Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-18; Planning Commission; Minutes.. Planning Commission Minut, Minutes of: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: CALL TO ORDER December 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. December 18, 2002 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Planning Commission Chairperson Trigas called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was led by Chairperson Trigas. ROLL CALL Page 1 Present: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, White, and Whitton Absent: None Staff Present: Don Neu, Principal Planner Cindie McMahon, Deputy City Attorney Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Michele Masterson, Management Analyst Elaine Blackburn, Senior Planner Michael Grim, Senior Planner Christer Westman, Senior Planner Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner John Maashoff, Associate Engineer Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer, Land Use Div. Craig Ruiz, Management Analyst, Housing Planning Commission members left the dais and joined Mayor Lewis and Council Members Kulchin and Hall for a special presentation in honor of Chairperson Trigas, who resigned from the Planning Commission. Mayor Lewis commented that Chairperson Trigas has been very active in the City and mentioned projects and committees she served on and the excellent job she did. Councilperson Kulchin commented on her excellent service to the City and read a proclamation outlining her efforts which resulted in the approval of many projects while serving as a Planning Commissioner and the Planning Commission Ch3irperson and thanked her for all she has done. Councilperson Hall thanked and • recognized her for her service to the City. Commissioner Baker read a Resolution of Appreciation for Seena Trigas from the Planning Commission recognizing her diligent service on the Planning Commission since March 30, 1999. She commended her for her leadership, direction, and participation in planning and land use matters brought before the Planning Commission during her tenure as a Commissioner and Chairperson. Chairperson Trigas stated that as a history and government teacher she tries to instill in her senior government students that the responsibility in their future is to participate in the community and has tried to model that for them over the years. She thanked the Comm ission for their support and team spirit. She also thanked the City Council and Mayor Lewis for their leadersh ip that promotes cooperation, 1s positive, and sends a message to the community that they care and want their input. She thanked Bobbie Hoder for her support and friendship and thanked her fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Segall joined the Commission at the dais at 6:15 pm . Planning Commission Minut, December 18, 2002 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION ACTION: VOTE: AYES : NOES: ABSTAIN : Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 4, 2002. 7-0-0 Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, White, and Whitton None None Chairperson Trigas directed everybody's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the Commission would be following for tonight's public hearing. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson Trigas asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item. 1. CUP 226(B)x1 -DELI WISHES -Request for a retroactive extension of CUP 226(B) to allow the continued operation of a delicatessen at 5365 Avenida Encinas in Local Facilities Management Zone. 3. 2. CUP 92-04(A)x1 -CARLSBAD GOLF CENTER -Request for an extension of CUP 92-04(A) to allow the continued operation of a 10.74-acre golf practice facility at 2711 Haymar Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 2. Don Neu, stated that agenda items 1 and 2 are normally heard in a public hearing context, however, both projects are minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends approval. He recommended that the items be taken as a group, open and close the public hearing, and vote on the items as a group. If the Commission or someone from the public wishes to discuss or pull an item Staff would be available to respond to questions. MOTION ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, to approve the Staff's recommendation on Items 1 and 2. (CUP 226(B)x1 and CUP 92-04(A)x1 ). 7-0-0 Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, White, and Whitton None None 3. CDP 98-68(A)-THOMPSON/TABATA-Request for a Coastal Development Permit Amendment to modify a condition which would allow grading during the winter "rainy season" for an 83 acre, 262 unit residential subdivision located north and south of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 20. Mr. Neu introduced Item #3 and stated that Michael Grim, Senior Planner, would make the presentation. Chairperson Trigas opened the public hearing on Item #3. Planning Commission Minuh. December 18, 2002 Page 3 Michael Grim stated the Thompson/Tabata subdivision located at the intersection of Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Lane was approved last year. This item involves an update of the Coastal Development Permit to conditionally allow grading during the winter months. The current City regulations conditionally allow winter grading throughout the entire Mello 1 and Mello II segments of the City's Coastal Zone. He clarified that the proposal does not include amendments to any other permits related to the development or any revisions to the project design. There are no changes to any project aspects such as the number, type or size of the proposed units, the street systems, open space preservation, or the affordable housing provision. Mr. Grim gave a brief history of the ongIns and applications of the coastal winter grading history. Disturbance of the earth during the rainy season could potentially lead to the offsite sedimentation of coastal resources, therefore, it is necessary to make sure all the dirt stays on-site. Historically Carlsbad had very good erosion control measures and coastal winter grading has been conditionally allowed by the Coastal Commission on a regular basis. When the City acquired permit authority through the certification of the LCPA, the ability for the City to grant winter grading allowances was not given by the Coastal Commission. Therefore, for quite some time between the original permit jurisdiction and currently, they weren't able to allow winter grading. During the Kelly Ranch Local Coastal Program Amendment the City had discussions with the Coastal Commission, and through the suggested modification process of that LCPA, the Coastal Commission agreed to allow the City the same authority they had previously, which was to conditionally allow winter grading in the coastal zone, provided that all the erosion control measures were in place. To codify that, on June 21, 2001, the City Council adopted an ordinance that amended the zoning ordinance to include that provision in the regulations. Unfortunately, the new regulation was not printed in the Zoning Ordinance and Staff continued to use the old regulations and the old Coastal Development Permit conditions so this is updating the project to the current standards . Mr. Grim stated that Carlsbad's erosion control standards have been very high and there are even stricter erosion control measures in place now. A new order from the Regional Water Quality Control Board that went into effect as of January 1st deals with the elimination of pollutants. That strengthens existing offsite sedimentation regulations and makes sure that even small grading projects can't have any dirt leaving the site. Mr. Grim stated that the existing Mitigated Negative Declaration for Thompson/Tabata was approved with all the other discretionary approvals. It requires that all construction activities follow the recommendations of the project specific soils and geotechnical report, the recommendations of the project specific hydrology report, and all the requirements of the NPDES permit as issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Those mitigations were already incorporated into the project. The existing Mitigated Negative Declaration was responsible for reviewing all the potential impacts to development of that project site. There was no mention in that document of the winter grading prohibition in the project description, the impact analysis or the mitigation measures. The environmental review document reviewed it as if they could have grading throughout the year. All erosion control and NPDES measures must be in place prior to commencement of grading and the Engineering Inspection Division ensures that that happens before disturbing the soil. Therefore, no changed circumstances or other requirements for subsequent environmental review pursuant to the applicable section of state CEQA guidelines mandate further environmental review for this proposal. Mr. Grim outlined the following benefits of winter grading: Winter grading will adjust the timing of the project and lessen the overall duration of the construction schedule and construction impacts. It provides additional erosion control measures on the site and allows for an active staff and machinery pool to be available in case any erosion events happen. Specific to the project, Alyssum Road is the cul-de-sac that's going to be enlarged to standard cul-de-sac size. Per the developer and consultants, winter grading will allow them to do all of those operations prior to the summer. Mr. Grim stated that the regulations in the Mello I and Mello II segments conditionally allow for winter grading as a standard legal practice. The project is conditioned to comply with the NPDES regulations on all City erosion control requirements. He said winter grading may even allow for the reduction of some of the construction impacts to the neighboring properties. Mr. Grim stated there is an Errata Sheet dated December 18, 2002 that augments the Staff Report previously distributed with some of the information included in the presentation. More specifically, it Planning Commission Minuk December 18, 2002 Page 4 explains the existing Mitigated Negative Declaration and Staff's justification for not requiring additional environmental review. Commissioner Segall said it's his understanding that this project was delayed with the Coastal Commission and asked what the current status is. Mr. Grim replied that the Coastal Commission did approve it and they have been in final mapping waiting for the plan checks for several months. He said he believes it's their intention to try and get the model complex graded and built as soon as possible. The code allows someone to take the model site and treat that as a separate project and do grading improvements, landscape plans, and building plans, provided they provide us with demolition bonds should the final map never get recorded. He said they're in a two-tier process trying to get the models permit through and also focusing on the Phase I and Phase II maps and grading and improvement plans. Chairperson Trigas opened public testimony and invited the applicant to speak. Jack Henthorn, 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite 8, Carlsbad, stated he represents Standard Pacific, the applicant in this matter. He said they reviewed the Staff Report and Errata Sheet and concur with the recommendations of the Staff. He said they anticipate that by starting early they would be out the bulk of their grading before the start of the summer season and would minimize any conflicts they might have with traffic on Poinsettia Lane. They anticipate the bulk of their grading activities would be completed by July if they were able to get started now. Jim Boeker, Pasco Engineering, 535 N. Hwy. 101, Solana Beach, stated he was present to represent the Tabata family. He wanted to know if all the grading for all the phases would be done by July or if it was Phase I of the models. Julie Ritter, 6846 Briarwood Drive, Carlsbad, said their property abuts right at the Tabata section on the north side of Poinsettia. She was concerned that the City of Carlsbad was requiring them to use their alley and take down their fence and trees. She said she asked Clyde Wickham from the City's Engineering Department if they could do that and was told that under no circumstances did they tell them to do anything. She expressed concern that on the Tabata section they're going to raise the land so that the houses will have an ocean view and it's going to be an extremely large grade. She said Clyde Wickham said they're going to have to have a retaining wall because it's going to be so steep. Ms. Ritter was wondering since the grading is going to be so steep if it will create runoff into their wall and alley. Jim Hicks, 962 Alyssum, Carlsbad, stated he didn't have a problem at first, but if we have an El Nino and get a lot of rain he's concerned it will open a can of worms for a lot of damage. He said he lives in a very dangerous intersection of Snapdragon and Poinsettia. He rides a motorcycle and might hurt himself if he slides out because of all the mud and silt they can't contain. He thinks it should be put off until they know they're out of the rainy season. In response to Jim Boeker's question, Mr. Henthorn stated they anticipate that all of their bulk grading will be done in July for all phases. Mr. Henthorn said the area that Ms. Ritter was concerned with has been redesigned and there is no longer a retaining wall along there. The slope has been redesigned so that there's a bench in the slope and in essence is tiered . The area was redesigned to alleviate the concerns that were raised by the homeowners association and residents. Mr. Henthorn said they and the City share Mr. Hicks' concerns about the rain. However, the City's restrictions on keeping the streets clear and completely clean of any siltation, mud, or debris are very onerous and they don't see a problem with that in the City. He said by the time they get through the process to start the grading, they wouldn't be starting until around February 14, which is near the tail end of the rainy season. Commissioner Baker asked what measures would be taken once the slopes are in place and what would prevent a mudslide and those types of problem if we get a deluge. Mr. Henthorn deferred to their Civil Engineer for the answer. Thomas Mitchell, Project Engineer, stated that some of the measures are very traditional methods done by engineering to accommodate for the winter season. He pointed out some desilting basins they're Planning Commission Minu, December 18, 2002 Page 5 adding and stated that the process is that the water will run off of the site, accumulate in the desilting basin and is trapped there. It has to accumulate to a certain level and then goes over the top of a pipe and is released into the storm drain system. These are sized to accommodate the amount of acreage that is draining into them and has been done throughout Southern California. He said unless there is a large, large-scale event, they function very well. There's never any issue with siltation coming out. In addition, he pointed out the location of a retention basin that also traps the water in a depressed area and releases it at a slow rate. That's a secondary measure they did in the event of a large-scale rain event. He said they also surrounded the entire site with silt fence to keep any loose soil from running down into the sidewalk or streets. These traditional methods work very well and are all under the Water Quality Act. Commissioner Whitton said one of the questions asked was specifically about disturbing the fences on the adjoining property and asked to hear more specifics. He wanted to confirm that they're not going to be in any way disturbing the fences of those folks in the right-of-way. Mr. Henthorn said they pulled back from those fences so they won't be touching them . Commissioner Whitton asked if the right-of-way won't be disturbed so their concerns have been addressed. Mr. Henthorn said they pulled completely out because of the issues that have been raised . They found an engineering solution to avoid the issue. Commissioner Dominguez said this is no doubt going to be an El Nino year and asked if any extraordinary measures are going to be taken. He said the rainfall that really hits this area willl probably be in February or March if El Nino characteristics hold out. Mr. Henthorn replied that it's his understanding that the basins have sufficient capacity built in to handle the projected worst condition reflective of El Nino types of weather patterns. Mr. Mitchell added that they have done a complete hydrology analysis of the site and evaluated for a 10-year storm, a 25-year storm, and a 100-year storm. All these facilities share that, and there will be no pads that are flooded for a 100-year storm event. Commissioner Baker said she assumes that if there's a heavy rain and mud slides into the neighboring property owners that Standard Pacific would be responsible for cleaning it up . Mr. Henthorn said they would prefer to be more preventative than reactionary, but if there were a problem Standard Pacific would be responsible. Commissioner Segall asked what the mitigation is if the measures don't take and we have problems as described by Commissioner Baker. He asked if the City could come in and stop grading and try to mitigate. Mr. Wojcik said there are several measures the City routinely uses, especially during the rainy season, and the methods are more diligent and forceful than the contractors have. As part of their standard they require a cash deposit anywhere from 5 to 10 percent of the entire grading cost of the site. The purpose of the deposit is that if there is a problem and the developer or contractor was not within a few hours of being called, the cash is available. They have a standing contract with an erosion control firm that they call to take care of any mitigation that's required. Chairperson Trigas closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: DISCUSSION Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5327, recommending approval of Coastal Development Permit Amendment CDP 98-68(A) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein and the Errata Sheet on the project. Commissioner Dominguez said that Thompson/Tabata had a section across the street in Poinsettia and there was no reference to mitigation measures in the report or testimony. Mr. Grim replied that was the northerly section north of Poinsettia that Ms. Ritter spoke about. She was actually referring to the part that would be the extension of the existing Lonicera Street south of Camino de los Ondas on the west side. He said Mr. Boeker represented the Tabata family who owns the property between those two northerly sections. The Tabatas are pretty much on a high point, so the part on the east side drains towards the Aviara Parkway/Poinsettia area and they're actually going to be doing some excavation to get rid of some Planning Commission Minu. December 18, 2002 Page 6 unconsolidated fill. The developer is responsible for keeping the dirt on the property. Mr. Grim said the silt fencing, detention and desiltation basins are standard practice for those areas as well. Commissioner White said she thought the Staff Report has a statement to the effect that there is more danger of damage from erosion from winter storms as the property is now without any work on it, than there would be if grading were to commence and these standard practices were put into place before grading. She wanted to know if that interpretation is correct. ML Grim said the property has a lot of barren areas and old asphalt areas that serve to accelerate the water. Once you accelerate the water the erosive capabilities increase. The main part of the site drains down to the west and there's a large ditch that's supposed to capture that water and feed it into two existing storm drain inlets that have no sediment reduction devices. If there were a major event any soil leaving the site would go directly into the storm drain and sediment that storm drain and then sediment the coastal resources down the stream from that storm drain requiring more maintenance of the storm drain facilities and downstream detention basins. Therefore, getting erosion control on the site that prevents that silt from going into the storm drain system is preferable. Commissioner Dominguez said he thinks all the Commissioners are concerned about protecting coastal resources but thinks the main topic is protecting existing neighborhoods in the area. He asked if the neighborhood is better protected once all the sedimentation basins are in place, or with the natural absorption abilities of the land if we have a major rainfall this year. Mr. Wojcik said his opinion