Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-08-21; Planning Commission; MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chamber Minutes 1200 Ca rlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 . CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: STAFF PRESENT: Wednesday,August21,2019 Chair Luna called the Regular Meeting to order at 6 p.m. Chair Luna, Commissioners Anderson, Geidner, Lafferty, Meenes, Merz, and Stine Assistant City Attorney Kemp, City Planner Neu, Assistant Director of Community & Economic Development Peterson, Engineering Manager Geldert, Parks & Recreation Director Lancaster, Park Planning Manager Trojanowska, Senior Planner Donnell, Park Planner Kennedy, and Administrative Secretary Flores PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Lafferty led the Pledge of Allegiance APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the Regular Meeting held July 17, 2019 were approved, 6-0-1 (Commissioner Anderson abstain). PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: Ben Mijuskovic, Carlsbad CA, stated he has been sending emails to the council regarding his concerns about the bluffs in Carlsbad. He stated he is concerned about the massive excavations being done when new residences are being built by the small corridor by Terra Mar that's near the ocean, specifically the 5100 block to the 5300 block of Carlsbad Boulevard from the ocean on the west side to Shore Drive. He stated they are damaging the bluff. He provided his concerns in writing and was given the Planning Commissions email address to submit any additional information. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: Chair Luna directed everyone's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the Commission would be following for that evening's public hearing. Chair Luna opened the public hearing for Item 1. 1. AMEND 2018-0011/CDP 2018-0048 (DEV 99035)-POINSETTIA PARK PHASE IV-DOG PARK Request for a recommendation to approve a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a dog park at Poinsettia Community Park located at 6600 Hidden Valley Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 20 and the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program. The City Planner has determined the project has no new significant environmental effects not analyzed in the originally approved Mitigated Negative Declaration for the park, and therefore no further CEQA compliance is required. City Planner Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Senior Planner Donnell would make the staff presentation (on file in the Planning Division). Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2019 DISCLOSURES: Commissioner Stine stated he visited the site. Commissioner Meenes stated he visited the site. Commissioner Merz stated he visited the site. Senior Planner Donnell gave the staff presentation. Chair Luna asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Anderson asked if the current lot will be re-graded. Page 2 Senior Planner Donnell stated yes, the lot will be re-graded to align the slope generally in a south westerly direction towards a bio retention basin. Commissioner Meenes asked if any type of charettes were conducted with the neighbors. Senior Planner Donnell stated that outreach was conducted to include an online survey, postcards that were mailed to surrounding residents, as well as two pop up events at the park. He stated there is a standard yellow noticing sign currently on site as well as a larger sign that provides a rendering of the proposed park to include contact information. Commissioner Meenes asked if the Helix Environmental noise study was provided to the public as part of the outreach conducted. Senior Planner Donnell stated the noise study was not provided to the public at the time however, if a member of the public were to request it, it would be provided. Commissioner Stine asked for additional information about when the City Council reviewed the project, what concerns were discussed and how they voted. Senior Planner Donnell stated in February of 2018 the City Council directed staff to study this location for a dog park. He stated public opinion at the time supported the proposed dog park at the proposed location. He stated the City Council understood environmental review would need to occur as well as obtaining the necessary permits. He stated he did not recall any concerns or how the City Council voted and referred to a member of the Parks & Recreation division for further information. Parks & Recreation Director Lancaster stated in February of 2018 the City Council determined the ro o ed site was suitable to p rs ea co d"tional use permit and master pan amendment. He stated a detailed survey was not conducted at the time. He stated it was a unanimous vote from the council to pursue the proposed project. Commissioner Stine asked if Director Lancaster recalled any significant objections. Director Lancaster stated he does not recall a single objection. He stated the project was very well received by the public. Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2019 Page 3 Chair Luna asked if there were additional questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak on the project. Seeing none, she opened and closed public testimony PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Anderson stated this is a good site for a dog park. Commissioner Stine stated the dog park is situated close to the main entrance so people with dogs don't have to walk through the entire park to get to the enclosure for dogs. He stated the location is ideal for a dog park facility and likes the separate enclosures for small and large dogs. Chair Luna stated she supports the proposed dog park;, MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Anderson and duly seconded by Commissioner Stine to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No . 7343 APPROVING a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chair Luna, Commissioners Anderson, Geidner, Lafferty, Meenes, Merz, and Stine NOES: None Chair Luna closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Chair Luna opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. 2. MCA 2019-0001 -PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-2020 AND AMENDMENTS TO PROCEDURAL RULES -Request for a recommendation of approval of the Planning Commission Work Plan for fiscal year 2019-2020, and a Municipal Code Amendment to revise Chapter 2.24 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to be consistent with Chapter 1.20 Meetings and Chapter 2.15 Boards and Commissions. Also included is a request to rescind Planning Commission Resolution Number 6100 containing Planning Commission Procedures, and adopt a new resolution containing updated Planning Commission Procedures. City Planner Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and gave the staff presentation (on file in the Planning Division). PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Stine asked for additional information on what the Planning Commissioner's special duties are in the Village area of the city. City Planner Neu stated the previous Village Master Plan, that did not include the barrio, was a redevelopment area that required a redevelopment permit. He stated the code was changed when the state eliminated redevelopment and in certain cases the commission was able to approve minor review permits within a certain project valuation. He stated with the adoption of the new Village & Barrio Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2019 Page4 Master Plan, the approval process by the commission could be eliminated. He stated that section is something that would be appropriate to strike from the chapter. Commissioner Anderson asked that the Community & Economic Director be deleted from section 2.2.4 Chair Luna asked if there were any other commissioners who had comments or objections to Commissioner Anderson's request. There were none. Commissioner Anderson stated she would like the procedures to allow public testimony after commission discussion and after public testimony is closed, if something has been discussed that would affect a member of the public as stated in the proposed resolution. Assistant City Attorney Kemp stated the City Council ordinance states a speaker slip must be submitted before the item is called in a public hearing. He stated the proposed resolution does present a conflict. He stated the commission could leave it in if the commission votes unanimously now. He stated if they do not unanimously agree now, they can strike it from the proposed resolution and deal with it on a case by case basis. Commissioner Anderson stated she would like to see the rules be consistent where they aren't having to decide who can and cannot speak on a project. Commissioner Meenes stated they need to stay consistent with the City Council in relation to public speakers. Commissioner Geidner stated there have been some occasions where an idea comes up that could affect a member of public after public testimony has been closed. She stated in some instances there is a room full of people who may want to speak again. She stated she has mixed feelings about the topic. Commissioner Stine stated he would be in favor of allowing the public to speak after public testimony has been closed if the circumstances match what the resolution states. City Planner Neu stated this particular provision in the procedural resolution is dealing with something that the City Council ordinance doesn't address. He stated the procedure is trying to address a situation where you have heard speakers, the commission has fashioned a new condition, the applicant has weighed in on it and there may be neighboring property owners who are affected who would like to speak. Commissioner Geidner stated she would like to change the word "shall" to "may" in the procedural re ol tion, item number four. City Planner Neu stated the commission has some options on what they want to do with the condition. He stated they can reword it, delete it, or delete a portion of it. Assistant City Attorney Kemp suggested changing the word "shall" to "may" would work because it preserves the rule as a guideline on when the commission would consider allowing a speaker to talk after public testimony has been closed. Planning Commission Minutes August21 ,2019 Page 5 Commissioner Stine asked if they changed the word "shall" to "may", would that be consistent with the council rules. Assistant City Attorney Kemp stated yes. Commissioner Anderson stated she would like the procedure to state "If a proposed condition is discussed for the first time after the public testimony is closed, the Chairperson shall allow sufficient time to the applicant to address the change or additions. Members of the general public may also be allowed to address the change if directly impacted by the proposed condition". This was agreed upon by the commission. Commissioner Geidner asked if the commission would need to add the words "by unanimous vote" to the condition. Assistant City Attorney Kemp stated no. He stated what the commission has come up with is a good solution and guideline on when the commission would allow somebody to address the commission again after public testimony has been closed. Commissioner Meenes asked what the commissions role would be in reviewing the in lieu fees. City Planner Neu stated he is not sure at this point whether the changes would be to the amount of the fee or if there will be changes in the ordinances. He stated if there were only changes to the fee amount, that would be something the City Council would act on directly. Commissioner Meenes suggested they add verbiage to the work plan under the projects listed to allow some flexibility with projects listed. Chair Luna suggested they add "to include but not limited to". Commissioner Lafferty stated she is concerned that capital projects are being eliminated from Planning Commission review in the proposed ordinance changes. City Planner Neu stated the deletion of that section is to make the Planning Commission procedure consistent with the municipal code provision. He stated capital improvement projects will come through the Planning Commission for them to review the permits. He stated the council has reserved the capital improvement program and budget component as part of their process. Assistant City Attorney Kemp stated state law says one of the duties of a Planning Commission, if one is created, is to annually review the capital improvement program of the city for public works projects of the agency for consistency with the general plan. He stated the City Council decided to eliminate that obligation from the Planning Commission. He stated the code already has that elimination in it and updating the Planning Commission resolution makes it consistent with what the local law is. He stated the Planning Commission will still review the projects if they need a conditional use permit or if they need some other approval of the Planning Commission. He stated the Planning Commission will not be doing a report on an annual basis to the City Council that the projects in the CIP budget are consistent with the general plan. He stated the City Council has reserved that power to itself. Chair Luna suggested changing the order of meeting procedures resolution number 7345, page 5, section H, to match how the meetings are currently being conducted, specifically having number 5 and 6 switch places. Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2019 Page 6 Commissioner Geidner asked City Planner Neu if he feels the staffing of the planning division matches the expectations in the work plan that will be presented to the City Council. City Planner Neu stated with the additions like the mandated Housing Element update and the council's consideration of Growth Management, the division is not adequately resourced to do those all concurrently. Chair Luna asked if the planning division has gotten any additional staffing under the SB2 grant. City Planner Neu stated the SB2 grant timeline has not yet been established and some projects in the work plan are multi year projects, such as the Housing Element and Growth Management. He stated the Local Coastal Program is estimated to have a draft out in September for public review. He stated some sequencing will occur to mitigate overlapping with major projects. Commissioner Anderson requested that a revision be made eliminating the verbiage "subject to City Council approval of the SB2 grant" and changing it to "subject to awarding of SB2 grant from the state". City Planner Neu stated the change would be appropriate. Commissioner Geidner requested that the planning division come back to the commission a few times a year to provide updates on major milestones for projects listed in the work plan. She stated tracking progress will better justify additional staff and help everyone understand when or why time lines are or are not being met. Comm issioner Meenes stated the commission needs to be mindful that it is not their responsibility to get involved with the staffing of the division. Commissioner Lafferty asked if any of the projects in the work plan have deadlines. City Planner Neu stated the Housing Element has a specific state mandated deadline, the others have a schedule and deliverable dates. He stated staff will certainly share schedules with the commission and understands Commissioner Geldner's concerns. Commissioner Lafferty asked how long it actually takes to rewrite something like the Housing Element. City Planner Neu stated is can be quite long and it can depend on what other projects are occurring at the time. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Stine and duly seconded by Commissioner Meenes to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7344, as amended, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Work Plan and Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 2019-0001). VOTE : 7-0 AYES: Chair Luna, Commissioners Anderson, Geidner, Meenes, Merz, Lafferty, and Stine NOES: None Planning Commission Minutes August21,2019 Page 7 ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Meenes and duly seconded by Commissioner Geidner to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7345, as amended, RECINDING Planning Commission Resolution Number 6100 containing Planning Commission Procedures and APPROVING updated Planning Commission Procedures. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chair Luna, Commissioners Anderson, Geidner, Meenes, Merz, Lafferty, and Stine NOES: None Chair Luna closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Lafferty asked if there was a definition for "community character" as noted in the Village and Barrio Master Plan. An article from The Coast news was introduced regarding SANDAG's housing needs methodology being questioned by county leaders (August 2, 2019, page AS). The article quoted a San Diego council member using descriptions of a city's "community character'' as a pretext to exclude low income individuals. Commissioner Lafferty stated community character is being defined and published in The Coast News. She stated the publication Envision Carlsbad, Section 4, identifies 35 historically significant buildings without a path for preservation. She stated Carlsbad needs its own definition for community character. Commissioner Lafferty provided information regarding the September 26, 2019 fundraising dinner being held by the Friends of La Posada, to support the La Posada de Guadalupe men's homeless shelter in Carlsbad. CITY PLANNER REPORTS: City Planner Neu stated the City Council accepted the Coastal Commission suggested modifications on the Village & Barrio Master Plan. He stated the City Council indicated a desire to have staff come back to discuss a timeline and potential revisions to the plan. He stated at the next Planning Commission meeting of September 4, 2019, staff will present information on RHNA allocations and discuss if any member of the Planning Commission is interested in being a liaison to the Historic Preservation Commission. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS: None. ADJOURNMENT: The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of August 21, 2019 was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. ~fl City Planner Melissa Flores -Minutes Clerk