Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-24; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes July 24, 2015 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 2:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: July 24, 2015 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Scully called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner L’Heureux led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Scully, Commissioners Anderson, Black, L’Heureux, Montgomery, Segalll and Siekmann Absent: None STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney Ron Ball, Special General Council Farah Nisan, Senior Office Specialist David de Cordova, Principal Planner Jenifer Jesser, Senior Planner Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager Kathy Dodson, Interim City Manager Gary Barberio, Assistant City Manager Will Foss, Building Official Mike Grim, Senior Planner Doug Bilse, City Traffic Engineer Glen Van Peski, Community & Economic Development Director Patrick Thomas, Public Works Director Craig Williams, Mobility Manager Michael Davis, Fire Chief Bret Cosgrove, Police Officer CONTINUED PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Siekmann stated that she would like to make a presentation to the Commission that involves discussion. She stated that the most important element to her from the Climate Action Plan (CAP) is the Sustainability Element on page 9-19. She referenced the first sentence stating the use of fossil fuels for energy is the primary contributor to Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG) and continuing in the element on page 9-3, in the section to what refers to the relationship to the community vision states the Sustainability Element is most closely tied to the following objective in the Carlsbad Community Vision. Commissioner Siekmann stated that it is a core value from the Carlsbad Community Vision that Sustainability means to build on the city’s sustainability initiatives to emerge as a leader in green development and sustainability. She stated that the city should pursue public-private partnerships, particularly on sustainable water, energy recycling and foods. She moved from the Sustainability Element to the CAP because in order to do what the core value that was chosen to do, she stated that we have created a Climate Action Plan. Commissioner Siekmann added that the governor made an executive order on page 1-5, 5-3-05, to reduce GHG Levels to 1990 levels by 2020 which equals to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Commissioner Siekmann stated that the California Air Resources Board approved a scoping plan in 2008 to meet the Executive Order 5-3- 05 and AB 32 which recommends that local government target 2020 emissions at 15% below 2005 levels. The CAP is based on meeting those goals. She added that the Renewable Portfolio standards on page 1- 7 of the CAP requires energy providers to supply electricity from eligible renewable resources up to 33% CORRECTED Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2015 Page 2 by 2020. She referenced to Chapter 2 of the CAP on page 2-6, table 2-2 that shows the grand total of Carlsbad’s GHG emissions which is 705,734. She compares residential GHG’s that total to 176,000, commercial GHG emissions to 178,000 and industrial GHG emissions that produce 46,000 in total of 401,000 out of 705,000 GHG emissions. Commissioner Siekmann stated that 57% of our GHG emissions come from electricity or natural gas and the city should promote solar by hosting events and by working with other cities. Table 3-1 in the CAP, from 2005-2035, the goal is to reduce our GHG emissions levels by 49%, which is also required by the state. She asked how we can become a leader that is stated in the Carlsbad Core Mission’s Value. Page 5-23 in the revised document, section 4-6, where it states that efficient lighting standards is the city’s goal to replace 50% of the incandescent and halogen light bulbs citywide. She inquired if it were possible to replace 100% of light bulbs in 20 years and suggested that the parking lots owned by the city should have solar panel trees to help reduce GHG levels of emissions. Commissioner Siekmann stated that the CAP does not address the issues of a tremendous amount of vehicles running and releasing levels of GHG emissions during drop-off and pickup times at every school in Carlsbad. She stated that better alternatives should be thought of that have never been thought of before such as, an UBER bus, programs to promote kids walking to school with parents, better scheduling of drop-offs and pick up times, or utilizing zero emission vehicles. She added that the city could build a relationship and work with Car Country Carlsbad to help the community transition to zero emission vehicles by hosting events and to promote businesses closing their doors during artificial heating and cooling times. She recommends for businesses who want to keep their doors open during business hours should switch to solar panels. Page 5-28 states the goal is to increase 15-25% vehicle miles to zero emission vehicles, page 5-35 – Table refers to the CAP GHG Reduction Measure Summary, Measure Letter L, states “increase zero emission vehicles traveled” which is the largest number in the whole table. Commissioner Siekmann added that if we were to work with Car Country Carlsbad, or other car dealerships to promote more zero emission vehicles used, it could help increase Measure Letter L. The City of Carlsbad could become a leader by doubling the percentage of GHG emissions level reduction to more than 35%. She also added that the CAP is a global issue therefore the City of Carlsbad should work with other surrounding cities to become stronger in promoting zero emission vehicles as well as educating the public with paid advertising on how to plan trips together and developing relationships with private enterprises. She concluded her presentation by thanking staff for the information provided and that she will be happy to do anything she can do to help the city in this action. Chairperson Scully asked if staff would like to respond to Commissioner Siekmann’s presentation. Dave de Cordova, Principal Planner, stated that the community can do multiple things to help reduce GHG emissions. Commissioner Black asked if staff would consider an addition to the water policy on page 5-37, referencing water storage, to have the ability to find other sources of water beneath the ground, below aquafer water, as it gets into the basin and the cannon wells area. Patrick Thomas, Public Works Director, stated ground water, as a potential future source, is addressed in the water management plan and would be consistent if that was included in the Sustainability Element. Commissioner Montgomery asked if we can quantify carbon dioxide emissions, and as we can guestimate what we have produced, can the effects of this plan truly have engineering measures or is it based on probabilities or trends. Mr. de Cordova stated that the revised document provides a table that measures each GHG emissions reduction measure and suggests performance metrics by which we can measure the effectiveness of each of the measures listed in the table. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the changes to the CAP are measurable. Mr. de Cordova stated yes, there are methodologies in place to measure change as two emissions inventories for 2005, and one for 2011 have measured the change in GHG emissions that are associated with the community. Mr. de Cordova stated that some challenges arise from the correlation of increases and decreases in GHG emissions to the individual measures and this plan calls for doing emissions inventory every three years to see how we are tracking the change. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the market place could deliver to the possibility of all cities adopting the Community Choice Aggregation by becoming 100% renewable energy. Mr. de Cordova stated no. Commissioner Montgomery stated his concern with the Community Choice Aggregation becoming a political statement by agreeing to develop green energy but not solving the problem with solar panels on every commercial building. Mr. de Cordova stated that the Community Choice Aggregation is not a measure in the CAP. Commissioner Montgomery clarified that it was brought up for 100% renewable energy. Mr. de Cordova stated yes. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2015 Page 3 Commissioner Segall refers to page 2-6 of the CAP, where it states the single largest polluter is on-road vehicles. He added that GHG emissions can be reduced immediately if the signal lighting system is synchronized with new technology. He also stated that there are more traffic issues which cause GHG emissions from stopping at every light and the release of hazardous materials that pollute the roadway produced by brakes from stopping at every light, more frustrated and dangerous drivers because they’re tired of stopping to which they run yellow lights and that’s a safety issue. Commissioner Segall stated that one of the single biggest things we can do to reduce GHG emissions is to focus on synchronizing our traffic lighting system. He would like to see something in the CAP that addresses the issues. Mr. de Cordova stated that the CAP will be linked with the General Plan Update (GPU) in chapter 3, section 2 where it identifies the General Plan policies and programs that will assist in reducing GHG emissions and those are Mobility Element policies that include transportation systems management. The objective is to maximize the efficiency of the transportation system that includes better coordination of the traffic signal system and recognizes the emissions impact associated with that. Commissioner Segall asked for clarification on the GPU Mobility Element addressing his issues while it is linked to the CAP but does not reference what the vehicle GHG emissions reductions should be. Mr. de Cordova stated that there is a quantification that relates to traffic systems management as well as transportation demand management. He also stated that there are general plan policies in the Mobility Element of the GPU that point to traffic system improvements as well as in the CAP. Mr. de Cordova referenced page 3-24, table 3-13 and stated that the GHG reductions that are expected to achieve through the implementation of the mobility element policies are listed. Commissioner Segall inquired about his reference to the transportation improvements and how the small number compares to parking and other policies. Mr. de Cordova stated that it is all as part of the overall package. Commissioner Anderson asked if the addition of more stop signs installed to reduce traffic would contribute or decrease GHG emissions. Mr. de Cordova stated that there is a chart that shows the relations and variables between vehicles, speed and safety. He also stated that the installation of additional stop signs have no relation to reducing GHG emissions, they are to respond to neighborhood or community concerns with vehicle speeds and/or safety. Commissioner Anderson asked if the option would have been considered to put in roundabouts to help reduce GHG emissions. Mr. de Cordova stated that there are a number of ways to calm traffic by using various traffic calming techniques to help reduce GHG emissions. Commissioner Anderson asked if the challenge in measuring GHG emissions within the city is difficult due to the exclusion of GHG emissions produced from the airport and highways and what is quantified in the city from other impacts. Mr. de Cordova stated that the measurements are from what we have influence over and the types of emissions that we as a jurisdiction can control directly or indirectly through our land use authority. He also stated that the intent is to isolate what Carlsbad’s share of GHG emissions is overall a global issue, and anything out of our boundaries is out of our control. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the CAP will be integrated in the GPU once is has been adopted and if it will be updated, republished, kept current, and how the public will be notified of the most current plan. Mr. de Cordova stated that an annual report will be presented to the City Council every year or every 3 years to update the emissions inventory that will evaluate and identify to what measures will be added and deleted to help staff stay on track to achieve the goals. Mr. de Cordova also stated that the General Plan can be amended anytime therefore it will undergo constant review through the feedback mechanism. Commissioner L’Heureux inquired about future penalties related to a deed with the self-assessment and what enforcement will take place to make sure that this is to be complied with. Mr. de Cordova stated that it will be up to the City Council and the decision makers, as it will be enforced and expected to make every good faith effort to meet the goals. Ron Ball, Special General Council, stated that the penalties are not specified as the state will pass more legislation sometime in the future to determine what the consequences will be for a community that does not meet the goals of the CAP or the goals that the state has set up for the localities. Mr. Ball clarified that it is unclear what the remedies will be taken into action due to the CAP being a state wide program. Chairperson Scully inquired about the preliminary project review checklist listed on page 5-3. Mr. de Cordova stated the implementation occurs at the project level stage if it complies with the plan, it will be reviewed on a project by project basis to ensure compliance where the streamlining mechanisms focus on. Chairperson Scully asked who determines what gets complied. Mr. de Cordova replied stating that the Planning Commission is required to review the environmental impact associated with the project. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2015 Page 4 Commissioner L’Heureux asked Mr. de Cordova to define the terms ‘large commercial’ listed on page 5-3 on table 5-2 in the Draft CAP. Mr. de Cordova responded stating that the checklist is preliminary to later be finalized and the language is to give the Commission a feel of how it works. Commissioner Siekmann asked if 100% of all lightbulbs be changed in 20 years. Mr. Neu stated that it may be a great goal however, critics may question if the goal is reliable to get the GHG emissions within the state thresholds. Mr. Neu also stated that the low percentages presented are meant to be conservative and not over estimate or rely on a particular measure to get within our required area. Commissioner Siekmann asked if the goals were intentionally set low to avoid future issues with the state. Mr. de Cordova stated that staff is working to establish a mixture of measures for the CAP by estimating what can realistically be achieved. Commissioner Siekmann also asked why the CAP is set on the conservative side if the city wants to become a leader in green technology. Mr. de Cordova stated that staff produced the CAP to an achievable and realistic level. Commissioner Siekmann asked if there were future plans of energy producers to develop solar projects or if there will be a market available for the demand of renewable energy sources relating to the Community Choice Aggregation. Mr. de Cordova stated that he did not have enough knowledge on the complexity of the energy industry, however, as it relates to the Community Choice Aggregation, an addition to the policy was proposed in the Sustainability Element. Commissioner Black questioned once everything has been adopted, and the Planning division has a review checklist to work with when a project is under consideration, if the review checklist then becomes a finding in the resolution. Mr. de Cordova stated yes, it is expected that there will be a finding in the resolutions that the project meets the requirements of the CAP. Commissioner Black asked if the review checklist was for informational purposes or if that will be something that denies a project due to lack of requirements met. Mr. de Cordova replied stating that it would be challenging to make the findings for an approval if a project does not meet the standards of the city or if it does not mitigate significant environmental impacts. Commissioner Segall asked if incandescent light bulbs will be phased out as most light bulbs utilized are LED now. Mr. de Cordova stated yes. Commissioner Segall wanted to clarify that the review checklist can be changed at any time without approving an amendment to the CAP document. Mr. de Cordova stated no, the Commission should not be concerned with the contents of the checklist as it is there to illustrate how staff will implement the changes and one of the early actions needed is to fully develop the checklist. Chairperson Scully asked when the streets light bulbs were changed. Mr. de Cordova stated that the city received grant funds in 2008 to have the street light bulbs changed to more energy efficient bulbs. Mr. Thomas clarified that the light bulbs were changed to the induction type lights similar to a fluorescent light as opposed to a low/high pressure sodium lights. Mr. Thomas also stated that the budgeting for funds has begun this year to have the induction type lighting changed to LED. DISCUSSION Commissioner Siekmann stated she is thrilled that the city has a CAP, however, she would like to see more added to it and can support the Sustainability Element. Commissioner Black added that he agrees with Commissioner Siekmann that the CAP is a great plan and feasible in a conservative way. He can support the project. Commissioner Montgomery stated he can support the CAP on the basis of his own criteria. He feels that it’s important to embrace efficient technologies and energies that come forward as it has been shown in human history a leap of progress leads to a cleaner and a more sustainable world. Commissioner Montgomery felt that it is the right step to move forward with technology and efficiency, not necessarily targeting carbon dioxide emissions, but to pollutants, health issues, water quality and lifestyle issues. He concluded that although the city is not 100% renewable energy, 40% open space is a fantasy within the next 20 years, however, it is a possibility within a century. Commissioner Segall concurs with his fellow commissioners and is pleased that the CAP is conservative as it is a new concept in the state. He can support the CAP. Chairperson Scully stated she can also support the CAP. She feels that it is a good starting point as staff has mentioned that it will be adapted and revised consistently over time based on new research and new Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2015 Page 5 technology, which will help educate the public on what actions to take. She can support the CAP and the Sustainability Element. Commissioner Anderson stated that she can also support the CAP and likes the idea of an attainable goal rather than an aspiration. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he would like to see the implementation, however, it may be beneficial to the city to initiate dialogue discussing issues involving school districts or other entities to comply with the CAP and supports leadership. He thanked staff for all of the tremendous amount of work put into the CAP and he can support it. Chairperson Scully proposed that the Commission vote for each element, the Sustainability Element and the CAP. Sustainability Element Chairperson Scully asked if the Commission had any further discussion on the Sustainability Element. Commissioner L’Heureux clarified that there was a modification by staff to Policy 9-2.1. Commissioner Anderson asked if the elimination of synthetic turf to recreational uses involves commercial properties or community parks listed in volume 4 of the final EIR report on page 3-12. Mr. Neu stated yes, there are limitations on where turf grass is used based on the water ethic in the landscape manual that limits the use of turf unless it is an appropriate use for the type of landscaping. Commissioner Anderson asked if the city had a policy about artificial turf or if there should be one. Mr. Neu stated that he does not believe there is a policy that addresses it, however, there has been legislation about the homeowner’s associations and the ability to have artificial turf. He added that it may not be necessary with the exception related to the playing fields. He also stated that there is a process by which the water budget, or allotment, that the design is supposed to work with in the landscape manual and there are directions about the appropriate use of turf. Mr. Neu concluded stating that there will be revisions made to the landscape manual based on the governor’s recent actions and limits on types of irrigation systems and where it can be utilized. Commissioner Segall clarified the modification to Chapter 4 of the final EIR on page 4-65 to include revisions to policies 9-P.1 and 9-P.7 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the Sustainability Element. Climate Action Plan Commissioner Siekmann stated that she is in favor of the CAP. Commissioner Montgomery commented to staff regarding future building requirements and remodels to include a tool where it lists achievable criteria to comply with the CAP. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the CAP. Mobility Element Craig Williams, Mobility Manager, distributed the PowerPoint slides to the Commission and made a presentation. Ron Kemp, assistant City Attorney introduced Mike Hogan to the Commission and stated that he was hired to advise on the CEQA issues. Mike Hogan, Attorney, stated that the Commission’s comments on the Sustainability Element indicate that they understand the Mobility element is only a piece to a larger puzzle and in particular, state laws and regulations that have to be implemented at the local level beginning with the CEQA. Mr. Hogan stated that there are changes within those state laws AB32 dealing with climate action, SB743 encouraging infill development the complete streets act and there are a whole series of state laws, policies and plans that require us at the local level to make changes in how we go about evaluating our mobility element. It is an Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2015 Page 6 important change, in state law, and among other things, how we prepare the EIR in connection with individual projects as well as this General Plan. He concluded stating the changes in the Mobility Element considered by the Commission reflect state requirements to be implemented in individual communities. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions for Mr. Hogan. Commissioner Segall asked if the new concept of the multi-modal levels of service (LOS) is now required. Mr. Hogan stated yes, the guidelines will not state the phrase “multi-modal levels of service”, and instead the standards will read “significant impact of transportation will occur if the project adversely effects the entire transportation system”. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on whether the state with the removal of level of service as an evaluation and if they are in the process of developing a new method which we do not have yet of California is in the process of developing a new method of evaluating Level of Service, which we do not yet have. Mr. Hogan stated that it is not forbidden to consider levels of service, as it is still a consideration. He added that the state is requiring the city to become less auto centric, less focus on the car alone and equal focus on other modes of transportation. Chairperson Scully asked if the typology chart and the map that shows the new definitions of the streets are still in use. Mr. Thomas stated yes, they are recommending that they be included in the Mobility Element that is going forward. Commissioner Montgomery inquired about the transition from now to a future that is envisioned. Mr. Williams stated that early on, there some words and phrases that were held on to help people understand. The roadway system has been built that is tuned toward cars and an old functional classification mantra, while the standards required minimal accommodations, including relatively narrow bike lanes and sidewalks on most streets. Mr. Williams stated that this is how investments should be made going forward to try to make them better than they are now as they are not attractive to those who walk and bike. Commissioner Segall inquired about the errata sheet. Mr. Neu stated that staff has prepared an errata sheet that covers all changes made during deliberations to later distribute to the Commission once the Mobility Element has been discussed. He also stated that any changes discussed will be added to the same errata sheet to reflect the motions. Commissioner Segall stated that a correspondence submitted by Steve Linke, dated July 23, references the priority of vehicles and buses while pedestrians and bicycles are a secondary priority. Mr. Thomas stated the new description of several of the streets were changed to the connector, employment, identity, and coastal streets. He added that the old circulation element had the arterial streets, which were retained in the description of the new Mobility Element consisting of 6 lane streets and secondary arterial streets, which were lower level streets carrying lower volumes of traffic in 4 lane streets. Mr. Thomas clarified that Mr. Linke’s correspondence suggests the priority of vehicles and buses to remain first priority rather than changing the description of the Mobility Element. Commissioner Segall feels the Mobility Element was rushed and he cannot support it. He stated that the proposal initiates the write off of four major segments with no mitigation to a developer’s addition of traffic with no fee implementation. Mr. Thomas replied stating that developers pay traffic impact fees that go into improving all roads and a modification to the traffic impact fee program may be implemented in the future to include the improvements for bicycles and pedestrians. Commissioner Anderson asked if golf carts have been considered as an alternative. Chris Gray, Fehr & Peers, stated that golf carts are prohibited on the streets if the speed limit is more than 35 miles per hour. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on policy 3pxx. Mr. Gray stated that the city will have to comply with the requirements of SB743 and should monitor its performance. Commissioner Anderson stated that she is not in favor of the priority table as it is written in the element. She encouraged that a discussion with bike lane users should be held prior to any modifications and she is not able to support the Mobility Element the way it is written. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he feels the Mobility Element was poorly written due to the lack of knowledge, examples, information or how the public can relate although it may work for the traffic engineers who understand the language. Commissioner L’Heureux cannot support the Mobility Element. Commissioner Siekmann stated that she is in favor of the Mobility Element as it supports the priorities to all walkers, cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers. Mr. Williams stated that the Complete Streets Act requires any circulation element developed after 2011 to include clear direction on other modes besides cars. CORRECTED Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2015 Page 7 Commissioner Siekmann inquired about the transportation override. Mr. Gray stated that the transportation override is for other impacts, regional facilities, and freeways and does not include other intersections. He added that exempted facilities were identified based on the findings in the modeling. Mr. Ball stated that the city is not giving up on exempted road segments and requires new development that adds traffic to LOS exempted location to implement transportation demand management strategies as mentioned in 3-P-11. Mr. Ball recommended to add wording that states the implementation of transportation or to pay the cost required to implement transportation demand management strategies. Commissioner Siekmann thanked staff. Commissioner Black stated that he wished to see a Mobility Element implemented and would choose to view a chart rather than a map when selecting streets. He feels that he should not choose between north and south Carlsbad because of various obstructions due to traffic or bicycle accident, etc. Commissioner Black also stated that traffic signals be applied to cyclists as well. He concludes that streets are not well designed and the Mobility Element should help to avoid future pedestrian accidents. Commissioner Black supports the Mobility Element. Commissioner Montgomery concurs with Commissioner Black. He stated that a charting or typology system can direct someone on how to make improvements needed in that total mobility issue and suggests a prioritization chart created that staff can direct to developers or those that impact streets. Commissioner Montgomery also stated that the chart can demonstrate how cost, influences or designs go towards pedestrians and cyclists. He concluded that if there were impacts based on the findings within the chart, it will be the priority of improvement on the streets, however; not to give the priority to other modes of mobility. Chairperson Scully concurs with Commissioner Montgomery. She feels that the roads should be more pedestrian friendly based on everything that was written on the future of an older community. Commissioner Scully stated that accessibility to major streets should be a priority to vehicles and not cyclists as some may infringe and not abide traffic laws. Commissioner Scully can support the Mobility Element if the consideration of some changes are implemented. Commissioner Segall feels that staff should go back to the drawing board to complete and implement some changes to the Mobility Element for it is too important to rush and should be presented to the City Council without any errata sheets. Mr. Neu suggested to call for a brief recess to discuss options with staff. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that the focus on the chart is the main issue and that discussion can be focused more on other topics of discussion. He asked for staff to be more descriptive and to add more detail in the explanation of school streets, employment streets etc., and other measures of the element. Commissioner L’Heureux stated his concerns with pedestrian safety on major roads and crosswalks. RECESS Chairperson Scully called for a recess at 4:45 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Scully called the meeting to order at 5:53 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Mr. Neu stated that staff will need time to go back to analyze some of the data as the Commission has discovered that other parts of the Mobility Element are interrelated. He stated that the way some of the analysis was done was contingent upon roads being classified in a certain way. Mr. Neu also added that staff would like the opportunity to go through the rest of the materials without the Commission making preliminary decisions on the Mobility Element and to return with the parameters of what the Commission may have the ability to recommend different changes on. He stated that if there were changes beyond that, there may be a need to do additional analysis which would lead to recirculation of the EIR and additional public review. Mr. Neu proposed another option to consider is to cover all other policies of the element and staff can present more refinements to the element based on the comments heard from the Commission. Commissioner Montgomery asked if all of the elements to the GPU becomes significant to recirculate the EIR for re-review. Mr. Neu stated that it could potentially mean a significant amount of work if the Commission’s desire was to make wholesale sweeping changes to the GPU. He stated that staff would like to determine the parameters of change that can be made so that the Commission can make some judgement based on that information as it would relate to the CAP as well. Mr. Neu specified that the best Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2015 Page 8 recommendation would be to determine when the Commission would like to continue the item to a date specific after discussing what the direction will be for all other elements and staff will then discuss what the Commission’s ability will be to modify the Mobility Element. He added that another option to consider would be to accept the Mobility Element with limited changes to various policies. Commissioner L’Heureux added that he would hate to see the whole house of cards come to a crumble by the commission’s misunderstanding or by not being able to articulate what the concerns are. He suggested to solve some of the concerns that the Commission has raised through revised policies without having to go into depth of the text. Commissioner L’Heureux stated his concerns with additional cost that may be incurred and if it would produce a better product in the end. Mr. Ball stated that there may be a half step that staff can take to come back with changes that would be appropriate or what can be made and is feasible. He stated that it may or may not satisfy the Commission, they may bifurcate their action and accept the element and make a recommendation to the City Council to consider ordering more study and review. Mr. Ball concluded stating that once the City Council approve, a certified EIR and an amended GPU will be implemented. Mr. Neu stated that one of the benefits to that approach is that it would allow staff to move forward and the important decision about timing and the expense of doing it significantly different can be made at that point. Mr. Neu suggests another option to go back and review options available to the Commission for change on the policies. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the Commissioners vote to the higher resolution does not have to be unanimous and only requires the majority vote. Mr. Ball stated yes. Commissioner Segall stated that he would like to see the Mobility Element revised before it goes to the City Council and they may not vote in favor. Commissioner Siekmann added that she did not agree on the Land Use Element and voted against it to which it did not lead to other revisions. Commissioner Montgomery asked Mr. Neu if the verbiage presented to the Commission that could allay some of Commissioner’s concerns could suffice for a majority vote. Mr. Neu stated that the policy changes presented should suit however, it may lead to additional discussion. Commissioner Montgomery stated that his concerns maybe allayed with some additional changes to policies of the Mobility Element and concluded to clarify that his intent was on the typology and is not misread or misconstrued with the future Commission or staff. Commissioner Black asked if the record would have the dissenter’s viewpoint made to the council without having to amend the resolution. Mr. Neu stated yes, the specifics will be presented to the City Council in detail regarding the Commission’s concerns. Commissioner Siekmann suggests to add “the reliance on single-occupant vehicle” to policy 3-P-11. Mr. Thomas confirmed that it would not change the intent of that policy. Commissioner Siekmann stated that she would also like to see some language added to the CAP in the future as she feels that it was not strong enough. Mr. Neu stated that in addition to the minutes, when the Agenda Bill is written, staff will then topically go through and highlight what the Commission’s decisions were. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that with the understanding to the element, the vote does not have to be unanimous and the Commission should proceed. He also stated if his fellow Commissioners cannot support the entire “package” of the GPU, it will then be forwarded to the City Council as they may have similar questions, however, a delay to tonight’s meeting will not solve bigger issues. Commissioner L’Heureux concluded that as long as his comments are noted he is prepared to proceed. Commissioner Anderson stated she was not comfortable with forwarding to the City Council if the Commission does not understand the language of the Mobility Element. The City of Carlsbad will be guided by the holding to the GPU for many years and she feels that it should be done the right way. Commissioner Montgomery commented to add language to amend policy 3-P-1, on page 163 of the staff report to read “pedestrian bicycle priority will not be a causal factor in auto lane reduction or road diet without approval of the Planning Commission and City Council” on an additional line. Mr. Neu stated that his recommendation to the Planning Commission is that the Traffic Safety Commission may be the appropriate commission to make recommendations to the City Council on this topic. Mr. Ball stated that CORRECTED Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2015 Page 9 there will not be streets that exists now with types of level of service change or any tools applied to it unless the City Council first determines that they are qualified to excess capacity. He added that there will not any changes on the streets that have excess capacity on them then you can add or implement those actions on those streets because of that finding by the City Council that allows the traffic engineer to proceed. Commissioner Montgomery stated that priority changes as soon as the City Council adopts the GPU. Mr. Neu added in relation to Mr. Ball’s comment, that the following policy of the presentation, the deletion of proposed 3-P-13 about the threshold of 25 thousand average daily trips, a roadway, and evaluating a road diet, the proposal there was to address the concern that there was going to be this major effort to start going through and eliminating travel lanes for the automobile, this was trying to take a more measured approach by replacing that with the modifications to 3-P-4. He also stated that along those lines, the 6 lane roads currently proposes to prioritize so those are not subject to this concern that they would be modified in a significant way for non-automobile use. Mr. Neu concluded that there is a brief description on page 3- 10 of what the prioritized category means. Commissioner Segall suggests to move forward by voting or to share the Commission’s concerns with staff for additional modifications to be made. Commissioner Scully stated that the best practice would be to vote on the agenda item, forward to the City Council, and staff may be appointed direction from the City Council if needed. Mr. Neu suggests that the Commission determine whether they are including the policies that were recommended today. Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Ball if the Planning Commission is protected if the City Council would make the decision and not the Public Works staff would arbitrarily act. Mr. Ball stated that there will be a report and recommendation from the traffic engineer then to the City Council which will make the determination. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he can support the element with the changes that have been proposed and discussed, although he may not be in favor of some of the language. Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded by Commission Siekmann, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Segall, Anderson) to recommend approval of the Mobility Element. ZONING CODE Mr. Neu stated that he would like to discuss the zoning code changes to the ordinance listed on pages 309- 313 of the staff report showing strikeout changes to the minimum density for mixed use and a number of the zones. He also stated that there is a proposal for a professional care facility going into an office zone through a Conditional Use Permit acted on by the Planning Commission. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Montgomery inquired about the description of residential uses moving off of the RHNA numbers and establishing density for residential uses as secondary use in the commercial zones. Jennifer Jesser, Senior Planner replied stating the reference to the RHNA density comes from the current housing element where it was established in the GPU what density was used for that housing element to demonstrate that it could satisfy the housing element requirements. Ms. Jesser added that the RHNA based density was slightly above the growth control point density as a new point on the density range and has been established. She also stated that for this housing element it can demonstrate the compliance with the housing element law using the minimum of the density ranges. Ms. Jesser stated that the reference to RHNA based density can be eliminated and the other amendment proposed is to reduce the density used from mixed use development from 20 to 15 units an acre. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the Zoning Code Amendments. ZONING MAP/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mr. de Cordova stated with regard to the EIR, a letter was submitted to staff from Mr. Bender dated June 30, 2015 for response. He added that the modeling that was done for the air quality analysis questions why a particular model was used against another. Mr. de Cordova introduced Brian Grover, Dudek Associates, to the Commission. Mr. Grover gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2015 Page 10 Commissioner Montgomery stated that he appreciates the public submitting comments regarding the EIR for over a year. Commissioner Black inquired about policy 9-P.7 in the Sustainability Element on page 227 of the staff report that refers to water. He stated that the policy is too narrow in scope and he believes an investigation of just the areas that are mentioned are just aquafer and there are many more geological considerations that should be analyzed such as artesian water. Mr. Ball recommended that he make a motion. Commissioner Black made a motion to change the language on Page 227 to policy 9-P.7 in the Sustainability Element to investigate the feasibility of developing full functioning ground water systems as well as sub-ground water systems. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to support the amendment. Commissioner Black stated he can support the EIR. Commissioner Siekmann stated she can support the EIR. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he can also support the EIR with the various amendments and changes and the old writing considerations. Commissioner Anderson stated that she is satisfied with the EIR. Chairperson Scully stated that she can also support the changes to the EIR. The Planning Commission voted 7-0. Ms. Jesser stated that the memorandum summarizes the documents where the revisions have been made by the Commission’s discussion as well as some direction received from Mr. Ball to Resolution No. 7111. Commissioner Montgomery inquired about the status of the northeast quadrant excess dwelling unit banking. Ms. Jesser replied stating the number of units being allocated from the bank was reduced from 116 to 98 from Robertson Ranch Planning Area 22 and the number of units for Sunny Creek was reduced from 182 to 115. She also stated that a total of 85 units will remain in the bank. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Anderson and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux that the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7111, RECOMMENDING that the City Council CERTIFY the Environmental Impact Report EIR 13-02, including the approval of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, based on the findings contained therein. ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7112, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment GPA 07-02, Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZCA 07-01, Zone Change ZC 15-02, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 07-02, and a Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan amendment SS 15-06, based on the findings contained therein. ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7113, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Climate Action Plan SS 15-05, based on the findings contained therein. ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7114, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of an allocation from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, based on the findings contained therein and including the changes listed in the Errata sheet dated July 24, 2015. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2015 CORRECTED Page 11 COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Anderson stated that she supports the General Plan Update even though she is opposed to the Mobility Element she is e~~eseEI te the Meeility ElemeA!. Commissioner Segall concurs with Commissioner Anderson, stated that the overall project was excellently put together and thanked staff. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he felt strong armed on the Mobility Element and is opposed to the Noise Ordinance, He stated that he is pleased with the GPU and appreciates the efforts of centering our humanity through the Envision Carlsbad process all the way through to this point and allow to focus on the core values of the city. Commissioner Black thanked staff, his fellow commissioners, special General Council, Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, Ron Kemp and Planning Director, Don Neu: He also stated that he looks forward for the next update. Commissioner Siekmann stated that she is in favor of the CAP and wants to see it go further. She also thanked staff, the citizens of Carlsbad. Commissioner L'Heureux stated that this has been a unique experience to participate in the update and to listen to the wide variety of the community participation. He thanked all city staff and Mr. Neu for all the hard work and patience. Commissioner Anderson also thanked staff and her fellow commissioners. Commissioner Scully added that staffs efforts were tremendous and it was an inspiring experience to be a part of. She also thanked her fellow commissioners. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS Mr. Neu commented that staff would like to thank the Planning Commission for their time spent in the process of reviewing all documents. He also stated that while Planning was the lead of this project, he thanked other departments involved in this major effort. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS Mr. Ball stated that Mr. Neu's title is City Planner and welcomes being restored to Planning Director. He applauds the commission's commitment that they have approached this task with as it demonstrated wisdom and their thoroughness. Mr. Kemp stated that he was newly assigned to the assignment for the last few weeks and thanked Mr. Ball and Mr. Hogan for their participation. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of July 24, 2015 was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. (l~ DON NEU City Planner Farah Nisan Minutes Clerk