet City codes and standards. Mr. Becker responded that the Staff believes the project meets these conditions and hence Staffs recommendation of the project. Mr. Becker added that the Commission is probably not in a position to establish conditions on a project HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES July 10, 1997 Page 4 when it already has had conditions placed on it by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council; however, the issues of livability and design, etc., could be helpful suggestions to the applicant. The applicant does not have their final design or working drawings; so these are things the applicant can consider. One thing Staff feels pretty strongly about is that a lot of this is market-driven and there is a great amount of incentive for the developers to have their floor plans and design of units done In a way that best satisfies the marketplace. If that means having the second dwelling units done in a way that appeals to seniors, then the developer will be driven to do that. Mr. Becker added that Staffs findings are always going to relate to the basic matters of affordability and the criteria that gets repeated whenever dealing with a new project, i.e., is it consistent with the policies and ordinances that the City is responsible for. Design matters, livability, etc., are not part of those basic requirements or policies that the Housing Commission is responsible for, nor are they part of the Inclusionary Ordinance or Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance. Mr. Becker added that these issues are not unimportant and worth the effort to have a project become better as a result of the Housing Commission’s suggestions. Chairman Schlehuber reminded the Commissioners that the issue is to vote on whether the project meets the criteria of what the Housing Commission has already established. He added that their comments regarding livability or any other issues can be put into the record, however. Commissioner Noble added that at the Planning Commissioner workshop two weeks ago the Mayor directed the Planning Commissioners to vote as they like. After the voting, the Mayor recommended that the Commissioners explain why they voted no or abstained. Commissioner Scarpelli commented that in looking for affordable housing, the Commission wants to make sure that the housing is of a quality standard, using Villa Loma as a benchmark, for example. He added that the Commission would like to provide low- to moderate-income folks units with a livable environment. Chairperson Schlehuber commented that the Commission can communicate to Council its concerns through the vote and through statements in the record as to reasons for voting for or against the recommendation. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Noble, and duly seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 97-008, approving a finding that the second dwelling units proposed for the Brookfield Meadows housing project to satisfy the Inclusionary Housing requirements of the City of Carlsbad are consistent with the Housing Commission Guidelines on Second Dwelling Units, approved May 8, 1997, and recommending that the City Council approve the affordable housing project. VOTE: 4-4-0 AYES: Latas, Noble, Schlehuber, Walker NOES: Escobedo, Rose, Scarpelli, Wellman ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Schlehuber asked the Commissioners if they would like to voice their opinions why they voted against the resolution. Commissioner Scarpelli would like the resolution to read that recommendations be made to the developer to consider the landing and a washerldryer unit in the second dwelling units. Commissioner Wellman stated she would like to see proper sound proofing on the back wall because a closet is not sufficient. She added that she would like the units increased to 400 square feet to include a washerldryer combination and possibly a closet. Commissioner Wellman would also like to see a stair landing included to make the units more livable for senior citizens. .- HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES July 10, 1997 Page 5 Commissioner Noble commented that the minimum size of 400 square feet was a flexible guideline. After some discussion about supporting the resolution with additional recommendations, Mr. Becker suggested amending the motion of support and recommend to the Council the recommendations to the developer involving the items in question. Staff will have to look into how this can be handled by the Council and dealt with in terms of whether there can actually be conditions that contain those kinds of things; or can those kinds of things be the basis for denying a project. At the very least, they can be the Commission’s recommendations. Mr. Becker added that the Housing Commission can put conditions in their resolutions that are the basis for their recommendation; however, Mr. Becker is not sure how the recommendations will be incorporated into the Council’s Conditions of Approval for the project. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scarpelli, and duly seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 97-008, approving a fmding that the second dwelling units proposed for the Brookfield Meadows housing project to satisfy the Inclusionary Housing requirements of the City of Carlsbad are consistent with the Housing Commission Guidelines on Second Dwelling Units, approved May 8, 1997, with the following additional conditions (1) efficient sound proofing between the second dwelling units and the main dwelling units, (2) a landing on the stairway to the second dwelling units, and (3) an indoor washeddryer, and recommending that the City Council approve the affordable housing project. Escobedo, Latas, Scarpelli, Walker, Wellman VOTE: 5-3-0 AYES: NOES: Noble, Rose, Schlehuber ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Noble commented that he voted no because this motion is inappropriate. This project has been through months and months of working and it meets all the City codes and standards. Chairperson Schlehuber voted no for the same reason and added that the resolution was fine the way it was originally proposed and thinks the units would have been built with adequate sound proofmg and with washeddryer units. Commissioner Rose is against the whole thing because he does not think a low-income family will ever live in these units. He would like to see Brookfield Meadows buy into something else so that some deserving family can get an affordable unit. 2. HOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS - Informational staff report on modifications/revisions to Housing Element report requirements. Evan Becker stated that the Housing Element Law is what governs the preparation of the City’s Housing Plan. There was legislation that established in San Diego County a pilot project whereby in the next Housing Element’s five-year cycle, the City can do what is called a self certification where the City can certify itself that it has met its housing target goals and not have to go through the process of having the State review the City’s Housing Element and find it in compliance. A Housing Element Advisory Committee is working with SANDAG designing a system to establish the self certification. It has three components that are being worked on right now by Julie Nygard, the City’s representative as an elected official on the project, Dennis Turner from Planning, and Mr. Becker. The key parts include a standard for what the City’s goal is; and that standard is going to be based partly on what the need is and will also be based on an estimation of the amount of resources that are available to any given community to get the job done, which has been very lacking in this system in the past, Le., you can only get done what you have resources do to, no matter what the need is out there. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES July 10, 1997 Page 6 Second is a set of principles of what is eligible to count. The real breakthrough here is that a lot more things will count now. Before there was a very narrow counting ofjust new construction of units--no rental assistance, no rehab, no acquisition and regulation of units in existing projects, homeless shelters, etc. That has been broaden very much. Some of the principles that are still allowed are that there has to be certain levels of affordability, certain terms of affordability, certain restrictions in place to ensure the affordability. Part three concerns how the measure is done. A system is being developed that will give the City varied credit for what it does based on what category the housing falls into. By varying credit, the City can get more than one unit’s worth of credit for numbers of bedrooms, e.g., for Villa Loma, the City scores a very high premium. Mr. Becker estimated that 344 units at Villa Loma gets the City 380 units of credit because of bonuses for the long-term affordability, deep affordability, low-income, and large bedroom size. Second dwelling units, an example of category five, which is way down the list, gets discounted in the counting; they get .8 of a point in terms of how they count. Rental assistance also scores less. Other things that determine whether the City gets only one unit of credit or more or less is the length of the term of affordability-is it the useful life or is it only 10 years, and how deeply affordable it is--is it 50 or 80 percent of median. The committee has pretty much agreed on the terms and it is going to be a recommendation to the SANDAG board, which involves all of the elected officials who have to agree on it. Then it will be submitted to the State legislature to accept as being okay for self certification. Mr. Becker stated that there are some very good things in this like being able to count more than just new construction and the idea of being rewarded for doing certain things. In addition, the categories are set up on its difficulty; e.g., a 344 large multi-family unit is more difficult to establish than a senior citizen project. Mr. Becker added that the next Housing Element is not due until July 1 of 1999. Commissioner Latas asked what percentage the second dwelling units are of the City’s affordable housing program. Mr. Becker responded that looking at what has been approved, second dwelling units would be a very, very small percentage, probably less than 10 percent. There was some discussion about the Poinsettia Roperties project and its use of second dwelling units. Commissioner Scarpelli commented that the Brookfield project is probably the worst design of second dwelling units that has been presented to the Commission. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Becker introduced Bobbi Nunn, the new Housing Program Manager. Mr. Becker announced his resignation as Housing and Redevelopment Director and said that he has enjoyed his time working in Carlsbad. Mr. Becker said that setting up the Housing Commission from scratch and getting the results the Commission has attained has been a tremendous accomplishment. Commissioner Escobedo asked Mr. Becker his opinion of the “Redevelopment Agency Put in Question” article that she recently read in the newspaper. Mr. Becker responded that the article is a total bunch of nonsense. The Grand Jury has been on a hunt to get at redevelopment agencies regarding the use of their set aside funds, and they have come out with this report that has findings that suggest that the cities of Carlsbad and Poway have not used their set aside funds and have built up an excess surplus. According to Mr. Becker, the Grand Jury’s calculations are incorrect. Mr. Becker stated that the City put millions of dollars of set aside in Villa Loma. The City takes a portion of the set aside funds and pays administrative costs with it, which is around $90,000 a year. There is a claim that all the City has done is spend its set HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES July IO, 1997 Page 7 aside money on admin costs, which is totally false. The City has spent millions of dollars on Villa Loma and has made a $500,000 commitment to Laurel Tree. The fact is that the ratio of the City’s administrative costs to its program expenditures is incredible. The City should also get credit for the tens of millions of dollars on top of that for bringing in affordable housing through tax credits, the Federal Home Loan Bank program, the HOME program, etc. Mr. Becker added that this is a crusade on the part of someone who is very misguided. Staff went through a tremendous amount of effort giving them a lot of accurate feedback about the City’s situation, and they have ignored it. Commissioner Escobedo commented that the article stated the idea of redevelopment was supposed to be primarily for cities to help redevelopment blighted areas instead of developing raw land. Mr. Becker responded that Staff is preparing a report to the Council and the Housing Commission will get a copy of the report. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: August 14, 1997 ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular meeting of July 10, 1997, was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, n EVAN BECKER Housing and Redevelopment Director KATHY VAN PELT Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED. July 9, 1997 TO: HOUSING COMMISSION c FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION - JULY 10,1997 Due to some processing timelines, an urgent request for action has been added to the Housing Commission meeting of July 10, 1997. The request is for the Housing Commission to consider the affordable housing component (4 second dwelling units) of the BrooMield Meadows project. The procedures for the July 10'" meeting will be as follows: 1. Regular meeting called to order at 6:OOpm to consider Pacific View Estates affordable housing project and receive a report on Housing Element reform. 2. The regular meeting will then be adjourned to a Special Meeting, immediately following the regular meeting, to consider the Brookfield Meadows affordable housing project. The report for the Brookfield Meadows project is attached for your review. Staff does apologize for the fact that the Housing Commission will have very little time to review the attached report. Staff will verbally summarize the project during the meeting and will be prepared to answer questions. The project is very similar to the Pacific View Estates project in that it provides for 29 single family homes and 4 second dwelling units which will be constructed as a portion of the main residence. If you have any questions or comments regarding the Brookfield Meadows Project or the Special Meeting, please contact Evan Becker at 434-28 15. n DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst @ 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 (61 9) 434-281 01281 1 FAX (61 9) 720-2037 The City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department A REPORT TO THE HOUSING COMMISSION Item No. 1 Special Meeting Item Stag Evan Becker Housing & Redevelopment Director DATE: JULY 10, 1997 SUBJECT: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS - APPLICATION TO SATISFY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT WITH FOUR (4) SECOND DWELLING UNITS. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Housing Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 97-008, APPROVING a finding that the second dwelling units proposed for the Brookfield Meadows housing project to satisfy the Inclusionary Housing requirements of the City of Carlsbad are consistent with the Housing Commission Guidelines on Second Dwelling Units, approved May 8, 1997 and recommending that the City Council approve the affordable housing project. 11. PROJECT BACKGROUND On November 6, 1996, the Planning Commission denied the Site Development Plan (SDP 96-07) for the Brookfield Meadows Project which includes the construction of a total of four (4) second dwelling units to satisfy the developer’s Inclusionary Housing Requirement. The permit denial was subsequently appealed to the City Council and a decision was made to approve the project. The item will be returned to the City Council with conditions for approval and revised environmental documents within the next couple of weeks. Under past practices, only those housing projects which had 50 units or more were forwarded to the Housing Commission for review of the affordable housing component and a recommendation for action. Until directed otherwise by the City Council, a determination has recently been made that all housing projects, regardless of size, which include an affordable housing component, must be reviewed and acted upon by the Housing Commission prior to Planning Commission or City Council consideration of the project. This determination came in response to the Council action on the Emerald Ridge West appeal filed in response to the Housing Commission disapproval of the revised second dwelling units for that project. The Brookfield Meadows project was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council prior to the Housing Commission taking action to adopt Second Dwelling Unit Guidelines. Since the project is now being prepared to be returned to the Brookfield Meadows July 10, 1997 - Special Meeting PAGE 2 City Council for final action, review the project and make Item it has been requested that the Housing Commission a recommendation as to whether or not the second dwelling units should be approved to meet the inclusionary housing obligation of the developer. A consistency finding with the Housing Commission’s policy on second dwelling units is requested at this time 111. AFFORDABLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION The affordable housing project as well as the larger market-rate housing project are described in further detail within the attached Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 6, 1996 and the Housing Commission Affordable Housing Review application, prepared by staff on behalf of the Brookfield Meadows developer and dated July 9, 1997. The proposed second dwelling units are 393 square feet in size and form a portion of the second story of the primary residences. IV. FINANCIAL At this time the developer has not requested financial assistance with respect to the affordable housing proposal. V. SUMMARY Staff has determined that the proposed second dwelling units are the best method for the applicant to meet the inclusionary housing requirement and are consistent with the intent of the recently approved Housing Commission Guidelines on Second Dwelling Units. Although the units are slightly smaller than the desired 400 square feet, staff believes they are adequate in size (393 square feet) and are as close to the 400 square feet as physically possible. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Housing Commission approve a recommendation to the City Council that the affordable housing component of the project be approved with the finding that the proposed project is consistent with the Commission’s guidelines on the use of second dwelling units to meet the Inclusionary Housing requirements of the City of Carlsbad. As required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the developer and the City must enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to the project finalizing its map. An Affordable Housing Agreement records specific requirements of the Inclusionary Ordinance, including unit type, affordability levels and construction timing. VI. EXHIBITS 1. Housing Commission Resolution No. 97-008. 2. Housing Commission Review Application, dated July 9, 1997. 3. City Council Agenda Bill No.14,019, dated January 28, 1997 4. Staff Report to Planning Commission, dated November 6, 1997. df 7/97 .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HOUSING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 97-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR (4) SECOND DWELLING UNITS AFFORDABLE TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN THE BROOKFIELD MEADOWS PROJECT BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HOUSING COMMISSION GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF SECOND DWELLING UNITS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE. APPLICANT: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS 6 CASE NO. : CT 96-04/PUD 71B/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 WHEREAS, a request has been made to the Housing Commission to consider the affordable housing units (second dwelling units) to be constructed as part of the Brookfield Meadows: WHEREAS, said Housing Commission did, on the 10th day of July, 1997, hold a special meeting to consider said request for the Brookfield Meadows affordable housing project; and WHEREAS, at said special public meeting, upon hearing and considering all testimony, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. The above recitations are true and correct. .... .... - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 HC Resolution No. 97-008 Page 2 & 2. That based on the information provided within the Planning Commission Staff Report and testimony presented during the special public meeting of the Housing Commission on July 10, 1997, the Commission finds that the proposed affordable housing project is consistent with Housing Commission Guidelines on Second Dwelling Units, approved May 8, 1997. FINDINGS: 1. 2. 3. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Carlsbad's Housing Element and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy , the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the Density Bonus Ordinance, the Carlsbad General Plan, the Planned Development Ordinance and the Hillside Development Ordinance. The project will provide a total of four (4) second dwelling units (studios) affordable for rent to households at 80% or below of the county median which meets a "medium priority" affordable housing need as outlined within the City of Carlsbad's approved 1995-2000 Consolidated Plan. The project, therefore, has the ability to effectively serve the City's housing needs and priorities as expressed in the Housing Element and the Consolidated Plan. The proposed Second Dwelling Units are consistent with the Housing Commission Guidelines on Second Dwelling Units used to meet the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which were approved by the Housing Commission on May 8, 1997, based on the following features: a) The proposed second dwelling units shall be 393 square feet in size which meets the intent of the recommended Housing Commission policy on unit size. The units are slightly smaller than the desired 400 square feet. However, the Housing Commission has deemed the size to be acceptable and consistent with the intent of their policy on size considerations. b) Each second dwelling unit is consistent with the applicable design guidelines for these type of units and are independent from the main home in that access to the unit is provided through an exterior entrance. There is no direct access to the main unit from the second dwelling unit. c) The second dwelling units shall be affordable to households at 80% or less of the San Diego County Median. P - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HC Resolution No. 97-008 Page 3 d) The second dwelling units shall be rented according to the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance. 1 e) The related market-rate housing project is less than 100 units (29 units total) which means that the project may meet 100% of its affordable housing obligation through the construction of second dwelling units. The project requirement for affordable housing purposes is 4.35 units and the applicant shall provide 4 units through construction of second dwelling units and pay a fee for the remaining .35 unit. f) The subject project shall be restricted according to the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance and recordation of the related Affordable Housing Agreement against the property. CONDITIONS : 1. 2. 3. 4. The Housing Commission has made its consistency finding for the subject project (Brookfield Meadows) based on the second dwelling units shown on Site Development Plan 96-07, incorporated by reference and on file in the Housing and Redevelopment and Planning Departments. Development of the second dwelling units shall occur substantially as shown, unless otherwise noted in the conditions of project approval by the City Council. The Housing Commission's consistency finding as related to SDP 96-07 is made subject to the condition that the applicant submit an acceptable schedule for construction of the required ratio of income restricted units for inclusion in the final Affordable Housing Agreement to be approved prior to Final Map. The schedule shall indicate acceptable construction phasing for the affordable units in relation to the construction of the market rate units. The applicant shall maintain rents at the allowable affordable rate (based on household size) for low income households with incomes equal to 80% or below of the county median upon lease up of units and continuing for the full period of affordability . The affordable housing units must be deed restricted for "the useful life of the project" which means a minimum of 55 years. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HC Resolution No. 97-008 Page 4 5. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City of Carlsbad. The agreement shall be recorded against the property and shall be binding to all future owners and successors in intErest. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall include all terms and conditions of said project approval and outline the incentives (financial or other), if any, to be provided by the City of Carlsbad. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 10th day of July, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: MICHAEL SCHLEHUBER Chairperson Housing Commission EVAN BECKER, Housing and Redevelopment Director - CITY OF CARLSBAD If@ 97-098 EXHIBIT 2 HOUS, tG COMMISSION REVIEW APPL~LATION 1. APPLICANT/DEVELOPMENT TEAM INFORMATION * Telephone No.: Identify Development Team (ie., developer, builder, architect, etc.): GKON OELIGLbPMENT - D&.JEWEfZ II. GENERAL PRaTECT INFORMATION 223-021-18 ~b 223-353-27 Site Parcel No(s).: Total Number of Affordable Units Required (if applicable): Total Number of Affordable Units Proposed: Type of Units (ie., garden apartments, detached, etc.): 4. 35 units (Wl k % .S rcnain\bq on*,+) J 2nd dwelliy un;+3j Size (in square feet) of each Unit: 3q3.d Bedroom Size Distribution of Units: *lo Describe any special features/amenities to be included within project: Housing Commission Review Application - Page 1 ' I2893 ~- ~ III. TEHhlS OF AFFORDAP TY FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS (AITAC ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IF NECESSARY) ~ __~~ - Term of Affordability (ie., 30 yrs, life of project, etc.): LI'k oc Prq4 Projected Schedule for Construction of Affordable Housing Units: If the affordable units are being constructed to satisfy the City of Carlsbad's Inclusionary Housing requirement, how will they be phased with respect to construction of the market rate units? Please Explain Project Phasing: ConcorrcnA- IV. F'INANCLAL INFORMATION ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROSECT Please attach a copy of development and operating financial profomas showing sources and Uses of funds to accomplish the affordable units proposed in this application. In the profomas, please identify your subsidy sources and appropriate justifications for use of these sources. Describe the local financial assistance or incentives, if any, including specific terms desired for the affordable housing project which you are, or will be, requesting from the City of Carlsbad: (NCT REQUIRED\ J Identify any other project conditions which may be relevant to project feasibility: Housing Commission Review Application Page 2 12/8,93 - V. REQUIRED AlTACHMENT-'O APPLICATION The following items must be attached to this application: 0 Site Development Plan for Affordable Housing Units; 0 Narrative describing how the project meets the Housing Needs and Priorities as expressed within the City of Carlsbad's Housing Element and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy; 0 Narrative on the project's consistency with the City of Carlsbad's Affordable Housing Policies as exprhed in the Housing Element, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, General Plan and other related documents; 0 Development and Operating Financial Proformas indicating sources and uses of funds for the project, including justification and identification of subsidy sources; 0 Complete description of financial assistance or incentives including specific terms that are, or will be requested from the City of Carlsbad for the project, if applicable; and, 0 Completed Disclosure Statement of Ownership Interests within the project. ~ -~ VI. APPLICATION SIGNATCTRES -~~ ~ Property Owner Name, Address and Telephone No.: fRGPPRED Bci H+R& 011 beha\C OF dpPII-4 I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I am the legal owner of the subject property and that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. C Signature I, the undersigned applicant, do hereby certify that I am the representative of the legal owner of the subject propem and that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Applicant Signature: Date THE BOX BELOW IS FOR CITY USE ONLY Date Application Received: 7 19 197 Application Received By: QMPjd Staff Recommendation: Date of Housing Commission Review: 711 6 / 9 7 - ,8pco.-D Action on Application by Housing Commission: Other Comments: Housing Commission Review Application Page 3 1218 93 - -LlTY OF CARLSBAD - AGEIL 4 BILL TITLt: - APPEAL - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS CT 96-04A’UD 71(B)/IIDP 96-041SDP 96-07 CITY MGR RECOMMENDED ACTION: EXHIBIT 3 That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 9 7 -36 APPROVING the Negative DEclaration, and ADOPT Resolution No. 9 1 - 3 3 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PUD 71 (B), and ADOPT Resolution No. 91 -3 8 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIALS WITHOUT PREJUDICE of CT 96-04, HDP 96-04, and SDP 96-07. ITEM EXPLANATION: This application is for a Tentative Tract Map (CT), Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Hillside Development Permit (HDP), and Site Development Plan (SDP) for a single-family detached residential project. The development would include 29 primary residential units and 4 attached second dwelling units. The PUD Amendment automatically requires a City Council decisior? because the original PUD was approved by the Council. The CT, HDP, and SDP are being sent to Council on appeal. The applicant had to appeal these decisions in order to have Council hear the total project package. On November 6, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted (4-3, Compas, Noble & Welshons) to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration, recommend denial without prejudice of the PUD Amendment, and deny without prejudice the CT, HDP, and SDP. The applicant has appealed the denial without prejudice of the CT, HDP, and SDP. The site for the proposed single-family detached project is part of a larger mostly developed project [“Brookfield”). The subject site is the only undeveloped portion of that larger site. The property 3wner currently has discretionary approvals to develop a 104-unit apartment project, but would like :o build a detached single-family project instead. Staff had recommended denial of the project because it does not comply with the PUD regulations 3s clarified by Planning Department Administrative Policy No. 16 (minimum required distance ietween structures) and City Council Policy No. 44 (“Small Lot Single Family Guidelines”) dealing tvith required building separation. I a. I b. The PUD Ordinance (Chapter 21.45) establishes the minimum required distance between structures for single-story structures (IO’), for two- and three-story structures when there are more than 10 in a row (20’) and for two- and one-story structures when there are more than 10 in a row (15’). The ordinance does not address the minimum distance required for two- and two-story structures. Planning Department Policy No. 16 interprets the ordinance to require a minimum 20’ distance between two-story structures when there are more than 10 structures in a row. The proposed project is not consistent with this interpretation. The project is designed with all two-story structures. On Court “A”, where there are 13 such structures in a row, the project provides only IO’ of separation in 8 locations and 11’ to 15’ in 3 locations, rather than the 20’ indicated in Policy No. 16. City Council Policy No. 44 (“Small Lot Single Family Guidelines”) apply to single family developments with lots smaller than 7500 square feet. It is primarily designed to apply to projects with a predominance of two-story units (e.g., the subject application). This policy includes architectural guidelines which are to be incorporated into the project design to I I PAGE 2 OF AGENDnILL NO. provide architectural relief. The proposed project does not comply with all of the applicable architectural guidelines, in that it does not provide sufficient single-story building edges or the varied building planes as required by Policy No. 44. Policy No. 44 also defines "10 in a row" as including curves and terminating at a 90 degree intersection. On this basis, the number of units along Court "A" of the proposed project is greater than 10 and, therefore, would need to provide a minimum distance between structures of 20' (per Policy No. 16). * The project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, and generally complies with the Hillside Development regulations. However, the project does not comply with the PUD regulations as clarified by Administrative Policy No. 16 and Council Policy No. 44. Therefore, staff was unable to recommend approval of the project. Because staff believes the project could be redesigned to comply with all applicable regulations, staff recommended denial without prejudice to allow the applicant to return with a revised design without a lengthy waiting period. The Planning Commission also passed two Minute Motions related to the discussion of this project. 1 a. 1 b. The first Minute Motion (passed 7-0) was to request Council to give staff direction with regard to re-examining Planning Department Administrative Policy No. 16 and City Council Policy No. 44. There was some confusion regarding what is the standard desired for separation between two story structures in Planned Unit Developments, and how Policy 16 is applied. The separation requirements contained in the PUD ordinance have the weight 'of law because they are called out in the Code. However, because the separation requirement discussed in Policy 16 is contained in a policy, rather than an ordinance, it carries less weight. Therefore, there was some confusion regarding staffs and the decision-makers' ability to require projects to comply with the separation requirements contained in the Policy. This Minute Motion also involves City Council Policy No. 44 in that Policy 44 defines what constitutes units "in a row". Policy 44 defines "in a row" to "include curves and shall terminate at a 90 degree street intersection". This definition is critical to the application of the separation requirements contained in both the PUD Ordinance and Administrative Policy No. 16. The Planning Commission felt that more specific direction from Council regarding the intent of these two policies would be helpful. Should Council wish to do so, staff could be directed to draft a zone code amendment to revise the PUD Ordinance to clearly address this building separation issue. A detailed discussion of the proposed project design and its compliance and non-compliance with these policies is included in the staff report to the Planning Commission and attached to this Agenda Bill. 2 The second Minute Motion (passed 7-0) was to request Council to establish a minimum size for second dwelling units. Currently, the City has established only a maximum size for second dwelling units (640 square feet). The Commission felt that the proposed second dwelling units in this project were quite small (393 square feet) and discussed the possible need to establish a minimum size for such units. Staffs research indicates that the City does have the authority to establish a minimum size. If Council would like this issue addressed, it could direct staff to study various second dwelling unit configurations (i.e., efficiency, one bedroom and two bedroom) and return with a zone code amendment that establishes minimum sizes for each desired configuration. PAGE 3 OF AGENDnILL NO. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed project was analyzed pursuant to CEQA regulations and was determined to have no potential significant environmental impacts. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director. Because the review relied upon the General Plan Update Master EIR (MEIR 93- 01) for analysis of cumulative air and cumulative traffic impacts, the project also qualifies as a Subsequent Project. * FISCAL IMPACT: Should the Council decide to approve the proposed project or an alternative project, staff would develop the necessary conditions of approval requiring the Developer to provide all necessary improvements as required by the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan. This would ensure that all necessary public facilities needed to serve the development would be provided. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolutions No. , and 2. Location Map 3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3999, 4000, 4001 , 4002, and 4003, dated November 6, 1996 4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 6, 1996 5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 6, 1996 6. Appeal, dated November 12, 1996. 1 1 t t 5 I( 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR BROOKFIELD MEADOWS LOCATED GENERALLY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF XANA WAY, BETWEEN CORINTIA STREET AND ALGA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS CASE NO.: CT 96-04PUD 7 1 (BYHDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 WHEREAS, on November 6, 1996, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Negative Declaration for CT 96-04PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 3 999, recommending to City Council that it be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the day of , 1997, held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all persons interested in, or opposed to, a Negative Declaration for CT 96-04PUD 7 1 (B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the Negative Declaration is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3999, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 2. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply: “NOTICE TO APPLICANT” “The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.1 6. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date on which - 1 1 i 1 I 5 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request Ear the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008.” PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the day of , 1997. by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk - -2- 1 A t 5 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PUD 71(B) FOR BROOKFIELD MEADOWS - LOCATED GENERALLY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF XANA WAY BETWEEN CORINTIA STREET AND ALGA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6 CASE NAME: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS CASE NO: PUD 71(B) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on November 6, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUD 71(B)), and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 4001 recommending to the City Council that it be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the day of , 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the Planned Unit Development Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 4001 constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter. 3. That the Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUD 71(B)), is denied without prejudice as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4001 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. 4. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply: - ... - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 x I “NOTICE TO APPLICANT” “The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party. or his attorney of record. if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008 .” PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the day of , 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk ' L 1 c P I t s 1c 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOL RESOLUTION NO. JTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE- A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. CASE NAME: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS CASE NO: CT 96-04RIDP 96-04ISDP 96-07 WHEREAS, on November 6, 1996, the Carlsbad Planning Commission denied without prejudice a Tentative Tract Map , Hillside Development Permit, and Site Develop- ment Plan to develop a single-family detached residential subdivision; and day WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on of without prejudice CT 96-04, HDP 96-04, and SDP 96-07, and , 1997 considered an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny WHEREAS, upon considering the request, the City Council considered all factors relating to the CT 96-04, HDP 96-04 and SDP 96-07 appeal. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolutions No. 4000,4002 and 4003 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter. ... ... ... ... ... 1 " L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the day of 1997, by the following vote, to wit: L. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk (SEAL) -2- I EXHIBIT 4 - -.,e City of CARLSBAD PI-g Departmeut P.C. AGENDA OF: November 6,1996 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application complete date: June 27, 1996 Project Planner: Elaine Blackbum a Project Engineer: Ken Quon Item No. (3 SUBJECT: CT 96-04PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07- BROOKFIELD MEADOWS - Request for recommendation of approval of a Negative Declaration and Planned Unit Development Amendment; and request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Site Development Plan to develop 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 second dwelling units (attached), on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way between Corintia Street and Alga Road. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3999 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4000, 4002, and 4003 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CT 96-04, HDP 96-04, and SDP 96-07, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4001 , RECOMMENDING DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE of PUD 7 1 (B), based on the findings contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION This application proposes the development of 29 small lot single family residences and 4 second dwelling units at the southwest comer of the Corintia Street and Xana Way intersection. Staff is recommending denial of the project due to non-compliance with the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations as clarified by Administrative Policy No. 16 and City Council Policy No. 44. Compliance would necessitate some project redesign and staff is recommending denial without prejudice to allow the applicant to reapply prior to the one year limit associated with a straight denial. The applicant currently has discretionary approvals to build 104 apartment units on the site. However, the applicant indicates that the neighborhood residents would prefer to see a single family detached product on the project site rather than the approved apartment development. The applicant has worked to resolve the issues associated with the project and has reduced them to two items (minimum distance between structures and architectural guidelines). The final decision on this project must be made by City Council because the original approvals were granted by Council. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map, planned unit development amendment, hillside development permit, and site development plan to allow the construction of 29 small lot single family residences and 4 second dwelling units on a 4.39 acre site, which is located on the south side of Xana Way between Corintia Street and Alga Road. CT 96-04PUD 7 1 (B)/HDt ,6-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEAOOWS NOVEMBER 6,1996 PAGE 2 As shown on Exhibits “A” - “O”, the project consists of 29 single family dwelling units (ranging in size from 1748 - 2281 square feet in area), plotted on substandard residential lots (ranging in size from 3876 - 9602 square feet). The units are double loaded along minimum 32‘ private streets. Parking is provided through 2-car garages, tandem spaces in driveways for the second dwelling units, and on-street parking for guests. The lots include private yards to satisfy private recreation requirements. The applicant proposes to satisfy common area recreation requirements by annexing into the neighboring Meadowbrook development, thereby sharing a swimming pool area and pocket parks. To satisfy inclusionary housing requirements, four of the proposed dwelling units (Lots 10, 14, 20, and 21) will include attached second dwelling units. The second dwelling units each contain a total of 393 square feet and form a portion of the second story of the primary units over the first floor garage. The structures are similar architecturally to the neighboring residences. They include exteriors of stucco and painted wood siding and tile roofs with aluminum window trim. The project site is a previously graded lot now covered with non-native grasses. The site consists of mostly gentle slopes, with existing 2:l slopes along the perimeter of the property and a previously approved stockpile on the northern portion of the site. The project site is a portion of a larger project (PUD 71) approved and amended in the early 1980’s. At that time the total project area consisted of a 43.6 acre site. The area of the current proposal is a 4.39 acre portion of that 43.6 acre site. In 1980, the Planning Commission approved development of 300 dwelling units on the overall site. These units were to consist of single family detached, duplex, triplex, and 4-plex units. That project was not built. Then, in 1984, the City approved discretionary permits for 324 dwelling units to consist of 220 zero lot line single family units (on the bulk of the site) and a 104-unit apartment project (on the 4.39 acre portion of the site). The majority of the site was developed as approved. However, the apartment project was never built. The applicant would now like to amend the PUD for the apartment portion of the project to provide instead 29 single family detached residential units with four attached second dwelling units. The site has a General Plan designation of RM (Residential - Medium Density) and a zoning designation of RD-M/Q (Residential Density-Multiple Zone and Qualified Development Overlay). This project is subject to the following regulations: A. General Plan RM (Medium Density Residential) Designation; B. Subdivision Regulations (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); C. RDM (Residential Density - Multiple) Zone Regulations (Chapter 21.24 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; - - CT 96-04PUD 71 (B)/HDi ,6-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEALIOWS NOVEMBER 6, 1996 PAGE 3 D. Q (Qualified Overlay) Zone (Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) and Site Development Plan (affordable housing projects) (Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); PUD (Planned Unit Development) Regulations (Chapter 2 1.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); - E. F. Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); Inclusionary Housing Regulations (Chapters 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); G. H. Growth Management Regulations (Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6); and, I. Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code)and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). IV. ANALYSIS A. GENERALPLAN The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. The General Plan Compliance Table (below) indicates how the project relates to the goals and policies of the General Plan. The project site is designated for RM (Medium Density Residential) development by the General Plan. The designated density for the site is 4-8 ddac (6 ddac growth management control point). The proposed project consists of 29 primary and 4 second dwelling units. Because this site is the final piece of a larger, already constructed project, the density calculation has been based upon the combined total density of the existing built project and the proposed development of the subject site. This results in a total project density of 5.89 ddac. The already built project includes 220 dwelling units on a 39.21 acre (gross) site. The density of the already built portion of the project is based on gross acreage, since that is how the regulations were written when it was built. The current project includes 33 dwelling units on a 3.70 acre (net) site. The density of the current subject site is based on net acreage in accordance with current regulations. Thus the project would be allowed to have a maximum of 261 units and a maximum density of 6 ddac on a 42.91 acre site. The proposed development will include 253 units and have a density of 5.89 ddac. Therefore, the project is consistent with the overall range allowed by the General Plan and is below the growth management control point. CT 96-04PUD 71(B)/HDk - >-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEAJJOWS NOVEMBER 6,1996 (4-8 ddac) (6 gcp) Circulation Element Streets & Traffic Control Pol. A-2 Noise Element General Policies C.l &( c.2 Housing Element Goal 3, Objective 3.5 Open Space & Recreation Element Category 3 Open Space for Outdoor Recreation Public Safety Element ParksRecreation Element PAGE 4 The proposed project would provide adequate circulation infrastructure to serve the projected population of the development and the traffic to be generated. A noise study prepared for the project shows that the project would not be subject to unacceptable levels of noise. The project would contribute to provision of a range of housing opportunities in the City, including 4 affordable attached second dwelling units. The project proposes to annex into the existing neighborhood homeowners’ association for purposes of sharing the existing common recreation area. The proposed project would provide adequate sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants. The proposed project would be required to pay park-in-lieu fees. The table below summarizes the relevant goals and policies contained in the General Plan and discusses how the proposed project complies with these goals and policies. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE TABLE B. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The proposed Tentative Tract Map complies with most, but not all, of the requirements of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed project would be required to construct the two private streets within the subdivision and to provide sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants. The design of the subdivision also would not conflict with any established easements. However, the project design is not consistent with all applicable provisions of Title 2 1, therefore, cannot be recommended for approval. (See Section E. Planned Unit Development of this report for a detailed discussion of this issue.) C. RDM (RESIDENTIAL DENSITY - MULTIPLE) ZONE The project site is zoned RD-WQ. Because this project is a PUD, most of the development standards of the RD-M Zone are superseded by the standards contained in the PUD regulations. For those standards which are not superseded by the PUD regulations, the project complies with the RD-M standards. The table below (RD-M Zone Compliance Table) summarizes the CT 96-04/PUD 71 (B)/HDk ,&04/SDP 96-07’ - BROOKFIELD ME&OWS NOVEMBER 6,1996 PAGE 5 development standards required by the RD-M Zone and the standards incorporated into the proposed project design. RD-M ZONE COMPLIANCE TABLE & Second dwelling units in the RD-M Zone are required to comply with the same development standards as primary units. In the project proposed, the second dwelling units are attached to the primary units, occupying a portion of the second stories (above the garages). The second dwelling units comply with all applicable requirements of the RD-M Zone. (See Sections D and G of this report for further discussion of the proposed second dwelling units.) D. Q (QUALIFIED OVERLAY) ZONEISITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP) In addition to the RD-M Zone, this site is also governed by the Q Overlay Zone. Development of more than one single-family residence on property in the Q Overlay requires approval of a Site Development .Plan (SDP). This plan must show the plotting of homes on the lots, heights of structures, architectural elevations, and floor plans, and the SDP application complies with these requirements. Any affordable housing project is also required to have an SDP. This project is required to provide 4.35 affordable units. The applicant has designed the project to include four second dwelling units to be attached to the primary units on Lots 10, 14, 20, and 21. The second units contain a total of 393 square feet each and occupy a portion of the second story of each of those primary units (above the garages). Each second unit has a private entrance. E. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) The proposed project design complies with the PUD regulations in some respects but does not comply in all respects. The table below summarizes the development standards contained in the PUD regulations and the standards incorporated into the proposed project design. The items in bold in the right-hand column are the areas in which the project does not comply with the required standards. These areas of non-compliance are discussed in detail following the table. The second dwelling units are also required to comply with the applicable requirements of the __ I CT 96-04PUD 7 1 (B)/HDh .,-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEA~OWS NOVEMBER 6,1996 PAGE 6 PUD ordinance, including lot sizes, setbacks, frontages, and building height. The proposed second dwelling units are designed as a part of the primary units and comply with these requirements. * PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE TABLE Linear Streets d units: 1 sp cov’d or Visitor Parking 10 sps on-street 10 sps Recreational Space. ’ 1. Private 2. Common R.V. Storage Overall ProjectlCurrent Req’ts: Overall Project: 50,600 sf Total*** 99,582 sf Total (in a combination of private Pvt: 72,952 sf and common areas) Cmn: 27,630 sf 580 sf (20 stdu) To be provided off site 32’ - parking 1 side 36’ - parking 2 sides The setback is measured from the right-of-way line in the case of public streets and from the edge of the driveway, curb, or Storage Space sidewalk, whichever is closer to the structure, in the case of a private street or private driveway. **The setback is measured from the property line. ***The PUD requirements for recreation area, RV storage, etc. do not apply to the 2nd dwelling units. I 392 ccdu 392 ccdu A I CT 96-04PUD 71(B)/HDi /6-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MLdOWS NOVEMBER 6,1996 PAGE 7 PUD Non-compliance areas: The following are the areas in which the proposed project does not comply with the requirements of the PUD regulations. - 1 a. The PUD regulations establish a requirement for a minimum distance between structures. These regulations refer specifically to the distance between 1- and 2-story structures and between 2- and 3-story structures. The Planning Department relies on Administrative Policy No. 16 in determining the minimum required distance between 2-story structures when there are more than 10 such structures in a row. Also, City Council Policy No. 44 “Small Lot Single Family Guidelines” is utilized when reviewing such projects. This policy defines the term “in a row” and includes additional design guidelines to be applied to small lot single family projects. Applying these two policies, the minimum distance allowed between structures on “A” Court would be 20’. The proposed project design does not comply with this minimum requirement. The proposed project includes all 2- story structures, with “A” Court containing more than 10 structures in a row. The distance provided between these structures ranges from approximately 10’ to 15’ with one exception: the distance between Structures 9 and 10, at the curve of the cul-de-sac is 22’. The majority of the structures are shown at 10’ apart. Therefore, staff believes that the design is too intense for the site and the proposed lot sizes and results in a “crowded” appearance which the required 20’ distance between structures is intended to eliminate. lb. Council Policy No. 44 includes small lot architectural guidelines which would also apply to the proposed small lot (<7500 square foot) project. These requirements are summarized in the Architectural Guideline Compliance Summary table (attached). As shown in that table, the proposed project complies with some of these requirements but does not comply with Items 1, 3, or 5. The structures on Court “B” are two-story units and there are three units in a row. However, these structures do not provide the single- story building edge iequired (Item 1). Also, the project does not provide the single-story building edges or the varied building planes required by Items 3 and 5. Therefore, staff believes that the project design, in addition to being too intense for the site, also provides too little architectural relief to reduce this effect. The proposed design appears both boxy and crowded. F. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS A Hillside Development Permit is required for any project site which contains a slope of 15% or greater and an elevation differential of greater than 15 feet. The proposed project generally complies with the Hillside Development regulations. The grading volumes are within the acceptable amount, and the maximum slope height created will be 16’. Although the site meets the criteria of a hillside site, the majority of the site consists of gentle slopes. The steeper slopes are along the perimeter of the property. The table below summarizes the requirements of the Hillside Development regulations and the way in which the proposed project design complies with the requirements. - - CT 96-04PUD 71 (B)/HL- 96-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKF’IELD MtriDOWS NOVEMBER 6, 1996 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE TABLE STANDARD REQUIREMENT PROVIDED Max. Slope Ht 30’ 16’ - Grading Volume 0-7,999 CY/AC 2,935 CY/AC Contour Grading Roadway Design Hillside Architecture Provide a variety of slope directions and undulation. Follow the site contours. Use terraced pads andor foundations. Maintain natural slopes with structures and roofs. Decrease building mass with increased steepness. Existing slopes along perimeter to remain. Interior curvilinear street provided. Pads are stepped within the project area. The building area of the site contains no significant slopes. G. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS The proposed project would be required to provide 4 affordable housing units and to buy a .35 credit in the Villa Loma development to satisfy it’s affordable housing requirements. The project is designed to provide 29 single family detached residences with an attached second dwelling unit incorporated into four of those units. Each second unit contains 393 square feet each and would have a private entrance. These units are contained within a portion of the second story of the primary unit. Parking for the second units would be provided tandem in the driveways of the primary units. Consistent with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, these second dwelling units would be administered through an affordable housing agreement. H. GROWTH MANAGEMENT The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6 in the Southeast quadrant of the City. The impacts which would be created by this development on public facilities and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized in the table below. GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE - CT 96-04PUD 7 1 (B)/HDl /6-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS NOVEMBER 6,1996 The approved 104-unit apartment project was approved prior to the adoption of Growth Management regulations. Therefore, those 104 units were included as existing units in the Citywide Plan. The proposed project reduces the total number of project units by 71. However, in that the original 104 units were counted as existing units, the 71 unused units will not be added to the excess unit bank. I. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project was reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was determined to have no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on August 26, 1996. The project qualifies as a subsequent development to the City’s MEIR (MEIR 93-01) under Section 21083.3 of CEQA. The environmental review also relied upon the MEIR for analysis of cumulative air and cumulative traffic impacts. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has also been issued. V. SUMMARY After reviewing the proposed project, staff has concluded that the project is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan but does not comply with all requirements of the PUD regulations, Administrative Policy No. 16, and City Council Policy No. 44 (Small Lot Single Family Guidelines). Because of these non-compliance areas, staff is unable to recommend approval of the CT, PUD, or SDP. Although the project complies with the requirements of the Hillside Development (HDP) regulations, the HDP cannot stand alone. Because staff believes the project could be redesigned to be in compliance with all applicable regulations, we. are recommending denial without prejudice. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3999 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4000 Planning Commission Resolution No. 400 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4002 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4003 Location Map Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Disclosure Form Architectural Guidelines Compliance Table Reduced Exhibits Full size exhibits “A”-“0” dated November 6, 1996. BROOKFIELD MEADOWS CT 96-04/PUD 71 (B)/ HDP 96=04/SDP 96-07 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CT 96-04PUD 7 1 (B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 CASE NAME: Brookfield Meadows APPLICANT: Okon Development Co. REQUEST AND LOCATION: A 30-lot residential Droiect includinp 29 single family detacheaunits (4 of which will include attached 2nd dwelling units). located on the south side of Xana Way between Corintia Street and Alga Road LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 224 & uortion of Lot 223 CT #84-23 Map No. 1 1241 APN: 223-021-18 & 223-353-27 Acres: 4.39 Proposed No. of LotsIUnits: 30133 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RM Density Allowed: 4-8 (6) ddac Existing Zone: RD-M/O Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements) Density Proposed: 5.89 ddac Proposed Zone: n/a Zoning Land Use Site RD-WO UndeveloDed . North RD-WQ Residential South PU Undeveloped East PC & OS Undeveloped West PC Undeveloped PUBLJC FACILITIES School District: San Marcos Water District: Vallecitos Sewer District: Vallecitos Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: November 15, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1x1 0 0 Other, Negative Declaration, issued August 26. 1996 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated EB:bk - - CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: CT 96-04PUD 7 1 (BWDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 6 GENERAL PLAN: RM DEVELOPER’S NAME: Okon Development Co. ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 577. Del Mar, CA 92014 * ZONING: RD-M/O PHONE NO.: (619)755-7005 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 223-021-18 & 223-353-27 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 4.39 ac ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: A. B. C. D. E. F. * G. H. I. J. K. City Administrative Facilities: Library: Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Demand in Acreage = Drainage: Demand in CFS = Demand-in Square Footage = Demand in Square Footage = Identify Drainage Basin = (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Open Space: Acreage Provided = Schools: (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demands in EDU Served by Fire Station No. = Identify Sub Basin = (Identifl trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = 114.73 61.19 33 .229 330 2 n/a SMSD 22 n/a 7,260 L. The project was approved prior to Growth Management for 104 apartment units. The proposed project represents a reduction in the number of units, but will not provide excess units for the bank. 83/38/1994 06: 50 61923'- 57 BOCUZZO AND X- 5 PAGE e1 MIY 2 3. 4. Citv of Carlsbad .I Brookficld Ownera' Association, e nanvroflt mutual bsnfifit COT. Uat tha noma and addrauee el .Y pa~16cu hrwlng my own.nhlp lntorod in ?ha proparty involved. -erst Association I benefit corp. Rrapld -8 t As gociation a muprofit mutual benefit C~~IJ~. BY: Steve Weston, President of IA -rsociation 1 .? _I 3 03, nr OI! 5. I- I L 311994 06:50 6192?- '57 BocLezO AND a'-- S PACE 02 pcrw 2 SigMtUrO of hrr/drtr Steven S. Weston, President for Brookfield Owners' AaeocLation 5-k ut- 5. Wfk cl_ Print or typo nuno of - Steven S. Weston, President for Brookf ield Owners ' Association - PW ex type nun. o( rPP(lcant Uth respect to Number one, Applicant, the Brookf ield Owners' Association states :hat it may have a financial interest if the proposed Brookfield Meadows development -5 8UCCeS6fUlly annexed into the Brookfleld Owners' Association upon its completion. %e financial interest is primar1ly.the probable decrease in membership assessment ~bllgatione . iith respect to Number EWO, Owner. the Brookfiedl Owners' Association state6 that it ray be an Owner if the propooed Brookfield Meadows development is successfully kaexed into the Brookfield Owners' Assoclacion. The Ownership interest would be trimarily limited to the new common maintenance arears which the Brookfield Owners' reeociatlon would be reeponelble to maintain if the Brookfield Meadows development .a annexed into the Brookfield Ownere' Association. 4 1. 2. 3. 4. List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. OKONDEVELOPI'+IEBE CO , P.O. BOX 577 DEL MAR. CA 92014 - Owner List the names and addresses of all persons having any Ownership interest in the property involved. EDGE(xFsT l2wBmEm, LTD P.O. BOX 577 DEL MAR, CA 92014 If any person identified pukuurt to (1) or (2) above is Q COrpor8tim or partnership, list the names ar addresses of all individual8 owning more than 1096 of the shuw in the corporation or owning any pannersn: interest in the oartnwship. IRVING OKOVITA - POST OFFICE BOX 577 DEL MAR. CA 92014 ALFREDSALM 1440 SCARBORO RD. m, QUEBGC, H3P251 CANADA FRM 13 4/91 Page '1 of 2 2075 La8 P8lmu Drivo * Carlsbrd. California 92009-4869 (819) 438-116l Disclosure Statemont (Over] Page 2 5. Have you had more than 5250 worth Of business transacted with any member of Ciy staff, 30ards Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes - No -X- If yes, please indicate person(s) I I . * FRM13 4/91 0 hge20E2 SI 2 E m m 0 -0 C C m m c cr v) v) rNK ZZZ OOC E E .- z .- i C .- C .- E E --r- 8 s 0 0 0 0 0 \ 0 c F $8 00 0 m 0 w- F m 0 * F 8 0 m 8 8 0 0 In m $8 00 mm $8 0 m m f- I eal - 0- m ;; % L I’ I LD m _. .( .. ., .... ... ..: . .. -'-I ....... ...... .!,...f 2 < 1 .: p::. , .,., . ..... ... * .... . . ;. , .- ":. .._ . .................. ...... W v) c I U .a P .... '. .... ... ... .. ...... .. . ',_ I .. . r. ' .. 1 3 n 7 l--i I I U W C 4 z I- U -I w 9 L u 3 &- r 'I"' a- p- - _-- //- ' -!i I EB I z 0 5 E W -I W W + I crr .a rn 0 .[G om -I W W v) + lL W .-I 0 .. cn Z 0 I- o W cn I cn cn 0 CY 0 I- o W 7 0 CY c-( a 0 J w LL 4( 0 0 CT )--I m :-- I. I I I I I I I rn 5 I I \ \ 1 \ \ I E c A f d I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , 3 - P- PLANNING COMMISSION November 6,1996 cs Page 4 Mr. Howes stated that the changes in colors are pretty subtle in nature and will help the units to blend into the hillside while adding some diversity to the project. He pointed out that the changes may be so minor that it might be difficult to notice them. Mr. Howes declared that his firm concurs with Staffs recommendation for approval and that he was ready to answer any questions forthcoming from th; Commission. He concluded his statement by thanking Project Planner Elaine Blackburn for all the time and effort she has put into this project. Chairman Compas opened the public testimony. Seeing no one wishing to speak Chairman Compas closed the public testimony and opened Commission discussion. . ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to determine the amendment as minor and adopt Planning Resolution No. 4008, approving the proposed new floor plan and expanded color palette. Compas, Monroy, Nielsen, Heineman, Noble, Savary and Welshons. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Amendment: and request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Site Development Plan to develop 29 single-family dwelling units and 4 second dwelling units (attached), on property generally located on the south side of Xana Way between Corintia Street and Alga Road. Chairman Compas announced to the applicant, Commissioners and the public that if the Commission recommends approval of this item, it wi!l be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. Chairman Compas opened the public hearing. Project Planner, Elaine Blackburn began her report by giving a brief review, including some of the history, of this project. She spoke of this project as originally having been a part of a larger project in the early 1980's; the bulk of which was then.approved, amended and developed, leaving approximately 4.39 acres still undeveloped. 'This smaller portion was to be used for a one hundred and four (104) unit apartment complex but that project was never built. Ms. Blackburn stated that the applicant is now requesting to amend the PUD to allow the apartment site to be developed with small lot, single family residential units. After reviewing the project, Staff concluded that they cannot recommend it for approval as it does not comply with all of the requirements of the PUD ordinance as clarified by the Planning Department Administrative Policy #16 (requiring a minimum of twenty feet of separation between structures where there are more than ten such structures in a row) and the City Council Policy #44 (requiring adequate architectural relief). However, Staff does believe that the project could be redesigned to better comply with the two (2) policy areas discussed, and therefore is recommending denial without prejudice. Ms. Blackburn pointed out that "denial without prejudice" would allow the applicant the opportunity to make some changes to the plan and come back with another application prior to the one (1) year waiting period that would be imposed with a normal straight denial. Referring to the Staff Report, Ms. Blackburn concluded her presentation by indicating that the project includes three (3) permit requests to be decided by the Commission and two (2) permit requests to be decided by the City Council. Chairman Compas invited the applicant to step forward. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION 9- P November 6, 1996 - Page 5 Nick Banche, Attorney at Law, 715 Pier View Way, Oceanside, CA., representing the Okon Development Co., and Irv Okon, President, began his presentation by pointing out that fourteen (14) of the twenty-nine (29) planned units are four (4) bedroom homes; not three (3) bedrooms as stated earlier. Mr. Banche suggested that rather than look at the two areas of supposed non-compliance (as pointed out by Staff) the Commission should be looking at the fact that this project is in total compliance with every other requirement set forth by the City of Carlsbad and therefore should be given every consideration towarf approval of this request. Further, Mr. Banche pointed out that the neighboring residential area homeowners are especially supportive of a single family project as opposed to the original plan for an apartment complex. On the subject of compatibility, Mr. Banche pointed out that there are several forms of compatibility and went on to discuss some of them. He spoke about the project being legally compatible but not necessarily within the "policy guidelines". He advised that 'policy guidelines" do not reach the dignity of subdivision ordinance requirements and therefore this Commission has the ability to disregard that policy. Mr. Banche alluded to the fact that staff was obligated to point out the deficiencies, just as he, the representative of the applicant is obligated to point out the fine points of the plan and if the Commission denies this request, he would have to consider it a "soft" denial. He also addressed the subject of the architectural guidelines by saying that the project complies with 75% of the requirement and could be made to satisfy 99% of the requirement, but only at a cost of livability in return for questionable aesthetics. Mr. Banche told of having met with several of the homeowner's from the neighboring subdivision and their views regarding the building of this project. He said that they were immediately in favor of single family homes and the fact that this project would hook into their common areas and help with association fees. He also said that they expressed their opposition to having rental units built but most of all, they were very specific about not wanting any houses built that would sell for less than their houses would sell for. Mr. Banche spoke of Architectural Guideline # 3 and the 40% requirement. He pointed out that it is not possible to reach the 40% requirement without "doing violence to the livability of the house". To show how hard the applicant has worked to comply, Mr. Banche pointed out that they have amended their application and made architectural changes. Mr. Banche concluded by saying that the Commission may disagree on the desirability of the project but asked them to, "please, don't disagree and feel that this applicant hasn't tried very hard to submit a project that ought to be approved." Commissioner Monroy expressed his concern for the "second dwelling units" and asked if the applicant would be willing to move the outside stairway to an inside location for better protection from the rain. He also-asked if there has.been any provision made for laundry facilities in those second dwelling units? Ken Discenza, Engineer, Site Design Associates, Inc., 7864 La Mesa Blvd., #201, La Mesa, CA 91941, responded by pointing out that there is a provision for a washer and dryer in the front part of the garage, for the main unit, and an area under the stairwell (outside) that could be used as a laundry area. As for moving the stairs; Mr. Discenza pointed to the roof overhang which partially covers the stairs and said that the overhang could be extended a little more. However, relocating the stairs would be impossible; there simply is no available room. Mr. Discenza also pointed out that there is a closet, next to the pantry in the kitchen, in the second unit where a "stackable" washer and dryer could be located. Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Blackbum what the maximum allowable square footage is for second dwelling units and was given a figure of 640 square feet. It was also added that there is no minimum square footage for a second dwelling unit. Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Banche why the applicant has to fit twenty-nine (29) homes into this subdivision. .- I November 6, 1996 * * PLANNING COMMISSION CI Page 6 . Mr. Banche replied that the applicant had originally planned for thirty-five (35) homes in there and in the process of trying to bring the project into compliance, reduced the number of homes to twenty-nine (29). He added that if his client would be required to drop one (1) or two (2) more units, he would lose money. - Commissioner Heineman questioned the statement that the applicant would lose money if he reduced the number to twenty-seven (27) or twentyeight (28) units and asked how other builders made money when they have had to reduce the number of units in their projects. Mr. Banche answered that in most cases, builders are probably not faced with a situation of having a lot that is approved for apartment units and then try to accommodate the desire for single family, detached homes. Commissioner Heineman stated that he is puzzled by the fact that the applicant is approaching the Commission, asking for approval on a plan where there is 25% less distance between the structures than what the regulations call for. He then asked why they even considered approaching the Commission with a plan so "grossly out of regulation". Mr. Banche disagreed with Commissioner Heineman's characterization and asked that he ask himself to determine the purpose of the guidelines and then ask if it is a question of safety or a question of aesthetics. He went on to state that he believes that Staff would agree that the spacing is a question of aesthetics and the whole purpose is to prevent the houses from looking like row-houses. He then pointed out that these houses do not look like row-houses because of the architectural treatment and that every effort was made to provide an aesthetically pleasing project and satisfy the prohibition that the guidelines were designed to provide. Commissioner Heineman pointed out that there are many builders in Carlsbad, all the time, obeying what Mr. Banche says does not have the force of law and questioned why Mr. Banche's client can't do the same. Mr. Banche replied by stating that he has to take his client's word regarding financial viability and he has no reason to disbelieve him when he says that he can't afford to lose a house. After all, he pointed out, his client has already given up one hundred and four (104) units for twenty-nine (29) units and deserves some credit for attempting to make this a viable alternative. Mr. Banche also pointed out that in the past, the Commission has disregarded the policy in.question and that the policy is not sacrosanct. He stated that he is simply asking that the Commission weigh the considerations and make a determination (in good conscience) as to whether or not it can ignore it this time. , ' Commissioner Noble asked why the builder can't move the second story off a bit, in order to meet the requirements and was told that by doing so, there may be an aesthetic gain but there would certainly be a livability loss. He then asked what the basic formula is for the number of requirements for four (4) bedrooms. Mr. Banche asked Mr. Discenza to answer Commissioner Noble's question. Mr. Discenza stated that there are three (3) floor plans. Plan No. 1 has three (3) bedrooms on two (2) stories. Plan Nos. 2 & 3 are very similar with four (4) bedrooms. The No. 2 plan is the one with the affordable housing unit where the fourth bedroom has been separated from the rest of the house and made into the "Granny Flat". Plan No. 3 is the one that can possibly be modified. It has four bedrooms and in order to change the height of the roof, half of the master suite would be lost and it would be necessary to use the space designated for the fourth bedroom to add to the master suite. The result MINUTES 7 PLANNING COMMISSION r- November 6. 1996 Page 7 would be another floor plan with only three (3) bedrooms. Mr. Discenza explained that by making that house a three (3) bedroom, they could satisfy the policy but the end result would be that all the houses would become three (3) bedroom units, except the four (4) with the affordable units. He went on to point out that since this is a family oriented project, compatible with the adjoining neighborhood, it is reasonable to believe that there should be four(4) bedroom choices as opposed to all three (3) bedroom plans. 4n addition, if the fourth bedroom is eliminated, it follows that the price of the house will also have to be lowered causing an additional loss to the developer. Mr. Discenza also made reference to the wishes of the neighboring homeowners by recounting their suggestions to not only match their architectural features and design but to build homes that will be equal in value to their homes and not be likely to reduce the value of their homes. Mr. Discenza also explained that if they dropped all of the units to three (3) bedrooms (as opposed to threes and fours) then they will be lowering the overall income of the project. In order to meet the guidelines, nine (9) of the twenty-nine (29) units would have to be changed from four (4) bedrooms to three (3) and the resulting price differential would basically make the project economically unfeasible. The same applies to the idea of dropping a lot. In planning this project, they tried to keep the prices in line with the rest of the neighborhood while at the same time keeping the square footage, the number of bedrooms in the houses, the square footage of the lots, the color schemes, etc., all comparable to those existing homes. Commissioner Noble commented that he appreciates the fact that the applicant wishes to maintain the standard of the houses and ensure that they do not degrade the neighborhood but the fact is that if those houses were being built today, they would not be able to conform with today’s requirements because the rules have changed. Chairman Compas opened the public testimony. Steve Weston, 6830 Via Marinero, Carlsbad, President of the BrooMield Owners Association, began his testimony by stating that Association Board as well as individual homeowners, are very pleased with the Brookfield Meadows plan as it has been presented to them and to the Commission. Mr. Weston expressed their support and encouraged the Commission and the City Council to approve the project. Chairman Compas asked Mr. Weston if he, or those he represents, are concerned about the lack of enough of a second story setback. Mr. Weston responded that he feels that the front setback is more than adequate and is very similar to what his neighborhood has. He also endorsed the architectural relief that has been provided for the rear of the houses and made a favorable comment regarding the setback distance from the public sidewalk to the garage doors which, in his opinion, is a very important factor. Commissioner Savary asked Mr. Weston how his homeowner‘s association feels about sharing their recreational facilities. Mr. Weston replied that the homeowner’s look forward to another twenty-nine (29) homeowners to help with the expenses and they have plenty of room for them. He added that it is also possible that with the additional financial help, perhaps they will be in a position to make some improvements. Commissioner Nielsen asked how many homes are currently in Brookfield Meadows and how long Mr. Weston has lived there. Mr. Weston answered that there are two hundred and twenty (220) and that he has lived there for four (4) years. MINUTES - c PLANNING COMMISSION - November 6, 1996 )'1 Page 8 Commissioner Nielsen then asked Mr. Weston if, when he moved into Brookfield Meadows, he had been aware that a one hundred and four (104) unit apartment complex was planned for that area. Mr. Weston explained that he had known about the apartment complex because it had been included in the C.C. & R's as the last phase of Brookfield. However, no one felt that it would ever be built because some of the existing condos in the area are still vacant and have become economic disasters. Kari Yem, 6851 Xana Way, Carlsbad. Ms. Yem lives in the house immediately next to this project and is the Vice President of the Brookfield Owner's Association. She pointed out that one of the reasons she and her fellow residents are in favor of the twenty-nine (29) new homes, is that there will be less traffic than there would be if a large apartment complex were to built there. She stated that she has owned her home for two (2) years and, she too, had been told about the apartment complex but also felt that it would never be built. She also added that if the apartments had already been there, she probably would have bought somewhere else. Mr. Banche once again addressed the Cornmission and pointed out that his client had done everything he could possibly do, within reason, to accommodate the City. He made a brief summation and again asked the Commission to weigh the aesthetic gain against the livability burden and to also consider asking Staff if you (as a body) have the power to override the "guidelines". Chairman Compas asked Mr. Banche if he could provide the Commission with documented findings, as they relate to this project, and what findings would he recommend. Mr. Banche responded by saying that he could provide such findings but felt that it would be more appropriate for Staff to provide them. He did say however, "I think that the basic finding that the project prevent and satisfies essentially the spirit of the policy and that it promotes the health, safety and welfare of the population." Mr. Banche then informed the Commission that if they agree with what he has said in this meeting, to please not let findings bother them because, as a lawyer, he is sure that this one could not be attacked successfully on the basis of inadequate findings. He then reminded them that they are talking about a policy not a legal requirement of an ordinance. Chairman Compas closed the public testimony and opened Commission discussion. Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Blackbum to elaborate on the policy concerning the "number of houses in a row" and "the distance between each home". Ms. Blackburn explained that the PUD ordinance identifies minimum required distance between structures, for certain types of structures. It refers to one (1) story, two (2) stories, etc., but does not address all the possible combinations of stories. Therefore, the City has Planning Administrative Policy No. 16, which says that when you have two (2) stov structures and you have more than ten (10) in a row, you have to provide twenty (20) feet between structures. Commissioner Welshons asked if that policy only applied to house #10 and house #11. Ms. Blackburn's answer was "no", that it is intended to provide distance between all of those structures. Chairman Compas inquired; if there were only nine (9) structures, what would the distance between them have to be? Ms. Blackburn responded by saying that if they were all two (2) story, she believes the distance to be fifteen (15) feet, under the PUD. She also said that she thought there may be a gap there and the PUD 1 PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 Page 9 does not specifically address two (2) story structures; it talks about two (2) AND three (3) story. Assistant Planning Director Gary Wayne advised that the PD ordinance does not address less than ten (10) structures in a row. He went on to say that under the policy, if you have ten (10) in a row, the minimum between a two (2) story and a one (1) story is fifteen (15) feet; two (2) and three (3) story is twenty (20) feet; it is silent on the distance between two (2) and two (2); and the distance between a one (1) story and a one (1) story is ten (10) feet. Regarding structural separation, Mr. Wayne also explained that the PD ordinance is really silent on it except that you generally need a minimum of five (5) feet for positive drainage on the side of a house. By adding together the five (5) feet from each house, the ten (1 0) foot distance is accomplished. . Ms. Blackburn continued by pointing out that if you refer to the Small and Single Family Guidelines, which is City Council Policy No. 44, you will find that it specifically defines what constitutes ten units in a row. It specifically says that the structures are in a row until there is a 90" turn or an intersection and any curve less that a 90" curve does not constitute an adequate break and is still considered to be in a row. Commissioner Welshons, referring back to the PD ordinance, interpreted its meaning as: they meet the PD ordinance because it is silent on two (2) story units, side by side, and they meet the minimum distance of ten (1 0) feet. She then asked if Staff is falling back on the Small Lot Council Policy that is more specific regarding two (2) story houses, side by side, as needing twenty (20) feet between them. Ms. Blackbum responded by saying that Staff is relying on both Policy No. 16 and Council Policy No. 44. She explained that Council Policy No. 44 identifies what degree of curvature in a street or intersection in a street constitutes not having units in a row and it says that units are in a row until you come to a 90". Commissioner Welshons pointed out that when you go back to Policy No. 44 the PD ordinance still doesn't say "two (2) story units." Ms. Blackburn agreed and said that that is where they rely on Planning Department Administrative Policy No. 16 for the twenty (20) foot requirement between two (2) story units when there are more than ten (10) in a row. Commissioner Savary asked if there are various elevations within the project site and was given an affirmative answer. Additionally, she asked if the variation in elevations would have any effect on the aesthetics and would help give the sense that its not all on a flat and the same on both sides of the street. Ms. Blackburn answered that the changes in elevations are not great and there is no specific allowance in the policy that would direct that those elevation changes would be a factor. Commissioner Savary pointed out that both sides of the street are not the same. Commissioner Noble asked to have Assistant City Attorney Rich Rudolf expand on Mr. Banche's statement regarding policy versus guidelines. Mr. Rudolf replied that Section 21.45.090 is entitled Development Standards. And a standard is a standard - its not a policy, its not a recommendation, its not desirable, its not preferred, its a standard. That means you have to meet it. It can't be waived unless there is provision for waiving it, like provisions for affordable housing or in some other way, or a variance. That's the "hard" part. The "easy" part is guidelines. You have guidelines in the landscape manual and design manual, and those are recommended or preferred but they are usually set out in an array of choices with a level of ascending or descending preferability. But, any of them are O.K. and they are only guidelines and they can all be waived or not met, and they are still O.K. Undermining that clarity of distinction between "standard" and MINUTES - r PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 - c Page 10 "guideline," you have this language with regard to the design guidelines manual in Section 21.45.075 which says, "no project which is inconsistent with the design guidelines shall be approved", which nicely confuses the matter by raising the guidelines to the level, almost, of a standard. So, where do you draw that line? Mr. Banche will then argue, "a guideline is a guideline - you can waive it - you can throw islout - its just something to give you a direction and give you a focus. And you try to get there but if you can't get there, and there are good reasons for not getting there, its O.K." And in most instances, that's probably O.K. And here we are applying a departmental policy and City Council adopted policy to interpret an ordinance which establishes a standard. So, you've got it about as confusing as you can possibly get, to try to come up with something you can hang your hat on. I think there's enough flexibility there because of the confusion, the overlapping of the language, the imprecision of it, that you could go either way and you could find that the Staff and the Council's interpretation of the standard are just policy matters and that they are flexible enough to be bent, not met, gotten close to but don't have to be absolutely met. If you do that, you can still meet the standard. Or you can conclude it is a true standard and it has not been met. I think it is in the Planning Commission's purview to make the initial call as to what you think that standard is. Does the guideline get raised, to a standard, and therefore the Staff interpretation that where the ordinance is silent you fill in with this past administrative interpretation and practice, and the courts will honor it, if its reasonable. If it says twenty (20) feet, its twenty (20) feet, and if that's what you conclude, a court is probably going to buy that. If you conclude its a guideline, its guidance, its flexible, we can waive it, we can modify it, its not absolutely binding and that's your belief and your conclusion, I think a court will follow that too. Chairman Compas stated that his interpretation of what Mr. Rudolf had just said is that if the Commission wants to approve this project, that they can come up with findings that will support it. Mr. Rudolf agreed with Chairman Compas' interpretation. Commissioner Welshons expressed her uneasiness with the staff report and the confusion has left her feeling very uncomfortable. She said that she understood that they could go in either direction but because of all the confusion she does not feel confident in going in either direction. Chairman Compas reassured Commissioner Welshons that they could be comfortable, either way. Commissioner Welshons replied that she 'may feel comfortable, but she would have to lay some ground work if she is going to make a finding in the other direction. Chairman Compas stated that whatever direction they decided to go in, they would be able to come up with findings that support them. Commissioner Welshons said that her unrest is not only with the findings but with the differences between the policy and the standard, unless there's another version of the same interpretation. Commissioner Nielsen stated that it is his understanding that it is legally defensible, either way, therefore they can be comfortable no matter which way they go. Commissioner Noble, asking Mr. Rudolf for a "yes" or "no" answer, made an analogy and was given a "YES" answer. Commissioner Monroy again voiced his concern over the fact that there is not a specific place for a washer and dryer in the second dwelling unit and also about rain protection over the staiiway. He pointed out that if the closet is used for a stackable laundry pair then the closet probably won't meet the standard. He also pointed out that the closet in question is not indicated on the plans. .. MINUTES i PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 Page 11 Mr. Discenza stated that it is his opinion that it is possible to put a stackable washer and dryer in there and still have a decent sized wardrobe. Commissioner Heineman commented that it is his impression that this project came very close to approval and this is why Staff is recommending denial without prejudice and asked what it would take for it to meet the regulations. He continued by asking if the houses must be twenty (20) feet apart, if the project must be architecturally redesigned, and if there is a middle ground where they could meet and obtain approval. Ms. Blackburn stated that given the non-compliance, it would be very difficult for Staff to come forth with a fully comfortable recommendation of approval. A recommendation of approval, typically, comes when a project meets each and every criteria. She did say that they were very close in many respects. Chairman Compas opened Commission discussion. Commissioner Noble, speaking for the record, reported that he had talked with Mr. Banche on Tuesday, November 6, 1996, and that Mr. Banche had asked him if he had any problems with the project. He went on to say that he told Mr. Banche that he had ’heartburn” with the box type thing but that was basically the sum of his concerns with the project. He then stated that he thinks it is a good project even though there are some small problems with it. He pointed out that in view of the economy of the day and the fact that there has been a cry for more four (4) bedroom homes, he is of the opinion that the Commission should overlook those things they are empowered to overlook and approve the project. He then voiced his support for the project. Commissioner Welshons voiced her appreciation to Commissioner Noble for raising the questions for Mr. Rudolf and helping to clarify some points. As a result, she agreed with Commissioner Noble’s assessment of the situation. She continued by saying that in using their discretion, the Commission is saying that this project meets the spirit of the Planning Department Administrative Policy No. 16 and Council Policy No. 44. Ms. Welshons summaried the testimony of the evening and announced that she would vote for approval. Commissioner Heineman voiced his concern regarding the quality of the second dwelling units and the distance between the units and said he could not see where any minor changes could be made. He stated that it is his opinion that they need to reduce the size by one or two lots in order to create the twenty (20) feet beween each house and as it stands now, he cannot vote for approval. Commissioner Monroy made known his concern for setting precedent. Once again he said that he was not happy with the fact that the second dwelling units do not have specific laundry areas and that the stairways are not adequately protected from the elements and in inclement weather could be considered unsafe. He spoke of his dislike for the architectural look of the homes. Mr. Monroy also stated that the Planning Commission does not make policy and if policy is to be changed, it will have to be changed by the City Council. He then stated that he cannot support the approval of this project. Commissioner Nielsen disagreed with taking the apartment complex out and replacing it with single family homes. His contentions is that currently there are no apartments in La Costa and if the City expects to get affordable rental units someplace, they can’t approve rental projects and then not have them built. He voiced his agreement with Commissioner Heineman regarding the distance between the houses and said he could not vote for approval. Chairman Compas recognized Assistant Planning Director Wayne. MINUTES I r- h PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 * Page 12 Mr. Wayne said that if the desire of the Commission is to approve the project, it can't actually be approved at this time without Conditions for Approval. He advised that the Commission direct Staff to return to the Commission with Conditions AND Findings for Approval. He also said that Staff would come back with Findings based on the Commission's discussion. & Commissioner Savary admitted that she is still not absolutely sure about this project but that she feels that she should support Staff's recommendation for denial without prejudice, mainly because of the close proximi$ of the houses. Chairman Compas voiced his support for the project, with some reservations. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, recommending approval of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt Planning Cornmission Resolution No. 4000, 4002 8 4003 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CT 96-04, HDP 96-04, and SDP 96- 07, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4001, RECOMMENDING DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE of PUD 71(8) based on the findings contained therein. Monroy, Nielsen, Savary and Heineman VOTE: 4-3 AYES: NOES: Compas, Noble and Welshons ABSTAIN: None Chairmen Compas closed the public hearing and thanked all who had participated. 5. CUP 96-09 - AIR TOUCH PACIFIC ONE PLAZA - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of fifteen directional cellular antennas, and one digital dish antenna behind an existing roof screen, and use of one 400 square foot equipment room within the first floor of the existing office building. The site is located at 701 Palomar Airport Road, west of Interstate 5 and east of Avenida Encinas, in the M (Industrial) Zone, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 3. Chairman Compas, citing a personal interest in AirTouch, disqualified himself and asked that Vice Chairman Nielsen preside during tnis portion of the meeting and left the room. Vice.Chairman Nielsen asked Mr. Rudolf to briefly recite the FCC regulations on this item. Mr. Rudolf began by speaking of radio frequency emissions and that if any member of the Commission has concern about emissions, they must put them aside and not base their decision on that aspect of this project. He added that he had a memo prepared for each member that he will hand out at the end of the meeting. Regarding EMFs resolved by the California Supreme Court and an article, recently published in the San Diego Union, which states that there is no conclusive evidence of cancer danger from EMFs but again recommending more studies. Vice Chairman Nielsen announced to the applicant, Commissioners and the public that the Commission's action on this item is final and it will not be forwarded to the City Council unless it is appealed within ten (1 0) calendar days. Elaine Blackburn, Project Planner, explained that this project is to take place in and on an already existing office building and will consist of sixteen (16) antennas placed behind an existing roof screen and the use of one (1) 400 square foot room inside the building for the radio equipment cabinets. She concluded her MINUTES -7 PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 Page 13 presentation by saying that Staff has found that all findings required for the approval of this CUP can be made and therefore are recommending approval of same. Vice Chairman Nielsen invited the applicant to speak. Chris Morrow, 4822 Santa Monica Ave., San Diego, CA., 92107, appearing on behalf of AirTouch Cellular. Mr. Morrow expressed the company's appreciation to Staff and most pafttcularly to Elaine Blackburn, who had worked with them throughout this project. He pointed out that there have been no written or verbal opposition to this project, filed, and that AirTouch concurs with the recommendations. He described the project as a "stealthy" project, as no one can see it and it is in a zone that is appropriate for this type of use and that the CUP process is the best way to deal with it. He pointed out that the project has been deemed exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and that the California Coastal Commission already has deemed this project exempt from their processes because it utilizes an existing component of the built environment. He also pointed out that this site, at its worst possible case, operates at approximately 4% of the strictest standard that could be applied to it. He then asked for question from the Commission. Commissioner Savary asked how many more units they intend to install in Carlsbad, and where. Mr. Morrow explained that there is another site on Tamarack which, together with this site, will take the place of a site that was at the Encina Power Plant. He then introduced Kevin McGee and asked him to answer this question. Mr. Noble asked if they would be using the same type of equipment as at the Encina Plant. Mr. Morrow stated that they had never had the opportunity to put the site in, at the Encina Plant, because of several different issues. He went on to say that AirTouch has been trying to cover this area of the freeway for about the past 2% years. Vice Chairman Nielsen opened public testimony. Seeing no one, he closed public testimony and opened Commission discussion. Commissioner Welshons asked if there is currently another cellular unit on this site. Ms. Blackburn answered by expiaining that there is another facility at this site, but to her knowledge it is a PBMS facility and is not cellular. Commissioner Noble commented that this site is down where he lives and he has never seen it. Commissioner Monroy stated that since the City is protected from liability, as stated in the Conditions on Page 4, Paragraph 10, he has no problem with this project. Commissioner Welshons, referring to Condition No. 9, on Page 4, asked if language could be added to the sentence beginning with "Within six (6) months . . ." The phrase to be added, after the word "months", would be " . , .and each year thereafter," . . . Ms. Welshons then asked the applicant if they would concur with the addition of the above language. Mr. Morrow agreed to the addition. MINUTES +--- PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 - - c Page 14 ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4006, approving Conditional Use Permit, CUP 96-09, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the amendment to Condition No. 9 in Resolution No. 4006 on Page 4, . . . 'Within six (6) months, and each Fear thereafter the issuance of occupancy," . . . . Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Heineman and Welshons VOTE: 6-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Vice Chairman Nielsen closed the public hearing and returned control of the meeting to Chairman Compas. Chairman Compas announced to the applicant, Commissioners and the public that the Commission's action on this next item is final and it will not be forwarded to the City Council unless it is appealed within ten (1 0) calendar days. 6. CUP 96-12 - PBMS ENCINAS SITE CSD-185-06) - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of 6 roof-mounted panel antennas and two radio equipment cabinets, on an existing commercial building. The site is located on the west side of Paseo Del Norte between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road, in the C-2 General Commercial Zone, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 3. Project Planner Elaine Blackbum made a brief presentation of the project including the information the antennas will be located on the roof of the Weseloh Chevrolet Sewice Building with the equipment boxes on the ground at the side of the building and behind a chain link fence. Staff has concluded that the project complies with all applicable regulations and policies of the LCP and is therefore recommending approval of the CUP. Chairman Compas requested that the applicant step forward. Jeffrey Clarke, 9610 Granite Ridge Dr., Suite A, San Diego, CA 92123, representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, explained, in some detail, the size 'and location of the project. He emphasized that the installation is very small, with cylinder type individual screens that blend in and will cause no visual impact. In addition to the physical screening there is also mature landscaping to aid in the screening. Mr. Clarke also emphasized the importance of this site, pointing out that it fills a previously existing gap in the PBMS network. Regarding EMFs, Mr. Clarke assured the Commission that this site will operate at a level less than 1 % of the ANSI standard, at its maximum operating level. He pointed out that it is significantly below the current ANSI and the new FCC standard which will be in effect on January 1,1997. .. Commissioner Savary asked if PBMS has plans for more than two (2) installations in Carlsbad. Mr. Clarke answered by stating that PBMS currently has plans for a total of six (6) sites. Commissioner Welshons again referring to Condition No. 9, on Page 4, asked if language could be added to the sentence beginning with "Within six (6) months . . ." The phrase to be added, after the word "months", would be " . . .and each year thereafter," . . . Ms. Welshons then asked the applicant if they would concur with the addition of the above language. x - PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 Page 15 Mr. Clarke agreed to the additional language and added that PBMS equipment is not capable of exceeding the ANSI standard. Commissioner Welshons then inquired as to whether PBMS had taken a look at this site from Armada Drive at the top of the flower fields. - Mr. Clarke answered by saying that Armada Drive is so far away from the site that it would be virtually impossible to see the screened antennas from that distance. Commissioner Welshons agreed. Chairman Compas opened public testimony. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mr. Compas opened Commission discussion. Commissioner Nielsen questioned the necessity of having to add language to Condition No. 9, when the facility will be operating at less than 1% of the ANSI standard and that adding that language, additional financial burden would be imposed upon the applicant. Commissioner Monroy reminded everyone that the reason this language has been added in the past is to assure that the applicant will not add power and thereby create a cumulative effect. Commissioner Nielsen pointed out that when this language was added to previous CUPS, it was because there were transmitbng antennas involved. In this case, he added, there are no transmitting antennas and therefore the addition of this language is unnecessary. Commissioner Welshons agreed that Commissioner Nielsen made a very good point. However, Ms. Welshons indicated that because of the rapid advances in technology, she would rather be safe than sorry and have some true data to rely on. Commissioner Noble asked the applicant is they are subject to any federal regulations requiring them to report on these emissions on an annual basis. The applicant replied that they are not subject to reporting because they operate at such a low level of power. Chairman Compas then asked the applicant how much it costs to do the tests. Mr:Clarke could not answer the question as he has not had the opportunity see any billing invoices for testing at other sites. ' Chairman Compas suggested that if there have been no changes, after a reasonable number of tests, that the applicant could return to the Commission and request relief from that portion of the condition. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4009, approving Conditional Use Permit, CUP 96-12, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the amendment to Condition No. 9 in Resolution No. 4009 on Page 4, . . . Within six (6) months, and each year thereafter, after the issuance of occupancy, . . Commissioner Nielsen, because of the lack of necessity of the amendment to Condition No. 9, stated that he could not support the amendment and would therefore vote against it. MINUTES r- . PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 Page 16 VOTE: 6-1 AYES: NOES: Nielsen ABSTAIN: None Compas, Monroy, Noble, Savary, Heineman and Welshons - t inute Motion, by Commissioner Noble requested that, in an effort to se some of the confusion between City Council Policy No 44 and Planning Department Policy No. 16, that the City Council help Staff look into some means or method of trying to get these items a little closer together. Also, would the City Council entertain the possibility of considering that the setback requirements, in a tiered project where the houses have varying degrees of setback, be used in consideration of approval. . . commissioner Welshons stated that her understanding of the Minute Motion is that it is, basically, asking Council to provide more clarification on the Planning Department Administrative Policy and the City Council Policy. Commissioner Noble confirmed that Ms. Welshons was correct in her understanding and further detailed the reasons for the motion. He specifically alluded to the confusion brought about by the policies and standards regarding one (1) and two (2) story; three (3) and four (4) bedroom homes. The motion was not seconded and therefore no vote was taken. Chairman Compas also asked the Planning Department to look into somehow correcting the "silent" PD Ordinance regarding the spacing between two (2) story homes and whether or not there should be a minimum of twenty (20) feet between them. Mr. Wayne stated that the Planning Department has already spent considerable time on this subject and have concluded that their interpretation is a "reasonable interpretation of the standard." Commissioner Welshons suggested that maybe the Commission needs to have another "workshop" where they can possibly iron out some of these problems. Mr. Wayne reminded the Commission that the last time they had a workshop, they asked the Planning Department to go to the Council with these same questions. He went on to recount the fact that they had taken this issue to Council and Council told them to look at the ordinance and then told Staff that everything is fine. Commissioner Nielsen suggested that the Administrative Policy be modified by the Planning Director. Mr. Wayne repeated the Planning Department's interpretation and inferred that there is no need for modification. Commissioner Nielsen cited that there is no standard and therefore it is not enforceable. Mr. Rudolf interjected here and said that what he was hearing from the Commission is that they want clarification from the City Council as to what the Council wishes the standard to be, in the ordinance, as MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION November 6. 1996 Page 17 . opposed to leaving this hole that the Commission and the Staff have to grapple with. Mr. Wayne further pointed out that the Commission could pass a simple resolution of intent, as well, to amend the PD ordinance. * Mr. Rudolf agreed that was all his (Commissioner Noble's) motion was, a minute motion to request the Council to give the Staff direction with regard to re-examining the policies (one the Staff policy and one the Council Policy), and I suggest that you include a potential amendment to Section 21.45.090(b)(5) Commissioner Welshons seconded Commissioner Noble's motion as phrased by Attorney Rudolf. Commissioner Monroy asked if Commissioner Noble and Welshons would include in their motion, an acceptable minimum regarding a second dwelling unit. He indicated that this is really a policy decision but pointed out that while there is a maximum, there is no minimum as there should be. Following discussion it was agreed to split the second dwelling unit minute motion off as a second unrelated item. Chairman Compas called for a vote on Commissioner Noble's motion. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Compas, Nielsen, Monroy, Noble, Savary, Heineman and Welshons Commissioner Monroy moved that the Commission adopt a minute motion requesting the Council to establish a "minimum" size for second dwelling units. Chairman Compas seconded the motion and called for a vote. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Compas, Nielsen, Monroy, Noble, Savary, Heineman and Welshons ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: Assistant Planning Director Wayne reported that the Carlsbad Ranch Hotel Timeshare is going before Council on Tuesday, November 12, 1996. Commissioner Monroy stated for the record, that he had written a letter to each Council Person explaining , his vote, which was not reflected in the minutes. .. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf explained more about his memo regarding the Supreme Court's decision with respect to EMFs, explained parts of that (those) decision(s) and apologized for not having gotten his memo to the Commission long ago. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Rudolf to comment on a ruling by the Attorney General regarding the Brown Act. Mr. Rudolf said that he would find the opinion and see to it that the Commission gets a copy of it. He said the news account indicated the opinion deals with a Brown Act technical provisions relating to MINUTES e- 8- PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 1996 Page 18 subcommittees of legislature bodies. Commissioner Nielsen, regarding the timeshare project at the beach, asked if there was supposed to be Commissioner Nielsen again announced the date a time for the annual Staff Appreciation Party on November 21, 1996. footpath access to the beach left in place for the owners. The answer was no. * Chairman Compas advised that three of the Commissioners will not be in attendance at the last meeting in December when, normally, the election of officers would be held. He suggested that, in the alternative, the election be held at the first meeting of the month on December 4, 1996. There were no objections to his suggestion and the election will be held on December 4, at the conclusion of the regular business meeting with the new Chair taking over the first meeting in January. Chairman Compas also announced that there have been two new grandchildren added to his family; a boy and a girl. One baby born in Oregon and one born here in California. While in Oregon visiting his new granddaughter, Mr. Compas had the opportunity to talk to Betty Buckner (the former Minutes Clerk), who is doing very well and sends her regards. He also said that Betty was worried about whether the new Minutes Clerk was doing a better job than she had done. Commissioner Noble had a bit of information that ties in with the fears (or lack thereof) of EMFs. He said that there is a million dollar home up on a hill above Alga Road, whose back fence is fifteen (15) feet from the power lines, and was the FIRST house sold in that development. So much for the fears! ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular meeting of November 6, 1996, was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, GARY E. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director CAROL CRUISE Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED. MINUTES