is that it's better with the grading operations underway for the following reasons: There are asphalt areas which are impervious and will be removed with the grading operations. The topography out there now with slopes, which increase the runoff from erosion , would be cut down before grading starts. We would have silt fences at the property boundaries and sandbag lines that would slow down the velocity of water and the erosion. Under its current condition, the water just runs off and without the City issuing a grading permit, there's no way we would have the cash deposits to revoke the problems that might arise. Commissioner Baker asked if inspectors are out there on a regular basis when grading operations are started or if they are checking to make sure there are no problems if there's a heavy rain. Mr. Wojcik said the inspector is there on a regular basis. When there's a prediction of rain the inspectors are specifically told to go to critical sites and make sure the contractors have everything to a tee. When they have rains, even if it is after hours, they will have someone go around checking the sites to make sure that there isn't anything that looks like it may happen. They all have mobile phones and can call the contractor, they have 24-hour emergency numbers for the contractor as well as the contract services the City has itself. Chairperson Trigas wanted to confirm that the developer would be responsible if there was a need for cleanup. Mr. Wojcik said that's correct. Chairperson Trigas asked if it was correct that there was a recent amendment that officially approved low- risk areas during the rainy season, and that it's just that we did not have it on paper. Mr. Wojcik replied that it was not codified, therefore the code that the Staff generally refers to wasn't there for them. Other than the . Staff member who specifically took care of the Kelly Ranch area, the other Staff members working on their own individual projects were not aware that that had taken place. The Coastal Commission itself had routinely been granting these kinds of allowances. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: RECESS 7-0-0 Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, White, and Whitton None None Chairperson Trigas called a recess at 6:53 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Trigas called the meeting back to order at 7:01 p.m. Planning Commission Minu, December 18, 2002 Page 7 4. CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 -VILLA FRANCESCA -Request for a recommendation for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a recommendation of approval for a Tentative Subdivision Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for a 51 unit senior condominium project located on the east side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant. Mr. Neu introduced Item #4 and stated that Barbara Kennedy would make the presentation. Chairperson Trigas opened the public hearing on Item #4. Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner, stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a 51-unit senior condominium project. The 0.84-acre site is located on the east side of Jefferson Street and currently consists of three lots. The project is surrounded by multi-family residential to the north, south and west and single-family residences to the east. The project contains both 1-and 2-bedroom units ranging in size from 636 square feet to 1,179 square feet. The site is zoned R-3, multi-family residential, with the General Plan designation of residential medium-high density. Under the current General Plan designation, which allows 11.5 dwelling units per acre, 9 units could be constructed on the site. The applicant is requesting approval of a density increase of 42 units as an incentive to construct the project as 100 percent senior housing and to reserve 51 percent of the units for low and moderate-income households. The resulting density would be 61 dwelling units per acre, which is in the density range of other senior housing projects in the city. Ms. Kennedy stated that the project is proposed as for-sale units. Eight of the units (15.7%) would be reserved for low-income households and would be affordable to seniors with incomes up to 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). 18 units would be for moderate-income households with incomes up to 120 percent of AMI, and the remaining 25 units would be market rate units. Access to the underground parking garage is located slightly south of the center of the site. Although the zoning ordinance only requires a half space per unit, this project provides twice the required parking with one space per unit and four additional guest parking spaces. The project features a formal entrance which connects to the sidewalk along Jefferson Street. She pointed out that an existing bus stop will be relocated north of the entrance and will be upgraded to include a bench and trash receptacle. Ms. Kennedy stated that the building is designed around a central courtyard feature and all walkways are internal to the project, which helps maintain privacy for the adjacent properties. Walls will be constructed around the perimeter of the site and new landscaping will enhance the project. It has over 11,000 square feet of recreation uses on the first floor, including a library, gym, arts and crafts room , and a large recreation room that opens up into the courtyard area. A lap pool is also proposed at the rear of the site. The architectural design is contemporary Mediterranean style. The exterior will be stucco with a two-tone off-white color scheme and it will have terracotta concrete roof tiles. Ms. Kennedy pointed out a number of decorative elements incorporated into the design . The overall building height ranges from 32 to 34 feet and is under the 35-foot height limit. To reduce the mass of the building the third story has been offset 15 feet from the front of the building and 10 feet at the rear elevation . Architectural detailing is carried through on all sides. Ms . Kennedy stated that the proposed use of the site as a senior housing project is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies and with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for senior housing. The site is well suited for sen ior housing because it's a level site and located in close proximity to a range of commercial, professional, and community services patronized by senior citizens. The density increase is allowed per review of the Site Development Plan. The increase in density from 11.5 dwelling units per acre to 61 dwelling units per acre will allow the project to be developed to help achieve the City's senior and affordable housing goals. The project is consistent with Council Policy 43, which establishes priorities for the allocation of excess dwelling units within each quadrant. It is a first priority project in that 15.7% of the units will be for low-income households and 35.3% of the units will be for moderate-income households. It is a second priority project in that it will be developed entirely for qualified senior households. The housing policy team recommends approval of the density increase as an incentive to offset the subsidy required to develop the project as proposed. The project meets all requirements of the R3 zone, PD Ordinance, Senior Citizen Housing Regulations, and parking requirements. No variances Planning Commission Minu, December 18, 2002 Page 8 are being requested and the project meets all of the setback, building height, and lot coverage requirements. Twice the required parking will be provided and over 10 times the required open space is provided. All requirements for senior housing development will be met. The project is consistent with the coastal development policies of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program. It complies with all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and all necessary improvements will be provided. The project is subject to growth management requirements in Zone 1 and is in compliance with the public facilities performance standards. Ms . Kennedy stated that the project is conditioned to enter into an affordable housing agreement to reserve 51 % of the units as affordable to low-and moderate-income households for a minimum of 30 years. It has been reviewed pursuant to CEQA and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. It is subject to noise impacts from traffic along Jefferson Street and mitigation measures are included to ensure that the interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA. Traffic impacts were analyzed because the project would result in increased density and additional ADT. The project generates 204 ADT, which is higher than the 72 ADT projected without the density increase. Because there are excess dwelling units within the quadrant, the ADT is still in the range anticipated for the affected road segments and intersections. The traffic study shows that the project will not have a significant impact with regard to traffic. Because the project contains over 50 units, Ms. Kennedy said the Commission's action is in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. She turned the presentation over to Craig Ruiz of the Housing and Redevelopment Department to discuss the affordability component of the project. Craig Ruiz stated he would address questions that came up recently about how sales prices are determined for restricted units, initial sale and resale of the units. For low-income and moderate-income they had to determine what is an affordable housing cost. That generally means that a third of your income goes to housing cost. He stated that the income limits change each year and have gone up 3% to 5% a year for the last 6 to 8 years. He described how the purchase prices of units for low-income and moderate-income households are subsidized by a silent second mortgage in favor of the City. At some point the subsidy, and potentially some interest, is repaid to the City. He stated that resale restrictions, as currently proposed, would require that units be sold to another low-income household for the first 15 years. The subsidy from the first buyer would be assumed by the second buyer. If the unit is sold in years 16 through 30 the subsidy is repaid at the time the unit is sold and a percentage of the appreciation goes back to the City as well. The entire subsidy would be due and payable to the City in year 31 . The money is then put back into affordable housing projects. He described some examples of what would happen in regard to the subsidies and shared appreciation if low-income or moderate-income units are sold in the first 15 years. Mr. Ruiz stated that for-sale units are a preferred product type but are much harder to do because there are no subsidies available. He said this would be the first product to have units restricted to moderate- income households and would provide 25% of the moderate-income units for the last 6 years and is very much needed. There's no financial assistance being requested which puts more burden on the developer and helps justify the increase in density. Mr. Ruiz said the Housing and Redevelopment Staff supports the proposal for those three reasons. Commissioner Baker asked if a low-income unit can appreciate since it must be sold to be affordable to someone in the low-income group. Mr. Ruiz replied that the appreciation and sale price will go up with the appreciation in income levels. As that income level goes up 5% a year, the sales price would go up accordingly. It appreciates to a lesser degree than a market rate unit. Commissioner Baker thought that some of the sales may involve estates and asked if there have been particular difficulty working with estates. Mr. Ruiz replied that they have done a lot of loans with some mobile home parks and deal with estates of seniors who have passed away and it's never been a problem. Commissioner Baker asked if the owner of a low-or moderate-income unit can rent it or are they required to be the resident. Mr. Ruiz replied that it would be their primary residence. If they were to move out and rent it, the subsidy would become due and payable. Commissioner Baker said the Staff Report says the unit must remain affordable to low-income or if it doesn't they must pay the City back. She wanted to know if that would take it out of the low-income range and asked for clarification on that statement. Mr. Ruiz said they are restricting it for 15 years but if they Planning Commission Minu, December 18, 2002 Page 9 resell it the City will recapture the subsidy and appreciation. They would lose that unit but have the money to turn into another unit. At year 16 they could sell it at market price and the City recaptures the initial subsidy. The ordinance says it can be restricted for 30 years but if it doesn't stay restricted for the full 30, they have to recapture any subsidy and put it back into another affordable housing project. Chairperson Trigas wanted to know if the money is interchangeable only with for-sale units and cannot be used for low-income rentals. Mr. Ruiz said the money would come back into the housing trust fund and it could go to any affordable housing project. Chairperson Trigas asked if this is the first for-sale project in Carlsbad. Mr. Ruiz replied that this is the fourth for-sale project. Chairperson Trigas said she was concerned about having a senior housing project that is desperately needed that can be swapped for any kind of affordable housing in 16 years. Mr. Ruiz said the project will always remain a senior housing project, they lose the potential of having senior affordable units, and that's why they capture the subsidy and put it into other affordable units. Commissioner White said it seems to her that the potential for the city to recapture or bring in more income to put into the housing fund to use for other projects is much greater than a situation where you would have apartments. She said it seems that by allowing people to sell at market rate after 16 years and having the City recoup part of that profit, not just the subsidy, is a benefit to the housing fund in general because it generates cash for the housing fund that can be used for rentals. That's one aspect of letting people sell after 16 years that would actually benefit the housing fund for the entire city. Mr. Ruiz said that's one way to look at it. Commissioner Segall asked what the determining factors are to guarantee that it stays for seniors. Ms. Kennedy replied that there's a condition of approval that says the project is a senior project. Commissioner Segall asked how does she know that in two years it's not going to be open to any age group. Ms. Kennedy said they need to submit a list annually of all tenants with their ages that goes to the County Redevelopment Department. Commissioner Segall asked how they prevent someone from purchasing it and then leasing it to someone else. Ms. Kennedy said they have the annual monitoring of who's living there and all the tenants will be watching each other, and they have to abide by their CC&Rs. Commissioner Segall wanted to confirm that 9 units are what would be approved and they're asking for a density increase of 42 units. Ms . Kennedy replied that that's correct. Commissioner Dominguez asked how fee title would be held on these properties with these restrictions even though it only runs to the 16th year and if the City would be a party to the title. Mr. Ruiz said based on their experience they are held the same as any other units and the City would have a promissory note or a deed of trust. Commissioner Dominguez was concerned that the release upon the 16th year takes all bets off the table and we lose the existing neighborhood to all the malfeasance of any other non-conforming renter or owner as far as restrictions on automobiles, etc., and would be inflicted upon the existing neighborhood. He said he's also taking into consideration that the neighborhood would probably change substantially in 16 years . Ms. Kennedy stated that she doesn't agree with that. After 16 years it will still be a senior project and the same types of seniors will be living there after 16 years. Commissioner Dominguez said they wouldn't be able to have restrictions as to automobiles and other things. Ms. Kennedy said they would not have a restriction on automobiles now. One parking space per unit is provided. The Zoning Ordinance only requires half a parking space for senior projects. Research has been done showing that seniors in senior projects do not drive or they're consolidating their households and getting smaller units, getting one car, or maybe only one person in the household at that time. She said there may be very few households that have two cars and does not think that will be the norm based on her research and looking at other senior projects in this quadrant. Commissioner Heineman wanted to know how the obligation is satisfied if someone who buys one of the condos comes into some money in two years and wants to sell it and move out. Mr. Ruiz said in the first Planning Commission Minu\ December 18, 2002 Page 10 two years they would have to sell the unit to another low-income household whether they came into money or not. Commissioner Whitton asked what their definition of a senior is. Ms. Kennedy replied that State law defines a senior as somebody who is 62 years of age or older or someone who is 55 years of age or older that's in a qualified senior project. Commissioner Whitton asked what their experience is in terms of what housing they have for seniors and what their age is . Ms. Kennedy said they appear to be much older residents in the senior projects she looked at in the northwest quadrant. Commissioner Whitton asked how many cars they have on average. Ms. Kennedy said she talked with several people and most of the projects she researched had only a half parking space and some people had to wait several months to get a parking space, but eventually they did. This project would have one parking space available for each unit, however it's not designated for the unit. Commissioner White asked what the City's goal is for senior housing and how far these 51 units would go to meeting that goal. Mr. Ruiz said the City needs over 3,000 affordable units so this project would make a small dent in the need. He said they don't categorize the need for affordable housing strictly by age; it's by income level. Commissioner Segall asked for an explanation of the traffic and on-street parking concerns in that neighborhood. Ms. Kennedy said she met with several of the neighbors who expressed concern about being able to turn from some of the streets onto Jefferson . There are a lot of higher density apartment projects around there and there seems to be a lot of overflow parking from those projects that spreads into the surrounding residential neighborhoods and they voiced quite a bit of concern about that. They're very concerned about this project having an increased density and increased traffic. Ms. Kennedy said she explained to them that the senior ADT peak hours occur at different times and traffic generation rates for seniors are less than for apartment projects . Even though there are more units it's not incrementally the same amount. With 9 units it would be 72 ADT with 8 trips per unit. With the senior household it's 4 trips per unit so it's less traffic and it doesn't occur at peak hours. The peak hour in and out trips are only 4 additional trips in and 4 additional trips out over what is projected for a 9-unit project. Commissioner Segall asked where visitors park. Ms . Kennedy said they would need to park on the street if all of the visitor parking spaces were in use. There may be additional parking spaces if every tenant doesn't have a car. She said Carlsbad's current parking requirements for senior projects require only one parking space for guest parking and it doesn't matter what size the project is. This project has four parking spaces plus twice the required parking for the seniors. Commissioner Segall mentioned that other projects, such as restaurants, have to have adequate on-site parking and we do not allow for on street parking when the project is being considered. He asked why this project differs. Ms. Kennedy said they're not considering the on street parking as meeting the parking requirements. The project meets the parking requirements on its own merit. Commissioner Dominguez asked if on-site management is a requirement. Ms . Kennedy replied that it's not a requirement, but it's recommended to have an on-site manager. Commissioner Dominguez said it should be a requirement in this situation. Commissioner Segall asked legal counsel if the Commission could require an on-site HOA manager in these proceedings. Ms. McMahon said she would need a moment to check. Ms. Kennedy referred the Commission to Resolution 5321, Condition #6 that states, "Senior citizen housing projects which do not have an on-site manager shall provide a posted phone number of the project owner or off-site manager for emergencies or maintenance problems." She said if they don't agree with that condition, that would be the one to amend. Commissioner Whitton said he didn't see much area for storage and asked if there is some. Ms. Kennedy said there's a little bit of storage in the garage area and would be managed by the homeowners association. She said there's no individual storage space, it's not a requirement of the Senior Citizen Housing Ordinance. Planning Commission Minu, December 18, 2002 Page 11 Chairperson Trigas asked when they consider the senior housing if it has no additional medical services or assistance when considering the parking requirements. Ms . Kennedy said it's not an assisted living center. Commissioner Baker said she assumes a lot of fill will have to be removed from the site and asked at what point would they address whether the trucks have to be covered, if there are certain hours of operation, and how they will get in and out of the site to alleviate any traffic problems. Mr. Maashoff said a haul route permit would be required before beginning to export any material from the site. There are approximately 9,800 yards of material that will be removed from the site. Commissioner Baker asked if they would want direction from the Commission if we're concerned about hours of operation and haul routes or are they sensitive to it. Mr. Maashoff said they are typically sensitive to those issues. The standard hours are 7:00-4:00. If there are schools along the path of travel, they would restrict hours accordingly. In response to an earlier question from Commissioner Segall regarding if they could require on-site HOA, Ms. McMahon said she didn't see anything in the Senior Housing Ordinance that would preclude them from requiring that. She thought it would mean one less unit available for sale and it's a bit unusual to require it in a for-sale project. Usually HOAs contract with property management companies so there would be management from that perspective. Chairperson Trigas stated for the record that several letters and a petition were received. A letter dated December 17th from Cynthia McPherson expressed concern on the project. There was a letter dated December 18th from Dr. Millard and Mrs. Evelyn Biggs commenting on concerns of the project. A petition dated December 17th also expressed opposition to the project. Chairperson Trigas opened public testimony and asked the applicant to speak. Albert Richardson, Owner of Karnak Planning & Design, 2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad stated he was very proud of this project. He said they started to plan for single-family residences for this land and when they were able to combine three lots together Debbie Fountain encouraged them to do something more exciting than just more houses. He said they investigated more thoroughly and did some preliminary studies and took it to the Planning Department and Housing to get input. They got a lot of input from Dee Landers before she retired . They worked with it to bring it to something that's quite exciting. He said he was involved in other senior projects and also did studies in other communities so he was somewhat familiar with some of the concerns. He said they tried to develop a project that's exciting and nice and blends with the community and meets the needs . It's very special in that it's right on Jefferson, close to the bus line. Mr. Richardson said the recreation designed into this facility is nicer than in some of the bigger senior facilities. Many times the more active seniors still have their homes and 2 or 3 cars but when people want something smaller they cut back on things . He said they leave around 9:00 in the morning to do errands and are back by 3:00 or 4:00. He said he looked at projects with half a space per unit and it's not enough parking, unless it's all-affordable. In many projects the parking lot is barely half full. He said they tried to give more than double plus the extra spaces and they've designed it to where it's an easy loop. The elevation of the garage is elevated for service vehicles. Normally in projects like this 20-30% of the parking spaces will be empty all the time and he doesn't think they will be generating any parking problems. He mentioned how they pulled back parts of the building to make it seem like a two-story building rather than a three-story. He said it will not look like a low end, low cost senior housing facility, but will look like something found on Coast Highway. He said the owner should be commended for doing this project and the City has been very helpful. It's been an effort of joint design. He said it's unusual to find three large lots like this in Carlsbad so well located and it's a rare opportunity to do something great. Applicant Anthony De Leonardis, 2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad, talked about the lack of ownership housing for senior citizens. He said he didn't think any group has been as hard hit as seniors in the California housing crunch. He stated that most housing is rental but it's usually at two extremes -either low end or high end. He said that Villa Francesca, in a sense, is an experiment. It's an unusual mixture of people in this development. The idea is not to have them level down, the idea is to level up the low- income and moderate-income. He said they worked closely with the City and the City housing authority in Planning Commission Minul December 18, 2002 Page 12 trying to develop something for senior citizens and thinks they did it. He said he hopes it's successful and if it is they can provide a model that can attract other developers to think that it's an interesting concept. Yvonne Beeson, 1018 Knowles Avenue, Carlsbad, had numerous concerns regarding the project. She felt that the density increase will have a negative environmental impact on the existing neighborhood, individually as well as for the community when looking at the other projects proposed for the immediate area. She said the City has a total of 94 condos scheduled as well as a 3-story office building within a half-mile radius of this project. These include Casa Laguna, Laguna Pointe, Las Flores, and Villa Francesca and will generate increased traffic on Jefferson and add significant problems of overflow parking on side streets, which are single-family residential areas. She said statistics she received indicate reported accidents between the 2300 and 2900 block of Jefferson -in 2000 9 reported accidents, 12 in 2001, and to date, 8 reported accidents in that short area. After listening to the presentation and hearing that the senior housing projects can be switched over to regular purchase pricing, she questioned what the money would be used for that goes into the fund because there's not going to be any land to build on. She said Jefferson has been given a B level of service, which is true most of the time except during peak hours. She invited the Commission to come down to their neighborhood before they make a decision and .see the situation . She said it's very difficult to make left turns onto Jefferson or off of Jefferson and when they have another element of senior drivers there's increased risk. She said the on street-parking situation is such an impact on these side streets that it sometimes seems unbearable. This project has included the extra parking of one space per unit but the red stripe used for bus loading will eliminate parking in front of the complex. She said there's no accommodations for maintenance crews and asked where they will park. She asked where visitors and employees are going to park if the four additional spaces are used for handicapped. Commissioner Segall asked her to describe the on street parking around that area during the weekdays in the mornings and afternoons. Ms. Beeson said just about every space is taken. She said she went down the street to look at a rental senior project, Jefferson House II, about 2:00 and there were cars parked all in front of that project on Jefferson. She believes that seniors get lots of visitors . She said it's an important concern and situation not only for the residents but for all people of Carlsbad. Jan Costa, 973 Knowles Avenue, Carlsbad, said their property connects to the property that they're building on. Their neighborhood concern is on street parking -every spot is taken on their street every morning and every evening. She said she has always been able to turn left from Knowles to Jefferson Street until the last 2 years, because the traffic is too heavy and too fast. The people who live in Francesca won't be able to turn left very often which means they will turn right, then another right at Knowles, another right at Davis, and another right at Laguna. She invited the Commission to come to their neighborhood and they could walk it with them so the Commission could see what they're faced with. She said she thinks when the people move in they'll find a lot of problems they're not anticipating. She said all of them are for senior housing, but it's too dense and needs to be cut back for more parking spaces. Commissioner Segall asked if the sewer project on Jefferson is currently causing part of the traffic issue. Ms. Costa said that is not causing the traffic problem they're talking about. Commissioner Segall asked if the problem she was referring to has to do with traffic going to Oceanside and the mall area. Ms. Costa said it's going out to the freeway. It's because of all the people moving into Carlsbad. Agnes Kopacz, 17547 Fairlie Road, Rancho Bernardo, stated that she was very excited when she was told about the project because it was a senior project and there's very little being done today that seniors can purchase and live in a facility like this . She said she still drives a car and she likes the idea of a bus stop nearby and that it's walkable to shops and other places. She thinks a facility like this would be an asset to the community and an asset to the surrounding neighborhood and would like to move into this type of facility in the foreseeable future. She currently volunteers in senior centers and finds that the older the seniors get, they want to do everything later in the morning or the afternoon and don't want to be out in the morning or afternoon rush hours. Connie Bunnell, 925 Buena Place, Carlsbad, said she moved to Carlsbad two years ago and loved it. She expressed concern about all the traffic in her street, parking, and safety in her neighborhood. She mentioned that one of her friend's grandmother got hit by a car off Las Flores and now she can't walk. Planning Commission Minut-December 18, 2002 Page 13 Linda Russell, 972 Knowles Avenue, Carlsbad, said she's not upset about the project but would like to see it downsized and have enough parking so people wouldn't have to park on the street. The apartments in the area are using all the side streets, parking in front of their houses, and at times they had to call the police because they park in front of her driveway. She expressed concern that if there are too many cars on the street the ambulance will have a hard time getting to Villas de Carlsbad. She said there have been two fatalities when people have been trying to get across the street to the apartments . She was also concerned about two other projects going in off of Laguna that will generate more traffic onto Jefferson. She said the heaviest traffic is between 3:00 and 5:00. She assumed that a lot of people moving into the units will be mobile, have cars, and probably work. She said Peacock Hills in Oceanside was a senior only community and they started having some younger people buying the houses. Their homeowners association sued to try to stop younger people from moving there. She said Robert Frazee had a bill passed a few years ago where they cannot stop the younger people from buying houses, so Peacock Hills is no longer for seniors only. She asked if there's a State law that you cannot keep it for seniors only, that would affect this project. Claire Schlegel, 2049 Caraway Street, Escondido, stated that she is currently a homeowner but has given strong consideration to downsizing. She does a lot of volunteering and is very active and thinks the project meets all of her needs and would be proud to live there. She mentioned that her sister and brother, also in her age bracket, moved here within the last three months from Culver City and have been unable to find any housing they could afford to purchase. Most of the housing is not affordable because they're on limited incomes and she strongly recommended the project go ahead. Robert Hanlin, 167 49 Encina, Rancho Bernardo, stated he is a handicapped senior, retired since 1990 and has been unable to find any housing such as this that he could purchase. He said he does a lot of volunteer work -mentoring history at a high school in Poway and volunteering at senior centers. He read about the project and liked the idea of the full recreation facility. He said he would like one of the low- income affordable units. Barrie Chase, 2564 Navarra Street, La Costa, stated he built several condominiums in La Costa and he sold the first piece of the property to the owner of the project. He said he canvassed the area around there and some of the people that have objections just wanted more money for their property and they couldn't afford to pay it. He said now everyone wants to put the beautiful project down and it's not right. Regarding the concern about the traffic on the street, Albert Richardson stated that they're going to re- stripe with a left turn lane so someone can safely get into the middle and work their way into traffic, which will help improve that considerably. Regarding concerns expressed about parking from the local neighborhood, he said there are some problems, but it's from active apartment dwellers living in the area. He did not think they were really grasping what a senior citizen project like this is. When visiting them all over Southern California he said you see half the parking lot empty. The seniors will adjust their lives to where they want to go where they can get to safely and get back and they have a tendency to get really involved in the neighborhood and will probably improve the neighborhood. He thought they would see an increased level of security in the neighborhood. He said there will be at least 30% of the parking that will not be filled. He said that's why in the past they just had half a space per unit, but that's not enough. They have four more than the one space per unit. From what he's seen at other facilities, he said he thinks they over-designed. They have also made a higher ceiling so the service and maintenance people can come in. Anthony De Leonardis said this particular project has less density than any other senior citizen project in the downtown area. He said senior citizens use the bus and want to have the bus stop right in front of their facility because they tend to use buses much more than their cars. Chairperson Trigas closed public testimony. Mr. Maashoff clarified that in regard to the striping of Jefferson Street, the traffic study that was prepared for this project suggested two alternatives -striping designs to mitigate turning movements. One of the alternatives suggested putting a left turn lane down the middle eliminating parking on one side of the street or the other. Staff reviewed the alternatives in the report and neither one of the striping schemes appeared appropriate for the project. The project before you tonight does not propose to re-stripe Jefferson. Planning Commission Minuk December 18, 2002 Page 14 Ms. Kennedy added that part of the reason for that was because they didn't want to eliminate additional parking spaces along Jefferson. She said if the Commission thinks that's important, they could incorporate that into the project, however, they thought the on street parking was more important than the turn lane. Regarding the topic of red curbing, Ms. Kennedy said they would still have 70 feet of frontage for parking out of the 150 feet. NCTD recommended about 80 feet of the frontage to be red curb, which would leave about 3 parking spaces. She said that they're going from three driveways for three different lots to one driveway for one project. The bus stop will be relocated so there will be some additional parking on the street, so the parking lost on the street won't be significant. Regarding the other projects in the vicinity, Ms. Kennedy said Casa Laguna was 12 units and came in just slightly below the allowed density of 11.5 dwelling units per acre, so that was what was anticipated for that site. Laguna Pointe Condos was a redevelopment project that was 21 units and came in at 19 dwelling units per acre, which is what's allowed for that site. The Jefferson Street Condos, scheduled for the Planning Commission on January 15th, is 11 units also, just slightly under 11.5 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Kennedy said she did some research on the density of other senior projects. This project has a density of 61 units per acre. Jefferson House I and II, down the street from this project, were both at 75 dwelling units per acre. Tyler Court was 63.5 dwelling units per acre and Carlsbad Sunset Seniors was 52 dwelling units per acre, but it was only a two-story project. These are all rental projects. Commissioner Baker asked what they would do with the money for affordable housing when there isn't any more land to build affordable housing. Mr. Ruiz replied they can do down payment assistance programs, acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units, and infill projects. He said there's a variety of uses. Commissioner Segall asked them to address the comment that the four parking spaces could be handicapped spots. Ms. Kennedy responded that there are two handicapped parking spots in the subterranean garage and those would probably be guest parking. Commissioner Baker brought up the question about Peacock Hills senior only housing and State law. Cindie McMahon stated that Civil Code Section 51 .2, 51.3, and 51.4 carve out an exception to the Fair Housing Act and allows us to restrict senior developments provided the built development has physical and social characteristics designed especially for seniors as part of the project. From reading the project, Ms. McMahon said she believes that has been incorporated into this project. She said she wasn't familiar with the Peacock Hills case, but can only speculate that the development did not have special features for seniors. MOTION ACTION : DISCUSSION Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5318, 5319, 5320, 5321 and 5322 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and recommending approval of CT 02-10, CP 02-05, SOP 02-04, and CDP 02-15 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Commissioner Segall said he thinks we very much need alternative housing for seniors in this community and is supportive of the project but is having problems with the concept of parking. He said it doesn't seem to him that we have enough information in Carlsbad or in other cities when someone owns the property. He understands that rentals have a half parking space per unit and those aren 't full, but he's not sure if that dynamic changes when someone purchases a unit. He said he would feel more comfortable if they had broader research on that area to know whether having one spot per unit is a good deal or not. He said the whole neighborhood appears to be heavily congested with parking and with putting 51 more units in he can't see guests pulling into the garage to park unless it's clearly designated and the spots are open and available. He said now we find out that the only two spots are available out of the four because two are going to be handicapped, making a bad situation worse. He said he's really struggling with the Planning Commission MinuL December 18, 2002 Page 15 issue of parking and forcing people to park on the public streets when it's heavily congested. He wasn't sure if he could support the project if they decide to move forward with it tonight. He would like to see if there's additional research elsewhere to see if one parking spot per unit is a good number to go on. Otherwise he thought they would be approving a project that's going to guarantee at least each unit having one car and no overflow parking. He said when we look at restaurants and other businesses in this community, we're always looking toward parking and making sure there's enough on-site parking and here it seems like you're forcing it on the street. Commissioner White said she shares Commissioner Segall's concerns and it seems that information should be easy to get as to how many cars senior citizens who own a condominium have. She was also concerned that when the units come up for resale and are sold at market price and it's no longer a senior of low-or moderate-income, how does that affect the chances that that senior household may have more than one car. She liked the idea of the City being able to get some of the appreciation on these condominiums because it would generate money for the housing fund, but would like to see that money earmarked for other affordable senior projects within the city. She thought the design was great and liked the idea of having seniors living in a residential mixed neighborhood of all ages. Commissioner Dominguez said whatever the City decides to do on this issue, he hopes we don't forget that we should restrict haul routes and hauling hours. The traffic in that area is horrendous at peak hours, partially because a lot of people are using it as an escape route to avoid the turn off on 1-5 and 78 which exacerbates the existing traffic problems in the neighborhood. He said he considered himself a champion of affordable housing for many years, but is having some real problems with this because of the existing neighborhood. He said he's not pleased about compromising the quality of life for existing neighborhoods in Carlsbad and it's happening more. He feels that what they're giving up in order for us to achieve this affordable housing is too much and doesn't think he can support the application. Commissioner Heineman said he thinks we're running into all the problems any infill project brings . He didn't think they ever considered an infill project that the people already living there didn't object to and thinks we have that situation in spades in this case. He said he believes traffic is a problem and there's going to be a parking problem with only one space per unit. He wasn't sure he could support the project without some changes. Commissioner Whitton said he has concerns about the traffic and would very much like to see a left hand turn restriction on some of the streets because the traffic is very heavy. As far as parking for the project is concerned, he said he would rely on the people who did the research and provided it to the City in terms of State and County folks who had done some research on how many parking spaces seniors use. He said they hadn't discussed the trash requirements, hauling the trash. He said he understands that emergency vehicles can go into the building, but the trash vehicles are too big to get into the building and will have to pick up on the side, which will add some more congestion, but that's a matter of routine. He would like to see a left hand turn lane and other than that, he supports the project. Commissioner Baker said they talked a long time in the City of Carlsbad about how we have to be creative to find affordable housing and here's a project with some people who have been creative by asking for a density bonus and they're not asking for funds from the City or taxpayers to support this project and I think we need to be very supportive of the creative ways in which to provide low-income and moderate housing. That's something that we're going to have start looking to developers and different people in the city as they come in and provide different kinds of housing because the taxpayers are not always going to be available to foot the bill. She applauded the innovation in working on this project to provide housing and also thinks this is the kind of housing that will be for seniors who no longer want to live in their big homes. She agreed with the applicant who made the statement that these are for people who are downsizing so she didn't know that they could apply the logic of living in your big house and your two cars to this kind of situation because it's a different kind of housing for different people. She said she's on the fence with the parking problem. She was concerned about restricting the four open spaces to two handicapped. If you're not having reserved parking she sees no reason why the four visitor parking spaces would have to be reserved for handicapped, and said why not put some handicapped in the facility and not necessarily reserve those specifically for visitors . She said it would be better if there could be more parking. She said she's been in the area a lot and appreciates Ms. Costa who invited them down there. She's familiar with the area and thinks this would be a nice addition to the city and would support the project and it would be even better if we could get more parking. Planning Commission Minuts December 18, 2002 Page 16 Chairperson Trigas stated that everyone has expressed her concerns and wanted to know what their options would be because if some things can be clarified or dealt with there may be Commissioners who would be very much for it, and several Commissioners don't feel we have enough information to approve. Mr. Neu stated that if there are specific changes that the Commission feels should be incorporated into the project that would make it satisfactory, they could give Staff and the applicant direction to work on those items and come back. If there are things that they feel are offsite, such as neighborhood compatibility and traffic in the area that despite whatever happens on the site, those conditions will still exist, then the decision would be whether to support the project or not. Despite some of the parking information, that probably won't change those other neighborhood conditions. He said if their concerns are limited to things that can be done on-site or off site that they can tie to the project, they could come back and provide the Commission with more information. If they're concerned with compatibility issues, there's things the applicant could do to address those, but would need more direction on what types of things to look at. Ms. Kennedy said the trash area is located on the south end of the site and they do not have to go down into the basement level. That's been reviewed by the Engineering Department and Coast Waste and access is not a problem. Ms. Kennedy suggested that since the number of cars per unit seems to be a problem, there's an opportunity to put a restriction in the CC&Rs to limit it to one car per unit. She said it would be monitored by the homeowners association, but wasn't sure if the applicant would be willing to accept a condition like that. Chairperson Trigas asked if something like that could be monitored off site. Ms. Kennedy said it would just be in the CC&Rs. Chairperson Trigas said the question is that people would have more than one car and therefore, there would be off site use of it, and didn't think they would be able to monitor off site. Chairperson Trigas said she was struggling with the idea that in 16 years the affordable issue could be out the door with this project. Ms. Kennedy explained that if someone sells it between the years 16 and 30 that it's still under that 30-year clause because within that additional 15 years the City can still recoup that subsidy, so it is in effect restricted for 30 years. Chairperson Trigas said she understood that on the 16th year they could sell whatever senior units they wanted to and funds would be recouped by the City but it would be lost for that site. Mr. Ruiz responded that was correct. The way they've done previous for-sale projects they have never restricted the resale of that project for any length of time, so this is a new requirement they're proposing on some future projects. It could be extended, if that's the wish of the Commission to extend that resale period for the full 30 years. Chairperson Trigas asked if they decide to continue the item to get more information would they have public testimony again. Ms. McMahon said it would depend on how many changes there would be. Chairperson Trigas asked the Commissioners if they felt getting more information would make a difference or if the issues are off site which can't be dealt with and asked if they would want to vote on it. Commissioner Segall said if Staff were to come back with some kind of reasonable number of on-site guest parking spots (4 is not enough), that would mitigate street parking. He thought it was a good concept to restrict it to one car per unit, but would say give more on-site parking so people won't be forced to park in the street. He said in terms of the traffic, a comment was made about a left turn lane allowing people to turn in safely and that would probably make me feel more comfortable. Chairperson Trigas said that would take more space away. Mr. Maashoff said that the traffic study proposed to re-stripe Jefferson to include a left turn lane. It entailed the elimination of parking on at least one side of the street, narrower travel lanes, a narrow dual left turn and transition periods on either side of the turn pocket. Staff reviewed the proposed striping alternatives but did not feel there would be an overall benefit by implementing either one. Left turns into this project would be accommodated, however, adjacent driveways and properties that take access onto Jefferson Street would be affected in different ways. Planning Commission Minuh December 18, 2002 Page 17 Commissioner Baker asked since the on ramp from 1-5 to 78 is now two lanes, do they anticipate that will relieve some of the congestion on Jefferson. Mr. Maashoff did not have information on that. Chairperson Trigas asked if the Commission wanted to call for the question and vote or continue the item. Commissioner Heineman said he would prefer to continue. One concern he had was that traffic has been exacerbated by the sewer work. It seems to him that parking is the more important problem than the traffic and they should give the developer an opportunity to offer something they can accept. Commissioner Segall wanted to see if there are other items they want on the list other than parking . Commissioner White asked if it would be a problem to say that the funds generated by this project should be restricted for seniors. She said she feels we really need affordable housing for seniors so would like to see it restricted . Ms. McMahon said that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the housing fund, but the Council would read her comments in the minutes. Commissioner White said then she would not have any condition or amendment to add. Commissioner Whitton said in terms of the parking for purposes of our evaluation he would like to see some empirical data on parking in senior citizen complexes that's provided from a source other than the developer. If the developer provides it, things get adjusted appropriately. Empirical data would not only help us with this, but with other things. Commissioner Dominguez said whatever is proposed or adjusted, if this item is continued, we should strive to have improvement factors in the existing neighborhood instead of detraction factors. Perhaps this application's big problem is a matter of timing. With the infiltration of surface traffic that's headed for Vista and parts unknown, the sewer work, the culmination of all these congestive factors that are impacting the area, maybe it's just the time. Maybe this area has grown too quickly for the surface streets to be able to adjust. He said he was looking at the additional possible 44 units and it will probably increase the ADT by another 80 trips during peak hours. It's very difficult to make appropriate calls unless we have some empirical data to work with . It's a stretch to find more positives than negatives in this application. Commissioner Whitton said the truth of the matter is that a lot of what we're talking about should be focused on this unit and the impact of parking on the neighborhood. He said he would like to know something about the other apartment units on Jefferson. He said he's curious because a lot of those people are young folks and he goes down that street a couple times a day and sees boats and all that. He asked if there's any way we can know how many cars on average the dwellers of those units have or whether or not they're using what parking is available for vehicles that's provided in those complexes . Chairperson Trigas said they have to look at the project itself and the concern of the Commission is the parking within that project. That's something that can be dealt with but doesn't know that this project can do anything externally. Commissioner Whitton said he understands and the parking is focused totally on this project, but the parking is extending beyond this project out into the street and once you're out there, there's a whole lot of other things that impact on that parking that we have absolutely no control on . Chairperson Trigas said there's confusion perhaps on the actual generation on senior projects as far as parking. Even though it's double what our standards are, there is concern that in this kind of project where they are owned, are we dealing with a different situation than a different type of senior project. Ms. Kennedy said since this is such a unique type of project it will be rather difficult to find that information, but she would do everything she can to accommodate. Commissioner Whitton asked if they could also find out whether other improvements, if any, are going to be made on Jefferson that might alleviate. Chairperson Trigas said Staff said it would aggravate other conditions. Mr. Maashoff said that as far as improvements related specifically to this project, there aren't any proposed. Commissioner Heineman said he thinks we're losing sight of the testimony o( several people who would be interested if this project were built. They're telling us, and I don't think we're listening to them, that this Planning Commission Minut~ December 18, 2002 Page 18 is an unusually attractive approach to senior living and perhaps they would be perfectly willing to deal with some of the things that seem to bothering this Commission if they had an opportunity to buy these units. I think we've been losing sight of that. We've been concerned about all of the peripherals and not about the core, which is very attractive, presumably affordable units, which seniors would like to buy. I don't think we should get so wrapped up in our own concern about details that may or may not be important, that we're about to throw into the trash heap what could be a very desirable project for Carlsbad. Commissioner Segall said he thinks it's a great project that's sorely needed; its well laid out and designed, but it just may be in the wrong place or it may have to be fixed up a little more. He said he thinks both Staff and the applicant are hearing their two biggest concerns of traffic and parking and maybe they can come up with some solutions that would make this palatable. He said the issue isn't whether this is a good place and whether people want to live there or not; he wants to make sure it's the best thing we're doing for this community and it's not going to adversely impact those who are already living there or those who commute every day. Chairperson Trigas said we have been concerned about infill projects down the road and that we're going to deal with a lot of different issues and have already indicated that in a number of projects that have been coming to us. When you look at the location of the project it is a perfect place for a senior project as far as accessibility. She thinks the idea that we don't have any senior purchasing projects other than rentals is a very sad comment about Carlsbad and surrounding communities. She said she thinks it's a wonderful project and the concern is more parking and doesn't know that we have enough information to make that decision. Commissioner Baker withdrew the motion. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission continue Item #4 until February 5, 2002. (CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15) The motion was interrupted by discussion as to which meeting the item should be continued to. Mr. Neu stated that the January 15th meeting has a full agenda and was not sure if any of those items could be moved to another meeting due to processing time limitations and state mandated deadlines. Mr. Neu said there is a special meeting scheduled for January 22nd for the Citywide Habitat Management Plan and the Municipal Golf Course project. Chairperson Trigas suggested making it the first item for the February 5th meeting. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall said he would like to make sure that Staff and the applicant get together on parking but also look at out-of-the-box creative things on the traffic. It seems that the consensus of the Commission's concerns is traffic so would like to see if there's something that can be done with traffic and parking. Chairperson Trigas said as much information that they can get back to the Commission to make their decision would be appreciated. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 7-0-0 Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, White, and Whitton None None Mr. Neu wanted to clarify that when the project comes back the Commission would have the ability to limit the comments and discussion to the parking and traffic issues. One of the things inherent in the parking rates is that it's based on how a use functions, so factored into that is what the age characteristics are, what are the ways in which they use the property, so the rates in part will reflect that. Maybe a typical senior occupant in a project like this is of a certain age group and it may be older than what some people Planning Commission Minut... December 18, 2002 Page 19 are considering; 55 may be really the young end of that. Hopefully we can collect some state rates in our area and possibly even national rates , depending on the access we have. He said his point is that you , as individuals, will have to come to a conclusion, as to if you believe a project like that is really occupied by people of that age group and they have those characteristics . Commissioner Heineman said it would be helpful if he could get some information on the nearby senior projects like Jefferson I and Jefferson II. Commissioner Segall said that the League of California Cities Planning Organization may have some resources in similar kinds of communities where seniors are actually purchasing these and coming up with a demographic breakdown that they are 55 or not 55. If we have that kind of information that's going to help us more than knowing that right down the street there's some rentals and they have half a parking space. He said he would feel a lot more comfortable knowing with some more research that it either works or it doesn't, or maybe you can cut back and put 20 spots that are open for guests. He wanted to make sure the applicant knows he likes the project and wants to see whatever they can do to support it. Cha irperson Trigas said they all voiced that they like the project. Commissioner Whitton said the empirical data he was looking for was more on the demographics -what is the age group. If we go for 55 we could occupy those apartments with people who are working every day, but if it's in the 62-65 or better range, then they're not working, their hours are going to be different and their car requirements are going to be different. Mr. Neu said they got the message and have several sources they can check. PLAN NING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Baker asked when the Monterey trip is going to be. Commissioner Segall said they have a good topic to be added to the agenda up there. Chairperson Trigas announced that more than four Commissioners may be attending a social function on December 19th at 3:00 p.m. at the Faraday building. Chairperson Trigas said she would miss everyone and thanked the Staff for being so wonderful. PLANN ING DIRECTOR COMMENTS Mr. Neu stated that the Council approved the Smith-Walsh land use change from commercial to residential by a vote of 3-2. He said they also unanimously approved Village U and Village X in Calavera Hills. The Council also adopted Council Policy 43 concerning the excess dwelling units. Mr. Neu said that the Council was to consider appointing a Commissioner to replace Chairperson Trigas and they continued it to the meeting of January 14th, so as a result there will be a 6 member Commission until that appointment is acted on. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. Planning Commission Minut. ADJOURNMENT MOTION December 18, 2002 Page 20 By proper motion, the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of December 18, 2002 was adjourned §:7L DON NEU Principal Planner Kathy Vande Voort Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.