Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-03; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes April 3, 2013 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: April 3, 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 L’Heureux led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioners L’Heureux, Montgomery, Schumacher, Scully and Segall Absent: Commissioner Black STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist Christer Westman, Senior Planner Pam Drew, Associate Planner Chris Garcia, Junior Planner Glen Van Peski, Engineering Manager Sherri Howard, Associate Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from March 20, 2013. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of March 20, 2013. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Black ABSTAIN: Commissioner Schumacher PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Diane Nygaard, 5020 Nighthawk Way, Oceanside, representing Preserve Calavera, stated that she followed up with Senior Planner Mike Grim regarding wildlife corridors and she is waiting to hear back from City Planner Don Neu on when the item will be brought to the Planning Commission. Ms. Nygaard also commented that there are inconsistencies with the definition of invasive plants. Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2013 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Siekmann asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item. 1. SDP 13-01/CDP 13-03 – ROCK DOVE HOMES - Request for approval of a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to allow for the construction of 4 single family homes on property generally located on the northeast corner of Hummingbird Road and Rock Dove Street within the Mello I Segment of the Local Coastal Program and within Local Facilities Management Zone 19. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Junior Planner Chris Garcia would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Siekmann opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Mr. Garcia gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if Staff had received any letters regarding this project. Mr. Neu stated no. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Schumacher asked about tree height. Mr. Garcia stated that the master plan states that landscaping is to be planted so that it preserves the view to the extent that it is feasible. Commissioner Schumacher asked if the master plan specifies the actual height of the landscaping. Mr. Garcia stated there is no height for the landscaping. Commissioner Segall asked if there was a view ordinance for this project. Mr. Garcia stated the project meets Council Policies 44 and 66. The city does not have a view preservation ordinance; however the Aviara Master Plan does specify a guideline that views will be protected or preserved to the extent feasible from the Seaport Development. Commissioner Segall stated that the trees across the street appear to be taller than the two story building. He asked if those trees were in the view corridor and if those trees would have to come down if they exceed the view. Mr. Garcia replied and stated the trees across the street are on private property and not within the Aviara Master Plan, therefore when that property is developed the guidelines will be set at that time. He further stated that he is not aware of any view corridor across that property. Chairperson Siekmann asked who would follow through on the height of the landscaping. Mr. Garcia stated the height restriction does not apply to landscaping. It only recommends that the landscaping be developed in such a way that it preserves the view to the extent feasible. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Paul Klukas, representing Planning Systems, 1530 Faraday Ave, Suite 100, Carlsbad, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Scully asked if the developer had built any other homes in this particular subdivision. Mr. Klukas stated no and they have not built any other homes in Aviara. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the developer would be willing to change the color palette for one of the homes since two are exactly the same. Tracey Raszewski, representing Jade Homes, 3185 Airway Avenue, Suite F2, Costa Mesa, stated that after meeting with the Aviara Architectural Committee, they requested only two color schemes. Commissioner Segall commented that the project looks like tract homes built in an upscale neighborhood. He further stated that the rear elevations look almost identical. Commissioner Segall asked if anything can be done so that those elevations stand out a little bit from each other. Ms. Raszewski stated that they were trying to match what was across the street which is white with terracotta colors. The corner unit is significantly different from a street-scene perspective. She further stated that one of the homes has an Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2013 Page 3 outdoor living area in the back. Commissioner Segall asked if there will be any disclosure of the flood basin on Lot 126 and part of 125. Ms. Raszewski stated the disclosure provides that the soils report is available for review. She stated they tend to overdisclose information. Mr. Klukas added that if the concern is the condition of the soil, a geologist was on-site during the grading period ensuring the proper compaction. He stated he does not feel there would be any issues from the developer in providing that disclosure. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if there will be any visual mitigation on the remaining triangular lot with the detention basin. Mr. Klukas stated there is a landscape plan for the detention basin. Commissioner L’Heureux inquired as to who will maintain that lot. Ms. Raszewski stated the previous property owner has maintained ownership of that lot and he will continue to maintain it until a home is built. Commissioner L’Heureux further asked if they know what type of home will be constructed on that lot. Ms. Raszewski stated that they do not own that lot; however the one story unit was designed to fit on it. Chairperson Siekmann asked if the empty lot has a height restriction. Mr. Klukas stated he does not believe it is height restricted. Mr. Garcia stated that Lot 127, the new basin lot, is not height restricted. Mr. Van Peski clarified that in regard to the maintenance of the detention basin, the City has a BMP maintenance agreement for that basin which has been recorded against all five lots. He stated there is an agreement described by Jade Homes that the seller of the property is committed to maintain that basin. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Siekmann opened public testimony. Candy Bengs, 7227 Mimosa Drive, Carlsbad, stated her main concern is the height of the proposed homes as the homes will block the lagoon view. She stated she was told the views would be respected. Ms. Bengs asked for a modest modification of the plan to help preserve the views. She further stated that she is concerned with drainage. Avi Yagil, 7223 Mimosa Drive, Carlsbad, requested an adjustment to the proposed homes in order to preserve the lagoon views to the maximum extent possible as stated in the master plan. Mr. Yagil asked that the proposed homes be lowered by 2 feet. Donna Kulbacki, 7229 Mimosa Drive, Carlsbad, stated that the EIR is outdated. She stated she has concerns with flooding as well as soil shifting or sliding in the area. Greg Kulbacki, 7229 Mimosa Drive, Carlsbad, commented that he feels they have been misled. He stated there are no flagmen directing traffic for the grading process. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she closed public testimony on the item. Chairperson Siekmann asked if the applicant wished to respond to the issues raised by the speaker. Mr. Klukas reminded the Commission that these homes are proposed to be built on pads that have already been approved by the City. These homes are the lowest homes in the Aviara Master Plan and there are only two Planning Areas in Aviara that have the guideline to preserve views to the lagoon to the Seaport development. The guideline has been interpreted by the City to preserve the views while still allowing development to move forward. These homes are at the lowest point of any of the homes in Planning Area 4 and Planning Area 3 of Aviara. Mr. Klukas stated that they prepared the best cross sections possible and which depicted the worst-case scenarios. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Scully asked how much the site has changed from its original state to its current state. Mr. Garcia stated that while he does not have the exact number, the pads are level with street level. He also pointed out that the two existing single story homes across the street have a pad level approximately Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2013 Page 4 seven feet higher than the proposed homes. Commissioner Scully asked if more dirt will added to the pads. Ms. Raszewski stated the grading process will continue as they are not at pad certification levels yet. For drainage, the lots will be terraced down Hummingbird Road. Commissioner Scully asked how much of the elevation will change. Ms. Raszewski stated they will not change the elevation of the lots from the certified elevation of the grading plan. Commissioner Scully asked if the applicant met with the homeowners to discuss the issues that have brought up at tonight’s meeting. Ms. Raszewski stated they have met with the Aviara Master HOA to get the requirements; however she was not aware of the residents’ issues until tonight. Commissioner Scully further asked about the two foot height difference. Ms. Raszewski stated they would prefer to keep the architecture as it currently is in order to achieve the highest quality of architecture, interior of homes, and interest in the elevation. The two feet is at the peak of the front of the homes which is the furthest point away. Commissioner Scully asked if the applicant would be willing to make any adjustments to the architecture. Ms. Raszewski stated that those things were taken into consideration along with all of the requirements of the City and the Aviara Master HOA. Commissioner Schumacher asked how it is determined that the final elevation of the pads is what was approved per the plans. Mr. Van Peski stated that before a building permit is issued on a particular lot, the pad has to be certified by a soils engineer and a licensed surveyor. Chairperson Siekmann inquired about the flooding issue and asked Staff to respond. Mr. Van Peski stated the basin, as originally constructed, would fill with water during storms because it was designed that way. The storm drain runs down Rock Dove and when it was originally built, there was a block wall installed inside the clean-out to divert the water into the basin. Under the current construction, that diversion has been removed and the water in that storm drain, instead of filling the five lots, will largely continue down the storm drain originally built. Chairperson Siekmann asked about the surface water coming down the hill. Mr. Van Peski stated that water will drain into the basin but it will be a very small amount of water. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner L’Heureux asked where the water will go once the small detention basin is no longer needed. Mr. Van Peski stated the function of the small basin really has nothing to do with the water draining down the slope that the SDG&E easement crosses. He stated that there is a brow ditch that collects the run-off and currently goes into the small basin. In the future when the basin is developed and a home is built, the water will simply go into a catch basin that goes into the storm drain at Rock Dove. The reason for the basin to be there now is to serve a water quality purpose until the master plan basin on the Murphy Property is built when that property is developed. Mr. Garcia stated that the project is consistent with the Aviara Master Plan, the EIR and CEQA’s infill exemption. In regards to shifting soil, Mr. Van Peski stated typically it is found on a slope or an area that has been filled and in areas that have been previously graded many years ago. The stability of the homes above this project is in no way affected by the current grading for this project. The grading of these homes is being conducted in conformance with city standards, the recommendations of the applicant’s geotechnical engineer under the supervision of the City’s Construction Management Division. Commissioner Segall asked if story poles can be required for this project. Mr. Neu stated that as the Commission has discussed, the City does not have a city wide view ordinance so it does not typically require developers to post story poles. In this case, and in other instances where a master plan has a guideline to preserve views, the City tends to focus on the pad elevation or the grades and building height. With this project and the adjacent topography and the pad levels, Staff felt it was a reasonable approach that the applicant was taking. The building height is also lower in this Planning Area than what is typical for city standards. In regard to the story poles, the City prefers that it is dealt with between private property owners. Commissioner Segall stated that when the Commission and City Council previously approved the pads, it was without any homes. He commented that he does not believe anyone really understands what the impacts are going to be until a site is developed. Mr. Neu stated that the Commission does have some level of discretion as to what is described in the Master Plan. However, because the project complies Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2013 Page 5 with the height limitations and pad elevations previously approved, staff felt it satisfied the requirement. By analyzing the height of the homes across the street from this project, Staff determined that it was reasonable that the building height of this proposed project was within a foot or two of surrounding residneces. Commissioner Scully asked for clarification regarding the statement in the Staff Report regarding the project not obstructing the views of the coastline as seen from the public right-of-way or from public lands. Mr. Neu stated the coastal provision regarding views is typically the first public roadway or public viewpoint closest to the coastal visual resource. In this case, the project is not on the water side of the street. That would be some of the existing homes and the Murphy property. The coastal standard for blocking public views does not come into play. The coastal plan also refers to public views not private views. The city’s coastal plans, with the exception of the small portion of the Agua Hedionda segment, do not address private views. DISCUSSION Commissioner Schumacher can empathize with the homeowners that spoke during public testimony as well as with the land owners who have the right to build homes on the site. These homes are proposed on already approved lots. Commissioner Schumacher commented that he would not want to see the homes lowered because he does not believe it would help the existing neighborhood. The fact that the Master Plan is more restrictive than City standards acknowledges preserving the view. With regard to Commissioner Segall’s concern about the articulation on the back of the homes, he would like to see something that shows a little variation between the homes to the extent possible. Commissioner Schumacher stated he can support the project. Commissioner Segall commented that he also understands the concerns of homeowners. He stated that he would like to see story poles used on the site to get a better idea of the impacts; however, because the city does not have a view ordinance he will not push the idea. Commissioner Segall further commented that he too would like to see more for the rear elevations to differentiate the three homes. He also stated he would like a stronger disclosure regarding the former drainage basin. He can support the project if those items can be accommodated. Commissioner L’Heureux thanked the applicant, staff and the neighbors for their work on the project. The issues regarding drainage and flooding have been addressed by Staff. He asked the applicant to meet with the neighbors to discuss some of the issues raised during the public testimony. He further stated he feels the Master Plan was written vaguely and difficult to interpret. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he can support the project. Commissioner Scully commented she can empathize with the adjacent homeowners. She stated she agrees with Commissioner L’Heureux and hopes the applicant will meet with the homeowners to address some of their concerns. Commissioner Scully stated she can reluctantly support the project. Commissioner Montgomery stated he agrees with Commissioner Segall in that he would like to see additional language regarding the rear elevations to show greater differentiation. He commented that he is uncomfortable approving the project with homes that each has a tower element which could completely block the views. He stated he cannot support the project unless story poles are placed on the project site to verify that at least the viewshed of the lagoon is preserved. Chairperson Siekmann stated she agrees with Commissioner Montgomery. She would like to see the project return to Staff to work on the building height on Lot 124 specifically as well as for the articulation changes in the rear elevations. Chairperson Siekmann commented that the project is a great project other than two issues. The Commission held a discussion regarding rear elevations and view preservation. Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2013 Page 6 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission continue Agenda Item 1 to a date certain of April 17, 2013 with the caveat that the developers meet with the homeowners of Seaport that are affected by the view corridor specified within the Aviara Master Plan to the best of everyone’s ability so that the geometries can really be expressed as well as to articulate the rear elevations with appurtenances. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Black ABSTAIN: None RECESS Chairperson Siekmann called for 5-minute recess at 8:05 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Siekmann called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 2. EIR 04-02(A)/CDP 06-04x1(A)/SUP 06-02x1(A) – AGUA HEDIONDA & CALAVERA CREEKS – Request for approval of an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 04-02, and an amendment to Coastal Development Permit No. 06-04x1 and Special Use Permit No. 06-02x1 to: 1) install additional riprap in Agua Hedionda creek channel in place of slope stabilization using V-max; 2) install riprap drop structures in place of gabion drop structures in Agua Hedionda and Calavera creek channels; 3) install a riprap structure in Agua Hedionda creek channel, beneath the Cannon Road bridge and in the Coastal Zone; 4) install additional riprap along both banks of Agua Hedionda creek channel between the Cannon Road and El Camino Real bridges and in the Coastal Zone; and 5) remove approximately 7,000 additional cubic yards of sediment within the two channels to accommodate the riprap, located on portions of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creek channels at, and near, the intersection of El Camino Real and Cannon Roads, within the Rancho Carlsbad residential community, and within Local Facilities Management Zones 8, 14, 15 and 24. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Pam Drew would make the staff presentation assisted by Associate Engineer Sherri Howard. Chairperson Siekmann opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. Ms. Drew gave a brief presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Siekmann acknowledged receipt of an email from Ken Cottingham, and a letter from Mike Metz of the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of Staff. Seeing none, she asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Siekmann opened public testimony. Diane Nygaard, 5020 Nighthawk Way, Oceanside, commented that she appreciates that Staff has worked with Preserve Calavera to help address some of the concerns regarding wildlife. Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2013 Page 7 Bill Arnold, 3432 Don Ortega Drive, Carlsbad, stated his appreciation for all the efforts the City has put into this project. Marvin Sippel, 5200 Hemingway Drive, pointed out the rip-rap will only slow the water down, drop the soil and fill the channel in. He suggested to clean out the channel and to back fill it with concrete. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she asked staff to respond to the issues raised during public testimony. Ms. Howard stated that in regards to installing concrete in the channel, Staff has been informed by the Resource Agencies that they will not authorize that activity. Chairperson Siekmann closed public testimony on the item and asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Commissioner Scully asked why the Resource Agencies would not authorize the installation of concrete. Ms. Howard stated that there are no representatives from the Resource Agencies at the meeting to respond to the question; however in the past, Staff has been told by the Resource Agencies that they will not authorize the use of concrete as a fill material in the channels. Commissioner Segall asked Staff to respond to the questions in the letter from Mr. Cottingham. Ms. Howard responded to each question listed in the letter. Ms. Drew added that Staff did respond via email to Mr. Cottingham’s comments and that Staff is willing to meet him onsite to discuss some of his concerns. Chairperson Siekmann stated that the letter from the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation stated their support of the project. DISCUSSION Commissioner Schumacher stated he is in support of the project. Commissioner Segall stated he also supports the project. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that he is happy to see that this project is moving forward and that he can support the item. Commissioner Scully stated she can support the project. Commissioner Montgomery also stated he can support the project. Chairperson Siekmann commented that she can support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6950, 6951 and 6952 approving an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report EIR 04-02, and an amendment to Coastal Development Permit CDP 06-04x1 and Special Use Permit SUP 06-02x1 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Black ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2013 Page 8 Chairperson Siekmann closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 3. CT 11-03/PUD 12-03/SDP 01-10(A) – ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES – Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Negative Declaration and an amendment to an approved Site Development Plan and approval of an 8-lot subdivision and Planned Unit Development to increase the number of residential apartment units from 80 to 127 on a 6.2 net acre property within the boundaries of the Cantarini/Holly Springs project, east of the future extension of College Boulevard and south of Cannon Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 15. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated Senior Planner Christer Westman would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Siekmann opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 3. Mr. Westman gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Schumacher inquired about the Implementing Policy and Action Program C.2 which is a provision supporting the increased density to create affordable housing opportunities and asked Staff to provide information as to how the program works. Mr. Westman stated that generally there are policies in the General Plan where increases over and above the Growth Management Control Point can be exceeded for certain things such as affordable housing. The process is whereby an applicant can approach the city and through negotiations, achieve a higher density than what is identified in the General Plan in exchange for, in this case, inclusionary housing. It is a negotiated trade-off that benefits the city to be able to create and provide inclusionary housing so that it satisfies the policies of the City as well as throughout the region. Commissioner Schumacher asked if there is a formula that is used. Mr. Westman stated no. There is a City Housing Policy Team with representatives from the Planning Division, Finance Division and Attorney’s Office to negotiate with the developer to determine what is appropriate for an exchange. Mr. Neu added that the density increase provision of the General Plan is a supplement or an “in place of” the state density bonus requirements. While the City has the density bonus requirements where a developer could propose an increase through that program, this policy is a local Carlsbad alternative that Staff finds gives the City more discretion over whether to grant the increase and if so for what concessions and level of affordability. More often than not, this provision has been used as opposed to the state density bonus requirement. Commissioner Schumacher asked how the State density bonus would be calculated. Mr. Neu stated there is a formula that is used and he believes it relates the amount of increase to the amount of additional affordable units that are required. Commissioner Schumacher asked for clarification regarding inclusionary and affordable housing in this case. Mr. Neu stated he would need to refer to the code. Chairperson Siekmann asked why the determination was made to the use the city’s policy versus the state’s policy. Ms. Mobaldi stated the State requires certain affordability levels, and a certain percentage of dwellings at the affordable levels, in order to qualify for a density bonus. The city’s policy is more flexibility. The City Council made the determination to use the city’s policy instead of the state’s policy. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Ken Cablay, representing Seaborne Development Company, 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, Carlsbad, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner L’Heureux asked about the ultimate plan for the trail. Mr. Cablay stated they are in support of Preserve Calavera; however the Department Fish and Game has created problems regarding connectivity. Mr. Cablay stated they are willing to improve the trail along Encinas Creek. They will do all they can do to discourage the use of the trail until it is connected and is an operating trail system. Commissioner L’Heureux asked how long the trail is that they will install. Mr. Cablay stated it is Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2013 Page 9 essentially a stub. Commissioner L’Heureux further asked if there is a possibility of not installing the trail now and waiting until there are other trails to connect this portion to. Mr. Cablay stated the possibility to defer the installation of trail is a great suggestion and is something they will work on with the City. Mr. Westman stated the trail is approximately 600 feet. Chairperson Siekmann asked about the building coverage on the lots. Mr. Westman directed the Commission’s attention to the screen and indicated an area which is also included in the lot coverage. Ms. Mobaldi commented that in regard to density bonus law, the density bonus does not relate to the City’s inclusionary requirement, and whatever needs to be done to provide inclusionary housing does not count towards a density bonus. There is a sliding scale that is used. For low income housing, a minimum of 10% up to 20% needs to be provided. If 20% is provided, a developer will be eligible for a 35% density increase. For very low income housing, 5% up to 11% needs to be provided to be eligible for a maximum density increase of 35%. For moderate income housing, up to 40% can be provided to be eligible for a maximum density increase of 35%. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Bill Arnold, 3432 Don Ortega, Carlsbad, stated Rancho Carlsbad Home Owners support the project as it will help College Boulevard get constructed. Diane Nygaard, 5020 Nighthawk Way, Oceanside, representing Preserve Calavera, stated this is a good location for affordable housing. Most of their concerns have been addressed already; however, regarding the trail for this project, they hope to address the issue with the overall Trails Master Plan process. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she closed public testimony on the item. Chairperson Siekmann asked if Staff wished to respond to any of the issues raised during public testimony. Mr. Westman stated he wanted to review the wording for Conditions No. 16 and 18. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the Commission could defer the construction of the trail. Mr. Neu asked Mr. Van Peski to respond to that issue. Mr. Van Peski stated that he did not believe the City’s bonding procedure apply to trails but he felt that the City could possibly customize a secured agreement for that trail to have a time period within which it needs to be constructed. Mr. Van Peski suggested that if the Commission is in agreement with this that a condition be added to the resolution. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if a condition like that would have to have a time limit within to construct the trail. Mr. Van Peski stated that the Commission can require that an agreement is secured and that there are procedures in place for extension of securities. He stated that there is typically an initial term for construction after which point if it was not constructed a new fee would need to be paid for the City to process extensions. Commissioner Schumacher asked about the 80 units that is currently approved for is what the existing housing element counted on and if the project moves up to 127 units, does the city get to count the units in the future. Mr. Neu stated the City does get credit. In both the current and new housing elements, there is a category for approved but not yet built projects. What would happen is should this project be approved there is a condition that 63 of the units be rent restricted for low income and the remaining 64 would fall into the moderate category at least so that the entire project would get counted between the two categories. The project would be counted on the next housing element cycle. In regards to the wording of Condition No. 16, Mr. Westman stated that the condition requires consultation with North County Transit District (NCTD) so that they are satisfied with their transportation needs prior to approval. Mr. Westman stated there is dialogue between the City and NCTD regarding transportation needs. Beyond that, agreements with individual property owners to help fund that transportation it becomes NCTD policy, not something the City has authority to condition or require. It is NCTD that has the authority to require different developers to enter into an agreement. Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2013 Page 10 Condition No. 18, Mr. Westman stated, is a standard condition with project specific information in bold which is the timing requirement. Prior to issuing grading permits and improvement plans, this project has to satisfy mitigation for impacts created or caused to the habitats within the Cantarini-Holly Springs overall project. Prior to that happening, this project will have to satisfy its direct impacts, fair share impacts, etc. It is the applicant’s responsibility to do that. DISCUSSION Commissioner Schumacher commented that he agrees with the findings in the Staff Report and the resolutions. He stated that it will be a visibly noticeable project, and the architecture will fit in well into the neighborhood. Commissioner Schumacher stated he can support the project. Commissioner Segall stated he can support the project. He likes the architectural style of the project and it is a great location for a project of this type. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that he likes the architecture for the project. He thanked Staff and the developer for bringing a positive project to the City. He stated he can support the project. Commissioner Scully stated she still has an issue with the height of the roofs but she does like the design of the project. She stated she can support the project. Commissioner Montgomery stated he can support the project. He commented that once this area is fully developed it will be a nice walkable community. Chairperson Siekmann stated she can support the project. Chairperson Siekmann asked the Commission if they agreed with adding a condition regarding the deferral of the trail construction. The Commission agreed. Mr. Neu stated that Condition No. 15 of Resolution No. 6956 pertains to the final map and the recording of a permanent easement for the trail. He suggested that that condition be modified to address the Commission’s concern regarding deferring the construction. Mr. Van Peski asked that the recordation of a permanent easement for the trail be done through a separate document and to make it an irrevocable offer of dedication that the city can then reject until it is clear it is in the correct place. Ms. Mobaldi stated that the Planning Commission cannot direct the City to reject an irrevocable offer of dedication. She stated that Condition No. 15 could read “…concurrent with the recordation of Final Map 11-03 or prior to issuance of a building permit for SDP 01-10 whichever occurs first. The developer shall execute an irrevocable offer of dedication for a permanent easement for public use of the community trail…” She further added that the agreement can be secured to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6955 recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6957 recommending approval of Site Development Plan Amendment SDP 01-10(A) and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6956 APPROVING Tentative Map CT 11-03 and Planned Development Permit PUD 12-03 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the modifications to Condition No. 15 as stated by Ms. Mobaldi and secured to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and including the errata sheet. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Black ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2013 Page 11 Chairperson Siekmann closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 3 and thanked Staff for their presentations. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS Mr. Neu commented that the City Council did approve the Quarry Creek project for 656 units. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of April 3, 2013, was adjourned at 9:56p.m. DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk