Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-05; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: December 5, 2012 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Schumacher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Arnold led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioners Arnold, Black, L’Heureux, Nygaard, and Siekmann Absent: Commissioner Scully STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist Gary T. Barberio, Community and Economic Development Director David de Cordova, Principal Planner Jennifer Jesser, Senior Planner Chris Garcia, Junior Planner Mike Peterson, Development Services Manager PROCLAMATION Chairperson Schumacher presented Commissioner Nygaard with a proclamation and thanked her for her service as a Planning Commissioner. Chairperson Schumacher directed everyone's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the Commission would be following during the evening's Public Hearing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from November 7, 2012. Commissioner L’Heureux asked that the word “support” be added to the third paragraph, first sentence, under the Discussion heading so that the sentence reads “Commissioner Scully stated she cannot support the project”. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 2 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of November 7, 2012 as corrected. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scully ABSTAIN: Commissioner Nygaard Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from November 21, 2012. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of November 21, 2012. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scully ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Sherry Alvarado, 3327 Tyler Street, proposed that the Barrio be renamed as part of the Village. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Schumacher asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item. 1. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04- SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – A request for a recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration, and recommendation of approval of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to repeal and reenact the City’s Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to: (1) incorporate revisions deemed necessary by the City’s legal counsel to address first amendment issues associated with the permitted regulation of non-commercial signage, (2) provide more flexible sign development standards, (3) allow electronic message board signs or digital displays at regional commercial centers (Plaza Camino Real and Car Country Carlsbad) with a Regional Commercial General Plan land use designation that have frontage on a freeway (I-5 or SR-78) and (4) clarify the ordinance to make it more user friendly. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Staff is requesting the project be continued to a future date subject to renoticing. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 3 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission continue this item to a future date subject to renoticing. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scully ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Schumacher closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next agenda item. 3. CDP 12-18 – MUSTAFA RESIDENCE – Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow for the construction of a new 2,545 square foot single family residence with an attached two-car garage on a vacant 0.10-acre lot located on the west side of Garfield Street between Sycamore Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Mr. Neu stated Agenda Item 3 would normally be heard in a public hearing context; however, the project appears to be minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends approval. He recommended that the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission proceed with a vote as a consent item. Staff would be available to respond to questions if the Commission or someone from the public wished to pull Agenda Item 1. Mr. Neu stated the Commission received an errata sheet for this item as well as an updated Disclosure Statement indicating the new property owner. Chairperson Schumacher asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda Item 1. Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6934 approving Coastal Development Permit CDP 12-18 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the errata sheet. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard, and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scully ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Schumacher closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 3 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 2. ZCA 12-01 – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL – A request for a recommendation of approval to amend Zoning Ordinance chapters 21.85 (Inclusionary Housing) and 21.90 (Growth Management) by adding sections regarding deferral of development impact fees. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and gave a brief overview of the proposed amendment. Mr. Neu stated Development Services Manager Mike Peterson was in attendance this evening and is available to answer any questions. Chairperson Schumacher opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Schumacher opened public testimony on Agenda Item 2. Michael McSweeney, representing the Building Industry Association, 9201 Spectrum Center Boulevard, Suite 110, San Diego, gave a brief presentation and urged the Commission to approve this project. Commissioner Black asked why this is coming before the Commission at this time. Mr. McSweeney stated that he asked the City Council to consider this program a year ago. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony. Commissioner Nygaard asked if there is a downside if the City adopted this plan. As proposed, Mr. Neu stated that the ordinance has a trial period of two years then it would sunset. The downside is that the City would need to create internal processes to ensure the City can handle the fee payment at a later date as well as making sure the fee is collected. There are a group of fees that are being recommended for deferral which are fees in which the impact occurs closer to the time of occupancy of the housing unit or non-residential space. Mr. Neu stated Staff did not identify any significant downside to deferring fees other than internal processes having to be modified. He further commented that the ordinance is intended to give the potential builder or applicant an option to continue as currently is the practice to pay prior to the issuance of a building permit or to have an opportunity to elect to pay the fees at a later date. Commissioner Nygaard asked if the fees were to be increased prior to a building permit being pulled would an applicant or builder have to pay the increased fees. Mr. Neu stated that currently an applicant or builder pays the fees in effect at the time a building permit is pulled. With the option to defer certain fees to prior to final inspection, the ordinance is structured that an applicant or builder would pay the fees in effect at the time the balance due is paid. The applicant or builder would then pay the increased fee and that is something to take into consideration when determining when to pay the fees. Commissioner Siekmann inquired about the sunset clause in the ordinance. Mr. Neu stated that the ordinance will automatically sunset unless the City Council takes action to extend it. Commissioner Black asked what happens to the fees should building permits never be issued for a project. Mr. Neu stated that if an applicant paid fees and a project never starts, the applicant can request a refund. In the instance where an applicant chooses to defer the payment of fees, the fees would be deferred until the time of final inspection. DISCUSSION Commissioner Arnold commented that this project is an example of how to make it easier to conduct business in the city. He stated his support of the project. Commissioner L’Heureux agrees with the project and feels the risks to the City are minimal. He stated he can support the project. Commissioner Black stated he can support the project. Commissioner Siekmann stated she can support the project. Chairperson Schumacher also stated his support of the project. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 5 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6935 recommending approval of ZCA 12-01 to amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding Sections 21.85.195 and 21.90.195 based on the findings contained therein. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard, and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scully ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Schumacher closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 4. GPA 12-03/ZC 12-02 & GPA 12-04/ZC 12-03/ZCA 12-02/LCPA 12-03 – HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM 2.1 - BARRIO – Request for 1) a recommendation of approval of an addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2005-2010 Housing Element; 2) a recommendation of approval of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.90 to create a new residential land use designation; and 3) a recommendation of approval of amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Open Space Elements, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program to change land use designations and zoning on various properties throughout the Barrio, which is generally located north of Tamarack Ave., south of Oak Ave., east of the railroad and west of Interstate-5. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 4 and stated Senior Planner Jennifer Jesser would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Schumacher opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 4. Ms. Jesser gave a detailed presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Schumacher acknowledged receipt of a letter from Lola’s Market dated November 29, 2012. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Arnold asked how many more dwelling units could be built in the Barrio with this new proposal. Ms. Jesser stated that in addition to what is currently built today, at the proposed growth control points, there could potentially be an additional 759 units built. Commissioner Arnold asked how many units currently exist. Mr. Jesser stated there are 1,272 units existing. Mr. Barberio clarified that the 759 potential units would be considered the worst case scenario and would happen if every property owner moved forward to maximize development on their property. Commissioner Nygaard asked if this item was bringing into conformance what has already been approved by Council and Commission. Ms. Jesser stated the amendments reflect what the Commission previously considered when reviewing the Envision Carlsbad preferred plan. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Ofie Escobedo, 1611 James Drive, Carlsbad, commended the Envision Carlsbad group for their work and efforts towards the Barrio. She would like to see the completion of Pine Park, an overpass at Chestnut over the train tracks, and a traffic circle at Roosevelt and Walnut. She does not support the name change as proposed by others in the community. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 6 Lucinda Vigne, Hibiscus Circle, Carlsbad, requested that the zoning for her property be changed so that it and the adjacent properties are zoned as R-1 which would make it consistent with the other surrounding properties. She asked for clarification regarding the new zoning proposal and if all proposed housing needs to be considered low income housing. Stan Katz, 7721 Segovia Way, Carlsbad, who owns a couple properties in the Barrio area, asked if there is a prototype of the densities so that the citizens can see what it would look like. Christine Bevilaqua, 235 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, asked if the density could be more spread out throughout the Village Area. Matt Kappuccilli, 823 Camelia Place, Carlsbad, stated one of the issues is traffic as there is only Jefferson Street and Carlsbad Village Drive as the main streets through the area. He stated that Jefferson Street, in front of the school, needs to be widened. He further commented that Chestnut needs to go through to the beach, that landscaping can help improve the look of the area, that low income housing should be east of El Camino Real, and that there should be a bike lane on Carlsbad Village Drive. Victor Carajuana, 3605 Harding Street, Carlsbad, asked about eminent domain. He stated he agrees with the increased density proposals however he is concerned with the traffic impacts and access for police and emergency medical personnel. Bill Dominguez, 4378 Adams Street, Carlsbad, commented that the points already raised are very valid points. He feels that traffic will be the main issue with the increased density. He stated that any concentration of low income housing will be a mistake, it has been done before and it was mess. Mr. Dominguez stated that low income housing should be spread out throughout the city. Stan Katz, 7721 Segovia Way, Carlsbad, stated he is concerned that the city will lose its reputation as a high end community because of the concentration of low income housing. He asked why the City is complying with the State regulations. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony on the item and asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Nygaard asked staff if the new R-30 zoning would always be considered affordable housing. Ms. Jesser stated the State identifies 30 units or higher per acre as having the ability to accommodate housing that is more affordable but it is not required to be affordable. The city’s only requirement that housing be affordable is through the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance which is applicable throughout the city regardless of the density it is built at; however the R-30 designation does not mandate that housing be affordable to any income group. Commissioner Nygaard asked if it does satisfy the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement as mandated by the state. Ms. Jesser stated that was correct. Commissioner Nygaard asked what the inclusionary housing ordinance requires. Mr. Neu stated that the ordinance requires that 15% of all new projects of 7 units or greater to provide affordable housing units. Often that is done onsite but there are cases where projects are allowed to provide the affordable housing off-site. Sometimes developers purchase credits within the existing affordable housing projects which then generates funds to go into future projects. Chairperson Schumacher asked if because most of the lots in the Barrio will not see projects over 7 units then in theory there will not be as much affordable housing units. Mr. Neu stated that on projects with fewer than 7 units, the developer pays an impact fee and the affordable unit/units are placed in the housing trust fund which are then used for other projects. Commissioner Siekmann asked for staff to explain density versus growth management. Ms. Jesser provided a detailed explanation to the Commission regarding density and the growth control point. Commissioner Siekmann commented that based on the information then the most likely scenario in the Barrio is that it is very unlikely that the city will see densities of 30 units per acre. Ms. Jesser stated that was correct. Ms. Mobaldi added that the State is requiring that the city provide capacity for a certain Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 7 amount of housing because the state has a goal to provide housing to people in California. To reach the City’s RHNA numbers, staff shows that the city is zoning sites to accommodate those RHNA numbers. However those units do not need to be built. The other consideration is that the State has certain goals with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing air pollution, and making communities more walkable. In that regard, both the State and SANDAG, the regional entity, indicate that there needs to be more density along transportation corridors and near commercial amenities, which is also beneficial to people of lower incomes who may not have vehicles. These are all policies and goals of the State and of the region of San Diego County in general, that the City of Carlsbad is trying to comply with and which is one of the reasons why the Barrio was chosen by the City Council and recommended by the Planning Commission as an area to accommodate higher densities. Ms. Mobaldi stated that is also why higher densities were just approved by the city council for the Village proper, rather than in more rural parts of the City. Ms. Mobaldi commented that in regard to the legal issues, the housing element that the city prepares every four years has to be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development and it is certified as meeting the requirements of the State. She stated that if the city does not meet the requirements there may not be any funding from SANDAG for things such as improved transportation. If the city is challenged in court and there is not an approved, certified housing element, a court can declare a moratorium on building or development proposals can be approved that the City may not want and perhaps at an even higher density than allowed by the General Plan. Ms. Mobaldi stated that in regard to the question pertaining to eminent domain, the Planning Commission does not have eminent domain power, only the City Council. If there is a public purpose, and the Council goes through certain procedures, the City can acquire property by eminent domain which is very infrequently. Finally, Ms. Mobaldi reminded the Commission and audience that the Planning Commission and City Council have already reviewed in great depth the recommendations for implementation of the City’s housing element, and this is the implementation phase. Mr. Barberio directed the Commission’s attention to Attachment 4 in the Staff Report Packet to discuss and clarify the proposed changes. Chairperson Schumacher asked Staff to answer the questions raised during public testimony. Ms. Jesser stated that in regard to Ms. Vigne’s question about zoning for her property and the surrounding properties, Staff is not recommending Ms. Vigne’s property be re-zoned as it is not part of Housing Element Program 2.1. However as part of the General Plan update, Staff will be proposing some zone changes on sites where the zoning does not match up with the existing General Plan and to provide better consistency. These specific properties have been identified to be rezoned to R-1 with the General Plan update. Regarding the issue of traffic, Ms. Jesser stated the amendments were reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineer who determined the existing street system would accommodate the development that could result from these proposals. Ms. Jesser noted that when future development proposals are submitted, they will be evaluated by the appropriate city departments. If a development triggers a need for traffic improvements, those would be addressed at that time. Mr. Barberio commented that the City is currently looking into a type of pedestrian crossing at Chestnut Avenue which could be an underground crossing, an overpass or at at-grade crossing. The City is also looking at grants for traffic calming and street light improvements in the Barrio area. Mr. Barberio further commented that the Pine Avenue Park improvements are currently included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program budget. Chairperson Schumacher asked Staff to discuss the traffic Levels of Service and if there is a plan to handle traffic. Ms. Jesser stated the plan is the current Circulation Element and through the Mitigated Negative Declaration done with the Housing Element and the analysis recently completed by the City Engineer for the minor changes proposed with these amendments to the Housing Element, it was determined that the City’s current system is adequate to accommodate the changes. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 8 DISCUSSION Commissioner Nygaard stated it is really important to remember that both the Council and Commission have already reviewed these proposals in great detail. She feels the issues have been addressed and this is the implementation phase. Commissioner Nygaard supports the project. Commissioner Arnold stated it is never too late to change course and he feels that it is too much. The prospect of that many more units is too frightening, and he will not support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux feels the basic concept of preserving and protecting the core of the Barrio makes sense. Most of the areas are built already. It creates an opportunity to increase values in the area. He stated that one of the benefits of these changes will be to bring most of the existing non- conforming uses into compliance. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he can support the item. Commissioner Black stated his agreement with Commissioner Nygaard and Commissioner L’Heureux. He stated he can support the project. Commissioner Siekmann stated this is a great plan and framework for the future. This is the first step to helping the environment. She commended staff for their work and stated she can support the project. Chairperson Schumacher stated he does not have any issues with the item and he can support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6931, recommending approval of an addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2005-2010 Housing Element; and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6932 and 6933, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA 12-03), Zone Change (ZC 12-02), and General Plan Amendment (GPA 12-04), Zone Change (ZC 12-03), Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZCA 12-02), Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 12-03) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 5-1 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard, and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: Commissioner Arnold ABSENT: Commissioner Scully ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Schumacher closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 4 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 5 and asked the Commission to consider nominations for the positions of Chair and Vice Chair for the coming year. Chairperson Schumacher asked for nominations for the position of Chairperson. Commissioner Arnold nominated Commissioner Siekmann for Chairperson. By unanimous vote, Commissioner Siekmann was elected Chairperson for 2013. Chairperson Schumacher asked for nominations for the position of Vice Chairperson. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 9 Commissioner Nygaard nominated Commissioner L'Heureux for the position of Vice Chairperson. Commissioner Arnold nominated Commissioner Black for the position of Vice Chairperson. By a 4-2 vote (L'Heureux, Nygaard), Commissioner Black was elected Vice Chairperson for 2013. Chairperson Schumacher closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 5 and thanked Staff for their presentations. COMMISSION COMMENTS The Planning Commissioners wished Commissioner Nygaard well in her new endeavor on the Tri-City Hospital Board . . CITY PLANNER COMMENTS Mr. Neu thanked Commissioner Nygaard for her time as a Planning Commissioner. He stated that the City Council appointed former Commissioner Marty Montgomery to serve as Commissioner for the remainder of Commissioner Nygaard's term. Mr. Neu stated that the following two Planning Commission meetings have been canceled and the next scheduled meeting will be January 16, 2013. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS Ms. Mobaldi also wished Commissioner Nygaard well in her new role on the Tri-City Hospital Board. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of December 5, 2012, was adjourned at 8:14p.m. DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk