Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-06; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes March 6, 2013 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: March 6, 2013 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Siekmann called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Black led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioners Black, L’Heureux, Montgomery, Schumacher, Scully and Segall Absent: None STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist Van Lynch, Senior Planner Glen Van Peski, Engineering Manager Gary T. Barberio, Acting Assistant City Manager Bryan Jones, City Traffic Engineer Neil Gallucci, Police Captain Bill Anderson, Fire Division Chief – Fire Prevention Tim Gnibus, Environmental Business Class Lead with HDR (EIR Consultant) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from February 20, 2013. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of February 20, 2013. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Shelley Hayes Carron, who resides at the Marron Adobe, invited the public to a special event on March 16, 2013 from 10:00-11:00 at the Marron Adobe. Diane Nygaard, 5020 Nighthawk Way, Oceanside, spoke regarding wildlife corridors. CORRECTED Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2013 Page 2 CONTINUED PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 1. EIR 11-02/GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-01/LFMP 87-25/CT 11-04/HDP 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07 – QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN – Request for the certification of an Environmental Impact Report, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and a recommendation of approval of General Plan Land Use, Circulation and Open Space and Conservation Element Amendments, Zone Change, a Master Plan identifying five residential areas, three community facilities areas, and four Open Space areas for the purpose of regulating the future development of 656 residential units and community facilities; Local Facilities Management Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, Floodplain Special Use Permit, and Habitat Management Plan Permit to subdivide 156 acres into 17 lots, mass grade and provide backbone infrastructural improvements on property generally located south of Haymar Road and west of College Boulevard in the northeast quadrant of the City in Local Facilities Management Zone 25. Mr. Lynch responded to the issues raised during public testimony on the item during the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Lynch introduced Fire Captain Bill Anderson to respond to the issues regarding fire safety. In regards to emergency services personnel being able to access the site in a timely manner, Capt. Anderson stated the Fire Prevention Division researched similar sites within the city to determine the approximate number of calls in order to determine the impact this project would have on services. It was determined that the projected call volume for this project would be approximately one call every 4.14 days, which includes EMS, structure fires, vehicle accidents, etc. Capt. Anderson stated that Oceanside has Fire Station No. 4 which is about a ½ mile east of the project. The City of Carlsbad’s ambulance would come from the new Fire Station No. 3 located in Robertson Ranch in approximately five minutes. The goal is to have the ambulance on site within 8 minutes. Both Fire Station No. 3 and Fire Station No. 1 are within the 8 minute response time. Captain Anderson stated Fire Staff is confident they can serve the project area adequately. Mr. Lynch introduced Police Captain Neil Gallucci to respond to comments regarding police service. Captain Gallucci stated the Police Department ran similar statistics to the Fire Department, and stated that police will be able to respond to the project site in a timely manner. Priority One calls will be responded to in under 5 minutes. There will be an officer on the beat 24 hours a day, seven days a week along with extra officers assigned to the geographic area to assist in the response. The Police Department ran several runs through adjacent areas during different times of the day, for example the morning and evening commutes. It was determined that the back-up in the number 1 lane on College Boulevard onto Marron Road did not slow down the response time. There will be expeditious access to the area due to the ability to manipulate the traffic signals. Captain Gallucci further stated that it is anticipated that the project site will generate on average 1 to 2 calls per day which is not unusual for a project of this size. Mr. Lynch introduced Glen Van Peski, Engineering Manager, to respond to the comments regarding traffic. Mr. Van Peski stated main traffic concerns centered around the three intersections along College Boulevard. He stated that the entire corridor, as it currently exists, operates at an acceptable level of service according to the standards. Adding the project impacts along with the proposed mitigation to the existing conditions, adds significant impacts to two intersections: College Boulevard and Vista Way, and College Boulevard and Lake/Marron Road. These two intersections operate at an acceptable level of service; however, according to the standards, if the delay increases by more than 2 seconds, it is called a significant impact. In the case of the intersection at College Boulevard and Vista Way, the increase is 3 seconds. There is an increase of 2.4 seconds for the intersection at College Boulevard and Lake/Marron Road. The proposed mitigation more than compensates for the increased trips at buildout according to the calibrated models used by the applicant’s traffic engineer. The travel times showed a slight decrease due to the additional turn lanes and through lanes as proposed through mitigation. In regards to the water quality treatment, Mr. Van Peski stated that the project is subject to the current state storm water standards and has been designed in conformance with those standards. The project has water quality basins to provide treatment for the urban run-off and also to provide detention to meet the hydromodification standards of the current permit. The basins will be maintained by the HOA under a required agreement with the city that will be monitored on an annual basis. Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2013 Page 3 Oceanside Letter Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, clarified for the record that the Commission received a letter dated March 4, 2013, which was after the previous meeting. Commissioner Scully asked if the Commission would receive a verbal response to the letter. Ms. Mobaldi stated would take place this evening. Mike Hogan, a lawyer retained by the City of Carlsbad to provide advice and assistance in connection with issues pertaining to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mr. Hogan stated that he has reviewed the letter from the City Manager and City Attorney for the City of Oceanside in which a number of concerns and objections are stated in relation to this project. In summary, Mr. Hogan stated that the City of Oceanside is very concerned about potential impacts to traffic and to fire safety that will occur in its jurisdiction as a result of a proposed development in the City of Carlsbad. Another concern stated in the letter is in regards to density and whether a traffic or street connection can be made to a street in Carlsbad to relieve some of the anticipated traffic in the City of Oceanside. The third major concern relates to a series of objections that the City of Oceanside has asserted with respect to the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and whether or not the City of Carlsbad properly characterized the City of Oceanside’s Fair Share Traffic Program, and as a result, whether the City of Carlsbad properly recommended necessary mitigation measures. Mr. Hogan commented that in regard to the third issue, Oceanside believes the project will have significant adverse impacts on traffic in the City of Oceanside. Over the past several months, Oceanside has been discussing and negotiating these problems with representatives of the project applicant as well as City of Carlsbad staff and consultants for the EIR. As a result of those discussions, the City of Oceanside has identified, notwithstanding what is included in the EIR, a number of traffic improvements it believes should be implemented by the project applicant. The project applicant agrees to perform those conditions, and staff agrees that those conditions can be recommended as mitigation measures for the project. Mr. Hogan stated he believes that issue has been satisfactorily addressed to all parties concerned. The remaining issues relate to how various mitigation measures and Fair Share elements were characterized and discussed in the EIR. Mr. Hogan stated he does not feel those issues are nearly as important as the fact that the City of Oceanside has identified improvements, and as previously mentioned, agreement has been reached in performing them. Staff intends on providing a written, point by point response to the letter as they raise legitimate concerns. The response letter only has to be ready by the time City Council takes any final action on the item. Mr. Hogan stated that what is important for the Commission is in terms of mitigation of traffic impacts and fire safety impacts, is that the project applicant has agreed and staff will recommend that the conditions Oceanside has requested will be implemented. Mr. Hogan clarified that in the EIR, the report indicated that it analyzed all of the potential impacts that will result to traffic in the area as a result of the proposed project. The report identifies a number of impacted areas, it identifies a number of potential mitigation measures that can relieve that congestion to acceptable levels under current traffic standards and then the EIR indicates that some of those measures may not be feasible for several different reasons. In the City of Oceanside letter dated March 4, 2013, is a series of objections to the EIR’s analysis and its characterization of certain improvements or certain fair share fee payments as being not feasible or not possible. Mr. Hogan stated that, for example, in the letter the City of Oceanside takes issue with the EIR statement that Oceanside does not have what is called a reasonable program for the use of fair share fees. The EIR came to the conclusion that the City of Oceanside did not have such a program because in the judicial decisions which interpret CEQA the courts have identified a series of requirements to meet in order to have what is considered a reasonable program for implementing improvements that require fair share contributions. Typically that involves adopting an ordinance under the California Impact Fee Act, which provides for a whole series of specific requirements including how the fair share amount is calculated, where the fair share payment is actually made, how long fair share payments can be held and what happens if the money is not spent on the improvements for which it was collected. There is a formal statutory process. The City of Carlsbad is not aware that the City of Oceanside has adopted a formal impact fee statute and that is part of what the EIR concluded. In the letter, the City of Oceanside stated it is not that clear and they do believe they have a reasonable program to accept fair share payments. Mr. Hogan’s understanding of the letter is that there may be a disagreement about whether the language in the EIR properly characterized Oceanside’s fair share program, but the bottom line is Oceanside has identified certain fair share payments it believes are appropriate, the developer of the project has agreed to pay those and the City of Carlsbad will impose a requirement for payment of those fair share fees into Oceanside’s program. Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2013 Page 4 Traffic and Emergency Services Chairperson Siekmann called for discussion on the various issues to be taken in categories. The Commission discussed in detail and expressed their concerns regarding traffic impacts along the College Boulevard corridor, the impacts the proposed increase in traffic has on emergency services accessing the project site, traffic circulation within the project, access for transit vehicles, and pedestrian and bicycle access. RECESS Chairperson Siekmann called for a 10 minute recess at 8:05 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Siekmann called the meeting to order at 8:20 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Open Space/Trails/Smart Growth The Commission had a discussion on the topics of the proposed open space for the project, the extent of development on the panhandle, the proposed trail access points for the project, and the view corridor from the adobe. Mr. Neu advised that providing a trail connection through the preserve adjacent to the project site, which would require approval of the owner, the state of California. Parking/Project Density/Aesthetics The Planning Commission discussed the topic of parking as it pertained to tandem parking, RV parking, and project density and its impacts as it relates to the removal of Planning Areas R-5 and P-5 from the Master Plan. Historic landscapes/sacred sites The Commission had no comments or questions regarding the topic. Watershed impacts The Commission had no comments or questions regarding the topic. Other The Commission discussed modifying the proposed architectural styles to better reflect the early California style deleting Craftsman and European Country as incompatible with the theme. Schools Commissioner Scully asked the applicant for clarification regarding the statement of contributing $8 million to the Carlsbad Unified School District. Mr. Galarneau stated that in lieu of paying school fees for the project, which would be approximately $2.9 million, they will be annexed into a community facilities district which would generate about $8 million in bond capabilities to the school district. RECESS Chairperson Siekmann called for a 5 minute recess at 9:31 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Siekmann called the meeting to order at 9:36 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2013 Page 5 DISCUSSION Commissioner Schumacher commented that most projects have benefits with some adverse consequences, and this project is no exception. While this project might not be the most sagaciously designed project, the Commission needs to acknowledge that it is a difficult and challenging site. Commissioner Schumacher commented that many of the challenges and constraints, including existing traffic conditions along College Boulevard, are not necessarily borne by or caused by the applicant. He believes that the city needs to have diversity with housing options. He further commented that in many ways this project will improve the area, and it will improve open space access to the site. Commissioner Schumacher stated that the increase in density with this project is a big jump and it is concern of his. He further stated his concern regarding open space. The city spent a great deal of money, time and hours with both the Open Space Committee and Envision, which were established to get feedback on what the citizens thought about open space and the future development of the City. The Open Space Committee ranked the Quarry Creek site as the number 1 priority. Envision Carlsbad also made a recommendation regarding the Quarry Creek site which illustrated limited development on the panhandle. Aside from open space, Commissioner Schumacher stated that traffic is a big issue regardless of the number of units proposed, which the EIR recognizes. Commissioner Schumacher suggested that development be removed from Planning Areas P-5 and R-5, and keep the remaining Planning Areas as proposed. It would maintain the product diversity for the project. Regarding the parking variance, Commissioner Schumacher does not believe tandem parking works, and he would not be in favor of supporting that proposal; however, he is in favor of supporting the variance for the studio units. Commissioner Segall stated he agrees with most of what each public speaker said including the applicant. Overall, he feels it is a great project in terms of what it does for smart growth and it is in a nice location to tap into transit corridors. It is a walkable community as it is contiguous with a shopping center, He feels the amount of open space and preserve space is excellent. Commissioner Segall commented that he is struggling with development on the panhandle, with circulation within the project, and with traffic. He is in favor of reducing Planning Areas R-5 and P-5; however, it would not reduce the density enough to make a huge difference. Commissioner Segall commented that he would like to see architecture changed so that it was more consistent within the project and so that it blends in with the adobe and early Californian style. Specifically, he is not in favor of Craftsman or English Countryside. He would also like to see an access point to the pedestrian trail at Simsbury. He further commented that that location would be ideal for a fire access road. Commissioner Segall stated the project has poor design for traffic circulation because it is a landlocked piece of property. He also commented that he would like to see a condition to improve the striping on Haymar Drive. MOTION By proper motion, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. Commissioner L’Heureux acknowledged that this is a difficult piece of property to develop. There is one way in, one way out which all go to the same street not within the city’s jurisdiction. He stated that Staff and the applicant need to be commended for making great strides for finding creative solutions. As with any project, there are compromises. One of the benefits the city gets is a large amount of open space and preserved open space with a permanent endowment. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that the biggest challenge with this project is what to do with the panhandle. He feels that modifying the proposal with reference to Planning Areas P-5 and R-5 makes a lot of sense as it preserves some of the view corridor and enhances the remaining open space. He believes it is not feasible for there to be no development at all on the panhandle as the project will not be built and all benefits will be lost. Commissioner L’Heureux feels that the Commission should accept that will be some development on the panhandle but the question becomes how much. In regards to the parking variance, he can accept the variance for the studio units; however, he agrees with Commission Schumacher in that he does not feel tandem parking works. He stated his concerns with how the CC&Rs are written in regards to RVs and families with multiple cars. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he agrees with the comments about the project’s proposed architectural styles, and he feels a Spanish theme should be maintained throughout. He further commented that the applicant should be commended for working with a very difficult traffic situation. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he can support modified development on the panhandle; however he does not want to come up with a specific unit number. Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2013 Page 6 Commissioner Scully stated she is happy to see so much community involvement with this project. The community has said they want open space with the right housing for the area; however, with that comes traffic and overcrowded schools. She stated she is concerned with the traffic circulation through the project. She commented that she would like to see the project’s trail systems connected with Simsbury Court. Commissioner Scully stated that she has a problem with the proposed density for the project and she cannot support 600 homes. She feels that there can be enough diversity with a fewer amount of homes. She further commented that the panhandle has merits to it so that it should be preserved as much as possible. Commissioner Scully also commented that parking within the project is also a concern of hers. She also agreed that the architecture needs to be more conducive to the area. She stated that the traffic is and will be a nightmare. Commissioner Scully stated that she would approve no development on the panhandle and a unit count of up to 506 units. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he is in favor of reducing development on the panhandle and is in favor of eliminating Planning Areas P-5 and R-5. By eliminating those, it will create a much better view corridor and wildlife corridor. In regards to Planning Area R-4, he would like to see edge effects planned in a way that softens the view of the development. Commissioner Montgomery commented that he would like to see some height restrictions around Street A. He further commented that in regards to the trails he feels that there should be a connection to Simsbury Court. He would like the applicant to take the lead in preparing a planning document for the construction of a trail through the site to the Marron Road trail head. He believes the public deserves that type of effort for trails. Commissioner Black thanked the public for all the comments at the previous meeting. He also thanked staff for providing all the information regarding the project. He feels that mitigation has been approached for almost everything except for the circulation. He would like to see a condition to include mitigation on the conditions as requested by the city of Oceanside and all the errata sheets. Commissioner Black commented that there will be more traffic created by this project, and the traffic increase will be during the peak hours. He commented that the safety vehicles will be able to access the site adequately. Commissioner Black stated he can accept the idea of eliminating development on Planning Areas R-5 and P-5. He stated he is concerned with the density and applicant’s concern with project viability should the density be decreased. He commented that he would support keeping the unit number variable between 600 and 656 units. Chairperson Siekmann stated that she would like to see Planning Area R-5 and P-5 removed from development. She stated she has great concerns with the traffic. Commissioner Siekmann stated she is in agreement with Commissioners Schumacher, L’Heureux, Segall and Montgomery in regard to the number of units for the project. Chairperson Siekmann asked Ms. Mobaldi if the motion for approval of the EIR can include that Oceanside has a fair share program. Ms. Mobaldi recommended that if the Commission is in consensus with the recommended mitigation measures, which Oceanside is also in agreement with, it would be a condition of the project approval. Commissioner Schumacher asked if, for the applicant’s sake, it would be better for the Commission to make a recommendation with a specific unit count. Ms. Mobaldi stated that Commissioner Scully was in favor of a smaller unit count but all the other Commissioners were agreeable to 600 or more units. She recommended that the Commission provide a range if it cannot pick an exact number. Commissioner Schumacher stated he would prefer that a specific unit be determined. Mr. Neu stated that the applicant wished to respond to some of the issues prior to the Commission taking any actions. Todd Galarneau, representing the McMillin Companies, stated that they have been working on this project for over a decade. They did not determine the land uses on the site nor did they determine the footprint; it was given to them by others. When the City did the Housing Element update, the Commission allocated 500 units to the site. No fiscal analysis had been prepared at that time. There are 570 units allocated to the property currently. The City did not do the zoning and land use changes at the same time the Housing Element update was done. Mr. Galarneau stated that there are an additional 80 units over what is called for in the General Plan for this project. Those units are necessary for the project to make economic sense. He stated McMillin has compromised for a decade regarding this project. He stated that McMillin has followed all of the rules and in most cases, exceeded the rules. The focus is on the Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2013 Page 7 panhandle because the community has taken everything off the reclamation parcel and the applicant lost substantial development area and the project cost increased substantially as a result of the reclamation plan approval. Mr. Galarneau stated he feels they are being penalized for a plan that is too good. He feels they have mitigated everything in regards to the panhandle. Regarding the unit count, Mr. Galarneau stated the units are necessary to deliver the affordable housing. They did not ask for the 500 units to be placed on the site or the density of land uses. The city dictated that to McMillin. Those units are necessary to pay for the affordable housing that the City wants on the site. Regarding the zoning, Mr. Galarneau stated the city dictated that to McMillin as well. That being said, Mr. Galarneau stated McMillian can work with the proposed modifications to the architecture. He understands the issue regarding the tandem parking. The proposal for a trail connection at Simsbury is an issue with the community; however, McMillin is agreeable either way. He is agreeable to the striping on Haymar Drive out to College Boulevard. Mr. Galarneau further stated that the CC&Rs can preclude RV parking. In regards to the unit count, Mr. Galarneau stated it is an academic conversation. Because the unit count is tied to traffic, he stated that even if the unit count is decreased to 506 units, there would only be a two second difference in the traffic. In the spirit of additional compromise, he stated that McMillin can eliminate Planning Areas R-5 and P-5; however, they need the 656 units and it needs to be in a zoning as shown in the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative, which bests reflects what the Commission is leaning towards as well as the recommendation from the Envision Carlsbad Committee. Commissioner Schumacher asked about the economic aspect of the project. He stated it is difficult to evaluate the project without having any economic or financial background on the project. Mr. Hogan stated that the information about the economic feasibility of a project is not considered part of the Environmental Impact Report but it is a consideration with the Commission in making the determinations about whether to approve the project. The law requires the project applicant or whoever contends that a project or a mitigation measure or an alternative is not feasible for any reason whether it is financial, legal, technical or otherwise. to provide evidence in support of that point. In this situation, the project applicant believes that a unit count above or below a certain point makes the project financially not feasible. Commissioner Schumacher asked if that information has been provided. Ms. Mobaldi stated that the Commission has everything that has been provided to staff. Commissioner L’Heureux suggested the applicant put together documents regarding financials for the project between now and the time the project is heard by City Council. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that Planning Areas P-5 and R-5 be removed from the Master Plan. Commissioner Scully asked for clarification as she believes development should be removed from the entire panhandle, not just P-5 and R-5. Ms. Mobaldi stated that Commissioner Scully should then vote no on the motion pending. VOTE: 6-1 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Schumacher, and Commissioner Segall NOES: Commissioner Scully ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2013 Page 8 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that a trail be added from Simsbury Way to the project as originally proposed. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that the applicant work with Staff for modifying the architectural styles to reflect early California style. VOTE: 6-1 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: Commissioner Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, to remove the allowance for tandem parking from the Master Plan. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Ms. Mobaldi suggested that the Commission try to approve a unit count with a specific number or a “not to exceed” amount. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that the unit count for the project be 656. VOTE: 3-4 AYES: Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, and Commissioner Segall NOES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully, and Commissioner Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2013 Page 9 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery and duly seconded, that the unit count not to exceed 600. VOTE: 3-4 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Montgomery, and Commissioner Schumacher NOES: Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery and duly seconded, that the unit count range between 600-656. The motion was withdrawn by Commissioner Black. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery and duly seconded, for a unit count of 600 with a recommendation that the number be increased or reduced by City Council based on financial considerations from the applicant. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that there is a desire, but not a requirement, to have the first row of lots fronting Street “A” within the panhandle area for Planning Area R-4 be limited to a maximum of two stories to reduce edge effects and to help reduce the view shed for the Marron Adobe. VOTE: 6-1 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: Commissioner Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, for the applicant to take a leading role in preparing planning documents for a trail extension from Street A to the Marron Road trail head and any other connections that would be worthwhile. Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2013 Page 10 Ms Mobaldi asked the Commission to consider whether a project impact creates a nexus for this off-site improvement requirement. The motion failed due to no second. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that the project be conditioned to stripe Haymar from College Boulevard westward to Street B subject to the approval of the City of Oceanside. VOTE: 5-2 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Schumacher and Commissioner Segall NOES: Commissioner Montgomery and Commissioner Scully ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Segall stated he is very concerned that there are only two points of ingress and egress for the project in regards to emergency vehicle access. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that because staff already stated that because of the 17% grade at the Simsbury Way access point, it would not be possible for fire trucks to access the site. Commissioner Segall further commented that the vehicles would only need to use the access way to descend into the site and could then proceed to exit the site using Marron Road. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that City Council could determine whether or not it should be a condition. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6936 recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report EIR 11-02, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6937, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 11-02, Zone Change 11-04, Master Plan 10-01, and Local Facilities Management Plan 87-25 and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6938, and 6939, approving Carlsbad Tract Map 11-04, Hillside Development Permit 11-04, Special Use Permit 11-04, and Habitat Management Plan Permit 11-07 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the errata sheet and as modified with the previous votes. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully, and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Siekmann thanked Staff for their presentation. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2013 Page 11 CITY PLANNER COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of February 20, 2013, was adjourned at 11:36 p.m. fLJ1u DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk