Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-17; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes October 17, 2012 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: October 17, 2012 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Schumacher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Siekmann led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioners Arnold, Black, L’Heureux, Nygaard, and Siekmann Absent: Commissioner Scully STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Christer Westman, Senior Planner Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer Glen Van Peski, Engineering Manager Gregory Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from September 5, 2012. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve as amended the minutes from the Regular Meeting of September 5, 2012. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, and Commissioner Nygaard NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scully ABSTAIN: Commissioner Siekmann APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from October 3, 2012. Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2012 Page 2 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of October 3, 2012. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard, and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scully ABSTAIN: Commissioner Black Chairperson Schumacher directed everyone's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the Commission would be following during the evening's Public Hearing. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Schumacher asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item. 1. MCA 12-03 – MODIFY REFERENCES TO HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION – A request for a recommendation of approval of amendments to Carlsbad Municipal Code Sections 21.54.040(B), 21.54.140(A) and 21.54.150(A) to change references to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to the Community Development Commission. Mr. Neu stated Agenda Item 1 would normally be heard in a public hearing context; however, the project appears to be minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends approval. He recommended that the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission proceed with a vote as a consent item. Staff would be available to respond to questions if the Commission or someone from the public wished to pull Agenda Item 1. Chairperson Schumacher asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda Item 1. Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve Agenda Item 1. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard, and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scully ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Schumacher closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next agenda item. Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2012 Page 3 2. GPA 11-07/MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 – ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE – Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a recommendation for approval for a General Plan Amendment and Master Plan Amendment to modify the configurations of Planning Areas, modify land uses, and modify future development standards within the previously approved Robertson Ranch Master Plan for the West Village and approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, and Habitat Management Plan Permit to subdivide the property into planning areas as defined by the Master Plan as well as associated master plan mass grading and improvements including backbone streets and El Camino Real along the project frontage on 201.37 acres of land located north of El Camino Real south of Tamarack Avenue and west of Cannon Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 14. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Senior Planner Christer Westman would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Schumacher opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. Mr. Westman gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Black asked about the changes in the square footage in the lot sizes. Mr. Westman stated those changes are partially market driven and partially due to the constraints on the property. Increasing open space reduces area for development. Commissioner Black inquired about the landscaping for Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real. Mr. Westman stated the master plan only depicts the landscaping in a conceptual context. The intention is that there will be embellished entry ways and monumentation. Chairperson Schumacher asked about the El Camino Real corridor standard, specifically regarding the contiguous sidewalks. Mr. Westman stated the development standards are broken into different sections and this section requires non-contiguous sidewalks. The standards are not applicable with today’s development standards; however, the intentions to enhance the El Camino Real corridor will still be preserved even if all the development standards are not met. Chairperson Schumacher asked how many times the El Camino Real development standards have been updated. Mr. Westman stated the standards have not been updated. Commissioner Nygaard asked if the Commission will have the ability to take a closer look at the landscaping for the different Planning Areas. Mr. Westman stated yes as each planning area needs to submit plans for discretionary approval. Commissioner Siekmann inquired about Planning Area 1 and if there will be a caution sign for wildlife between the two planning areas. Mr. Westman stated no signs are proposed at this time. Commissioner Siekmann suggested she would like to add a condition for a sign to be posted in that area. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Matthew Fausett, 11280 Corbin, Northridge, representing Shapell Homes, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner L’Heureux asked about the gates in the two planning areas where gates are proposed. Paul Klukas, Planning Systems, 1530 Faraday, Suite 100, Carlsbad, stated that if there are gates in communities, it is standard to have gates at all entrances. Commissioner Siekmann asked about situating the homes so they are best suited for solar. Mr. Fausett stated it has been Shapell’s vision to explore solar in the neighborhoods. Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2012 Page 4 Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Schumacher opened public testimony on Agenda Item 2. Greg Agosti, 4730 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, stated the new proposal by Shapell Homes will reduce the proposed traffic by roughly 70%. He stated he is in favor the project. Jill Agosti, 4730 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, thanked the Commissioners for their work. Ms. Agosti stated that Shapell has been fantastic to work with. With the gates in the two planning areas, the traffic on Edinburgh and Glasgow will be reduced by 70% which will help maintain the quality of life in her neighborhood. She further stated she would like to see an all way stop at the intersection of Glasgow and Edinburgh. The applicant has agreed to cover the cost. Commissioner Nygaard asked if they have spoken with the traffic commission. Ms. Agosti stated yes. Frank Volpe, 4777 Brookwood Court, Carlsbad, asked that the Commission review the application carefully. Shapell Homes has worked tremendously with the community to make the neighborhood better. Kevin Anderson, 4782 Gateshead Road, Carlsbad, has lived in the Colony neighborhood for 23 years and has an interest in keeping the quality of life as is. He supports the gates and the project. Michael Selna, 4901 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, stated he and his wife operate the commercial site called Marja Acres. They have been able to work with the applicant to help limit the amount of construction and interruption during the southbound widening. Knut Madden, 2705 Glasgow Drive, thanked his neighbors for their work on this project. He stated that having gates will improve their lives on Glasgow. Diane Nygaard, 5020 Nighthawk Way, Oceanside, representing Preserve Calavera, stated within this project they had previous concerns with the wildlife corridors; however, those issues have been addressed by the applicant. They would still like to have a shelf added to the existing culvert under El Camino Real. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, Chairperson Schumacher closed public testimony. Chairperson Schumacher asked if the applicant wished to respond to any of the issues raised during public testimony. Seeing none, he asked if there were any other questions of staff. Commissioner L’Heureux asked how much leeway the Commission has regarding this project in light of the prior approvals and decisions. Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi stated the Commission is making all the findings for the various permits again so there is quite a bit of leeway. She commented that one of the speakers asked about adding a stop sign, however, that is outside the purview of the commission tonight. Commissioner L’Heureux asked about the gates and the issue of cut-through traffic. He stated he was not presented with any traffic analysis with this project. He asked for the true traffic impact on the Colony neighborhood. Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer, gave the Commission a brief history of the traffic concerns with the project and the perspective of the various scenarios presented with previous Planning Commission hearings on this project. Traffic studies were prepared for each of the various scenarios, i.e. circuitous routing, gated communities, with the previous approvals, and those studies were presented to the Commission and to the City Council during those approvals. Analysis was also prepared for the scenario if gates were not installed. Commissioner L’Heureux asked for the analysis of traffic impacts to the Colony with the gates and without the gates. Mr. Riddle stated he could get that information. Commissioner L’Heureux inquired about the 4,000 square foot lots. Mr. Westman stated that Village X of Calavera Hills has 4,000 square foot lots. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if those are single family detached homes. Mr. Westman stated yes. He further stated that the opportunity for that lot size, for a minimum, would be in Planning Area 3. Commissioner L’Heureux asked there have been any issues or Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2012 Page 5 negative feedback with the 4,000 square foot lot sizes. Mr. Westman stated there has not been any negative feedback regarding that type of development. The traffic patterns are not compromised and those homes will appeal to a different socioeconomic level. Mr. Neu added that in the master plan standards, a minimum 50 foot lot width still allows adequate room for on-street parking. It also allowed the homes to have architectural features and variations. Mr. Riddle presented information to the Commission from the Robertson Ranch Roadway Alternatives Traffic Study dated September 6, 2006. Commissioner L’Heureux asked for clarification regarding the proposed gates. Mr. Riddle explained where the gates will be located and how those gates will function for those residents. Commissioner Siekmann asked if pedestrian traffic will be able to move through the gated Planning Areas. Mr. Riddle stated the areas will open on both sides to pedestrians. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the Colony residents will have access to the gates. Mr. Riddle stated no. Commissioner Arnold asked if the other roads in the development will be open. Mr. Riddle stated yes. Chairperson Schumacher asked if the Commission supported the addition of a condition for a wildlife caution sign between Planning Areas 1 and 23a. All commissioners gave their support to add the condition. DISCUSSION Commissioner Nygaard commented that it is refreshing to hear of an applicant working for more than 2 years with the community. Because of that effort, this became a much better project. She commented that clustering the homes is good and she is happy to see the slope changed along El Camino Real. In regards to gated communities, this is a much more reasonable solution. Commissioner Nygaard stated she can approve the project. Commissioner Arnold commented the small lots concerned him at first but the trade-off is great as there is more open space. He feels that gated communities are acceptable. Commissioner Arnold stated that the proposed community service facility in Planning Area 2 would be a mistake. He would like to see open space at that location. Commissioner Arnold commented that he is a proponent of meandering sidewalks with landscaping between the sidewalk and the street. Commissioner L’Heureux echoed the concerns of the other commissioners. He stated that he does not like gated communities and he is a little concerned about the outdated traffic data. In regards to Planning Area 2, he is concerned since it is fairly isolated. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that initially he was opposed to smaller lots but he can support the idea because he feels it is great that open space can be protected or enhanced because of it. Commissioner Black commended staff for presenting the information that is very clear. He stated he can approve the amendments and concurred with the comments from his fellow commissioners. Commissioner Siekmann thanked staff for their help and their presentation. She feels this is a great project and stated she can support the project. Chairperson Schumacher stated it is a good refinement to the existing plan, and he can support the project. Ms. Mobaldi stated the condition regarding wildlife signs would be added to the CT resolution and would state “A wildlife crossing warning sign shall be installed on the street intersecting the habitat areas in Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 23A in a size, design, and location satisfactory to the city engineer.” The Commission stated they are agreeable to that wording. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if there will be other instances where the signage might be appropriate. Mr. Westman stated the other instances are between Planning Areas 23B and C, and Planning Areas 5 and 23B. Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2012 Page 6 Commissioner Arnold would like to add a condition that states Planning Area 2 not include a community service facility and that it should remain open space. Commissioner Nygaard asked about the impacts of taking that out of the plan. Ms. Mobaldi stated that the community service facility would need to be relocated to another area within the master plan. Chairperson Schumacher asked what Commissioner Arnold’s concerns are regarding the proposed community service facility. Commissioner Arnold stated he is concerned with traffic and safety. Mr. Riddle explained that access to Planning Area 2 would be from the signalized intersection at El Camino Real and Kelly Drive. Commissioner Arnold stated he can live with that. However, he would also like to add a condition regarding meandering, landscaped sidewalks where possible. Commissioner Arnold would like sidewalk standards to include landscaped parkways. He stated he would like the sidewalks to be redone. Commissioner Siekmann asked if meandering sidewalks would encroach into existing open space. Mr. Westman stated the plans do include meandering sidewalks along El Camino Real where possible. Chairperson Schumacher asked for support for Commissioner Arnold’s concept. Commissioner Arnold raised his hand in support. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6911 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6912 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA 11-07) and Master Plan Amendment (MP 02-03(C)), and approve Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6913 and 6914 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map (CT 11-01), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 11-01), Special Use Permit (SUP 11-02), and Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 11-03) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the errata sheet for Agenda Item 2 and the added condition regarding wildlife signage prepared by the Assistant City Attorney which will be added to the resolution for CT 11-01. VOTE: 5-1 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard, and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: Commissioner Arnold ABSENT: Commissioner Scully ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Schumacher closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next agenda item. 3. CDP 11-10/HDP 11-02/SUP 11-03/HMP 11-04 – EL CAMINO REAL SOUTHBOUND WIDENING - Request for the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the approval of a Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, and Habitat Management Plan Permit for improvements to portions of the existing southbound side of El Camino Real between Kelly Drive and Crestview Drive to its ultimate buildout condition of three southbound lanes, a bicycle lane, curb, gutter, 5 foot sidewalk, and street lights within a 63 foot southbound right-of-way for a distance of approximately 1,600 lineal feet in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated Senior Planner Christer Westman would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Schumacher opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2012 Page 7 Chairperson Schumacher acknowledged receipt of an errata sheet and a letter from Mr. Harold Stidolph. Mr. Westman gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Arnold asked what kind of sidewalks are planned for this area. Mr. Riddle stated that Staff has encouraged, and the current plans reflect, the installation of meandering sidewalks on the northbound section from Cannon Road to Tamarack Avenue. For the southbound portion, there are constraints and portions of existing sidewalk and along those sections the sidewalk is already attached to the curb. There are no plans to remove those portions of existing sidewalk, and the new sidewalks will be installed contiguous with the existing curbs. Commissioner L’Heureux asked for clarification for the errata sheet for the item. Mr. Riddle stated staff will be monitoring the development of the west village. The condition is framed such that for Phase 1 of El Camino Real, when any development is proposed, Staff will ensure that the developer includes the construction of Phase 1 concurrently with the development of those grouped Planning Areas that are included in Phase 1. Commissioner Siekmann asked how the city will work with Marja Acres. Mr. Riddle stated that between now and the construction document stage there will be more meetings to take place with Marja Acres and several other property owners impacted by the road widening project. There will be construction inspectors who will also work on the project during the construction phase to oversee temporary traffic control measures and temporary access in and out of the effected sites. Commissioner Siekmann asked if there will ever be a time when there will not access to the sites. Mr. Riddle stated that based on his experience, there will be times when access will be temporarily cut-off; however it would not be cut-off for the entire site, only portions at a time, as there are several access points. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Matt Fausett, 11280 Corbin, Northridge, representing Shapell Homes, stated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner L’Heureux stated his biggest concern is the retaining walls along both sides of El Camino Real and asked for more information regarding the proposed treatment for the walls. Mr. Fausett stated there will be a tiered approach to the retaining walls along the northbound side. At this point in time, they have not prepared any specific designs for the retaining walls. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the wall design will come back before the Commission at a future date. Mr. Westman stated no, the design of the retaining walls will be part of the landscape plans that will be submitted to the City Planner for his approval. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he is not happy with that. Chairperson Schumacher asked as to why the materials for the retaining walls have not been picked out at this time. Mr. Westman stated there is not a standard that the city applies to every project. The intention was to have some type of treatment used elsewhere in the city. Staff did not require the applicant to propose a specific design at this stage as the final product would need to be acceptable to the City Planner at the time the landscape plans are signed. Commissioner Siekmann asked if there was anything Staff could do to make this acceptable for the Commission tonight. Mr. Neu stated there are options for Commission. If the Commission felt strongly about seeing the actual design of the retaining walls, staff could bring that back before the Commission for approval. The typical process is that something of this nature would be shown on the construction plans. Another option is that the Commission could provide staff and the applicant some parameters for the type of texturing or coloring. When this has been done in the past, Staff has attempted to match the wall color to the existing soil color of the nearby slope. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2012 Page 8 Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Harold Stidolph, 4814 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, concerned about stormwater on his land. He feels he and his wife have been ignored by the applicant regarding their concerns. He stated he is concerned with access to his property on El Camino Real as well as the drainage of stormwater on his property. Gail Stidolph, 4814 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, echoed the concerns of her husband regarding the proposed project. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any questions of the speakers. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to respond to the issues raised. Mr. Fausett stated Shapell Homes attempted to meet with the Stidolphs early on in the process but it was ultimately determined to be city issues that needed to be worked out with the city. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Black asked if the concerns of the Stidolphs are valid. Mr. Westman deferred the question to Mr. Riddle. Mr. Riddle stated the questions and concerns are valid. Access is important for both the Stidolphs and the city. Solutions need to be worked out and a better understanding of the situation needs to be reached. Commissioner Siekmann asked if the Stidolph’s issues have to do with the project before the commission tonight. Ms. Mobaldi stated the issue is regarding city right of way and that is why the developer has deferred to the city. The city has the right to approve development in the public right of way. If the adjacent land owners have concerns about that, and the way in which those improvements are approved by the city engineer, those land owners could litigate with the city in terms of what their rights are. There is no such thing as a prescriptive easement against a public entity. A prescriptive easement is where someone has openly done something on property they do not own for a long time. One does not obtain rights that way with government property. Those issues would need to be resolved in a different forum, by a court, not by this Commission. Commissioner L’Heureux stated his concern if the Commission approves the map which contains improvements without addressing this issue then it causes Mr. Stidolph to have a landlocked parcel and it forces him into litigation with the City. He asked if this could be resolved at this point in time so that no one has to be forced into litigation. Ms. Mobaldi stated there is not a map for this item, only improvement plans. The project engineer, Mr. Riddle, indicated that Staff will attempt to work with the land owners to work out these issues but they have not all been resolved. It is still in the preliminary stages as far as the details regarding the drainage and the access. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that he is concerned about approving something before all the details have been worked out. Ms. Mobaldi stated that while she understands his point, that is always the case, there is always more work to be done and there are always details that need to be worked out ultimately. She deferred to Staff as to whether or not the issues could be resolved now. Mr. Riddle stated that Staff is not proposing to landlock the property. The proposal is to use the SDG&E access as the driveway which would serve Mr. Stidolph’s property. Currently there are two existing driveway points on that property. City Staff would prefer to minimize the number of driveways on El Camino Real because it a prime arterial road. Staff has spoken briefly with Mr. Stidolph regarding that proposal to which he seems somewhat agreeable; however he has a concern about gaining access to the other area of his property for farming purposes. Part of the challenge is creating a design that will gain him access to both areas of his property. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if there are any problems in using the SDG&E road as the primary access. Mr. Riddle stated City staff would need to work with SDG&E as well as the Stidolphs. Staff will continue to work the applicant as they are representing the city on this project and all the other effected land owners, particularly Mr. Stidolph, so a solution can be reached. Commissioner L’Heureux asked as to how long the discussions could take. Mr. Riddle stated the agreements need to be in place prior to construction documents going out which could be in approximately 12 months. Commissioner Arnold asked if the item should be continued until an agreement is reached. Mr. Riddle commented that there are several other effected properties that the City needs to obtain dedications from. Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2012 Page 9 The issue regarding acquiring off-site dedications is a typical issue that occurs with private development. This is not the first time this has happened. Commissioner Siekmann asked if access and flooding were the two issues that remained unresolved. Mr. Riddle stated yes, access is a current discussion; flooding has not been dealt with yet. Mr. Riddle gave a detailed presentation regarding the drainage issues on the property. Mr. Riddle provided information from the project hydrology studies. He further shared how Mr. Stidolph’s property currently floods and how it is projected to flood after Robertson Ranch develops. The difference in flood elevation change was shown to be neglible. The Commission and staff held a discussion regarding the information presented. Ms. Mobaldi stated that she heard the Stidolphs testify that they had concerns but she did not hear them present any evidence or talk specifically about how this project or the conditions of this project will make their property flood. Mr. Stidolph spoke of past flooding which he has remedied. Ms. Mobaldi cautioned the Commission to not try to solve a problem that Staff does not know even exists. The evidence being presented by the City Engineer is that they have looked at this flooding issue and city staff does not feel that it is a problem. Chairperson Schumacher commented that whether or not the project is approved, there are still agreements that need to be reached. Ms. Mobaldi stated that as Mr. Riddle pointed out it is not uncommon to have projects conditioned to obtain easements that are necessary to install the infrastructure for the project. It is always preferable to do that by agreement. But if that cannot be done, and the City approves a project, then the City in essence lends its eminent domain power to the developer in order to acquire those easements. That is something that is anticipated with development and it is something that is necessary because otherwise, in some circumstances, public infrastructure could not be built. Commissioner Nygaard inquired as to any impacts created if this project were continued until more information was obtained. Mr. Riddle stated the biggest impact would be that the applicant would stall the approval for the Master Tentative Map because the two projects are tied together. Ms. Mobaldi suggested that if the Commission wants or needs more information, it might be worthwhile to continue the item. If the Commission wants to continue the item indefinitely to obtain a resolution to the issues, it could be years or even impossible. She further stated that to postpone an item to an indeterminate date until an agreement is reached may deprive the developer of his right to have his application either approved or denied in a timely manner. Within reason it is acceptable to ask for more information to help make a meaningful decision. However a Commission cannot delegate its authority and require a developer to resolve something which may be beyond his control. DISCUSSION Commissioner Nygaard stated she feels like she does not understand how it all will come together. She would like some assurance that the Stidolph’s problem could be addressed and she does not feel comfortable moving forward at this point. Commissioner Arnold asked if there is some kind of language that would allow the Commission to approve the project tonight on the grounds that the issues are resolved. Ms. Mobaldi advised the Commission against adding a condition such as that. The Commission can encourage the applicant to resolve issues with third parties; however, the Commission needs to look at the findings for these permits and state their reasons for not being able to make certain findings. If more information is required in order to make a finding, the Commission needs to communicate to Staff the specific information needed to make either a finding of approval or denial. In the meantime, people are always encouraged to work things out but that is not the role of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission’s role is to make findings with conditions that support those findings. Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2012 Page 10 Commissioner L’Heureux stated he is not sure what extra time will help the Commission with unless there is very specific information that Staff can provide. He would like add the condition that the materials for the retaining walls will come back before the Commission. Commissioner Black feels there is not enough information to support the project. Commissioner Siekmann stated she does not understand the concerns with this project. She feels the City will work with all the effected land owners along El Camino Real. Commissioner Siekmann stated the bigger picture is the widening of El Camino Real. The city will do exactly what is expected as stated in the condition. She can support the project. Chairperson Schumacher stated that he agrees with Commissioner L’Heureux’s and Commissioner Siekmann’s comments regarding this project. He feels that Condition No. 32 addresses the issues of the Commission. The proposal satisfies the intent of the project. He stated he can support the project. Commissioner Nygaard stated her concern that all the owners along the right of way will be worked with as the project moves forward. Mr. Van Peski stated that it is his understanding that the developer has agreements with the majority of property owners along El Camino Real. Paul Klukas, Planning Systems, 1530 Faraday Avenue Suite 100, Carlsbad, representing Shapell Homes, commented that the discussion is fraught with the potential for increased costs and delay of schedule. He reminded the Commission that there is no nexus between the development of his client’s property and the widening of the southbound lanes of El Camino Real. They are widening the road because the LFMP says it has to be widened not because there is traffic generated by their project that requires it be widened. They have worked with all the property owners on the south side of El Camino Real and have received at least verbal agreements from all with the exception of the Stidolphs. Ms. Mobaldi presented the Commission with the additional language for the condition regarding the retaining walls. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6915 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6916 and 6917 approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP 11-10), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 11-02), Special Use Permit (SUP 11-03), and Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 11- 04) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the errata sheet for Agenda Item 3 and the additional condition as stated by Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi regarding the retaining wall design, texture and color. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard, Commissioner Scully, and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Schumacher closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 3 and thanked Staff for their presentations. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner L’Heureux thanked staff for their work tonight. Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2012 Page 11 CITY PLANNER COMMENTS Mr. Neu commented that. there is a request for a commissioner to sit on the Community Development Block Grant Funding Review Committee. Commissioner Siekmann volunteered. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of October 17, 2012, was adjourned at 9:25p.m. ~/t DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk