Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-22; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 4:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: July 22, 2015 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Scully called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Black led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Scully, Commissioners Anderson, Black, L’Heureux, Montgomery, Segall and Siekmann Absent: None STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Maria Emery, Senior Office Specialist Ron Ball, Special Counsel Gary Barberio, Assistant City Manager Doug Bilse, Traffic Engineer Craig Williams, Mobility Manager Lolly Sangster, Project Manager - Transportation Randy Metz, Fire Marshal Kyle Lancaster, Parks Superintendent Chris Hazeltine, Parks & Recreation Director Glen Van Peski, Community & Economic Development Director Paul Mendes, Police Captain Samantha Alexander, Police Officer Mike Davis, Fire Chief Liz Ketabian, Parks Planner Kathy Dodson, Interim City Manager Debbie Fountain, Housing & Neighborhood Services Director Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager Kirsten Plonka, Utilities Manager CONTINUED PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Scully stated that because this was a continued public hearing and public testimony was heard during the meeting of July 18, 2015, public testimony is now closed. Chairperson Scully asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. CORRECTED Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 2 1. EIR 13-02/GPA 07-02/ZCA 07-01/ZC 15-02/LCPA 07-02/SS 15-05/SS 15-06 – GENERAL PLAN UPDATE – Request that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council: a. Certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report (including Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) for the proposed draft General Plan, Climate Action Plan and associated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, Local Coastal Program land use and zoning maps, and Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan; b. Approval of a General Plan Amendment to comprehensively update the General Plan, including the Housing Element; c. Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance for consistency with the draft General Plan; d. Approval of a Zoning Map amendment for consistency with the draft General Plan; e. Approval of a Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment to amend the LCP Land Use and Zoning maps and LCP implementation plan consistent with the draft General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance; f. Approval of an amendment to the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan to amend the Growth Management circulation performance standard; g. Approval of a Climate Action Plan; and h. Approval of an allocation from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Mr. Neu stated that the presentation would follow the elements as listed in the Updated General Plan, starting with the Vision Chapter. VISION Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions regarding the Vision Chapter. Seeing none, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to accept staff’s recommendations. LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN Jennifer Jesser, Senior Planner, provided more information based on comments and questions regarding specific sites in the city. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Segall asked about the growth control point for Ponto. Ms. Jesser directed the Commission’s attention to a slide on the screen which depicted the number of units evaluated with the EIR for the Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan, the number of units evaluated with the draft General Plan and the EIR for the draft General Plan. Staff’s recommendation is a lower number than both of those. Commissioner Segall asked if the confusion was because the proposed change showed R-23, but the city builds to the growth control point. Ms. Jesser stated that is was her understanding that there was some confusion as to the R-23 designation as well as what staff evaluated in the General Plan. There was also confusion regarding a current development project that was submitted by the developer requesting to develop more units than what is recommended as part of the General Plan. Mr. Neu added that the proposed developer submitted a letter asking to increase the density on the west side by adding a combination district which would be R-30 with general commercial. Staff is not recommending that change; it is a request from the developer that the Planning Commission consider that as part of the General Plan Update. Commissioner Segall further asked about 925 Buena Vista Place and the coloring of the map. Ms. Jesser clarified that the yellow indicates single family (R-1). The rendering show the General Plan designations, not the zoning. The property is designated in the General Plan for single family with the R-4 density range. The zoning on the property is R-3 which is inconsistent with that designation. Staff is recommending that the R-1 zone be applied to the property. Commissioner Montgomery asked how much residential the general commercial site on the west side of Ponto Drive can accommodate now compared to what would be allowed if the proposed R-30 designation is allowed. Ms. Jesser stated the southern piece of the general commercial property, staff is recommending that the city allocate some units to this particular piece. Based on the city’s criteria for mixed use development, at a minimum, the site could potentially yield 12 mixed use units. The northern properties are currently designated residential, and because staff does not recommend allocating units on commercial properties for mixed use, staff is not recommending allocating units and instead reserving those units in the Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 3 bank. Staff would evaluate that with a development application. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the R-30 proposal is only for the southern piece. Ms. Jesser stated yes. Commissioner Montgomery asked what the yield would be if that was added. Dave de Cordova, principal planner, stated that staff has not done the calculation for that. The application that is on currently on file is requesting a total of 191 units for both the east and west portion. If that is used to compare with staff’s recommendation, the difference is about 55 units. Commissioner Montgomery asked about the original vision for the property. Mr. Neu commented that the corner of Avenida Encinas and moving north, was shown as mixed use with commercial and a plaza on the corner, and as you moved further north there was additional commercial. Commissioner Montgomery stated there was a potential for stores, restaurants, shopping along with mixed use. Commissioner Montgomery recalled that the southern part of the site was planned for a hotel site and not a commercial site. Mr. Neu stated that was correct and that the hotel site could have supporting commercial uses but the primary purpose was a hotel. Commissioner Montgomery commented that the Commission, during its review of projects in this particular area, the Visitor Serving Commercial Retail are going to be in the central portion of the site; and if projects come forward that do not provide that, in theory, the whole Ponto area will not have any of the commercial. If the Commission just ends up providing residential units at somewhat of a higher density, the Commission could in theory void the area of a needed commercial center. Mr. Neu stated that was correct, however there are policies in the Land Use Element for the Carlsbad Boulevard Corridor that include an option for an active waterfront. Commissioner Montgomery commented that it falls on the Commission to ensure that there is a real Visitor Serving Commercial area in this location. Ron Ball, Special Counsel, added that one of the ways to appropriately handle that is during the development phase where conditions on timing and location are placed on a development. Commissioner Montgomery commented on the future of the southern gateway, linear park, and the realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard, and asked if the commission is precluding any of those possibilities from moving forward with this General Plan Update. Ms. Jesser stated that in fact the recommended land use changes to the Ponto area are key to seeing those come to fruition. Commissioner Black asked how much open space was deleted with this plan on the power plant site. Ms. Jesser stated that she did not have the acreage for the Power Plant site itself. In the preferred plan, the schematic was very arbitrary with no acreage estimated. Staff is recommending defining those lines through a more specific site planning process. Mr. de Cordova stated that the General Plan policies will call out where the open space will be located and will be consistent with the recommendations of the Open Space Committee. Staff has not defined a specific number of acres or specific configuration, rather it will be determined at a later date with the specific planning process. Commissioner Black asked if it is staff’s intent to not lose any open space by a certain degree or percentage. Mr. de Cordova stated the intent is to accommodate open space in keeping with what the Open Space Committee discussed. Mr. Neu added that as part of a specific plan and/or master plan, the Commission would have a say as to the amount and location of open space as more detail would be available at a later date. Commissioner Siekmann asked for clarification regarding the Ponto residential in Table 8.4 in Attachment 8 to the staff report. Ms. Jesser stated the table indicates what was evaluated and not what staff is recommending. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if a developer can propose all residential and no commercial for the central portion of the Ponto site. Ms. Jesser stated no. As the site is proposed to be designated, the city’s policies that allow for mixed use specify that the primary use of the land must remain commercial. There are also formulas to determine the number of units that can be built based on 25% of the developable acres multiplied by the minimum density. Commissioner L’Heureux further asked if a developer can build all residential first and then no commercial later. Mr. Neu stated that on the entitlement of the project, there could be a timing condition requiring that the commercial component is built concurrent with the residential component. Regarding the Marja Acres site, Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he is concerned with how to get meaningful and successful access to El Camino Real. Mr. Neu stated that with the future El Camino Real road improvements, there will be a median and the Marja Acres site will have a right-out only exit. Commissioner L’Heureux inquired about the Palomar Oaks site and asked why residential does not work at that location. Ms. Jesser stated that based on the criteria, the Palomar Oaks site is one that did not rise as high as the others. In looking at it as planned industrial, the site does represent a potential loss of employment land in the future. Also, in consultation with Fire Department staff, conflicts were identified with having residential uses on the site and some of the surrounding uses that may be using hazardous materials. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if that conflict exists with the current homes in the area. Mr. Neu stated the Fire Marshal Randy Metz could respond. Commissioner L’Heureux asked how many units would be taken out of the bank to allow residential on this site. Ms. Jesser stated that as indicated on page CORRECTED Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 4 276 of the staff report packet, 209 units would need to be allocated to this property to allow for the R-30 designation. Ms. Jesser stated that with the other recommended sites, the city will be utilizing all but 33 in the existing excess dwelling unit bank. The Category 2 land use changes will generate some excess dwelling units. There will be about 312 units added to what currently exists that could be used to approve on other or different sites such as Palomar Oaks or Marja Acres. Staff does anticipate the existing dwelling unit bank to grow with the various Category 2 land use changes and future development projects. Commissioner Anderson asked what will happen to the existing public parking along the side streets in the Ponto area. Mr. Neu stated that to the extent that the Ponto area develops with on-street parking, some of that would be replaced. The other opportunity for parking would come with the Carlsbad Boulevard realignment project. Commissioner Anderson asked about the possibility of restaurants on the Power Plant site. Ms. Jesser stated that is a possibility with the Visitor Commercial designation. There is a policy in the General Plan that outlines what staff envisions seeing on that site in the future and that includes gathering spaces and outdoor dining. Any future development proposals will be encouraged to be consistent with the policy. A specific or master plan process will also be required which will determine specific uses on that property. Commissioner Siekmann commented that if discussions regarding the Power Plant continue, she should recuse herself from the dais due to her involvement as an intervener. Mr. Ball stated that instead of recusing herself, she should refrain from the discussions and if there is any vote, she should not participate in the vote. Mr. Neu commented that when the specific plan is developed for the Power Plant site, the Commission will see a land use diagram in the plan itself that would designate certain areas for Open Space and other areas for Visitor Commercial. For example, if there was a restaurant, the restaurant and the parking for it would be in the commercial portions and not in the open space. Gary Barberio, Assistant City Manager, commented that part of the reason for the change in the recommendation of the designation of open space on the site is because of the agreement between the city, NRG and SDG&E, which spells out the city’s obligation on the redevelopment on the Encina Power Station site. Commissioner Anderson commented that she would like to hear from the Fire Marshal regarding the Palomar Oaks site. Randy Metz, Fire Marshal, stated the Fire Department has previously reviewed these sites in the past and has had concerns about one of the occupants directly to the east of the new hotel. Mr. Metz stated that it has been recommended determined that these properties remain as industrial properties. There is residential that overlooks this site and would be approximately 3/10 of a mile away from this site. While there is nothing prescriptive in the code that states residential cannot be any closer a specific distance to a hazardous materials handler, Fire Department staff would entertain an R-30 designation if the Commission desired, with proper mitigation factors due to Fire Department access and vegetation management concerns on this property as it relates to residential development. Chairperson Scully inquired about open space on the Power Plant site and what percentage was attached to the site out of the 38% stated in the draft General Plan. Mr. de Cordova stated there is no amount of open space that is counted today for that site. With the ultimate redevelopment of that site where the land uses are sorted out, that area will added to the city’s inventory. Commissioner Segall asked for clarification regarding the letter submitted by the Shopoff Group relating to the Ponto area. Ms. Jesser stated that as part of the General Plan Update, staff evaluated R-30 on a portion of the site and staff is recommending the R-23 designation. The applicant is requesting, for the southern General Commercial portion, that there be a combination of R-30 and General Commercial but to keep the R-23 designation on the eastern part of the site. Commissioner Segall asked what that means in terms of building height. Mr. Neu stated that staff is contemplating implementing the RD-M zone. He added that this area is in a master plan area, but because of that, there is a proposal concurrent with the application to make adjustments to the master plan in that area to create some development standards. That proposal will be acted on with the application and not with the General Plan Update. Commissioner Segall asked if the developments on the central and southern parts of Ponto pay for the realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard. Mr. de Cordova stated that it is typical for developments that have frontage improvements to pay for those improvements. Commissioner Segall asked if that is something that should be included in the General Plan. Mr. de Cordova stated that there are policies in the Mobility Element that do require new Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 5 developments to pay their fair share of any improvements. Commissioner Segall further asked for clarification regarding the access point for the Palomar Oaks site. Ms. Jesser directed the Commission’s attention to the slide and pointed out the access point for the site. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the city is providing more housing than what is required by the state. Mr. de Cordova stated that there are the state requirements that cover from now until 2021. There is also the longer term requirement to plan for housing until 2035. Built into this update is a combination for both of those requirements. As projects develop, the sites that are evaluated and identified today may not be there the next time the housing element has to be reviewed. There is also a mid-cycle requirement to re-inventory the sites. Mr. de Cordova reminded the Commission that the city should have enough sites to meet the current requirements but to also look at the longer term. The city has shown it can meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Commissioner Montgomery asked if there is not a specific requirement for the long term or if it is just a projection. Mr. de Cordova stated that from a housing element perspective it is a 10 year planning window and an 8 year housing plan. Commissioner Montgomery asked what the impacts might be by eliminating some of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank draws have on the housing element. Mr. de Cordova stated that the city not only has to show that there is enough housing overall but also show there is enough housing at the right densities to accommodate all income groups. Commissioner Montgomery asked if staff is recommending a lower number of units for the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank for Ponto. Ms. Jesser stated the report reflects what was outlined in the presentation. Commissioner Black inquired about the Oaks North site and asked about the recommended designation. Ms. Jesser stated that staff evaluated changing that site from Planned Industrial to R-30 but based on similar concerns to the Palomar Oaks West site, staff is recommending that the site remain Planned Industrial. Commissioner Black asked if the Commission has latitude to change the designation from R-30 to R-23. Ms. Jesser stated yes but reminded the Commission that the northeast quadrant has a capacity limitation. If the Commission chooses to change the recommendation, one of the other sites in that quadrant would have to be removed from the update process. Commissioner Siekmann commented that during the meeting on Saturday July 18, Ms. Kato spoke her concerns regarding the potential of all of the excess dwelling units being used up before she has an ability to development her property. Ms. Jesser stated staff is not proposing to take away any development potential on any properties. Commissioner Siekmann asked about school capacities in the Ponto area. Ms. Jesser stated that as part of the EIR for the General Plan, staff evaluated the full build out of all of the land use changes and existing development potential in the city. As indicated in Table 3.11-9, Carlsbad Unified School District anticipates an increase in elementary and middle school students, but a decrease in high school students; however, it has been identified that there will be excess capacity at build out of the General Plan. The reason for this is a shift in demographics for the city. The student population is expected to remain or decline and Carlsbad is also experiencing an increase in older housing as well as an increase in the population of seniors. Commissioner Siekmann commented that the speakers were specifically asking about Pacific Rim. Ms. Jesser stated the General Plan looked at the schools at a district level rather than site specific. Commissioner Siekmann also asked about a speaker’s comment regarding a property in the Barrio on Oak Avenue being zoned commercial instead of industrial. Ms. Jesser stated that for this process, it was not something evaluated in the EIR; however, it could be a General Plan amendment in the future. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that Attachment 8 to the staff report includes a series of specific actions staff wants the Commission to take on certain sites and asked when the discussions should take place. Mr. Neu stated Attachment 8 covers the zoning action as well as the General Plan action, with the General Plan including the text and the mapping. Ms. Jesser stated staff’s recommendations for the non-residential changes are reflected in Table 8.3. In regard to the residential changes, staff’s recommendations are reflected in Table 8.13. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that on Table 8.3, he can support staff’s recommendation for Oaks North. Regarding Sunny Creek, he stated that he has a problem with that site being residential or commercial. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he can support staff’s proposal of commercial being 8 acres minimum with the balance being residential. Commissioner Anderson asked why old Rancho Santa Fe Road was not designated as open space. Mr. Neu commented that it does appear to show as right-of-way, but it can be changed to open space as it is a trail. Ms. Jesser concurred and stated it can be changed on the map. Commissioner Anderson commented that there was a discussion on July 18 regarding the property behind the senior mobile home park where the neighbors would like to see it designated as senior housing. Mr. Neu stated the challenge at this level Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 6 is that there is not a category that restricts it to senior housing. The property owner is actually working on a senior housing project on the site. Because the site is within the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, a master plan amendment could specify that the site be used for senior housing. Commissioner Anderson asked about placing specific restrictions on water meter allocations. Kirsten Plonka, Utilities Engineering Manager, stated the issue is currently being addressed based on the drought level. Right now, the city is in a level 2 which does not restrict water meters; if it is moved to a level 3, those restrictions will be put in place. Typically the wholesalers designate the allocations to the county water authority and the member agency follow in kind. Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the San Diego County Water Authority has asked the various agencies to pass a model drought ordinance, which Carlsbad passed a few years ago. There are three water districts in the city but the city controls only Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Commissioner Montgomery commented that the northeast quadrant is an impacted quadrant as far as housing units, and the Sunny Creek site is proposing the largest share of housing. Commissioner Montgomery asked for the original yield of residential units on this site as compared to what is being proposed. Ms. Jesser stated that the site that is currently designated as Local Shopping Center is a commercially designated site with no residential yield on that property today. If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation, the land use change would allocate residential potential on that site. When staff was asked to evaluate the potential for residential on this site, the property owner at the time wanted a configuration with 6 acres of Local Shopping Center on the corner. Staff’s recommendation is to require a minimum of 8 acres of Local Shopping Center but not define the boundaries between the commercial and the residential at this time and instead apply a combination designation with policies in the General Plan that require that the boundaries be determined by a site planning process. Commissioner Montgomery inquired if El Camino Real will continue to be designated as a scenic corridor. Ms. Jesser stated it will remain as a scenic corridor with setback requirements, which will apply to the Sunny Creek site. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the affordable housing requirement for Sunny Creek would move to the moderate category if this site was changed to have a lower residential density with the L designation. Ms. Jesser stated that the designation below R-23 would be R-15, to be able to count this site as a site that could accommodate moderate income housing, the requirement would be a minimum of 12 units per acre. The site could be designated as R-15 with the requirement for the 12 units per acre minimum. RECESS Chairperson Scully called for a 30 minute recess at 6:30 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Scully called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Commissioner Montgomery commented that the city is proposing an excess of proposed dwelling units for this housing cycle plus the next. Commissioner Montgomery proposed the following changes: Robertson Ranch PA22 from R-30 to R-23; the Sunny Creek site should be R-15 for the residential portion of the combination residential and commercial site instead of R-23; and the Marja Acres site should be zoned at R-15 instead of R-4. Mr. Neu commented that the Marja Acres site falls into the Tier B category and staff was suggesting that the Commission could approve the recommendation of R-15 with the policy language regarding 12 units to the acre. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he was thinking of a designation that allows 12 units per acre. Mr. Neu commented that for housing element purposes, staff feels the R-12 designation results in some units in the moderate income category. He stated that whatever the Commission approves, staff will make sure the numbers meet the quadrant caps as well as the housing element goals. Commissioner Montgomery also proposed changing the General Plan recommendation for 925 Buena Place to allow R- 3. Mr. Neu suggested that the zoning be changed to R-1 instead. Commissioner Segall asked, regarding Sunny Creek, if R-15 is considered medium density and if the property would be considered viable if there were fewer units. Ms. Jesser stated that the R-23 density is being used for the city’s moderate income housing obligation. If the density for that site is dropped from R-23 to R-15 with the provision of a minimum of 12 units per acre, it would still be in the moderate category. Commissioner Segall asked if mixed use is still do-able on 9 acres. Ms. Jesser stated that it would be a minimum of 8 acres, mixed use would be a permitted use, units would not be allocated out of the bank for Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 7 that purpose, and staff is not counting on the mixed use component for the housing element. Commissioner Segall asked for clarification regarding Robertson Ranch PA 22. Ms. Jesser commented that it is currently zoned as office and staff is recommending that it be changed to the R-30 designation. Commissioner Anderson commented that she would eliminate the mixed use on the Ponto Area as she feels that better quality commercial options are available when housing is not accommodated. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that regarding the 925 Buena Place site it makes more sense for the General Plan designation to remain as is and to change the zoning from R-3 to R-1. Commissioner Segall commented that he would like to see the Sunny Creek remain with staff’s recommendation of R-23. For Robertson Ranch PA 22, he would also like to see that remain with staff’s recommendation. He stated that he agrees with Commissioner L’Heureux regarding 925 Buena Place and to keep it at R-1. Commissioner Siekmann stated she supports staff’s recommendations. Commissioner Black stated he also agrees with staff’s recommendations. Chairperson Scully stated she agrees with the changes proposed by Commissioner Montgomery regarding Robertson Ranch PA 22 and the Sunny Creek site. The Planning Commission voted for the following: Basin BJ The Commission voted 7-0 to accept staff’s recommendation. Robertson Ranch PA 22 The Commission voted 4-3 (Black, Segall and Siekmann) to change the designation to R-23. Sunny Creek The Commission voted 4-3 (Black, Segall and Siekmann) to change the designation to R-15. Marja Acres The Commission voted 7-0 to support including this site and to include the additional text of “minimum of 12 units per acre.” Ponto Mixed Use/General Commercial Site The Commission voted 7-0 to accept staff’s recommendation and to include the additional text of “minimum of 12 units per acre.” Palomar Oaks West The Commission voted 7-0 to accept staff’s recommendation. 925 Buena Place The Commission voted to 5-2 (Black and Montgomery) to change the zoning to R-1. Chairperson Scully stated she would like to keep the affordable housing minimum at 15% as opposed to changing it to 20%. Commissioner Siekmann would like to keep the minimum at 20%. Mr. Barberio stated that staff’s recommendation is consistent with the City Council’s recent policy changes to the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank policy and is based on housing element needs. Commissioner Anderson stated she agrees with Commissioner Scully and does not like the 20% for affordable housing. She stated she would like to see it remain at 15%. Affordable Housing Requirement of 20% The Commission voted 5-2 (Scully and Anderson) to accept staff’s recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 8 Power Plant Site Commissioner Siekmann recused herself from the dais due to a conflict of interest because of being an intervener against the Power Plant. The Commission voted 6-0 to accept staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Siekmann returned to the dais. The Commission voted 7-0 to accept and approved staff’s recommendations for the remaining properties. MOBILITY ELEMENT Doug Bilse, Traffic Engineer, gave a presentation regarding the Mobility Element, assisted by Craig Williams, Mobility Manager, and Chris Gray, a consultant with Fehr and Peers. Commissioner Segall stated he had significant issues with the entire Mobility Element. He commented that he was trying to understand why the vehicle travel lanes are becoming narrower and the bike lanes are becoming wider. If more vehicle lanes are needed to ease congestion, making the existing lanes narrower only slows traffic down and makes congestion worse. Commissioner Segall asked for an explanation on how making the lanes narrower eases congestion. He also stated that giving bikes a higher priority is one of his fundamental problems with the prioritization with bikes and pedestrians on many of the city streets. Mr. Bilse stated that most of the traffic in the city falls into one of the top five categories of the new typology used. He stated that those 5 categories can be prioritized for automobiles. Road diets or a reduction in a lane would be done strategically to improve for the primary user. Mr. Bilse stated that in some cases safety trumps the efficiency of driving. Commissioner Segall asked how safety is defined. It has been his experience that as the vehicle travel lanes have been made narrower, the cyclists are traveling with two or three across in the bike lane typically straddling the lane. He feels that by doing this, the city is not addressing safety but instead creating a bigger problem. Mr. Bilse stated that the standards are still in flux, and the city is leaning towards installing a buffer lane between the bike lane and travel lane, which is perceived to be safer. He stated that sometimes the perception of safety is enough to get people to bike and to promote it. Mr. Bilse stated the bike community supports the use of the buffers. Commissioner Segall stated that it is his belief the lack of coordination of the signals on any of the streets combined with the narrowing of lanes is causing more of a traffic problem than new development. Mr. Bilse stated the city has too many signals for the population. The traffic management program works best for peak hours. Commissioner Montgomery asked about cycle tracks and shared-use paths in specific areas of the city. Mr. Bilse commented that the General Plan is what enables the Commission to do things and provides guidance on when certain methods should be used. It has to be very selective and it has to make sense. Commissioner Montgomery asked if there are specific streets that it will be used on. Craig Williams, Mobility Manager, stated it really is intended to illustrate ways to make roads safer for cyclists, a toolbox so to speak. Commissioner Montgomery asked if staff is proposing a shared-use path along the future realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard. Mr. Bilse stated no. Commissioner Montgomery commented that the citizens of Carlsbad requested an active waterfront, and he asked if this was the correct forum to bring forward ideas such as bike rental stations. Mr. Neu stated that along those lines, the Draft Village and Barrio Master Plan includes such language in the Village section of the plan. Mr. Bilse stated the General Plan is not the best place to put a specific request such as that. He commented that Policy 3P-37 includes language for incentives such as parking standards for implementing travel demand management programs which minimize the reliance on single occupancy vehicles during peak hours. This would include the entire Carlsbad Boulevard corridor. Commissioner Black asked how staff determines if a secondary road needs an extremely wide bike lane. Mr. Bilse stated that state law requires that 3 feet be provided for between a vehicle and a bike. Commissioner Black asked how the shared roads are working as far as safety. Mr. Williams stated that sharrows serve several purposes: it serves as footprint in areas where a bike lane does not continue such as an intersection, it is a guideline for where cyclists should ride, and it also serves as a tool for motorists to warn them of the potential of cyclists. The sharrows are on roads that are more heavily used by cyclists. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 9 Commissioner Siekmann asked for clarification regarding the basis of the change of moving away from Level of Service (LOS) and moving towards streets that allow bikes and pedestrians, that cyclists are just as important as cars. Chris Grey, Fehr & Peers, stated it is partially due to the Complete Streets Act which was enacted in 2008. Commissioner Siekmann asked if there are educational opportunities for the public on these huge changes in the mobility element. Mr. Bilse commented that technology allows staff to reach a broader audience and as such, he will utilize the city’s website for communication and education materials. Commissioner Siekmann commented on how this element is tied to the Climate Action Plan. Commissioner Siekmann commented on the lack of a policy or a goal for an education program. Mr. Bilse stated he would look into it. Commissioner Siekmann further commented that accessibility for the beach should also include accessibility for the disabled. Mr. Bilse stated that staff is currently working on that. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he is aware that there will be 5 street segments that will be considered exempt, and asked for clarification on when there are projects that will have direct traffic impact to those 5 exempt street segments. Mr. Bilse stated the General Plan dictates how wide the streets will be but does not get into the level of detail for specific intersection. Staff can forecast and monitor the traffic situations on those particular intersections. Mr. Neu stated that conditions will be included on projects and those conditions will be monitored. Commissioner Anderson commented that she has concerns about the buffers as well as prioritizing bikes and pedestrians on so many streets. She further commented that staff should also review the identity streets. Commissioner Anderson also stated she is concerned about the use of sharrows as well as beach accessibility for the disabled. Mr. Bilse asked if the Commission wished to make suggestions for changes to the table. Mr. Ball asked for Mr. Bilse to give his recommendation for the available options. Mr. Bilse stated it would be staff’s recommendation, based on input from the community, would be to change east- west corridors such as Tamarack, Poinsettia, and Carlsbad Village Drive. Mr. Neu added that staff will return with the final recommendation. Commissioner Anderson stated that she is concerned about sharrows, about taking lanes away and pushing traffic onto Palomar Airport Road which is a priority arterial for east-west traffic. Now the city is accepting a potential failure level of service for Palomar Airport Road, which she feels will push traffic onto the roads that will have been put on a road diet and create new problems. Commissioner Segall commented that staff could think outside the box and work on a different east-west road, such as Grand Avenue, instead of selecting Carlsbad Village Drive. He also stated that he is concerned about the wording in Policy 3P-13 stating that staff should “…evaluate the trade-offs between safety, auto service levels, and bicycle and pedestrian transit service levels.” Mr. Bilse stated that if there is no history of collisions, it would be part of the evaluation for traffic impacts. Mr. Neu stated that from the comments received from citizens as well as the comments expressed by the Commission, staff is aware of the concerns that there are a number of roads that are not vehicle prioritized. He suggested that the Commission review the Typology Table on page 3-11 of the draft General Plan, one approach would be for the Commission to recommend to change certain roadway typologies to vehicle priority or the commission could select certain streets. Staff could then review those recommendations to make sure those changes do not cause other impacts and return with the final recommendations. Commissioner Segall commented that he does not think it is realistic to think that people will bike to work given the number of hills in the city. He commented that he does not like the term “prioritization.” Commissioner Segall feels that vehicles should remain a priority with pedestrians and cyclists as secondary. He feels that the city should not try and change all of the infrastructure to try to accommodate a few people. Chairperson Scully stated she agrees with Commissioner Segall. She commented that she has a serious issue with prioritizing some streets for pedestrians or bikes particularly when there is an emergency especially around the schools. Commissioner Montgomery asked why a section of Poinsettia Lane and a section of Aviara Parkway are considered an employment priority. Mr. Bilse stated those are marked that way because they are connectors from the freeway to employment centers. Commissioner Montgomery stated that the Commission should recommend giving auto priority to employment oriented streets, which would be Poinsettia Lane and Faraday Avenue. Because the Mobility Element is so connected to the Climate Action Plan, the Commission should not broad brush every street that is designated as purple in the table as an auto primary designation. He suggested that Aviara Parkway, Alga Road, Poinsettia and Faraday should Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 10 be auto primary as well as Marron Road. Commissioner Montgomery commented that the Village should remain as recommended by staff. Commissioner Segall stated that he feels Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard should not be considered as priorities for bikes as he is totally opposed to that because those are both emergency routes. He further added that unless it makes sense because an area is flat, the city should continue to prioritize streets for vehicles which does not mean bike lanes cannot exist. Commissioner Segall stated he is totally opposed to the exhibit. Fire Chief Davis stated that in regard to the Village area, there is nothing that will be done to hinder primary response routes. Staff is working with consultants to find a way to build up the Village but allow for safety services, both police and fire. Chairperson Scully commented that she believes the Commission is more concerned with the south Carlsbad areas. Commissioner Segall added that he is concerned with the Village too as it is considered an alternative route. Commissioner Siekmann commented that she lives right near the Coast Highway and she sees so many people riding bikes and walking that the priority in that area is the bicycle rider and the pedestrian. She stated that she does not want to be known as the access road for the interstate. The whole idea for the city has changed so it is the place that people want to visit and the place for people to recreate. She feels to change that road to auto priority is going backwards from the EC3 idea of an active waterfront. Commissioner Siekmann stated that this is a complete change in how people look at the roads of Carlsbad and other communities, and it is completely tied to the Climate Action Plan and the environmental impact report. Every change the Commission makes goes deep. She further commented that there are many younger people that want to bike to work and are interested in sustainability. Commissioner Siekmann suggested that the Commission open up a little to new ideas and to not be so auto-oriented. Commissioner Siekmann commented that not all the options were suggested. She stated that she agrees with Commissioner Segall’s idea of changing Grand Avenue to a bike priority road instead of Carlsbad Village Drive as well as changing the connector streets priority. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he is completely unqualified, other than being a 45 year resident of the city, to determine how a street should be designated. He stated that the city has a professional staff and the Commission should give them credit. The Commission should provide staff some direction. Mr. Neu suggested that perhaps it would be better served for staff to provide some policy language as to what is meant by the word “prioritize” to indicate that it does not exclude the other modes of transportation that are not the priority but focusing improvements on the prioritized mode. He commented that the roads will be built out under the existing circulation plan, and some of the roads now have a higher priority for modes of transportation other than vehicles and the city needs to adapt the roads to those other modes. Mr. Bilse stated there was a very strategic effort in finding ways to improve roads for pedestrians and cyclists without taking away traffic lanes. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that part of the problem seems to be with the new terminology, lack of education, knowledge, or understanding on the Commission’s part. He asked if it is worth a great deal of time, effort and money to make these changes to the benefit of such a small number of citizens. Mr. Bilse stated that it is his opinion that road diets and road restrictions should be its own policy. He would recommend to keep the map and table as they are presented because they provide staff with the tools to make improvements. Commissioner Segall asked about removing Reach 4 for Cannon Road into Oceanside. Mr. Bilse stated that Cannon Reach 4 is no longer a viable alternative as it no longer meets the city’s project purpose. It cuts through habitat and an ecological preserve. Mr. Bilse also stated that the City of Vista has also removed Cannon Reach 4 from their General Plan. He further commented that the project is also unfunded, and the traffic analysis in the EIR did not analyze that section of Cannon Road. CORRECTED Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 11 Commissioner Segall asked what secure parking refers to in Policy 3P-35. Mr. Bilse stated it would be a bike rack or other form of secure parking for bicycles. Mr. Neu stated this meeting would be continued to July 23 and at a time specific. Chairperson Scully stated the meeting on July 24 will begin at 2:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT By a 7-0 vote, the meeting of July 22 was adjourned to July 23 at 4:00p.m. Q,~ DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk