[00:00:01]
YOU CAN START WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2021 MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD
[CALL TO ORDER: ]
PLANNING COMMISSION.[APPROVAL OF MINUTES:]
ALL RIGHT.NEXT TIME ON THE AGENDA IS THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 7TH, 2021 MEETING.
AND ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS THAT ANY OF OUR COMMISSIONERS WISH TO ADD OR SUBTRACT FROM THE MINUTES? COMMISSIONER STINE.
YES, JUST A BRIEF COMMENT, WHEN I WENT THROUGH THE MINUTES, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN TERMS OF OUR DISCUSSION ON THE FIRST ITEM.
THAT WAS THE TOYOTA CARLSBAD ITEM.
AND I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, WELL, I THINK WE DID HAVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION ON IT.
SO I WENT BACK TO THE VIDEO ON IT.
AND ACTUALLY WE DID HAVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION.
AND I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT WHAT WE DISCUSSED.
AND IN REVIEWING THE VIDEO, I LEAD A VERY BRIEF DISCUSSION ABOUT PARKING.
SO MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO ADD TO THIS THE FOLLOWING.
COMMISSIONER STINE ASKED ABOUT AVAILABLE VISITOR PARKING AT THE SITE.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE ADD THAT TO ITEM NUMBER ONE.
ANY FURTHER ADDITIONS? ANY COMMENTS IN REGARD TO COMMISSIONER STINE'S ADDITION TO THE MINUTES? I THINK THAT'S FINE WITH ME.
I MOVE APPROVAL OF MINUTES WITH COMMISSIONER STINE'S ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE.
COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN SECOND.
[INAUDIBLE] COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
YEAH, TO APPROVE OR YES, I GUESS, IS WHAT I SAY.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL START OFF WITH THE PROCEDURES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 2920 AND IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, WE'RE TEMPORARY TAKING ACTION TO PREVENT THE MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC BY HOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ELECTRONICALLY.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CAN BE WATCHED VIA LIVE STREAM OR REPLAYED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
THE PUBLIC CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE AGENDA ITEM.
PLEASE COMMENTS AND TRANSMIT TO THE COMMISSION AT THE START OF THE AGENDA ITEM ITSELF.
IF YOU DESIRE TO HAVE YOUR COMMENT READ OR RECORDED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
PLEASE INDICATE SO IN YOUR FIRST LINE.
THESE PROCEDURES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH A STATE AND LOCAL HEALTH OFFICIALS HAVE IMPOSED OR RECOMMENDED SOCIAL DISTANCING.
THE PUBLIC WISHES TO DESIRE AND DESIRE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON AN ITEM NOT LISTED THE AGENDA, PLEASE EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION.
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THAT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES IS PROVIDED, COMMENTATORS MAY LIMIT THEIR THREE MINUTES EACH UNLESS THE CHAIR CHANGES THAT TIME.
IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT, NO ACTIONS CAN OCCUR ON ITEMS PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
PLANNING STAFF WILL READ THE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS NOT LISTED? MS. FLORES.
THERE ARE NO COMMENTS NOT LISTS FOR ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPEN, STAFF AND MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE PRESENTATION.
APPLICANTS MAY MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION AND RESPOND TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.
THEY HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD, WILL THEN BE OPEN.
TIME PERIOD OF THREE MINUTES WILL BE ALLOTTED.
AFTER THE COMMENTS THAT ARE REQUESTED ARE READ, PUBLIC TESTIMONY WILL BE CLOSED.
APPLICANT STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO ISSUES AND QUESTIONS RAISED, THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL THEN BE CLOSED.
CERTAIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ARE FINAL, BUT MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
WITH THAT NOTE, COMMISSIONER STINE, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT FOR US THIS EVENING?
[00:05:02]
YES, I DO.I WOULD REQUEST MR. CHAIR THAT WE MOVE ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS DISCUSSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TIME TO DISCUSS THAT PRESENTLY, THE REASON FOR MY REQUEST IS, UNFORTUNATELY, I'LL NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF AS TO ITEMS, ONE AND TWO.
THE REASON FOR MY REFUSAL ON THE ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THAT I'M WITH A PARTNERSHIP THAT HAS A CONTRACTUAL RELATION WITH THE ARCHITECT ON BOTH PROJECTS.
SO FOR THAT REASON, I WILL NOT BE PARTICIPATING.
SO MY REQUEST WOULD BE THAT WE MOVE ITEM THREE UP THE AGENDA, TAKE CARE OF THAT NOW.
AND THEN AFTER THAT ITEM IS COMPLETED, I WILL LEAVE THE MEETING.
COMMISSIONERS, CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO COMMISSIONER STINE'S REQUEST? MOVE THAT WE REORDER THE AGENDA WITH ITEM NUMBER THREE GOING FIRST, SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOWED BY ONE AND TWO.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE.
[3. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TIME]
NEU, WOULD YOU INTRODUCE THE ITEM? YES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.AS MENTIONED, ITEM THREE IS FOR THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TIME.
JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A FEW BITS OF BACKGROUND THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE BRIEF REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ITEM.
SO AS YOU'RE ALL AWARE, DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC, WE'VE BEEN MEETING VIRTUALLY.
AND DURING THAT TIME, WE HAD CHANGED OUR MEETING TIME FROM THE USUAL 6:00 P.M.
AND THIS WAS FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE AND A PRACTICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF DISCUSSIONS AT PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS ABOUT CHANGING THE TIME, OUR MEETING START TIME IS CONTAINED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES, AND RIGHT NOW IT SPECIFIES 6:00 P.M.
SO WHAT WE'VE PREPARED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS BASICALLY THE ABILITY TO INSERT AN ALTERNATIVE TIME.
SHOULD THERE BE A MAJORITY THAT WE DESIRE A DIFFERENT TIME THAN 6:00 P.M.
SO THAT YOU COULD ACT ON THAT.
I DID WANT TO POINT OUT IN SOME OF THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION THERE WAS AN ACTUAL DECISION TO HOLD OFF UNTIL THE CITY COUNCIL TOOK AN ACTION.
THE COUNCIL DID GO BACK AND ACTUALLY DECIDE TO GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE MEETING AT 6:00 P.M.. THEY DID HAVE THREE IN-PERSON MEETINGS AT 6:00 P.M.
AND THEN WENT BACK TO A VIRTUAL FORMAT THAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.
WE ALSO DID GO BACK AND LOOK AT, WELL, WHAT ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES WITHIN OUR COUNTY DOING? AND SO IN YOUR REPORT, YOU HAVE A TABLE THAT SHOWS THE START TIME FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS FOR ALL THE JURISDICTIONS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
AND WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS, ALL WERE MEETING AT 6:00 P.M.
AND I THINK PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT AND THIS IS I THINK WHAT WAS BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT THE COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION WAS SORT OF THE BELIEF THAT WITH TYPICAL WORK TIMES THAT SHOULD ALLOW FOR THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
THE 6:00 PM TIME THAT WE HAVE IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE COUNCIL USES FOR THEIR TIME.
AND SO AT THIS POINT, BASED ON SOME OF THAT INFORMATION, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS JUST TO RETAIN THE 6:00 P.M.
TIME AT THE POINT THAT WE DO GO BACK TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS.
I KNOW FOR THE LEAST FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER WILL BE IN THE ZOOM FORMAT.
BUT THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU SHOULD SHOULD THE MAJORITY DECIDE ON A DIFFERENT TIME, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO INSERT THAT NEW TIME INTO THE PROCEDURES AND WE WOULD USE THAT TIME GOING FORWARD.
SO THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF ME, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
AND BY THE WAY, I DO APPRECIATE THAT YOU DID INCLUDE INFORMATION FROM ALL THE OTHER CITIES.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, OUR COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN ALSO HAD EMAILED SOME INFORMATION THAT HE PROVIDED REGARDING START TIMES OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
SO WITH THAT, COMMISSIONER LUNA.
YEAH, I THINK FOR PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY, WE RECEIVED IT, BUT I'D LIKE TO MAYBE COMMISSIONER SABELLICO OR CITY PLANNER KNEW YOU COULD SHARE WHEN OUR OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSION STARTING TIMES ARE FOR MEETINGS.
AND THIS IS INFORMATION, I BELIEVE, THAT'S ON THE WEBSITE.
ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD SAY ABOUT THOSE TIMES IS AS LISTED FOR THE PLANNING
[00:10:06]
COMMISSION, SOME OF THOSE ARE SORT OF THIS INTERIM START TIME THAT DIFFERENT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ARE USING DURING VIRTUAL MEETINGS.BUT LET ME SEE IF WE CAN GET A SCREEN SHARE UP HERE JUST A MOMENT.
HAVE TO LET ME KNOW IF THAT'S WORKING OR NOT.
OK, SO IF YOU KIND OF FOCUS ON THE BLUE TEXT, YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND THE TIME THAT THEY'RE MEETING.
AND AGAIN, THESE ARE TIMES PRESENTLY MANY OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS HAVE ADJUSTED, GIVEN THE ZOOM FORMAT.
SO YOU CAN SEE THE FIRST ONE THAT IS MEETING IS THE ARTS COMMISSION.
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE AT 6:00 P.M., BEACH PRESERVATIONS AT 4:00.
I DO KNOW BEACH PRESERVATION TYPICALLY DOES MEET EARLIER IN THE DAY THAN 6:00 P.M..
SOME OF THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ARE AT AS NEEDED TIME.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE DOING 6:00 P.M.
HOUSING COMMISSION I THINK ONE OF THEIR RECENT MEETINGS MUST HAVE BEEN 4:00 O'CLOCK.
AND THEN THERE'S VARIOUS START TIMES, IT LOOKS LIKE, FOR THE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION THAT'S LOOKING AT THE COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.
YOU SEE FROM 2:30, 4:00 O'CLOCK, 10:00 A.M., 6:00 P.M.
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT 4:00, PARKS AND REC 5:30, AND PLANNING COMMISSION SHOWN AT 3:00, SENIOR COMMISSION AT 3:00 AND THEN TRAFFIC AND MOBILITY AT 4:00.
SO I WILL STOP THAT SHARE THERE.
THERE I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. NEU, IN REGARD TO SOME OF THOSE START TIMES WHERE THE OTHER CITY COMMISSIONS, AS YOU INDICATED, MANY ARE INDICATING WHAT THEY ARE DURING THE COVID.
DO YOU HAVE INFORMATION AS TO THEIR MEETING TIMES WHEN THEY MET NORMALLY VERSUS COVID? YEAH, I, I APOLOGIZE.
I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
THERE WERE SOME BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT MY IMPRESSION WAS MAYBE DIDN'T HAVE AS ACTIVE A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THAT WERE MEETING AT EARLIER TIMES IN THE DAY.
I KNOW BEACH PRESERVATION, WHEN WE DID GO TO THEM RECENTLY WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION, NOT COASTAL COMMISSION, THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN, IT WAS AN EVENING MEETING, BUT I THINK FOR THE MOST PART, THEY'RE AFTERNOON OR EARLY EVENING.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE.
FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS TO PLANNING DIRECTOR MR. NEU.
MR. NEU CAN YOU GIVE US ANY INSIGHT AS TO WHY THE COUNCIL WENT FROM THE 6:00 O'CLOCK IN-PERSON MEETINGS OF TRADITIONAL IN-PERSON MEETING TIME BACK TO 3:00 O'CLOCK WHEN THEY RENEWED THE VIRTUAL? WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR DOING THAT? SURE.
YOU KNOW, THE MY UNDERSTANDING WAS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE WERE ALL KIND OF WORKING AND DOING EVERYTHING REMOTELY FROM HOME, THAT I THINK THEY FELT THAT THE PUBLIC WAS STILL ABLE TO PARTICIPATE EARLIER BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WAS BASICALLY HAVING ACCESS TO A COMPUTER.
I KNOW THE OTHER THING THEY DEBATED WHEN THEY WERE CONSIDERING CHANGING THE START TIME WAS JUST THE LENGTH OF TIME THEIR MEETINGS WERE RUNNING IN GENERAL, THAT THEY HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THE AGENDA ITEMS, AND THEY FELT THAT THEY NEEDED MORE TIME.
AND I THINK SOME OF THAT RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, HAVING NEWER COUNCIL MEMBERS AND SOME OF THE DISCUSSION MAYBE GOING LONGER THAN IT HAD GONE IN THE PAST ON SOME ITEMS. MAYBE THERE WAS MORE HISTORY BEING SHARED ON ITEMS. SO.
YOU KNOW, IT SEEMED TO EVOLVE TO IF EVERYONE WAS REMOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE DIDN'T NEED TIME TO GET TO A MEETING FROM FROM, YOU KNOW, WORK OR HOME OR SOMETHING.
I DO I WILL SAY OR REPEAT THAT WHEN WHEN THEY WENT BACK TO IN PERSON, THEY ELECTED TO GO BACK TO 6:00 P.M.
TO ALLOW FOR PEOPLE WORKING, YOU KNOW, SORT OF A TRADITIONAL WORK HOURS TO GET FROM WORK TO THE CHAMBERS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.
SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UNLESS I HAVE IT WRONG, IS TO AS LONG AS WE REMAIN IN A VIRTUAL FORMAT, CONTINUE WITH OUR MEETING TIME AT 3:00 O'CLOCK.
BUT THE MINUTE WE GO BACK TO IN-PERSON MEETING, BE CONSISTENT WITH COUNCIL AND GO TO 6:00 O'CLOCK.
DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT? YOU DO HAVE THAT RIGHT.
OK, FINAL QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC FEEDBACK, PRO OR CON, ON
[00:15:04]
WITH REGARD TO OUR 3:00 O'CLOCK VIRTUAL MEETING TIMES, PEOPLE LIKE IT, DON'T LIKE IT HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANYTHING? YEAH, I, I DON'T RECALL REALLY RECEIVING FEEDBACK ABOUT THE TIME I KNOW WE HAVE AND I KNOW THE COUNCIL HAS FROM TIME TO TIME RECEIVE FEEDBACK MORE ABOUT IT NOT BEING AS INTERACTIVE A PROCESS AS IN A VIRTUAL FORMAT AS OPPOSED TO COMING TO THE CHAMBERS.BUT I DON'T RECALL RECEIVING FEEDBACK ABOUT I DON'T LIKE 3:00 O'CLOCK OR I DO LIKE IT.
IT'S BEEN PRETTY SILENT ON THAT TOPIC.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
MY QUESTION IS, HAS PARTICIPATION INCREASED BECAUSE WE HAVE GONE TO THIS VIRTUAL FORMAT? IS THERE A REASON TO POTENTIALLY.
CONTINUE TO HAVE A VIRTUAL FORMAT, ALONG WITH AN IN-PERSON FORMAT ONCE WE ACTUALLY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE IN-PERSON MEETINGS, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF PARTICIPATION HAS INCREASED BECAUSE OF THIS VIRTUAL FORMAT? YEAH, I MAY NEED MR. KEMP'S HELP ON THIS A LITTLE BIT.
SO IN PART, WE'RE ABLE TO DO THE VIRTUAL FORMAT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS DURING THE PANDEMIC WITH SOCIAL DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE CHECKED IN AND I THINK OUR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENTS LOOKED AT THE OPTION OF COULD WE DO BOTH? AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS TIME THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY OR THE CAPABILITY TO ALLOW FOR IN-PERSON MEETINGS WITH PEOPLE ALSO PARTICIPATING THROUGH A, YOU KNOW, A VIDEO FORMAT.
I THINK IN ADDITION TO THAT, AT THE POINT THAT THE GOVERNOR LIST SOME OF THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS WITH SOME OF THE BROWN ACT REQUIREMENTS, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THERE WAS A NEED TO HAVE PEOPLE BE ABLE TO COME IN PERSON.
BUT I WILL BEFORE I DIG A FURTHER HOLE, I'LL LET MR. KEMP TALK ON THAT SUBJECT.
WE WILL HAVE TO GO BACK INTO CHAMBERS, THE TIME, OF COURSE, ISN'T SET, YOU CAN GO BACK AT THREE O'CLOCK IF YOU WANTED TO.
WHAT COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I THINK, MAY BE ASKING IS WHETHER HAVING PEOPLE COMMENT IN WRITING IS CAUSING MORE PARTICIPATION THAN OTHERWISE.
THERE WAS A LAW I THINK RECENTLY PASSED THAT WOULD REQUIRE CITIES OF A CERTAIN SIZE, AND CARLSBAD IS NOT OF THAT SIZE TO ALLOW PHONE COMMENT IN THEIR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
BUT I BELIEVE IT HAD TO BE A JURISDICTION OF AT LEAST TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE.
SO WE WILL NOT HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT PLACED ON US TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO PHONE IN.
I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER CITY COUNCIL HAS CONTINUED TO ALLOW PHONE COMMENT FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS THAT WERE IN PERSON.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY DID, BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN ON THAT.
ONCE IT WAS BACK TO IN PERSON, IT WAS BACK TO SHOW UP, APPEARING IN PERSON OR PROVIDING CORRESPONDENCE.
I APPRECIATE ALL THOSE COMMENTS.
I WISH THERE WAS A LITTLE MORE DATA FROM THE CITY ON IF PARTICIPATION HAS INCREASED OR NOT SINCE WE HAVE BEEN IN A VIRTUAL FORMAT, ONLY BECAUSE THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK IT HAS MUCH TO DO WITH THE TIME OF WHEN THE MEETING IS HELD.
BUT I'M CURIOUS IF THERE IS A TIME CORRELATION TO PARTICIPATION IN A VIRTUAL SETTING OR A COMBINED VIRTUAL IN-PERSON SETTING.
I MEAN, THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF ALL OF THIS IS TO GAIN AS MUCH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AS POSSIBLE.
SO THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH CHANGING THE TIMES OR CHANGING THE YOU KNOW, I MEAN, JUST CREATING CREATING MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE AS OPPOSED TO LESS OPPORTUNITIES.
AND SO THAT'S REALLY, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAY, I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW IF IT'S A TIME THING, BUT I JUST WONDERED IF THERE WAS MORE INFORMATION ON VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION OR ANY KIND OF PARTICIPATION.
YES, MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD RESPOND TO THAT.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE STATISTICAL DATA ON THAT, BUT I KNOW WE WE'VE NOTICED I THINK SOME OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE COMMENTED THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING THIS FORMAT WITH COMMENTERS PROVIDING WRITTEN INFORMATION HAS SORT OF CAUSED PEOPLE TO ORGANIZE THEIR THOUGHTS, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE AND DO A LITTLE ADVANCE PLANNING TO GET THEIR THEIR COMMENTS TOGETHER.
I DO THINK JUST YOU KNOW, THE NUMBERS I MEAN, IT WASN'T UNCOMMON WHEN WE WERE IN PERSON TO HAVE AN ITEM THAT GOT A LOT OF ATTENTION WHERE PEOPLE FROM
[00:20:06]
A NEIGHBORHOOD MAY COME SORT OF LAST MINUTE, YOU KNOW, A NEIGHBOR INFORM THEM OR REMINDED THEM AND THEY WOULD SHOW UP TO THE MEETING AND YOU MIGHT HEAR FROM MORE INDIVIDUALS, WAS MY IMPRESSION IN PERSON THAN WE DID, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THIS FORMAT, BECAUSE I THINK THE CURRENT FORMAT REALLY REQUIRES THAT UPFRONT WORK TO PREPARE AND GET YOU INFORMATION.AND I THINK THE BENEFIT OF THAT HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THINGS FURTHER IN ADVANCE.
YOU CAN THINK THROUGH THOSE COMMENTS AND WHAT YOU FEEL, YOU KNOW, WORKS OR DOESN'T WORK WITH A PROJECT.
THANK YOU, MR. NEU, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? I HAVE ONE IN REGARD TO I'M OF THE OPINION THAT I THINK THAT HISTORICALLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS KIND OF FELL INTO LOCKSTEP, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, WITH CITY COUNCIL AT 6:00 O'CLOCK, AT 6:00 O'CLOCK, STARTING TIME.
THE RATIONALE BEHIND THAT, AND IT'S BEEN HISTORICAL FOR YEARS, IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
AND I'M A FIRM BELIEVER OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
AND I THINK AND, YOU KNOW, THE LENGTH OF TIME I'VE BEEN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND OR OBSERVED, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE MANY TIMES WHEN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, YOU KNOW, HALF TO ALMOST FALL ON A COUPLE OF THE ITEMS. AND IN DOING SO, YOU KNOW, HAVING AT A 6:00 O'CLOCK, YOU COULD TELL WHEN PEOPLE WALKED IN AND THEY SAT DOWN IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, YOU KNOW, BUT THEY JUST GOT OFF WORK.
YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE GENTLEMEN STILL HAVE THEIR TIES ON.
AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE WOMEN STILL HAD ON THEIR ATTIRE FROM WORK.
AND SO THEREFORE, I THINK PERSONALLY, YOU KNOW, VIRTUALLY WE'RE AT 3:00 O'CLOCK IN LOCKSTEP WITH THE COUNCIL.
AND I THINK WE SHOULD CONSISTENTLY DO THAT AS WELL AND REMAIN AT THE 6:00 O'CLOCK HOUR FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WOULD BE FAR GREATER.
AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, I THINK STAFF IN PROVIDING THE INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT OCCURS AT OTHER CITIES, YOU CAN SEE THE MAJORITY OF THEM DO MEET IN THE EVENING HOURS.
AND SO THAT'S MY POSITION IN THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.
YEAH, I ALSO WAS REALLY APPRECIATIVE THAT STAFF PUT THAT LIST TOGETHER OF ALL THE CITIES.
AND WHEN THEY'RE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETS.
I NOTICED THAT SAN DIEGO DOES 9:00 A.M., BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE HUGE AND THEY HAVE A HUGE AGENDA.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S COMPARABLE.
THE OTHER CITY THAT MET EARLIER THAN, YOU KNOW, EVENING HOURS WAS CORONADO.
AND, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO CORONADO, I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD GET ALL OF OUR PLANNING CUES FROM THEM THEY'RE IN MULTIPLE LAWSUITS.
I JUST I DON'T LOOK TO THEM AS A SHINING CITY ON A HILL, SO TO SPEAK.
AS FAR AS WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING AND YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH CHAIRMAN MEENES THAT WE ARE HIGH LEVEL FILERS.
ACCORDING TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, THAT'S WHY WE FOLLOW THE COUNCIL, THAT'S WHY WE HOLD OURSELVES TO THE SAME STANDARDS OR WHY WE SHOULD HOLD OURSELVES TO THE SAME STANDARDS.
I THINK THE CHAIRMAN IS RIGHT.
PEOPLE DO GET OFF WORK AND COME RIGHT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY WANT THEIR VOICES HEARD.
IN PERSON, THAT WILL CERTAINLY HINDER THEM AND THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE.
RIGHT NOW, WITH VIRTUAL FORMATS, I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY THAT IT ALLOWS PEOPLE WITH WHO WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THESE MEETINGS REGARDLESS OF WHAT TIME IT IS IN PERSON, THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD.
AND I CERTAINLY THINK THAT WE SHOULD EXPLORE THAT POSSIBILITY.
BUT THAT, I THINK, IS A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM THE ONE THAT WE ARE TASKED WITH MAKING TODAY, WHICH IS WHEN WE SHOULD MEET, WHEN WE GO BACK TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS, WHEN WE'RE IN VIRTUAL MEETINGS.
I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT 3:00 P.M.
MOST PEOPLE WORK FROM HOME RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC.
FOR NOW, WE SHOULD CONTINUE WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING, BUT WHEN WE GO BACK TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS, 6:00 O'CLOCK I THINK IS THE BEST OPTION.
I DID SPEAK WITH COUNCIL MEMBER TERESA ACOSTA.
SHE IS THE COUNCIL MEMBER FOR DISTRICT FOUR.
AND YOU KNOW, I AND A COMMISSIONER, THAT WAS APPOINTED, YOU KNOW, TO BE FROM DISTRICT FOUR.
SO I TAKE WHAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER HAS TO SAY VERY SERIOUSLY, AS I DO WITH ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS.
AND WE SERVE AT THE COUNCIL'S PLEASURE.
SO I'M VERY MUCH INCLINED TO GO ALONG WITH THE COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO APPOINTED ME THAT PUBLIC COMMENTS IS A PRIORITY.
AND WHATEVER MAXIMIZES THE MOST PUBLIC COMMENTS IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.
AND THE COUNCIL HAS DETERMINED FOR THEM AT 6:00 P.M.
AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING THE SAME AND HOLDING OURSELVES TO THE SAME STANDARDS.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.
ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.
BUSINESS IS TRADITIONALLY DONE DURING BUSINESS HOURS.
[00:25:02]
I THINK THAT THE WAY WE SERVE OUR CONSTITUENTS IS TO DEVOTE OUR BEST EFFORTS TO SERVING THEM.I THINK THAT THE OTHER THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS WE LIVE IN A CHANGING WORLD.
AND I THINK THAT THIS 3:00 P.M.
START TIME HAS HAD ITS BENEFITS.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO CONTINUE WITH THAT, SINCE WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY NEGATIVE COMMENTS REGARDING THE START TIME IN MY WORK.
WE'VE TRIED ARBITRATIONS TRIALS IN THE EVENING.
AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS VERY IMPORTANT.
I THINK BUSINESS SHOULD BE DONE DURING BUSINESS HOURS.
AND I WOULD SUPPORT THE MOVE TO 3:00 O'CLOCK.
ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS? OK.
CAN I HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RETAIN THE CURRENT TIME SLOT FOR IN-PERSON AT 6:00 P.M.
FOR VIRTUAL UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
COMMISSIONER SABELLICO SECONDS, I MADE A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER STINE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE.
AND WE WILL SEE YOU NEXT TIME.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE ON OUR AGENDA ITEM.
AND BEFORE WE HAVE MR. NEU INTRODUCE THAT ITEM, I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME EXPARTE CONVERSATIONS BY THE COMMISSIONERS, INCLUDING SIGHT VISIT AND CONVERSATIONS WITH ANYONE.
EXPARTE COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.
YES, I VISITED THE SITE, AND I ALSO HAD A BRIEF EMAIL CONVERSATION WITH COMMISSIONER STEVE LINKE ABOUT ADU LAW.
I EMAILED HIM IN RESPONSE TO HIS COMMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED, THE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION, WHICH PROHIBITS IMPACT FEES ON ADUS UNDER 750 SQUARE FEET.
I WILL UNLOCK THE SITE AND ACTUALLY OUT OF THREE OR FOUR BALLS, I THREW BACK OVER THE FENCE IN THE [INAUDIBLE] PARKING LOT.
I WALKED THE ENTIRE SITE, JUST ABOUT FELL IN A HOLE.
BUT IT WAS A QUITE A QUITE A SIGHT.
AND YES, I WALKED THE SITE AS WELL.
JUST LIKE YOU, COMMISSIONER MEENES.
BUT I'M MORE OBSERVANT AND DID NOT FALL IN A HOLE [INAUDIBLE] I DID WANT TO GO FISHING.
I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE ALSO AND RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM A JOHN [INAUDIBLE] AND I'M PRONOUNCING HIS NAME INCORRECTLY, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD WHO REQUESTED TO MEET ON SITE, BUT I WAS UNABLE TO CORRESPOND WITH HIM OR MEET ON SITE.
BUT I DID RECEIVE CORRESPONDENCE STATING THAT HE WAS OPPOSED AND HE DID ACTUALLY SEND A MESSAGE TO THE COMMISSION.
A COMMENT LETTER TO THE COMMISSION.
THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO MENTION IN EXPARTE, I AM A PARISHIONER OF ST.
PATRICK'S CHURCH NEXT DOOR, AND MY HUSBAND ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO DID A MASTER PLAN AND SOME RENOVATION WORK FOR THAT CHURCH.
LIKE I SAID, BECAUSE IT WAS AROUND 10 YEARS AGO, SHOULD NOT AFFECT MY DECISION MAKING ON THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE I WOULD PROBABLY HAVE THE SAME IDEAS ABOUT THIS PROPERTY IN GENERAL WHETHER IT WAS NEXT TO ANYTHING SO SO ON.
SO I WANTED TO JUST BRING THAT TO THE BOARD.
I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR EXPARTE.
YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I ALSO RECEIVED THAT EMAIL BACK IN EARLY AUGUST, AND I DID NOT RESPOND DIRECTLY WITH MR. [INAUDIBLE].
I WENT AHEAD AND DIRECTED IT BACK TO STAFF AND ASKED PLANNER EVANS TO RESPOND TO HIM IN MY BEHALF.
[00:30:03]
THANK YOU.CHAIR MEENES I WAS GOING TO ADD THAT INFORMATION ALSO.
ADDITIONALLY, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, YOU REFERRED TO MR. LINKE AS COMMISSIONER, I THINK HE'S MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR IN HIS LETTERS THAT HE'S NOT RESPONDING AS A COMMISSIONER.
I'M SURE HE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT DIFFERENCE IN THE NUANCE THAT HE IS COMMENTING AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.
MR. THE MINUTES SHOULD BE REFLECTED TO SAY THAT I CORRESPONDED WITH MR. LINKE PLEASE.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.
ALL RIGHTY IS THERE ANY OTHER ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, MR. NEU WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM? YES.
[1. CDP 2020-0043/MS 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0126) – ADAMS STREET HOMES]
SO OUR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE IS A PROJECT CALLED ADAM STREET HOMES.AND ASSOCIATE PLANNER JESSICA EVANS IS HERE TO MAKE THE STAFF PRESENTATION.
SO THE SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY IS THE ADAMS STREET HOMES PROJECT.
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 3745 ADAM STREET, JUST WEST OF ADAMS BETWEEN TAMARACK AND MAGNOLIA.
THE PROJECT PLATE IS VACANT AND SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH AND EAST, TO THE SOUTH IS THE ST.
PATRICK'S CHURCH AND TO THE WEST.
THE PROJECT HAS AN R-1 ZONING DESIGNATION AND AN R-4 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION WITH AN ALLOWABLE DENSITY OF ZERO TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
THE LOT SIZE IS ZERO POINT NINE SEVEN ACRES, AND THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE PROJECT IS FOUR POINT TWELVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
THE DENSITY IS SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED PER THE R-4 DESIGNATION, BUT THIS IS PERMITTED PER LAND USE POLICY POLICY 2P-16 SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS SUCH AS CONSISTENCY WITH THE GOALS OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND HAVING SUFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE DENSITY NOT EXCEEDING TWENTY FIVE PERCENT OF THE MAXIMUM DENSITY, WHICH THIS PROJECT MEETS.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE THE ONE THAT ZERO POINT NINE SEVEN ACRE LOT INTO FOUR PARCELS, WHICH WILL RESULT IN TWO PANHANDLE LOTS, WHICH IS ACCESSED BY A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
THE PROJECT INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR NEW TWO STORY, 3100 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON EACH NEWLY SUBDIVIDED PARCEL.
EACH DWELLING WILL ALSO INCLUDE ONE ATTACHED JUNIOR ACCESSORIES DWELLING UNIT AND ONE DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OR ADUS.
HOWEVER, THE ADUS WILL BE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY PLANNER THROUGH A SEPARATE MINOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SUBSEQUENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION ON THIS PROJECT.
HERE'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE TWO PANHANDLE LOTS WITH THE SHARED DRIVEWAY DOWN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TWO STANDARD LOTS THAT FRONT ADAMS STREET, AS WELL AS THE BUILDING OUTLINE OF THE FOUR NEW HOMES, EACH PROPOSED PARCEL MEETS, MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND LOT SIZE, AND EACH NEW DWELLING UNIT MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SUCH AS SETBACKS LOT COVERAGE, PARKING AND HEIGHT.
THIS IS THE STREET FRONT ELEVATION, WHICH SHOWS THE SHARED DRIVEWAY, AS WELL AS THE UNITS TOWARDS THE REAR.
THE DESIGN OF THE HOMES ARE A COASTAL CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN DESIGN, AND EACH DWELLING UNIT PROVIDES A DEFINED ENTRY, A TWO CAR GARAGE SET BACK 20 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE DRIVEWAYS, A VARIETY IN ROOF PITCHES AND WALL PLANES.
EACH HOME IS DESIGNED WITH VARIATION AND PAINT COLORS, SIDING, DECORATIVE EAVES, FACIAS COLUMNS AND RECESSED WINDOWS AND TRIMS. HERE IS THE ELEVATION FROM THE REAR ALONG THE SHARED DRIVEWAY, THE REAR ELEVATION OF THE MAIN DWELLINGS PROVIDES VISUAL INTEREST WITH VARIATION AND WALL PLANES AND ROOF PITCHES AND OTHER FEATURES CONSISTENT WITH THE FRONT ELEVATION.
THE STAFF DID RECEIVE A PUBLIC COMMENT THAT REQUIRED WHY THE AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS OR ADT FOR TRAFFIC PURPOSES WAS COUNTED FOR THE MAIN DWELLINGS, BUT DID NOT INCLUDE THE ADUS AND JADUS, AND THAT THE CITY SHOULD BE MITIGATING TRAFFIC AND PARKING IMPACTS BY RESTRICTING ADUS IN AREAS WITH CONGESTED STREET FACILITIES.
ADUS AND JADUS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ADT COUNT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PART OF THIS DISCRETIONARY ACTION PER STATE LAW, WHICH REQUIRES THAT ADUS ARE APPROVED MINISTERIAL.
IF ADUS AND JADUS WERE INCLUDED WITH THIS PROJECT.
THE OVERALL ADT WOULD BE 88, WHICH IS UNDER THE 110 ADT THRESHOLD, WHICH ASSUMES THAT THERE ARE NO TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION IMPACTS.
IN ADDITION, STATE LAW SURROUNDING ADUS LIMIT THE CITY FROM IMPOSING
[00:35:05]
ORDINANCES OR POLICIES THAT MAY DELAY OR BE THE BASIS OF DENIAL FOR A BUILDING PERMIT FOR AN ADU SO THEREFORE APPLYING ADT TO ADUS IS PART OF A DISCRETIONARY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COULD TRIGGER OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT MAY LIMIT THE APPROVAL OF THEM AND WOULD BE CONTRARY TO STATE LAW.AND AS FOR PARKING, ADDITIONAL PARKING IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ADUS THAT ARE WITHIN A HALF MILE OF A TRANSIT STOP.
THIS PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED LESS THAN A QUARTER MILE FROM A BUS STOP JADUS DO NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES.
THE ADU PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE BASED ON STATE LAWS.
AND THE CITY CANNOT REQUIRE PARKING SPACES BEYOND WHAT THE STATE ALLOWS.
A SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE ELEVATED BUILDING PADS AND THAT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE SITUATED LOWER THAN ADAM STREET AND THAT THE PROJECT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO MATCH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS ARE EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT LIMITS.
SO THE PAD HEIGHT IS INCREASING BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY ABOUT ONE TO FIVE AND A HALF FEET, AND IT'S NECESSARY FOR THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM TO OPERATE.
IN ADDITION, DUE TO THE DEPTH OF THE PROPOSED BIORETENTION BASIN, THE APPLICANT HAS ATTEMPTED TO LOWER THE PADS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT COMPROMISING UTILITY REQUIREMENTS.
THE ZONING CODE ALLOWS FOR DISCRETIONARY PRODUCTS SUCH AS LIST TO HAVE THE BUILDING HEIGHT MEASURED FROM THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED GRADE WHEN IT'S NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH REQUIRED OR UTILITY DRAINAGE STANDARDS WITH CONSIDERATION TO COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO HERE IS AN EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS AN EXAMPLE OF THE SITE.
THE EXISTING GRID SITS AT 82 FEET ABOVE [INAUDIBLE] SEA LEVEL AND THE PROPOSED RATE IS AT 87 AND A HALF FEET.
WHEN MEASURING HEIGHT FROM THE NEW GRADE, THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT IS APPROXIMATELY 27 FEET, WHICH IS UNDER THE 30 FOOT MAXIMUM.
HOWEVER, THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM THE EXISTING GRADE.
THE HEIGHT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 32.5 FEET, WHICH IS ABOUT TWO AND A HALF FEET OVER THE 30 FOOT MAXIMUM.
AND THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING HEIGHT TO BE MEASURED FROM THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED GRADE FOR UTILITY REASONS.
THE TOP PORTION HERE SHOWS A SECTION DRAWING OF THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, ON THE RIGHT SIDE IS EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION UNTIL AFTER THE OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED ADU.
THIS WAS AN INITIAL DESIGN THAT SHOWS THAT THE PAD HEIGHT INCREASE WITHOUT ATTENTION TO COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES NEXT DOOR.
THE BOTTOM EXHIBIT SHOWS THAT THE APPLICANT SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED THEIR DESIGN TO ENHANCE COMPATIBILITY BY PROPOSING A GRADE, PROPOSING TO GRADE A TWO TO ONE SLOPE ALONG THE SIDES AND REAR OF THE SITE, WHICH WILL INCLUDE FENCING AND FULL LANDSCAPING TO BUFFER ANY VISUAL IMPACTS.
IN ADDITION, THERE ARE INCREASED SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR ALL STRUCTURES THAT EXCEED THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL ALSO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY AS WELL.
AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AGAIN WHICH SHOWS THE TWO TO ONE SLOPE ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR THAT WILL BE FULLY LANDSCAPED.
RESIDENT A AT THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER IS ONE UNIT THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE JUST OVER HALF A FOOT.
IF WE'RE MEASURING HALF A FOOT OVER THE 30 FOOT MAXIMUM IN HEIGHT IF MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST GRADE ON THAT LOT.
THE OTHER THREE UNITS WOULD BE ABOUT TWO AND A HALF FEET OVER THE MAXIMUM 30 FEET.
IF WE'RE MEASURING FROM THE LOWEST EXISTING GRADES.
AND FINALLY, THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, INCLUDING CITY COUNCIL POLICY 44 AND THE PROJECT IS ALSO EXEMPT FROM CEQA.
AND THEREFORE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER 7422 APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 2020-0043 AND MINOR SUBDIVISION 2020-0004 AS PROPOSED BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
STILL MUTED, I'M STILL MUTED NOW I AM.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT CHANGED.
ANYWAYS, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EITHER PLANNER EVANS OR THE ENGINE CHIEF ENGINEER IF THE
[00:40:02]
BUILDING PADS ARE REQUIRED FOR UTILITY PURPOSES.WHY AREN'T THE OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTIES ALSO REQUIRED TO HAVE FIVE AND A HALF FEET OF BUILDING PADS? MR. GILDERT, DO YOU WISH TO ANSWER THAT? THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT THEIR PADS ARE THAT HIGH, IT'S ACTUALLY TO ALLOW THE DRAINAGE TO FLOW TO GRAVITY FLOW.
SO THE DESIGN IS BASED ON DRAINAGE AND SEWAGE FLOWS.
CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THAT IMPROVES DRAINAGE AND SEWAGE FLOWS, THE BUILDING PADS? YEAH, SO THE THIS IS A SO I'LL TALK ABOUT THE STORM DRAIN FIRST, THE STORM DRAINAGE, I SHOULD SAY, THE DRAINS ARE GRAVITY.
THEY'RE INTENDED TO BE GRAVITY AND NOT HAVE ANY PUMPS.
WHAT'S ALSO REQUIRED IS THAT THIS PROJECT, TREAT THE WATER AND RETAIN SOME OF THE WATER, SLOW DOWN THE FLOWS BASICALLY.
SO THE WATER IS SO BASINS ARE REQUIRED.
THOSE BASINS HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DEPTH AND THE WATER ENTERS IN TYPICALLY THE TOP AND THEN EXITS THROUGH THE BOTTOM.
SO TO CREATE THAT DEPTH, THEY NEED TO BUILD THE PAD UP BECAUSE THE OUTLET IS AT THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S CLEAR WITHOUT HAVING SOME PICTURES TO SHOW YOU.
I THINK I'M RACKING MY HEAD AROUND IT.
I THINK I THINK IF MS. EVANS HAS THE IT WAS LIKE A CROSS SECTION, MAYBE.
YEAH, I THINK SHOWING THE SLOPE.
AND I AND I THINK ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM THERE WAS THAT A DESCRIPTION AND A DIAGRAM I RECALL.
YEAH, I COULD IF WE HAD SOMETHING ILLUSTRATED, I COULD JUST KIND OF POINT IT OUT, BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS A CROSS SECTION WITH A SLOPE ON HER.
SORRY, HAVING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY.
JASON, YOU WANT ME TO? I THINK IT WAS THE ENGINEER HAD LIKE A COUPLE OF HOUSES AND IT SHOWED THE SLOPES WITH THE WALLS.
YOU MEAN THE CIVIL DRAWINGS? NO, IT WAS IT WAS IT LOOKED LIKE A EIGHT AND A HALF BY ELEVEN SHEET THE WAY IT WAS IN PORTRAIT MODE.
IT WAS NEAR THE END OF YOUR PRESENTATION, ONE SECOND.
SO THIS ISN'T QUITE THE CASE, BUT WE CAN SAY THAT.
SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE LET'S PRETEND AT THE BOTTOM SECTION IS NEAR THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE LOWER.
SO THE PROPERTY GRADES TO THE WEST.
SO IT'S LOWER AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE THAT IS UP THE STREET.
AND IMAGINE THAT WALL THERE ON THE OTHER SIDE IS THE GRADE.
SO ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN WALL AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE.
BUT LET'S SAY THAT'S THE GRADE BELOW WHERE THE WATER NEEDS TO COME OUT AT THE TOP OF THAT TWO TO ONE SLOPE OR SOMEWHERE NEAR THAT RETAINING WALL.
WHEN YOU IF YOU WERE TO PUT THE BASIN IN THAT BACKYARD, IN THAT FLAT AREA, THERE'S SOME DEPTH TO IT, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DRAIN PIPE COME OUT AND DAYLIGHT SOMEWHERE NEAR THE SURFACE AT THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THAT RAISING THAT GRADE THERE.
AND THEN THIS AND THEN THE SIMILAR FOR THE SEWER.
SO THEY HAVE THE SEWER FLOW FROM THE BACKHOUSE TO THE STREET.
BECAUSE THE SEWER LINE THAT THEY CONNECT TO IS ON ADAMS. MR. GELDERT JUST TO CLARIFY THEN, SO TRADITIONALLY THEN DRAINAGE THEN DOES OCCUR ON SURFACE AND IT DOESN'T GET COLLECTED AND DISTRIBUTED ELSEWHERE INTO A DRAINAGE PUBLIC DRAINAGE SOURCE OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.
THAT'S NOT NECESSARY AND OR NOT REQUIRED.
IS THAT CORRECT? HISTORICALLY, THIS SITE HAD AS DRAINS TO THE WEST TO THE REAR PROPERTY.
IN YOUR OPINION, MR. GLOVER, ARE THE BUILDING PADS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH UTILITY ACCESS AND [INAUDIBLE] STANDARDS.
[00:45:03]
I THINK THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING PADS ARE NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE GRAVITIES FLOWS.THERE ARE OTHER METHODS TO A DRAIN AND TO SEWAGE, TO CONVEY SEWER WATER.
I SEE, THERE IS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE, IF ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE TO OFFER AN EASEMENT FOR STORM LIKE STORM DRAIN PIPES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THAT'S ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE THAT THE BACKYARD COULD BE LOWERED, POSSIBLY.
CAN WE GO AHEAD AND PROCEED ON AND THEN YOU CAN COME BACK AND ASK FURTHER QUESTIONS? AND WE HAD THE PRESENTATION BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE ANSWERED.
AND IF NOT, THEN YOU CAN RE ANSWER.
OK, WE ASK IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
HAS THE APPLICANT HAD A PRESENTATION THIS EVENING? OH, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I'M SORRY.
YEAH, I STILL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNER.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTION FOR THE PLANNER? I WAS HOPING THAT PLANNER EVANS WOULD DESCRIBE WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE BRIEFING REGARDING THE TREES DURING THE BECAUSE THERE'S NINE TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED AT THE FRONT OF THAT PROPERTY.
AND I'M CONCERNED THAT IS A VERY BIG NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTIFIER.
IT'S STATED IN THE BRIEF THAT IT IS ON THE CITY'S LIST.
AND I WONDERED IF THEY WERE HERITAGE TREES.
AND SO COULD MS. EVANS SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE MORE AND WHAT SHE FOUND OUT ABOUT THOSE TREES? YEAH, SO THERE ARE NINE EXISTING PALM TREES THAT FRONT THE PROPERTY ALONG ADAMS STREET, AND THEY ARE WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
PART OF THE PROJECT REQUIRES STREET IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS WIDENING OUT IN STREET.
AND SO IN ORDER TO DO THOSE, THE NINE PALM TREES WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED.
I DID CONSULT WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, AND THEY DID NOTIFY ME THAT THE TREES ARE LISTED ON AN INVENTORY LIST.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THEY ARE JUST INVENTORIED FOR MAINTENANCE REASONS.
THEY ARE NOT HERITAGE OR HISTORIC TREES.
THERE IS CURRENTLY A BUG COMING FROM SOUTH AMERICA THAT ARE AFFECTING THE HEALTH OF THE TREES.
SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE HEALTHY, BUT THEY DO FORESEE IN THE FUTURE THE HEALTH OF THE PALM TREES WILL BE COMPROMISED.
AND SO PART OF THE REMOVAL PROCESS REQUIRES A PERMIT TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.
SO THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO GET THAT.
AND THE ANOTHER REQUIREMENT IS TO ALSO REPLACE THE TREES ON A TWO TO ONE RATIO ANYWHERE ALONG OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE.
I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR FINDING OUT THAT INFORMATION.
I DO THINK THAT IS, I THINK THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS ARE HELPFUL.
BUT BECAUSE THAT IS A SCHOOL SITE ADJACENT TO THAT SITE THE ABILITY OF THOSE TREES TO SLOW TRAFFIC DOWN AND CREATE A SLOWER, NARROWER STREET IS, I THINK, A VERY IMPORTANT SAFETY CONCERN THAT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED.
AND I FEEL THAT IT'S A CONCERN.
THOSE TREES ARE BEING REMOVED TO MAKE WIDER STREETS INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SCHOOL THAT'S THERE AND THE AMOUNT OF CHILDREN THAT ARE ACCESSING THAT SCHOOL AND THE FACT THAT THERE IS THAT VERY IMPACTFUL TREE LINE THAT HELPS TO MITIGATE SPEEDING TRAFFIC IN THOSE AREAS, IF WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW THOSE TREES TO REMAIN OR IF WE COULD CONDITION THOSE TREES TO REMAIN AND BUILD THE SITE AS IT IS, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SEEING.
I ALSO AM CONCERNED THAT THE BIO RETENTION BASINS AFTER MR. GELDERT'S CONVERSATION, AND YOU HAVE TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. MR. GELHERT ARE THEY NECESSARY TO [INAUDIBLE] WOULD THEY BE NECESSARY IF THE SITE ISN'T ELEVATED TO THE GRADE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED? YES, THEY ARE REQUIRED.
THEY NEED TO MITIGATE THE WATER OR WOULD PUMPS SUFFICE,
[00:50:05]
TO BE ABLE TO MITIGATE THE WATER AND NOT HAVE TO HAVE THE RETENTION BASINS? THE RETENTION BASINS ARE REQUIRED FOR WATER QUALITY AND FOR FLOW CONTROL.DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO? YES, THEY WERE DESIGNED FOR THE SITE.
THEY'RE BASED ON CALCULATIONS FOR--I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT COULD IT HAVE BEEN DESIGNED WITH JUST A SINGLE BASIN? POSSIBLY, YEAH, WITH THE BASIN BEING VERY LARGE AND PROBABLY A LITTLE CUMBERSOME.
AND THE IDEA IS TO GET, IT MAY BE KIND OF DIFFICULT TO GET ALL THE WATER TO GO TO ONE POINT ON THE SITE.
ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME BEFORE PRESENTATION? OK, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A--COMMISSIONER LUNA? YOU'RE MUTED.
JASON, JUST REAL QUICKLY, IF YOU WERE TO GO WITH A SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE, WHERE WOULD THE FLOWS GO TO? IS THERE A CHANNEL NEARBY? IS THERE, OR YOU WOULD NEED PUMP STATIONS TO MOVE IT UP AND OVER TO THE NEXT RECEIVING AREA? WELL, IF WE'RE TO BE ABLE TO PROBABLY PIPE THE STORM WATER THROUGH ANOTHER PROPERTY, I THINK [INAUDIBLE] HAS A FACILITY THAT WE COULD CONNECT TO POSSIBLY.
AND WE JUST HAVEN'T EXPLORED THAT COMPLETELY.
BUT THERE ARE SOME FACILITIES [INAUDIBLE].
AS FAR AS USING PUMPS, THE WATER WOULD STILL PROBABLY NEED WE WOULD USE PUMPS, BUT TO PULL IT OUT OF THE BASINS, UP TO THE SURFACE, BUT THEN I THINK THE FLOW, THE FLOW WOULD STILL NEED TO GO TO THE REAR YARD AND NOT UP TO ADAMS STREET, BECAUSE THERE'S NO FACILITIES UP THERE, REALLY.
AND THERE'S NO CROSS-LOT DRAINAGE, RIGHT, FROM THE--THERE IS CROSS-LOT DRAINAGE CURRENTLY, AND THERE IS PROPOSED TO BE, CORRECT.
OKAY, SO THEY'RE RECEIVING THOSE FLOWS AND THEN CONVEYING THOSE OUT.
APPLICANT, DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR US THIS EVENING? YES, MY NAME IS TOM ST.
CLAIR, I'M THE PRINCIPAL AT RINCON HOMES.
FIRST OFF, I'D LIKE TO THANK EXCUSE ME, COULD YOU PROVIDE YOUR ADDRESS FOR US, PLEASE? 5315 AVENIDA ENCINAS IN CARLSBAD.
I'D LIKE TO THANK STAFF FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS PROJECT, SPECIFICALLY JESSICA EVANS.
AND THANK YOU ALL FOR REVIEWING THE MATERIALS AND TAKING YOUR TIME TO DISCUSS IT TODAY.
I THINK STAFF, JESSICA, DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT.
WE WERE FACED WITH SOME CHALLENGES WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE, AS MANY OF YOU WHO WALKED THE SITE PROBABLY SAW.
WE TOOK A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF INPUT FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND STAFF WHEN WE DESIGNED THE PROJECT.
WE WENT THROUGH MANY DIFFERENT ITERATIONS TO GET TO THIS FINAL DESIGN AND SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE PAD ELEVATIONS PUMPING WATER AND SEWER, YOU KNOW, WE RECEIVED FEEDBACK FROM STAFF TO NOT DO THAT, AND QUITE HONESTLY, WE DON'T LIKE TO PUMP SEWER; WE DON'T LIKE TO PUMP WATER.
IT CAN CAUSE BIG PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE IF A PUMP FAILS DURING A BIG STORM.
SO WE SET THE BNP AT THE LOWEST POINT POSSIBLE WHERE WE COULD POSITION IT TO NOT HAVE TO PUMP WATER.
AND BUT WE DID TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES WITH THIS SITE, WITH OUR NEIGHBORS AND THE WALL HEIGHTS BY ELEVATING OUR PATHS.
AND WE INTRODUCED TWO TO ONE SLOPING ON THE SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY, WHICH WHERE WE LOST SOME OF OUR USABLE PAD.
AND SO WE WERE LOSING FOUR OR FIVE FEET, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO REDUCE OUR WALL HEIGHTS BY ABOUT TWO FEET.
AND THE BACK HALF, WHICH NEIGHBORS, ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WE WERE COMMUNICATING WITH, THERE'S NO WALL ON THE SIDE YARD, BUT THE WAY WE'RE DOING THAT IS A TWO TO ONE SLOPE.
IN REFERENCE TO THE TREES AND THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, I'VE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE SCHOOL AND THE PRINCIPAL AT
[00:55:01]
THE SCHOOL AND DEVELOPING THE TRAFFIC PLAN FOR WHEN WE ARE IN CONSTRUCTION.BUT THE REALITY IS THAT STREET, ADAMS, DOES HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN THE MORNING, IN THE AFTERNOON FOR DROP OFF AND PICK UP, HOWEVER, THE CARS ARE MOVING VERY SLOWLY THROUGH THERE; THEY'RE BACKED UP, AND PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH THEM BEING BACKED UP IS BECAUSE OUR STREET IS NOT IMPROVED AND IT'S VERY NARROW THERE.
SO, IT'S ACTUALLY CAUSING TRAFFIC.
AND ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET ACTUALLY COMMENTED THAT THEY APPROVE THE PROJECT.
THEY WANT IT TO GET APPROVED BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SEE THIS IMPROVE SO THAT THEY CAN GET CARS THROUGH THERE A LITTLE BIT MORE QUICKLY.
I DON'T THINK THE PROBLEM IS THE CARS ARE MOVING FAST.
I THINK THE PROBLEM IS THE CARS ARE JUST STOPPED DURING DROP OFF AND PICK UP.
ADDITIONALLY, THE KIDS ARE ACTUALLY THEY'RE GOING PAST OUR SITE DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
THEY'RE TURNING THROUGH PARKING LOT AND ZIGZAGGING THROUGH A PARKING LOT ALMOST ALL THE WAY TO PIO PICO, WHERE THEY'RE BEING DROPPED OFF.
SO I TOTALLY HERE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM FROM THAT CONCERN.
BUT I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S GOING TO HELP BY REMOVING THE TREES.
BUT I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY OF THE OTHER ISSUES AND I COULD RESPOND TO ANY COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS OR STAFF.
SO DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION OR JUST HERE FOR ANSWERING QUESTIONS, SIR? JUST ANSWERING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.
THANK YOU, YEAH, I APPRECIATE IT.
COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER MERZ.
THANKS, IF YOU COULD MAYBE ADDRESS SOME, BUT MOST DETAILED COMMENT LETTER, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU RESPOND TO EMAILS FROM JOHN [INAUDIBLE] AT 107 MAGNOLIA.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ALREADY RESPONDED VIA EMAIL, BUT HE WAS SORT OF DETAILED IN SOME KIND OF IN APPEAR TO BE SOME ENGINEERING ASSESSMENTS.
LOOKS LIKE YOU TOUCHED ON THIS A LITTLE BIT.
WOULD YOU MIND JUST MAYBE SUMMARIZING SOME OF THOSE THINGS IN YOUR RESPONSE TO HIM.
DO YOU KNOW THE LETTER I'M TALKING ABOUT? THAT'S TO THE APPLICANT.
YES, I'M AWARE OF IT, SORRY, I WAS UNMUTING MYSELF.
YEAH, MAYBE IF YOU COULD SUMMARIZE THAT A LITTLE BIT, BUT HE HAD THREE POINTS THERE.
THE SEWAGE STORM WATER IN THE DRAINAGE; HE WAS PRETTY DETAILED.
MAYBE SUMMARIZE IN YOUR RESPONSE.
WELL, YOU KNOW, IN REGARDS TO THE DRAINAGES CALCULATIONS, WE STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH JOHN [INAUDIBLE], OUR PLAN IS 100 PERCENT CONSISTENT WITH THE HYDROLOGY DESIGN MANUAL ON THE CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARDS.
IT'S BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY STAFF.
CURRENTLY, THE WATER DRAINS TO THE WEST.
THE BNP IS DESIGNED TO RETAIN RELEASE THE WATER NO FASTER THAN THE CURRENT CONDITION THE WATER DRAINS OFF THE SITE TODAY.
KIND OF ENSURE THE DRAINAGE WILL NOT BE WORSE BECAUSE WE'RE DEVELOPING THIS SITE.
OUR DESIGN DOESN'T FALL APART IF THE [INAUDIBLE] POLES THAT HE'S DISCUSSING ARE BIG ENOUGH.
ONCE THE WATER LEAVES, OUR PROPERTY WILL DO THE SAME THING IT WAS DOING BEFORE.
SO, I KNOW I READ THAT LETTER, BUT I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH HOW HE IS ASSESSING THE DRAINAGE.
ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF, AND WE HAVE DESIGNED THIS FROM A STORM WATER PERSPECTIVE TO GET OUR SITE IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AS LOW AS WE POSSIBLY CAN WITHOUT PUMPING WATER AND THEN SEWER, THAT'S THE MOST CONSTRICTING.
THE NEXT IS SEWER, WHICH IS ABOUT SIX INCHES BELOW THAT.
BUT SEWER'S ABOUT 14 FEET BELOW THE STREET AT ADAMS. AND WE NEED TO PROPERLY DRAIN TO THAT.
AND SO WE NEED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF GRAVITY FOR IT TO GET THAT WITHOUT PUMPING IT.
WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN TO APPEASE THE NEIGHBORS.
SPECIFICALLY IN HIS SITUATION, THERE'S NO WALL ON HIS SIDE.
WE HAVE TWO TO ONE SLOPED ALL THE WAY DOWN.
WE HAVE SET BACK OUR HOME 16 FEET OFF HIS PROPERTY LINE.
WE HAD THE ABILITY TO PUT IN ADU FOUR FEET FROM HIS PROPERTY, WHICH WE CHOSE TO PUT ON THE OTHER SIDE.
I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE WORKED DILIGENTLY TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS SITE, EVERYBODY'S HAPPY WITH IT.
YOU COMMENTARY IS VERY HELPFUL.
COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I DO NOT.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? CLEARLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ISN'T AS HAPPY AS YOU THINK IT IS, BECAUSE WE HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF LETTERS.
THE DRAINAGE, YOU'RE SAYING WILL NOT BE WORSE.
WE'RE TRYING TO YOU KNOW, EVERY DEVELOPMENT WE DO, WE WANT TO HAVE AN IMPROVEMENT
[01:00:04]
MADE.AND YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT GOING TO BE WORSE.
IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME AS BEFORE.
AND YET ALL THE SURROUNDING HOUSES DON'T NEED PUMPS.
THEY DON'T NEED ANYTHING ELSE TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THE SEWER.
BUT THIS HAS TO BE ELEVATED FIVE TO SIX FEET TO BE ABLE TO DO SO.
SO I THINK THAT IT'S A DESIGN ISSUE.
IT'S A MINIMUM STANDARD CONCERN THAT WE HAVE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
AND I THINK THAT WE'RE REALLY CHALLENGED WITH APPEASING.
I THINK WE DON'T WANT TO JUST APPEASE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE.
SO TELL US WHAT YOU'RE DOING THAT WILL HELP US MOVE BEYOND THIS, TO BE ABLE TO HELP US TO APPROVE MAKE THE NEIGHBORS SATISFIED WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING, BUT ALSO GO BEYOND APPEASEMENT OR MINIMUM STANDARDS.
WHAT ARE WE DOING? YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN.
I THINK WITH OUR NEIGHBORS, I THINK IT'S UNDERSTANDING THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE FOR THEM AND UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING WE POSSIBLY CAN.
BUT STILL BUILD FOUR HOMES ON THIS SITE WITH ADUS.
AND PART OF THAT WHEN IT COMES TO DRAINAGE IS OUR SITE IS VERY CONSTRICTING.
SO WE HAVE TO RAISE OUR PAD ELEVATIONS TO MOVE THAT WATER AND SHED THAT WATER IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
AND WHEN I SAY IT'S NOT GOING TO BE WORSE, I'M NOT MEANING THAT THERE IS A TERRIBLE SITUATION OUT THERE AND WE'RE GOING TO KEEP IT TERRIBLE.
I MEAN, WE'RE ADHERING TO ALL THE STANDARDS THAT ARE SET FORTH FROM THE CITY, FROM THE COUNTY, AND I THINK, LIKE I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, SOME OF THE CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT WE COULD ADDRESS AND THAT WE DID HAVE A MATERIAL IMPACT, THAT WE COULD CHANGE OUR SITE THAT WERE DETRIMENTAL TO US WITHOUT COMPLETELY CONSTRICTING WHAT WE COULD DO THERE WE DID.
SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE BNP AND SETTING OUR PAD ELEVATIONS, WE'RE VERY LIMITED IN SCOPE OF WHAT WE COULD DO.
BUT WHERE WE WEREN'T LIMITED WAS THE WALL HEIGHTS ON THE SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY.
AND THAT WAS A CONCERN FROM SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS, TOO.
AND WE TWO TO ONE SLOPED THAT AND THAT'S ELIMINATING USABLE YARD FOR US, BUT IT'S TRYING TO CREATE SOME TYPE OF MIDDLE GROUND WHERE WE CAN AT LEAST APPEASE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE.
YEAH, I GUESS I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE UNDERSTOOD AN IMPROVED SITUATION HERE, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THIS IS 12 UNITS AS OPPOSED TO THE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS THAT ARE SURROUNDING YOU.
SO, I REALLY AM CONCERNED THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS CORRECT IN BEING CONCERNED.
AND I THINK THAT WE'RE NOT EXCEEDING WE'RE NOT CREATING A BETTER SOLUTION.
YOU KNOW, AND I GUESS MY BIGGEST QUESTION IS, WHERE'S THE TRASH CANS IN ALL THIS? HOW ARE WE GOING TO ACTUALLY LIKE KEEP TRASH FROM BEING, YOU KNOW, THE TRASH CANS BEING THE CENTER FOCUS OF ALL OF THIS? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS LIKE TAKING AWAY THE NEIGHBORHOOD TREES, TAKING AWAY A DRAINAGE OPPORTUNITY THAT IS NOT GETTING THAT MUCH BETTER AND CEMENTING THE WHOLE SITE IS BECOMING PROBLEMATIC AND THE NEIGHBORS ARE SEEING IT.
YOU KNOW, SO I'M VERY CONCERNED WE'RE NOT DOING BETTER WITH THIS PROJECT.
AND I'M CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T EVEN THINK THERE'S A TRASH CAN TRUCK STRATEGY FOR THIS RIGHT NOW.
I DON'T SEE ANY KIND OF ROOF EQUIPMENT SCREENING AND I DON'T SEE ANY KIND OF RAIN GUTTERS THAT ARE ALSO IN THE CONDITIONS.
SO I'M CONCERNED THAT THE DRAWINGS ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE THIS IN THIS STATE RIGHT NOW.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OK, WE'LL MOVE ON.
OK, WE'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
SEE, I NORMALLY ONLY COMMENT ON LARGER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BIGGER IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC.
HOWEVER, THE INCREASING FREQUENCY OF CONVERSIONS OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND THE PROLIFERATION OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS,
[01:05:05]
ADUS ARE CONCERNED.THE CURRENT PROJECT PROPOSES FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, EACH WITH BOTH A DETACHED, ADU AND ATTACHED JUNIOR ADU FOR A TOTAL OF 12 DWELLING UNITS.
I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS, BUT I FEEL THEY NEED TO MITIGATE THEIR TRAFFIC AND PARKING IMPACTS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.
TREATED INDIVIDUALLY, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE A LARGE IMPACT, BUT THERE WILL BE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AS MORE AND MORE OF THEM ARE COMPLETED.
CARLSBAD'S TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM WILL BE UNDERGOING REVIEW TO POTENTIALLY ADD PROJECTS INTENDED TO REDUCE VEHICLE USAGE AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED TO MITIGATE THESE TYPES OF IMPACTS.
ALTHOUGH THE FUTURE RESIDENTS OF THE EIGHT ADUS LIKELY WILL USE ADDITIONAL VEHICLES INDEPENDENT OF THOSE IN THE FOUR MAIN DWELLING UNITS, STATE REGULATIONS 65852.2F3A PREVENT TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES FROM BEING CHARGED FOR ADUS LESS THAN 750 SQUARE FEET IN AREA.
HOWEVER, A RELATED STATE REGULATION 65852.2A1A ALLOWS CITIES TO DESIGNATE AREAS WHERE ADUS MAY BE PERMITTED BASED ON THE ADEQUACY OF TRAFFIC FLOW AND PUBLIC SAFETY.
I ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TO EXPLORE THE ABILITY BY ORDINANCE TO RESTRICT ADUS IN AREAS WHERE THEY WILL ADD TRAFFIC TO EXTREMELY CONGESTED STREET FACILITIES, SUCH AS THOSE THAT ARE [INAUDIBLE] THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM [INAUDIBLE] PERFORMANCE STANDARD.
AND TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER LOT DIVISIONS.
A DISCLAIMER, I AM A MEMBER OF THE TRAFFIC AND MOBILITY COMMISSION, BUT BECAUSE STAFF HAS CHOSEN NOT TO INCLUDE OUR COMMISSION IN THE REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, I AM COMMENTING AS AN INDIVIDUAL.
BEST REGARDS SUBMITTED BY STEVE LINKY.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 3764 ADAMS STREET, AND WOULD LIKE TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED.
THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED ARTIFICIALLY ELEVATES THE BUILDING PADS BY IMPORTING SOIL AND CREATING BUILDING PADS THAT ARE WELL ABOVE THE EXISTING AND ADJACENT GRADES.
EVERY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FOR PROPERTIES ACCESSING ADAM STREET FROM THE WEST BETWEEN TAMARACK AND PALM AVENUE IS LOWER THAN ADAM STREET.
PHOTOGRAPHS OF EACH OF THESE PROPERTIES IS INCLUDED AS AN ATTACHMENT FOR REFERENCE.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHOULD BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD, AND THE PROJECT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SEE THE BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BASED SOLELY ON A DISCRETIONARY ACTION.
THE DEVELOPMENT, AS PROPOSED, IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED AS DESIGNED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THERE ARE PICTURES ATTACHED THAT WERE PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION AND WILL BE PART OF THE FILE AFTER THE MEETING.
I LIVE IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 3745 ADAM STREET, AND I'M WRITING TO REQUEST YOU DENY THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 20200043 AS IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE PROPOSED PLAN DOES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE.
THE THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING A TWO TO THREE FOOT HIGH RETAINING WALL ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN MY HOUSE AND THE DEVELOPMENT, CREATING A BUILDING PAD THAT IS UP TO EIGHT FEET HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING GRID OF THE SITE, AS SHOWN ON SECTION A-8 ON SHEET FOR THE GRADING PLAN AND IS NOTED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS SIX FOOT MAX HEIGHT WALL FENCE.
THE WALL WILL HAVE A PROPERTY LINE FENCE THAT IS THREE TO FOUR FEET HIGH ABOVE THE WALL.
THIS MEANS THAT ANYBODY WALKING ALONG THE PROPERTY OR LOOKING NORTH FROM THE SECOND STORY OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL HAVE A FREE AND UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW IN MY BACKYARD AND INTO THE BEDROOMS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF MY HOUSE.
THE DEVELOPER SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LOWER THE PROPOSED BUILDING PADS AND HEIGHTS OF THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS, MAKING THE DEVELOPMENT MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES VEHICLE HEADLIGHTS TO BE BETWEEN TWO AND FOUR AND A HALF FEET ABOVE THE GROUND ELEVATION WITH ONLY A THREE TO FOUR FOOT HIGH PROPERTY LINE FENCE.
HEADLIGHTS FROM VEHICLES PULLING INTO THE MOST NORTHERLY PARKING SPOT WILL SHINE DIRECTLY INTO THE ROOMS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MY HOUSE.
IN ADDITION, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALLOWS THE ROOF ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING PROPOSED TO THE SOUTH OF MY HOUSE TO BE FIVE FEET HIGHER, THAT IS ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLINED ZONE, IT WILL DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SUNLIGHT REACHING MY PROPERTY EXISTING ELEVATION EIGHTY FOUR PROPOSED PAD ELEVATION, NINETY POINT SEVEN PROPOSED TOP OF THE ROOF ELEVATION, ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN POINT NINE.
OUR PROPERTY WILL BE SHADED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TREMENDOUSLY AND AS CALCULATED BELOW [INAUDIBLE] THE ROOF ELEVATION TO BE FIVE FEET ABOVE WHAT IS ALLOWED BY CODE WILL INCREASE THE TIME MY HOME IS IN THE SHADOW OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE BY 34 ADDITIONAL MINUTES.
I HAVE LIVED, RAISED MY FAMILY AND PERIODICALLY OPERATED A SUCCESSFUL HOME DAYCARE CENTER FOR MY HOME ON ADAMS FOR ALMOST TWENTY SEVEN YEARS.
[01:10:02]
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL INFRINGE ON MY FAMILY'S PRIVACY AND CREATE A SITUATION WHERE THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS EXCEED THOSE ALLOWED IN THE R-1 ZONE.PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THE REQUESTED PERMIT SUBMITTED BY [INAUDIBLE].
THERE'S AN ATTACHED PHOTO THAT WAS PROVIDED AS WELL.
WE, THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF 1095 MAGNOLIA AVENUE, LIVE JUST NORTH OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THREE SEVEN FOUR FIVE ADAMS AVENUE.
WE ARE WRITING TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO NEITHER PROPOSE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 20200043.
AS CURRENTLY DESIGNED, THIS PROJECT PROPOSES TO IMPORT ALMOST 6000 CUBIC YARDS OF DIRT IN ORDER TO CREATE A BUILDING PAD ELEVATIONS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING LAND, CREATING ELEVATED BUILDING PADS WITH RETAINING WALLS AND IMPORTED DIRT THAN BUILDING TWO STOREY HOMES ON THOSE PADS IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS PROPOSED, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL INFRINGE ON THE PRIVACY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND CREATE A SITUATION WHERE THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS EXCEED THOSE NORMALLY ALLOWED IN THE R1 ZONE.
THE DEVELOPERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LOWER THE PROPOSED BUILDING PADS AND HEIGHTS OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING SO THE PROJECT DOESN'T INVADE THE ADJACENT RESIDENCE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
CURRENTLY THE GROUND ELEVATION AND THE MATURE ESTABLISHED VEGETATION ON THE 3745 ADAM STREET PROPERTY OR SUCH THAT OUR BACKYARD IS VISIBLE FROM ANY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD CREATE A SITUATION THAT WHERE FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THE JUNIOR ADU COULD SIT ON THEIR DECK AND STARE DIRECTLY INTO OUR BACKYARD IN BEDROOMS. WE HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN OUR CLOSED BACKYARD.
AND THE PROJECT, AS DESIGNED, IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THE REQUESTED PERMIT.
RESPECTFULLY, GEORGE M, AND GINA SORVINO.
I'M WRITING TO REQUEST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENY THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION CDP 20200043, AND/OR A CONDITION TO THE RESOLUTION LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS TO 30 FEET ABOVE EXISTING GRADE, WHICH WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED FOR ANY NONDISCRETIONARY BUILDING PERMIT.
THE STAFF REPORT STATES FIVE AND A HALF TO SIX AND A HALF FEET OF FIELD WILL BE REQUIRED TO RAISE THE PAD ELEVATION TO INSTALL UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES.
THE STATEMENT IS UNTRUE AND MISLEADING.
THE SITE COULD EASILY BE REDESIGNED IN A MANNER WHERE THE NEED FOR FILL IS LIMITED AND THE PROJECT IS MORE CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
THE DEVELOPER HAS STATED THE ELEVATED PADS ARE NEEDED IN ORDER TO ADEQUATELY DISPOSE OF SEWAGE AND TO COMPLY WITH STORMWATER REGULATIONS.
THE UTILITY AND DRAINAGE CONSTRAINTS ARE A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN, WHICH CREATES HORIZON OCEAN VIEWS AND MAXIMIZES THE SIZE OF THE PLAT YARDS AND NUMBER OF STRUCTURES PROPOSED.
SEWAGE, THE ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING SEWER MAIN IN ADAM STREET IS AT AN ELEVATION OF APPROXIMATELY SEVENTY SEVEN POINT THREE FEET, APPROXIMATELY 14 FEET BELOW THE GRADE OF THE ROAD.
AS NOTED IN MY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE TO THE DEVELOPER, THIS DEPTH WOULD ALLOW FOR A GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM TO ADEQUATELY SERVE HOMES ON PADS THAT WERE MUCH CLOSER TO EXISTING ELEVATIONS.
IF THIS DEPTH WASN'T SUFFICIENT, THE DEVELOPERS SHOULD REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL, ALLOWING SEWER LATERALS TO HAVE A SLOPE OF ONE PERCENT AS PERMITTED BY THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE.
THE DEVELOPER ASKED IF THE CITY WOULD PERMIT INDIVIDUAL SEWER PUMPS AS PART OF THE PROJECT'S PRELIMINARY REVIEW APPLICATION, INDICATING THEY WERE NOT OPPOSED TO INSTALLING PUMPS IF NEEDED WHEN IT WAS APPROVED.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FOR THE TAMARACK FIVE SUBDIVISION STATED THAT THE PROJECT ALSO REQUIRES PRIVATE SEWER PUMPS IN LIEU OF A GRAVITY SEWER.
GRAVITY SEWERS WOULD HAVE NECESSITATED RAISING THE SOUTHERN PAD ELEVATION SIX FEET ABOVE EXISTING GRADE, WHICH WOULD HAVE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
AS DESIGNED, THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED AFTER REDESIGNING THE PROJECT, IT IS DETERMINED INDIVIDUAL SEWER PUMPS ARE NECESSARY FOR SOME OF THE BUILDINGS, THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE PERMITTED TO INSTALL PUMPS.
AS WITH THE TAMARACK FIVE SUBDIVISION PUMPS ARE COMMONLY USED WHEN SEWAGE CANNOT BE DISCHARGED VIA A GRAVITY SYSTEM.
STORMWATER, IN-LIEU OF INSTALLING A GRAVITY OUTLET PUMP FROM THE BIO FILTRATION BASIN, THE DEVELOPER COULD INSTALL AN INDIVIDUAL PUMP TO DISCHARGE RUNOFF PACKAGE PUMP STATIONS OR AN EFFICIENT AND ECONOMIC WAY OF INSTALLING DRAINAGE SYSTEMS WHERE DRAINAGE BY GRAVITY IS NOT POSSIBLE AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERING THE EXISTING RATES OF THE PROPERTY'S STORMWATER SYSTEM SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY REDESIGNING THE PROJECT.
FOR EXAMPLE, SMALLER INDIVIDUAL BASINS WITHIN HOA MAINTAIN AREAS COULD BE CREATED AND STRATEGICALLY DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.
THIS MIGHT RESULT IN THE LOSS OF ONE OF THE ADUS OR SOME OF THE PROPOSED PLAT
[01:15:05]
YARD AREAS.HOWEVER, CONSIDER THAT THE PROJECT, AS PROPOSED, EXCEEDS THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY OF THE GENERAL PLANNED LAND-USE DESIGNATION.
AND AS DESIGNED, IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE AND DOES NOT INTEGRATE WITH EXISTING USES.
ANOTHER SOLUTION FOR DISCHARGING STORMWATER COULD BE SECURING AN EASEMENT FROM AN ADJACENT OR DOWNSTREAM PROPERTY OWNER.
AND SPEAKING WITH NEIGHBORS NORTH AND WEST OF THE PROJECTS, THE DEVELOPER MADE NO ATTEMPT TO LOOK AT THIS ALTERNATIVE DESIGN SOLUTION.
THERE IS NO NEED TO CREATE LARGE, ELEVATED, FLAT BUILDING PADS TO MITIGATE STORMWATER RUNOFF OR TO COMPLY WITH STORMWATER REGULATIONS.
SUBMITTED BY JOHN [INAUDIBLE].
THAT IS ALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY COMMENTS AT ALL IN REGARD TO THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT WAS GIVEN? TOM? YES.
AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO KIND OF HIT HOME, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND FOR THE NEIGHBORS AROUND WHY OUR PAD ELEVATIONS ARE WHERE THEY'RE AT, AND WE HAVE BEEN DICTATED BY STAFF THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO INSTALL PUMPS, NOR DO WE.
BUT FOR THE BNP OR THE SEWER OUR PAD ELEVATIONS FOR WESTERLY HOMES ARE AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE POINT THAT WE CAN PUT THEM IN ORDER FOR OUR WATER TO FLOW CORRECTLY AND OUR SEWER TO FLOW WITHOUT INSTALLING A PUMP.
AND I THINK IF STAFF WANTS TO.
JUMP IN AND KIND OF VALIDATE WHAT I'M SAYING, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE VERY HELPFUL FOR THIS .
IN PARTICULAR ON SOME COMMENTS RELATED TO PRIVACY, OUR HOMES, WE HAVE VERY MINIMAL WINDOWS ON OUR HOMES FACING NORTH AND SOUTH.
SO OUR HOMES ARE ORIENTED TO FLOW EASTERLY AND WESTERLY.
SO I THINK THIS WILL HELP ALLEVIATE ANY PRIVACY CONCERNS WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
ADDITIONALLY, IN REGARDS TO PARKING OR ADUS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP, WE KNOW THAT THE STATE'S IN A HOUSING SHORTAGE AND THE ADUS KIND OF OFFER AN AFFORDABLE LIVING TO CARLSBAD.
HOWEVER, EVEN WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE SELLING THESE HOMES.
WE ARE NOT HOLDING THESE AND RENTING OUT THESE HOMES, SO WE ARE GOING TO BE SELLING THEM TO AN END USER, AND ULTIMATELY WHAT THEY END UP DOING WITH THEM IS THEIR CHOICE, AND THEY DO HAVE THE OPTION TO NOT RENT THEM OUT.
HOWEVER, IF THEY DO, WE HAVE ADEQUATELY PARKED THEM AND PROVIDED PLENTY OF PARKING SPACES ON SITE.
SO WE HAVE WORKED WITH, I JUST THINK OVERALL FOR THIS SITE, WE HAVE WORK WITH STAFF AND WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO DO THE BEST JOB WE POSSIBLY CAN TO ALLEVIATE THE CONCERNS WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE SITE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
DOES STAFF HAVE ANY COMMENTS AT ALL IN REGARDS TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY? NO, I THINK WE COVERED EVERYTHING.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, WE DON'T DICTATE THE PUMPS; WE HIGHLY ENCOURAGE NOT USING PUMPS.
MR. KEMP IS TRYING TO--COUNCILOR KEMP, PLEASE.
[INAUDIBLE] BEEN TRYING TO [INAUDIBLE].
MR. KEMP I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT ADUS IN THE HEARING TONIGHT, AND THE IDEAS ARE NOT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THAT'S A MINISTERIAL PROCESS THAT WILL HAPPEN SUBSEQUENTLY TO THIS.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SITE, LOOK AT IT AS IF YOU'RE APPROVING FOUR HOMES ON FOUR PARCELS THAT ARE GOING TO BE CREATED BY THE PARCEL MAP AND DON'T CONSIDER THE ADUS FOR PARKING PURPOSES OR SOMETHING ELSE, BECAUSE THAT ISN'T WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
JUST FOCUS ON THE FOUR HOUSES THAT ARE IN FRONT OF YOU.
AND THE THINGS THAT ARE WITHIN THE PERMIT.
MR. GELDERT, DID YOU WANT TO FINISH? YES, SO AS AN ENGINEERING PRACTICE, YOU TRY TO ELIMINATE AS MUCH
[01:20:05]
MAINTENANCE AS POSSIBLE.PUMPS TAKE A LOT OF MAINTENANCE AND THEY CAN FAIL.
IN THIS CASE, IF YOU REPLACE THE GRAVITY SYSTEM WITH A PUMP FOR THE STORMWATER, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GAIN A COUPLE OF FEET BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE THE SEWER GRAVITY FLOW AND THAT SEWER, WE WOULD OBJECT TWO SEWER PUMPS, INDIVIDUALS OR PUMPS, BECAUSE A FAILURE ON THAT WOULD BE PRETTY CATASTROPHIC FOR THE HOUSE.
AND THERE'S ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT CAN GO WRONG.
BUT IF WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY NOT TO USE THEM, YOU SHOULD TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY, I WAS WAITING FOR COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION, SO PASS OVER.
ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSION DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME NOW.
I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE COMPARTMENTALIZE THESE THINGS AND EVEN THOUGH SHOWN ON THE SITE WHEN IT'S NOT WITH THEM, OUR LANE IS A COMMISSION.
AND NOW THAT WE'RE IN A DISTRICT SITUATION WITH OUR COUNCIL, I LIKE TO PAY ATTENTION SINCE I'M AN AT-LARGE APPOINTEE, AS ARE TWO OF MY OTHER COLLEAGUES, TWO OF THE SPECIFIC COMMISSIONERS FROM THAT DISTRICT, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY'S DISTRICT.
AND SHE SEEMS TO EXPRESS A NUMBER OF CONCERN, PROBABLY MAYBE WITH RESPECT TO TRAFFIC CALMING, WITH RESPECT TO THE ELEVATION, WITH RESPECT TO THE MAINTENANCE [INAUDIBLE].
AND I'VE HEARD SOME OF SOME OF THE ANSWERS TO THAT.
HOWEVER, COUNCILOR KEMP, I'D LIKE TO DEFER TO YOU AS TO WHAT IS OUR LATITUDE WITH RESPECT TO A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH RESPECT TO THIS COMMISSION.
AND THIS DOES SEAT WITH US UNLESS IT'S APPEALED TO THE COUNCIL.
YEAH, YOU'RE THE FINAL APPROVAL FOR ALL THE PERMITS ON HERE IN THE SUBDIVISION MAP, SO IT'S NOT JUST A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, BUT WHILE I HAVE THE FLOOR, I GUESS I WANT IT TO POTENTIALLY ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC ISSUE, BECAUSE WE REALLY HAVEN'T HAD ANY EXPERT TESTIMONY AS TO WHETHER THE TREES ARE A TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICE.
I NOTICED ON CONDITION FORTY FIVE, THE PROJECT IS CONDITIONED TO PUT SIDEWALKS IN WHERE THERE WERE NO SIDEWALKS BEFORE.
SO WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY TESTIMONY AS TO WHETHER THAT WILL CREATE IT TO BE SAFER OR NOT.
SO I JUST WOULD CAUTION FOLKS TO RELY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEFORE YOU AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING YOU MIGHT THINK OF ON YOUR OWN.
BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I HAVE NOT HEARD TESTIMONY FROM EITHER AN OPPONENT OR A PROPONENT OF THE PROJECT AS TO THE EFFECT OF, SAY, THE PALM TREES ON TRAFFIC OR SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES.
AND I WOULD POINT OUT, IF YOU HAVE SEEN AN OVERHEAD MAP, THIS IS AN AREA WHERE THERE ARE SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND SIDEWALKS IN THE OTHER.
AND THIS WOULD ACTUALLY PUT A CONTIGUOUS SIDEWALK ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET.
AND I JUST POINT THAT OUT IS JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT AS FAR AS THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT GOES AND THE PARAMETERS OF THAT.
IF YOU FIND THAT THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH ALL THE APPLICABLE OBJECTIVE GENERAL PLANNED ZONING AND SUBDIVISION STANDARDS OR CRITERIA, INCLUDING THE DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE, YOU SHOULD BE APPROVING THE PROJECT.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO DISPROVE THE PROJECT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIND THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT, WHICH MEANS A SIGNIFICANT, QUANTIFIABLE, DIRECT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT BASED ON OBJECTIVES IDENTIFIED, WRITTEN PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY STANDARDS OR CONDITIONS AS THEY EXISTED ON THE DATE.
THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE.
AND THAT THERE IS NO FEASIBLE METHOD TO SATISFACTORILY, SATISFACTORILY MITIGATE OR AVOID THE ADVERSE IMPACT IMPLIED PURSUANT TO THE PRIOR PARAGRAPH.
SO IF YOU DO VOTE TO DENY THE PROJECT, YOU'LL HAVE TO FIND AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPLYING WITH.
SO MR. KEMP, ONE OF THE LETTERS THAT WE RECEIVED WAS FAIRLY ELABORATE AS TO THE
[01:25:07]
DRAINAGE SYSTEM, HOWEVER, THAT PERSON WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN EXPERT IN THE AREA, TO MY KNOWLEDGE.WELL, THERE IS NOTHING BEFORE YOU THAT IS QUALIFIED HIM AS AN EXPERT; HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS A NEIGHBOR.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LUNA, AND THANK YOU, MR. KEMP, FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND LEGAL ADVICE, THAT WAS VERY APPRECIATIVE AND THANKFUL.
SO I DID MY OWN HOMEWORK ON THIS SINCE I NOTICED THAT IT WAS ABOVE THE FIRST THING I NOTICED ABOUT THIS PROJECT WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS THIRTY TWO AND A HALF FEET AND WHICH WAS, YOU KNOW, ABOVE THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF 30 FEET.
SO I LOOKED AT THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE AND IT SAYS BUILDING HEIGHT IS LIMITED TO THE VERTICAL DISTANCE MEASURED FROM EXISTING GRADE OR FINISHED GRADE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER AT ALL POINTS ALONG WITH BUILDING COVERAGE.
BUT THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY, LET ME JUST FIND IT HERE.
ALL PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING EXPOSED.
IF A DISCRETIONARY PERMIT FOR A DEVELOPMENT OR ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IS APPROVED AND SUCH APPROVAL INCLUDES A GRADING PLAN THAT SHOWS A FINISHED GRADE HIGHER IN ELEVATION THAN THE EXISTING GRADE, THEN THE BUILDING HEIGHT MAY BE MEASURED FROM THE APPROVED FINISH GRADE, MAY BE APPROVED IN APPROVING A FINISHED GRADE THROUGH A DISCRETIONARY PERMIT THAT IS HIGHER IN ELEVATION THAN THE EXISTING GRADE CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE, COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING GRADE AND ADJACENT TO SURROUNDING PROJECTS, AND THE NEED TO COMPLY WITH REQUIRED ACCESS, UTILITY AND DRAINAGE STANDARDS.
SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED, YOU KNOW, ENGINEER GELDERT ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS REALLY REQUIRED, THE BUILDING PADS TO COMPLY WITH THOSE DRAINAGE STANDARDS.
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT, THEN I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN APPROVE THE PROJECT.
BUT BASED ON HIS TESTIMONY, I BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE PUMPS ARE, YOU KNOW, ILL ADVISED AND THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE USED IN THESE, YOU KNOW, IN THESE WAYS WHEN THEY CAN BE AVOIDED AND BECAUSE THEY CAN FAIL.
I REALLY COULD GO EITHER WAY AS TO THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONS FOR EXEMPTING THIS PROJECT FROM THE, YOU KNOW, MEASURING FROM EXISTING GRADE.
WHETHER IT, YOU KNOW, TAKES INTO INTO ACCOUNT OR CONSIDERATION COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING OR SURROUNDING PROJECTS.
THAT'S A THAT'S A REALLY TOUGH CALL.
I APPRECIATE THAT THE DEVELOPERS DID THE TWO TO ONE SLOPE AND, YOU KNOW, MITIGATED THAT THE MOST THAT THEY COULD POSSIBLY DO.
IT'S TOUGH TO SAY WITHOUT SEEING IT.
SO AT THIS TIME, I COULD GO EITHER WAY.
I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND THEN MAKE A DECISION.
EXCELLENT COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT RESEARCH.
OTHER COMMISSIONERS FOR DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
YEAH, I GUESS MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TREES AND THE TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES THAT ALREADY EXIST ON THAT EXISTING SITE AND HOW A VACANT LOT IS GOING TO BE IMPROVED, AS OPPOSED TO OPEN SPACE, AS OPPOSED TO CREATING QUITE A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND NOT HAVING IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, MY CONCERN REALLY HAS A LOT TO DO WITH ON PAGE FOUR OF THE RESOLUTION NUMBER 11, THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THEY HAD MINIMAL WINDOWS TO THE SOUTH AND NORTH, SO I'M CONCERNED THAT NUMBER 11 UNDER THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP IS NOT BEING MET BECAUSE IT STATES THAT FUTURE PASSIVE OR NATURAL HEATING OR COOLING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE SUBDIVISIONS ARE DESIRED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE BREEZES.
SO WITHOUT MINIMAL WINDOWS, WE CAN'T DO THAT.
SO I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES I'M CONCERNED WITH.
THE LAND USE WAS NOT CLEARLY DEFINED OR IN A CALCULATION THAT'S UNDER NUMBER 15(A.) THE.
SIDEWALK THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER 15(C.), AND THAT'S ON PAGE FIVE OF THE RESOLUTION, IT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE EXISTING TREES.
THERE WAS NO NOISE STUDY, ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN CONDITIONED, WHICH I THINK
[01:30:05]
COULD BE APPROPRIATE.IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THE ADUS WILL ALSO HAVE FIRE SPRINKLERS.
I APPRECIATE THE STAFF'S NOTES ON THAT.
NUMBER 16 ON PAGE FIVE OF THE RESOLUTION STATES THAT.
THERE'S A COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN, AND IT ADDED TO THE QUESTION OF IS THEIR HABITAT BEING DISTURBED BECAUSE THEY ARE PAYING IN LIEU FEES FOR CERTAIN SIZABLE PORTIONS OF THE SITE.
AND IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR YEARS.
THERE IS HABITAT THAT WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE OF, AND ELEVATING THAT SITE WILL OBVIOUSLY DESTROY THAT.
SO I'M CONCERNED THAT CONDITION 16, EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEING DESIGNATED TO CREATE FEES FOR THAT, THE IMPACT IS ACTUALLY ON PAGE EIGHT, WHERE IT STATES THAT NUMBER 14 THAT IT HAS BEEN FOUND TO RESULT IN IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE OR OTHER LANDS.
SO I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY, AND YET THERE'S A LOT OF IN LIEU FEES BEING PAID AND A LOT OF CONCERN WITH BIRDS AND OTHER DISRUPTIVE VEGETATION ON THIS SITE.
SO THE BRIEF IS SAYING ONE THING, THAT IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY AND THE.
RESOLUTION IS STATING THAT THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE MITIGATED.
SO I'M CONCERNED THERE'S A CONTRADICTION THERE RIGHT NOW, AND MAYBE IT'S NOT; I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT MAINTENANCE OF THIS PARTICULAR SITE.
AND THAT GOES TO 15(C.) ON PAGE NINE.
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS THIS IS A PROPOSAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.
BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO JUDGE THIS ON FOUR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND BECAUSE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS BEING PROPOSED ALL TOGETHER, CAN A TRASH ENCLOSURE FOR THE FOUR UNITS BECOME SITUATED OR PLACED AS A CONDITION IN THIS AREA OF THE COMMON AREAS OF MAINTAINING, MAINTAINING THE SITE.
AND SO I'M LOOKING FOR A TRASH DISPOSAL COLLECTION BECAUSE FOUR HOUSES HAVE AT LEAST THREE TRASH CANS.
AND IF YOU ACTUALLY DO HAVE ACCESSORY DWELLING AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING, THAT COULD BE A WHOLE LOT.
I MEAN, NUMBER ONE, THAT'S 12 ALREADY.
AND THEN THERE'S ALL THESE OTHER TRASH CANS.
SO IS THERE A WAY THAT WE COULD CONDITION SOME TYPE OF CENTRAL SITE LOCATION FOR HOUSING OF TRASH? MAYBE IT'S JUST THREE TRASH CANS, BUT IT'S IN AN ENCLOSURE THAT ALL FOUR HOUSES USE.
IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD CONSIDER AS A CONDITION? MR. NEU, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY HAD A NUMBER OF ITEMS. HAD YOU BEEN JOTTING THOSE DOWN TO WHERE MAYBE YOU OR PLANNER EVANS MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS? YES.
I CAN ADDRESS A NUMBER OF THESE AND MRS. EVANS MAY HAVE TO HELP ME ON A FEW.
I GUESS, STARTING WITH THE LAST CONCERN FIRST ON THE TRASH ENCLOSURE, IT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA.
I UNDERSTAND THE VALUE IN THAT.
IT'S TYPICALLY THE SHARED TRASH ENCLOSURE IS SOMETHING REQUIRED WHEN YOU HAVE LIKE A RENTAL SITUATION OR A COMMERCIAL SITUATION.
SO THE CITY DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR AND I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD SEE IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO AGREE TO SUCH A REQUIREMENT.
THE OTHER THING AND I'M ASSUMING THEY COULD ACCESS IT, BUT TYPICALLY THEN IF THAT ENCLOSURE IS IN THE REAR PART OF THE PROPERTY, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE ABILITY FOR A TRASH TRUCK TO ENTER THE PROPERTY.
MANEUVER, PERHAPS, SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BACK OUT ONTO ADAMS STREET.
SO THERE MAY BE SOME LOGISTICAL ISSUES WITH THAT WOULD REALLY NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE STUDY.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE REASON.
[01:35:01]
I MEAN, WE DO SEE, YOU KNOW, ON ANY NEIGHBORHOOD, SINGLE FAMILY OR NOT, ON TRASH DAY, THE NUMBER OF CONTAINERS EVERYBODY PUTS OUT OR THE TRASH COMPANY, IT'S SOMETIMES HARD TO MANAGE, GIVEN HOW BUSY A STREET MAY BE.KIND OF GOING IN REVERSE THEN, ON THE ISSUE OF THE HMP.
AND IT IS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING.
SO IN THE CONDITIONS WHEN A PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPED, IT IS A CONDITION, AS YOU SAW ON WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDITION 15.
I THINK WE DROP THE CONDITION NUMBER THERE, BUT RIGHT AFTER NUMBER 14 TO PAY AN HMP IN-LIEU FEE BASED ON THE TYPE OF VEGETATION ON THE PROPERTY.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THE APPLICANT DID HAVE A STUDY, I THINK IT WAS FROM DUDEK AND ASSOCIATES THAT DESIGNATED THE TYPE OF HABITAT.
AND SO THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT THEN LINKS IT TO THE FEE PER THE AREA OF THE SITE IN THAT PARTICULAR HABITAT.
HOW THIS RELATES BACK TO THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN, HMP IN VERY GENERAL TERMS, DESIGNATED AREAS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND AREAS FOR PRESERVATION.
IF AN AREA WAS NOT TO BE PRESERVED AND IT WAS VACANT, THE HMP REQUIRED THAT PROPERTY PAY THE IMPACT OR THE IN-LIEU FEE TO HELP FUND THE ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL HABITAT.
AND THAT HABITAT WAS LARGELY AREAS IN WHAT WAS REFERRED TO AS THE COUNTY CORE AREA THAT WAS JUST TO THE EAST OF THE CITY, JUST EAST OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD.
SO THIS IS PART OF THE OVERALL HMP PROGRAM FROM ITS INCEPTION THAT HELPS REIMBURSE, IF YOU WILL, THE CITY FOR ACQUISITION OF HABITAT.
SO THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU MIX THAT WITH THE CEQA TERMS, IT IS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING.
BUT ON THE PROJECT SITE, WHAT WE'RE IDENTIFYING AS HABITAT IS REALLY FOR PURPOSES OF PAYING THIS IMPACT FEE, BUT NOT FOR IDENTIFYING A CEQA IMPACT.
HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS A LITTLE BIT, IF NOT I'D BE HAPPY TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS ON THAT.
I THINK THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE NOISE ISSUES.
SO AS COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY POINTED OUT, THE STANDARD IS IF THE PROJECT IS LESS THAN FOUR UNITS AND IT'S NOT A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT, THEN A NOISE STUDY IS NOT REQUIRED.
BUT THE PROJECT'S STILL REQUIRED TO MEET THE INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL OF FORTY FIVE DECIBELS.
SO THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE IN THE FINDING THAT THE PROJECT WOULD NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT MEETS THAT, SO IF IT HAS TO HAVE WINDOWS CLOSED FOR AN EXAMPLE, TO MEET THAT STANDARD, THEN THE PROJECT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE MECHANICAL VENTILATION, PERHAPS CERTAIN TYPES OF WINDOW TREATMENT AND WALL ASSEMBLIES.
IT'S NOT AN UNUSUAL THING WITH WITH THE CURRENT CONSTRUCTION METHODS THAT WOULD MEET THAT STANDARD AND THAT MANY OF THE BUILDERS ARE PROVIDING AIR CONDITIONING AS PART OF THE PROJECT.
I THINK THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT THE PASSIVE HEATING AND COOLING.
AND I THINK MR. ST. CLAIR MAY HAVE MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THE PRIMARY AREAS OF WINDOWS IN THE STRUCTURES.
AND I WANT TO SAY THAT HE MENTIONED THEY WERE, I THINK, ON THE MAIN FRONT AND THE REAR ELEVATIONS INSTEAD OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH.
IF I'M CORRECT IN THAT, THEN THAT WOULD BE SORT OF THE PREDOMINANT DIRECTIONS THAT WE ARE GETTING COASTAL BREEZES AND EVEN THE SANTA ANA CONDITIONS.
SO THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE PLACEMENT OF THE STRUCTURES THAT THE PREDOMINANT WINDOW ELEVATIONS OR ELEVATIONS CONTAINING WINDOWS WOULD BE ON THE SIDES ORIENTED TOWARDS THE DIRECTION.
SO WE TYPICALLY GET THAT BREEZE.
AND LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE I MAY HAVE MISSED HERE.
I THINK THE OTHER CONCERNS WERE REALLY AROUND THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
YOU KNOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE, THERE ARE KIND OF SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE, THEN THEY MAY SHIFT OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
SEVERAL OF THE POLICIES IN THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN MOBILITY ELEMENT ARE REALLY TRYING TO EMPHASIZE THE PROVISION OF OTHER FACILITIES IN ADDITION TO THE VEHICLE BEING ACCOMMODATED.
SO IN THIS CASE, PARTICULARLY WITH SCHOOLS IN THE AREA, IT WOULD BE A PRIORITY TO GET SIDEWALKS YOU KNOW, IN THE VICINITY.
SO ANY CHILDREN WALKING TO SCHOOL WOULD HAVE A SAFE FACILITY TO GET FROM HOME TO SCHOOL.
AND THEN I GUESS I WILL SEE IF JESSICA PICKED UP ANYTHING ELSE THAT I
[01:40:03]
OVERLOOKED THERE.COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT DON MAY HAVE MISSED? NO, I THINK THAT'S GOOD.
I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE FOR REGARDING THE SIDEWALK, COULD THE SIDEWALK BE INSIDE THE TREES AS OPPOSED TO OUTSIDE? I KNOW THAT'S NOT TYPICALLY THE WAY IT WORKS, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF VARYING SIDEWALKS IN THE VILLAGE AREA BECAUSE OF HERITAGE TREES.
AND I WONDERED IF THAT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUSH THE SIDEWALK INSIDE TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THAT TRAFFIC CALMING AREA FOR THE SCHOOL THAT HELPS SLOW THE TRAFFIC FOR THE CHILDREN WITHOUT PUTTING SPEED BUMPS, WITHOUT PUTTING, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE SPECIAL MECHANISMS THAT WE HAVE TO USE, BUT WIDENING THE STREET AND MAKING IT FASTER.
CHILDREN GETTING TO AND FROM SCHOOL, BUT SIDEWALKS DO HELP, SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THE SIDEWALK.
BUT I ALSO THINK THAT TREES ARE REALLY IMPORTANT.
AND THESE I UNDERSTAND THAT MAYBE THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT THESE TREES, BUT IT'S BEEN STATED THEY'RE HEALTHY TREES.
SO I'M CONCERNED THAT WE'RE LOSING SOMETHING THAT'S VALUABLE TO THE NEIGHBORS.
IF WE PUT THE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK INSIDE THE TREES, WE WOULD HAVE A HIGHLY DIFFICULT TRANSITION TO THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ROAD THAT ARE WIDENED, DRAINAGE WOULD BE CHALLENGING.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, I'M NOT SURE THE ROAD WOULD BE MEET OUR STANDARDS OR BE WIDE ENOUGH FOR TRAFFIC.
COMMISSIONERS, FURTHER QUESTIONS.
NO OTHER QUESTIONS WHATSOEVER.
I THINK GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS PROJECT AND THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD SO FAR, IF THE COMMISSION WOULD ENTERTAIN THE POSSIBILITY OF MAYBE GOING DOWN THE LINE AND HAVING EACH COMMISSIONER MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE WE GO AHEAD AND ASK FOR A MOTION, YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
I'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
YOU'VE HAD A NUMBER OF COMMENTS.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD IN CLOSING? YEAH, I OBVIOUSLY IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW, WE DIDN'T REALLY ASK THE OWNER IF HE WAS AMENABLE TO A CENTRAL TRASH COLLECTION SITE.
THAT WOULD BE THE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO ASK AS A CONDITION.
TOM? IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, I'D LOVE TO BE ACCOMMODATING, BUT WE HAVE A TRASH DESIGNATION IN EACH OF THE GARAGES FOR THE HOMES, SO WE DON'T REALLY FEEL LIKE IT'S NECESSARY.
WE'VE DONE THAT ON MULTIPLE SITES THAT WE BUILT WITHIN CARLSBAD, AND IT'S BEEN ACCEPTABLE.
I THINK IT'S AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION FOR THE TRASH.
SO WE'RE GOING TO RESPECTFULLY NOT AGREE WITH THAT.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, ANYTHING FURTHER FOR CLOSING COMMENTS? NOTHING FURTHER.
AND SO JUST IN TERMS OF CLOSING COMMENTS, WALKING THE SITE AND SPENDING A GOOD AMOUNT OF TIME WALKING DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SITE [INAUDIBLE] IN REVIEWING THE COMMENT LETTERS, I CERTAINLY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, ABOUT THE CONCERNS WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
I FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANT HAS ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS.
AND THAT COMBINED WITH THE COMMENTS FROM, YOU KNOW, MR. GELDERT ON THE PADS, I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH COMMISSIONER SABELLICO'S COMMENTS AND RESEARCH ON THE HEIGHT.
AND THAT WAS VERY WELL STATED [INAUDIBLE] BROUGHT UP THERE.
I THINK THE SEWER ITSELF, THE NEED FOR THE SEWER PAD OR THE PAD TO BE THE HEIGHT OF THE SEWER, I THINK I WOULD CARRY THE HEIGHTS IN MY MIND THAT WOULD ANSWER THAT.
THAT'S JUST MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION ON THAT ONE.
I THINK FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT.
THERE'S DEFINITELY SOME THINGS I LIKE ABOUT THE DESIGN.
I THINK THERE'S A NEED FOR HOUSING IN CARLSBAD.
I MEAN, I THINK, ON PERSONAL NOTE, IN THE LAST YEARS, I'VE HAD TWO CHILDREN GRADUATE FROM COLLEGE AND ONE IN COLLEGE RIGHT NOW.
AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS SITE, I LOOK AT WHAT THE NEEDS ARE IN CARLSBAD FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT.
ACTUALLY, I'M GLAD TO SEE THIS TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT OCCURRING WHERE IT PROVIDES
[01:45:03]
MORE HOUSING FOR THE RESIDENTS OF CARLSBAD.AND ON SEVERAL FRONTS, ALL OF THE ADUS ARE IN FRONT OF US.
I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY UNIQUE DESIGN IN THE WAY THEY DID THAT.
SO BASED ON, YOU KNOW, FIRST I HAD SOME QUESTIONS AFTER READING ALL THE COMMENT LETTERS, AFTER HEARING THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE, PLUS A CITY STAFF RESPONSE TO THOSE I'M SATISFIED WITH.
YOU KNOW, DEFINITELY THINGS ABOUT THIS PROJECT I DO LIKE.
FOR THOSE REASONS, I WOULD SUPPORT THE PROJECT.
WELL, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MERZ, AND I DO AGREE THAT FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO JOIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS FOR CARLSBAD RESIDENTS, AND THIS PROJECT DOES THAT.
SO, YES, THE PROJECT, YOU KNOW, EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY, BUT UTILIZES EXEMPTION IN THE GENERAL PLAN? YES, THE PROJECT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF AN EXEMPTION IN THE CITY CODE.
AND THESE EXCEPTIONS MAY BE GRANTED BY US AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE.
BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE WORKED, IN MY OPINION, VERY HARD TO MITIGATE SOME OF THESE EFFECTS WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS AND BECAUSE IT ALLOWS FOR THESE HOUSING OPTIONS THAT I REALLY WANT TO SEE IN OUR CITY.
I AM INCLINED TO MAKE THEM AND I THINK THAT THEY'VE SATISFIED WHAT THEY NEEDED TO SATISFY, IN MY OPINION, AND THAT'S OUR JOB HERE, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY FOLLOW THE RULES AND DELIVER DECISIONS CONSISTENT WITH THEM FOLLOWING THE RULES.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.
I LIKE THE LOOKS OF THIS PROJECT.
IT'S A TOUGH FIT ON THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY.
I HAVE CONCERNS THAT STILL REMAIN REGARDING THE PADS AND THE HEIGHT, DRAINAGE AND OUR EXCEPTIONS THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO CREATE.
THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS REGARDING HEIGHTS AND SOME OF THE OTHER MATTERS, WHETHER IT'LL FIT.
I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS WORK, BUT I STILL HAVE CONCERNS AT THIS POINT.
YOU KNOW, AS USUAL, I TRY TO LOOK AT THE COMMISSIONER FROM THE DISTRICT, AND I KNOW COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY HAS DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB WITH TAKING A LOOK AT THE PROJECT AND TRYING TO WEIGH THINGS AND LOOK AT OTHER SOLUTIONS.
I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION THAT ISN'T RESOLVED IN MY MIND.
SO THERE'S SPECIFIC TRASH ENCLOSURES INTERIOR TO THE PROJECT.
HOWEVER, ON TRASH DAY, THEY HAVE TO BRING THE TRASH OUTSIDE TO THE STREET.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN ANSWER FOR ME? TOM? APPLICANT? YES, THEY WOULD PULL IT UP THE STREET TO AVOID HAVING A, YOU KNOW, A TRASH TRUCK HAVING TO DRIVE DOWN THAT STREET AND TURN AROUND.
AND YOU KNOW, AS COUNCILOR KEMP AND PLANNER NEU WILL ATTEST TO, I PAY CRITICAL ATTENTION TO THE BUILDING CODES, THE LAWS, WHAT OUR PLANNING COMMISSION PURVIEW IS.
WE HAVE A LOT OF NEW COMMISSIONERS AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A WORKSHOP YET.
SO I THINK YOU'RE SORT OF FLYING ON YOUR OWN.
AND THIS DOES MEET THE STANDARDS BEFORE US AS COUNCILOR KEMP HAS SAID.
I'M A BIG PROPONENT OF SHOW ME A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT THAT CAN DISPUTE INFORMATION AND, YOU KNOW, I NEED TO EVALUATE THAT DATA THAT GOES BEFORE US, AND I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY.
I DO FEEL FOR THE NEIGHBORS, HOWEVER, BEING CHAIR OF THE HEAC SITING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS CRITICAL HERE.
THIS IS NOT THE IDEAL SITUATION.
AND AS I'VE SAID IN PREVIOUS COMMISSIONS, THE WAY THAT WE DID BUSINESS IN THE PAST IS NOT THE WAY THAT WE WILL BE DOING BUSINESS IN THE FUTURE.
SO, I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS TRIED TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY TO SATISFY THE NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS TO THE EXTENT THEY CAN WITH THE TOPOGRAPHIC RESTRICTIONS OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW, AM I 100 PERCENT HAPPY?
[01:50:02]
NO.HOWEVER, IT DOES MEET ALL OUR LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
THERE'S BEEN A GOOD FAITH EFFORT ON PART OF THE APPLICANT.
I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY'S INPUT, AND I WOULD SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.
YES, I COMMEND COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE RESEARCH AND IN-DEPTH INFORMATION THAT YOU PROVIDED THIS EVENING.
AND AGAIN, AS COMMISSIONER LUNA INDICATED, TOO, IN REGARD TO BEING IN DISTRICT ONE.
OTHER COMMENTS BY OTHER COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER MERZ AND SABELLICO, IN REGARD TO THE HOUSING, I ALSO AM A FIRM BELIEVER THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A AND WE'RE GETTING DICTATES FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN REGARD TO PROVIDING HOUSING, BOTH AFFORDABLE AS WELL AS JUST HOUSING OVERALL, AS WE KNOW IN THE HEAC.
AND ONE THING I WAS PLEASED WITH WITH THIS PROJECT WAS SEEING THE ADUS AND THE JUNIOR ADUS.
AND THAT'S ONE ASSISTING THE CITY IN REGARDS TO MEETING OUR GOALS.
AND I THINK THAT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.
AND YET THE PROJECT ITSELF IS SOMEWHAT PLEASING AS TO WHAT THEY HAD PROVIDED WITH THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE.
AND TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN THAT IS COMPATIBLE.
YEAH, THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROJECT IN REGARD TO DRAINAGE, THAT'S WHY I ASKED MR. GELDERT REGARDING THE DRAINAGE ISSUES.
AND I KNOW A COUPLE OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS DID AS WELL.
YOU KNOW, REGARDING SURFACE DRAINAGE AND PUMPS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
YOU KNOW, I WAS LOOKING AT IT INITIALLY BEFORE THIS EVENING LOOKING AT, WELL, WHY CAN'T WE DO PUMPS? WHY CAN'T WE DO OTHER ISSUES IN REGARD TO THE DRAINAGE ISSUE AND THE SEWAGE ISSUES? BUT I THINK STAFF HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB IN BEING ABLE TO CLARIFY AND PROVIDE THE INFORMATION TO SATISFY MY CONCERNS.
I AGAIN, DO APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS BY THE NEIGHBORS.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE SITE IS TODAY AND PROBABLY WHAT IT WAS USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME YEARS AND YEARS AGO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT.
AND I THINK WITH THE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS AND WHAT'S GOING TO BE HAPPENING, THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ON THE STREET, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY WILL SATISFY THE NEEDS OF OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE, THE HEIGHT ISSUE REGARDING THE ELEVATIONS OF THE PADS.
I THINK STAFF, IN LOOKING AT THE FINDINGS, I THINK WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT'S NOT THE MOST IDEAL.
YOU KNOW, WE CAN LOOK AT IT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF MAYBE DOING A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
BUT I THINK GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS, I THINK THE DEVELOPER'S DONE A FINE JOB IN BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE AT HAND.
SO I ALSO CAN SUPPORT THE PROJECT AT THIS TIME.
SO WITHOUT ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
YEAH, I AM CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, EVEN THE SMALL COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE REQUESTED, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT BEEN AMENABLE TO THESE CONCERNS.
AND TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS AND I THINK IT'S FUNNY THAT A ONE ACRE LOT HAS ALL THESE CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE BEING TALKED ABOUT, BECAUSE THAT'S LIKE A HUGE LOT COMPARED TO ALL THE OTHER LOTS IN THIS AREA.
SO IT SEEMS INTERESTING THAT IT'S SO WELL SO CONSTRAINED.
AND THE OTHER LAST COMMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE PE ON MR. [INAUDIBLE] LETTER.
AND HE WAS WRITING AS A NEIGHBOR, BUT PE, I UNDERSTAND, WOULD MEAN PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.
NOW, IS THAT CORRECT? IS HE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER? AND IS THIS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN EVALUATED BY SOMEONE WHO DOES ACTUALLY HAVE EXPERTISE IN THIS FIELD? MR. GELDERT.
HE IS A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.
ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS? OK, CAN I HAVE A MOTION IN REGARD TO THIS PROJECT? I MOVE APPROVAL FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE THIS EVENING.
[01:55:08]
OK, THANK YOU, MS. FLORES.OK, DO WE WANT TO TAKE A QUICK FIVE MINUTE BREAK OR DO WE WANT TO MOVE ON? I SEE A NOD BY COMMISSIONER SABELLICO AND LUNA.
OK, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A IS FIVE MINUTES ADEQUATE OR DO YOU WANT TO GO 10? FIVE MINUTES' ADEQUATE.
ALL RIGHT, FIVE MINUTE BREAK, WE'LL BE BACK AGAIN AT 5:04.
FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO, BUT BEFORE DOING SO, WE WILL DO EX-PARTE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, INCLUDING ANY CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE IN REGARD TO THE VISIT TO THE SITE IF YOU HAD DONE SO.
SO WE'LL START OFF WITH COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
I ALSO VISITED THE SITE AND WALKED AROUND THE SITE.
MR. NEU, COULD YOU INTRODUCE THE ITEM? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
SO OUR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A PROJECT OUT OF GARFIELD HOMES AND SENIOR
[2. PUD 2021-0001/SDP 2021-0002/CDP 2021-0003/MS 2021-0001 (DEV2020-0212) – GARFIELD HOMES]
PLANNER SHANNON HARKER'S HERE FOR THE STAFF PRESENTATION.THANK YOU, MR. NEU, AND GOOD EVENING TO THE COMMISSION.
OK, SO THIS FINAL ITEM FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS A REQUEST FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A DUPLEX AND A DETACHED GARAGE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE CONDOMINIUM UNITS.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE COASTAL ZONE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GARFIELD STREET AND CHINQUAPIN AVENUE.
THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR THE SITE IS RDM OR RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MULTIPLE.
AND THE GENERAL PLANNED LAND USE DESIGNATION IS R-23, WHICH ALLOWS A DENSITY RANGE OF 15 TO 23 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
THE PARCEL'S ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE.
SHANNON, JUST A SECOND, YOUR SLIDES ARE SHOWING THE--OH, OK, HOLD ON ONE SECOND, LET ME TRY AND FIGURE THIS OUT.
I HAD THIS PROBLEM IN BRIEFINGS, AND THAT APPARENTLY HAS NOT GONE AWAY.
I'M GOING TO STOP SHARING REAL QUICK.
I THINK I CAN HELP YOU, SHANNON.
OK, AT THE TOP, SLIDE SHOW, YOU CLICK ON THAT.
AND THEN FROM THE BEGINNING OR FROM CURRENT SLIDE, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO.
DO YOU GUYS STILL SEE THE REAL? I'M SORRY.
I RECENTLY SWITCHED MY ON MY SCREEN BACK AND FORTH.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO; APPRECIATE THAT.
MAYBE PICK THE OTHER SCREEN TEST.
YOU WANT TO TRY AND PLAY IT FIRST AND THEN SELECT THE SCREEN.
SO THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A DUPLEX AND THE DETACHED GARAGE AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ALSO HAVE AN R-23 LAND DESIGNATION.
THE AREA IS PREDOMINANTLY DEVELOPED WITH MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES THAT HAVE TWO AND THREE STORIES.
SO HERE ARE TWO PHOTOS OF THE SITE, ONE TAKEN AT THE CORNER OF CHINQUAPIN AND GARFIELD AND THE OTHER TAKEN FROM CHINQUAPIN LOOKING SOUTH.
THE DUPLEX AND DETACHED GARAGE WERE CONSTRUCTED SOMETIME BETWEEN 1923 AND 1938, A CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT CONCLUDED THE STRUCTURES ARE NOT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT FROM A CEQA PERSPECTIVE.
THE EXISTING STREET TREE AT THE CORNER WILL BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE.
THE PARKS DEPARTMENT HAS APPROVED THE REQUEST WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE
[02:00:02]
TREE BE REPLACED AT A FOUR TO ONE RATIO.HERE IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
YOU SEE THAT? LET'S SEE, SITE PLAN.
THERE ARE THREE AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS COMPRISING ONE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT AND A TWO FAMILY UNIT.
THE PROJECT DENSITY IS TWENTY ONE PER ACRE, WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE RANGE OF FIFTEEN TO TWENTY THREE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
AS THE TOPOGRAPHY ON SITE CHANGES IN ELEVATION APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET.
THE PROJECT PROPOSES STEPPED BUILDING PADS WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT ON THE UPPER BUILDING PAD, AND THE TWO FAMILY UNIT APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET LOWER IN ELEVATION.
ACCESS TO EACH OF THE UNITS WILL BE PROVIDED BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS OFF CHINQUAPIN AVENUE.
AS WITH THE EXISTING CONDITION, NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS IS PROPOSED ALONG GARFIELD STREET.
THE AREA IN RED HIGHLIGHTED IN THIS SLIDE IS WHERE A CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK WILL BE ADDED TO COMPLETE THE GAP IN IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE GARFIELD STREET FRONTAGE.
PROPOSED LOCK COVERAGE FOR THE PROJECT IS 58 PERCENT, WHERE 60 PERCENT IS THE MAXIMUM.
SO THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY A TWO CAR GARAGE IS PROVIDED FOR EACH UNIT, AND THE VISITOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED ONSITE BY PROVIDING TWO VISITOR STALLS PER DRIVEWAY FOR A TOTAL OF SIX STALLS, WHERE ONLY ONE VISITOR STALL IS REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE VISITOR PARKING REQUIREMENT CAN BE SATISFIED ON SITE SINCE PARKING IS ALLOWED ON BOTH SIDES OF CHINQUAPIN AND THE DRIVEWAYS HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 20 FEET.
PER THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS, THE CURB CUTS FOR THE DRIVEWAYS COLLECTIVELY CAN'T EXCEED MORE THAN 40 PERCENT OF THE CHINQUAPIN FRONTAGE, WHICH HELPS IN RETAINING AS MUCH ON STREET PARKING AS POSSIBLE.
SO HERE'S THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT FACING GARFIELD STREET.
THE UNIT IS APPROXIMATE THIRTY FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET WITH FOUR BEDROOMS AND THREE AND A HALF BATHS.
AS PERMITTED IN THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE, THE UNIT IS THREE STORIES TALL AND 30 FEET IN HEIGHT WITH A 3:12 ROOF PITCH.
HERE'S THE STREET SIDE ELEVATION OF THE SAME UNIT FACING CHINQUAPIN, WHICH INCLUDES THE PROPOSED TWO CAR GARAGE, THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT ARE SATISFIED BY THE BALCONY'S PROPOSED IN THE UNIT'S DESIGN.
A MIXTURE OF MATERIALS AND COLORS ARE PROPOSED, WHICH INCLUDE TWO TYPES OF SIDING, AS WELL AS THE GABLE AND SHED ROOF ACCESS.
AND HERE IS A RENDERING FROM GARFIELD STREET.
YOU'LL SEE THE THREE STORIES PROPOSED, THIS IS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT, AND THIS IS THE EXISTING DWELLING NEXT DOOR, WHICH HAS TUCKED UNDER PARKING.
AND THIS IS A RENDERING FROM CHINQUAPIN OF BOTH UNITS, SEE THE TWO FAMILY UNITS ON THE LEFT AND THE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT ON THE RIGHT.
SO THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, AS WELL AS THE STANDARDS AND POLICIES LISTED ON THIS SLIDE, AND THE CITY PLANNER HAS DETERMINED THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA.
AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
PLANNER HARKER, I APPRECIATE THAT.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT.
BACK TO THE RENDERING THAT SHOWS THE CHINQUAPIN ELEVATION.
SO IS THAT A FLAT ELEVATION? I MEAN, IS IT FLAT LIKE THAT ON THE SITE OR DOES IT SLOPE DOWN? IT SLOPES DOWN.
SO THERE IS A 10 PERCENT CHANGE IN ELEVATION.
SO THE HIGH POINT IS A LONG GARFIELD STREET IN THE LOW, LOW POINT IS ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE.
SO YOU CAN SEE THE START OF THE RETAINING WALL HERE.
SO THERE'S A RETAINING WALL WITH A FENCE ON TOP OF IT IN BETWEEN THE TWO UNITS.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS QUESTIONING, BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM LIKE A PRETTY STEEP SLOPE, NOT A SUPER STEEP, BUT FAIRLY STEEP.
SO I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT WAS BEING INDICATED.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I WHEN I WAS AT THE SITE, THE STREET SEEMS TO GO DOWNHILL, FAR GREATER THAN THIS PARTICULAR DRAWING SHOWS.
[02:05:04]
BUT I HAD THE SAME QUESTION AS WELL.DRAWINGS HAVE THAT WAY OF BEING ELUSIVE.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE STAFF QUESTIONS AT THIS MOMENT BEFORE WE ASK THE APPLICANT FOR A PRESENTATION? NOTHING AT THIS TIME.
DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION THIS EVENING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? I DO NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT I'M AVAILABLE, WELL, I GUESS I HAVE TO STATE MY NAME, RIGHT? YEAH, ALTHOUGH WE SAW YOU ON THE OTHER HERE.
CLAIR WITH RINCON HOME; I'M THE PRINCIPAL THERE.
MY ADDRESS IS 5315 AVENIDA ENCINAS IN CARLSBAD.
WE DO NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION.
I THINK STAFF DID A GREAT JOB.
WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT.
AND MY ARCHITECT AND I ARE HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
BECAUSE THIS IS IN THE R-23 AND RDM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX WERE REQUESTED AS BEING [INAUDIBLE] FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE, AS OPPOSED TO MAKING IT A MULTIFAMILY TOWN HOME, SOMETHING.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT? MR. ST CLAIR.
WELL, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH OUR COMPANY, CINCON HOMES, WE DO BUILD A LOT OF HOMES IN THE GARFIELD--WE CALL IT THE GARFIELD CORRIDOR.
AND WE HAVE A LIST OF A LOT OF BUYERS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN PROJECTS THAT WE'RE DOING DOWN THERE.
THEY'RE ALWAYS WAITING FOR OUR NEXT PROJECT.
WHEN THIS ONE CAME UP, WE HAD A BUYER THAT WAS INTERESTED ALREADY AND WITH AN OCEAN VIEW.
AND SO WE WERE KIND OF TAKING THE NEEDS FROM THE BUYER PROFILE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE EXPANSIVE OCEAN VIEW OFF OF GARFIELD FACING SOUTH TO BUILD A NICE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
AND SOMEBODY HAS ALREADY TAKEN A RESERVATION ON THAT HOME TO MOVE THEIR FAMILY IN THERE.
AND THEN WE WERE SINCE THERE IS THAT GRADE CHANGE, IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE A SEPARATE UNIT BACK THERE.
WE COULD CREATE A NEW SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE AFFORDABLE IN THE BACK BY HAVING AN ATTACHED PRODUCT AND CATER TO KIND OF A DIFFERENT DEMOGRAPHIC OF A BUYER.
THEY'RE ALL MARKET RATE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? I'M SORRY, I MISSED THAT.
ARE THESE ALL MARKET RATE UNITS? YES, THEY ALL MARKET RATE UNITS.
SO, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE DIFFERENT DEMOGRAPHIC WOULD BE UNLESS YOU'RE CONSIDERING INCLUDING ADUS AND JDUS USE, BECAUSE SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEXES ARE ALLOWED.
IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF.
THE HOUSE IN THE BACK ON AN ATTACHED PRODUCT WOULD BE HALF THE VALUE OF THE HOME IN THE FRONT.
SO IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT BUYER POOL, AS I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM A BUILDER.
UNDERSTANDABLY, BUT FROM A ZONING AND I THINK PLANNER HARKER COULD ELABORATE ON THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE, SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEXES APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY HAVE A JDUS AND AN ADU IN THESE PARTICULAR LOTS.
ISN'T THAT CORRECT? MS. HARKER.
SO THAT MAKES THIS NINE UNITS AS OPPOSED TO JUST THREE.
SO THAT'S A CONCERN THAT I HAVE, IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS COULD ACTUALLY APPLY FOR ADUS AND JDUS IN THIS PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION INSTEAD OF USING IT AS A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO COMPLY TO HIGHER STANDARDS AND ADUS AND JDUS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THOSE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONFIGURATIONS.
SO I APPLAUD THE EFFORT THAT YOU HAVE SEPARATED THE BUILDING MASS WITH CREATING TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS AS OPPOSED TO A SINGLE BUILDING.
BUT I ALSO AM CONCERNED THAT WE HAVE OPENED UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS TO AND NOT THAT I'M AGAINST THAT OPENING THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ADUS AND JDUS AFFILIATED WITH THESE SITES, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT IS A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I DON'T THINK I'M AGAINST IT.
BUT I THINK THAT I JUST WANT TO BE UPFRONT ABOUT IT AND DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS BE
[02:10:05]
SOMETHING WHERE THE COMMISSION IS SAYING, OH, BUT THERE ARE ONLY THREE HOUSES, BUT IT'S MAYBE NOT.SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
IT'S CONSIDERED CONDO, EVEN THOUGH IT'S DETACHED HOME.
AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IN THAT SETUP WITH A MULTIFAMILY SETUP, WE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO JDUS AND ADUS THERE.
SHANNON? I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO DEFER TO MR. KEMP ON THIS ONE.
I MEAN, IT'S TECHNICALLY A DETACHED HOME WITH, YOU KNOW, TWO FAMILY UNIT, BUT YOU ARE PROPOSING CONDOMINIUMS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE LOBBY IS IT DIFFERENTLY WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE ATTACHED TO IT.
I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO HEAR MS. LAFFERTY AS SHE'S BEEN SPEAKING.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S HER MICROPHONE OR ME.
I'VE BEEN STRUGGLING, LIFTING MY SPEAKER UP HERE, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE CONVERSATION, AND I'M JUST NOT PICKING IT UP.
SO COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, COULD YOU BRIEFLY REITERATE? YEAH, THERE YOU GO.
OK, MAYBE I HAD THE SPEAKERS DOWN TOO LOW.
ACTIVITIES HAPPENING BEHIND ME.
SO THE CONCERN IS EVEN THOUGH WE'RE IN THE RDM R-23, ZONED FOR MULTIFAMILY, RESIDENTIAL.
THEY ARE PROPOSING THREE INDIVIDUAL UNITS.
BUT MY CONCERN IS THE CONFIGURATION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN A DUPLEX COULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ADUS AND JDUS, WHICH COULD RESULT IN NINE UNITS.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS IN THIS CONFIGURATION, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS AS OPPOSED TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS? I DON'T MEAN TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADUS BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEFORE US.
WE SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERING WHAT THE FUTURE CONFIGURATION WOULD BE WITH ADUS.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT APPROVING THIS PROJECT, BECAUSE THAT'S A MINISTERIAL ACTION UNDER STATE LAW THAT WE JUST CANNOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THIS PROJECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I DON'T SEE ANY.
OK, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
MS. FLORES, ANY? CHAIR MEENES, THERE ARE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
OKAY, THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH.
OK, COMMISSIONERS, FURTHER QUESTIONS.
I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
COMMISSIONERS, THE COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? OK, I'M SEEING NONE.
OK, HOW ABOUT DISCUSSION COMMISSION DISCUSSION IN REGARD TO THIS PROJECT? COMMISSIONER SABELLICO? YEAH, I GUESS I ALSO SHARE ATTORNEY KEMP'S PERSPECTIVE THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT ADUS, BUT REALLY, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY WOULD GO EVEN IF WE WERE TO TALK ABOUT THEM LIKE IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE THAT'S ALLOWED AS PLANNER HARKER WAS SAYING.
SO I DON'T SEE THAT BEING EVEN AN ISSUE.
OTHER COMMENTS BY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
I DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DRIVEWAYS, BECAUSE THERE'S THREE ON THIS SMALL SITE.
YOU WERE SAYING THAT THE CHINQUAPIN WAS 40 PERCENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? PLANNER HARKER? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF CURB CUTS THAT THEY COULD PROPOSE WAS 40 PERCENT.
THAT'S AN ENGINEERING STANDARD.
THEY DID ACTUALLY HAVE TO MODIFY THE DRIVEWAY DESIGN TO MAINTAIN THAT STANDARD.
YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S BIGGER, CORRECT? WELL, IT'S FAR, FAR MORE, YOU KNOW, FAR BIGGER THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY EXISTING,
[02:15:05]
BUT THEY'RE RIGHT AT 40 PERCENT.AND IT DOES ALLOW FOR THE RETENTION OF SOME ON-STREET PARKING.
BUT THE TRADEOFF IS THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE TWO GUEST SPACES PER UNIT, PER DRIVEWAY.
I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. GELDERT.
IN THE AGENDA, IT MAKES REFERENCE TO A UTILITY POLE AT THE CORNER OF CHINQUAPIN AND GARFIELD.
WHEN I WAS AT THE SITE, I DID NOT SEE A POLE AT THAT LOCATION.
ARE YOU SPEAKING ABOUT THE POLE FURTHER DOWN, CHINQUAPIN? AT THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE EAST.
PLACED UNDERGROUND IS WHAT THE COMMENT IS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
YES, THERE'S A POLE DOWN CHINQUAPIN NEAR A GARAGE THAT'S ON SITE.
IT'S A WHITE GARAGE, AND THAT'S THE POLE THAT WAS DISCUSSED.
I THINK THE STAFF REPORT TALKED ABOUT A DIFFERENT LOCATION, BUT THAT'S ACTUALLY THERE.
MS. HARKER, IN REGARD TO THAT PARTICULAR TREE AT THE CORNER.
DID THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT HAVE ANY COMMENTS IN REGARD TO THE REMOVAL OF THAT TREE? THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE REMOVAL OF THAT TREE.
THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THE APPLICANT AND THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, AND ULTIMATELY THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE REMOVAL OF THE TREE WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT BE REPLACED AT A FOUR TO ONE RATIO, WHICH THEY ARE SHOWING ON THEIR LANDSCAPE PLAN.
OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OK, CLOSING COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, WE'LL START WITH YOU.
COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN, NO COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.
NO COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER LUNA.
BEING IN THE AREA, I THINK THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLEMENT WHAT'S THERE ALREADY.
YEAH, I, TOO, AGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK THAT THE PROJECT, GIVEN THE SITE, I THINK IT'S CREATIVE AS TO THE UNITS AND HOW THEY DESIGN THEM AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE OCEAN VIEW ON THE ON THE GARFIELD SIDE, AS WELL AS ON THE CHINQUAPIN SIDE.
ANYTHING ELSE? CAN I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER LUNA.
APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR MEETING IN REGARD TO PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA.
[PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS: ]
AND IF WE CAN MOVE ON, I'D LIKE TO HAVE, COMMISSIONERS, ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD AT THIS EVENING'S MEETING.CHAIR MEENES, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE AGENDIZE THE NEXT MEETING DISCUSSION ON A COMMISSION WORKSHOP IN ITS ENTIRETY.
WE'VE GOT A LOT OF NEW COMMISSIONERS.
THEY'RE ARE SMART GROUP, BUT BEING A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER MEENES, AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE LOST TWO COMMISSIONERS THAT HAD OVER 16 YEARS EXPERIENCE.
THIS IS NOT A JOB YOU LEARN YOUR FIRST WEEK OR YOUR FIRST MONTH.
THERE'RE SO MANY RULES AND REGULATIONS AND LANES AND WHAT THE ROLE IS.
AND I THINK IT'S BEEN TOO LONG.
AND WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A WORKSHOP.
AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF YOU COULD AGENDIZE THAT AND STAFF FOR NEXT MEETING SO WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION.
YEAH, I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER LUNA.
I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH MR. NEU JUST THE OTHER DAY IN REGARD TO ASKING WHEN WE WERE GOING TO HAVE OUR WORKSHOP FOR ALL THE SAME REASONS YOU JUST DESCRIBED.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE? YES.
SO AS WE WERE DISCUSSING BEFORE, YOU KNOW, OUR PREFERENCE WAS TO TRY TO HAVE AN IN-PERSON WORKSHOP, AND THAT WAS THE HOPE WHEN WE WERE LOOKING LIKE WE WERE BEING APPROVED TO GO BACK TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS.
SO WE WERE TARGETING SOMETHING HERE IN SEPTEMBER INITIALLY.
[02:20:05]
AND THEN WHEN WE WENT BACK TO ZOOM, MEETINGS, KIND OF POSTPONED IT.SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT WAS KIND OF BACK IN A WAIT AND SEE, AS COMMISSIONER LUNA REQUESTED, IF WE WERE TO DO ONE NOW AND MAYBE IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IT USING THE ZOOM FORMAT.
SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO DISCUSS NEXT MEETING, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.
YEAH, IF I COULD ADD, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THAT TO ME YESTERDAY WHEN WE SPOKE THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY.
I WOULD LIKE TO I THINK WE DO NEED TO HAVE A WORKSHOP.
I REALLY DO, FOR THE SAME REASONS COMMISSIONER LUNA MENTIONED.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HATE TO HAVE US DO IT ON ZOOM, I THINK IN PERSON, WE COULD ACCOMPLISH FAR, FAR MORE.
MAYBE IF YOU AGENDIZE THIS FOR OUR NEXT MEETING IN THE INTERIM PERIOD, YOU COULD MAYBE GATHERING MORE INFORMATION FROM I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THE CITY MANAGER OR WHOMEVER, IN REGARD TO WHAT THE FUTURE PLANS ARE FOR THE CITY AND OR THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING MEETINGS AND HAVING THE MEETINGS IN WHICH THEY'RE IN PERSON.
AND MAYBE YOU CAN MAKE THAT AS A PART OF AND AS A PART OF THAT PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM REGARDING IF THAT'S GOING TO BE OPENED UP IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.
IF NOT, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THE COMMISSION CAN DISCUSS AT OUR NEXT MEETING IN REGARD TO, WELL, MAYBE WE WILL STILL HAVE OUR WORKSHOP AND WE'LL DO IT BY ZOOM IF WE HAVE TO, BUT AT LEAST WE'LL HAVE IT.
SO WHAT I CAN TELL YOU AT THIS POINT IS THE DIRECTION WE RECEIVED FROM CITY MANAGER IS FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, WE WILL STAY ON ZOOM AND THEY'RE GOING TO REEVALUATE WHERE THINGS ARE AT.
I BELIEVE PROBABLY IN THE MIDDLE OF SEPTEMBER.
SO WE MAY KNOW SOMETHING AROUND THE TIME OF OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS THE 15TH OF SEPTEMBER, OR MAY NOT BE QUITE A CHANGE IN ANYTHING YET TO BE ABLE TO TELL YOU ANYTHING DIFFERENT.
WE HAVE DONE ORIENTATION'S THROUGH ZOOM WITH NEW COMMISSIONERS.
I THINK WHAT WE'VE LACKED, AS I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY BOTH TALKING ABOUT, IS HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH EVERYONE THAT IS ON THE COMMISSION AROUND THE TABLE TO TALK ABOUT ISSUES AND PROCESS AND ALL THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS.
SO WE CAN CERTAINLY DO IT IN EITHER FORMAT.
IT'S JUST IN THE PAST, THERE WAS A LOT OF DESIRE EXPRESSED ABOUT DOING IT IN PERSON VERSUS ON A VIRTUAL PLATFORM.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE PREFERENCE.
AND I THINK THAT IF WE HAVE TO DO ZOOM, WE'LL BE ZOOM RATHER THAN LETTING IT MOVE INTO THE LATTER PART OF THE YEAR INTO NEXT YEAR.
YES, AND SO SINCE I'M THE NEW COMMISSIONER THAT YOU'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT, I CONCUR.
I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE USEFUL FOR ME AND I DON'T FEEL SO NEW ANYMORE.
[LAUGHTER] OH, TILL YOU FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW.
IT'S ALWAYS FUN [INAUDIBLE] LIKE I DIDN'T KNOW I'VE STEPPED IN THIS THREE TIMES AND DON AND RON HAVE SAVED ME AND THEN MID-TERM, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT FOR YOU, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO AT ALL.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ATTORNEYS HERE, BUT THEY'RE NOT LAND-USE ATTORNEYS.
AND, YOU KNOW, THEIR CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS ARE EXCELLENT FOR THIS, AND THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCES.
AND WE'VE LOST TWO COMMISSIONERS THAT HAD OVER 16 YEARS EXPERIENCE.
AND COMMISSIONER MERZ WILL TELL YOU, YOUR FIRST FEW MONTHS, YOU'RE LIKE, WHOA, THIS IS GREAT.
AND THEN YOU FIGURE OUT WHAT YOUR JOB IS.
RIGHT, COMMISSIONER MERZ? I THINK THERE'S A FEW MOMENTS ON VIDEO THAT I'D LIKE TO TAKE BACK.
[LAUGHTER] IF I EVER WAS TO RUNNING FOR OFFICE, THEY COULD PLAY ON REPEAT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND YOU KNOW WHAT, THE RECORDINGS ARE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES FOR MANY YEARS THEREOF.
YEAH, I'VE GOT SOME ZINGERS ON VIDEO.
COMMISSIONER SABELLICO FURTHER.
YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBER PETER NORBY, WHO REPRESENTS DISTRICT ONE.
NOW, I KNOW HE WILL SERVE THE REMAINDER OF FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER SCHUMACHER'S TERM, AND I WISH HIM WELL.
AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE I WAS SAYING EARLIER IN THIS MEETING, WE ALL SERVE AT THE COUNCIL'S PLEASURE.
SO CONGRATULATIONS, COUNCIL MEMBER NORBY, AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU.
YES, I CHIME IN ON THAT AS WELL.
I'M SURE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER NORMY WILL DO AN EXCELLENT JOB, GIVEN HIS BACKGROUND.
IF YOU DON'T KNOW, HE WAS A COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO PLANNING COMMISSIONER FOR A NUMBER OF
[02:25:01]
YEARS, AND THEN ALSO HAS BEEN MAJORLY INVOLVED WITH THE CITY PROJECTS, BOTH FOR THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, AS WELL AS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD OVER THE YEARS AS WELL.SO I THINK HE'S GOING TO BE A REAL GOOD ADDITION TO OUR CITY COUNCIL FOR THE NEXT 14 MONTHS.
OTHER OTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
THE LAST THING I WANTED TO SAY, HISTORIC PRESERVATION HAS A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 13TH.
IT'S A VIRTUAL MEETING, AND IT'S GOING TO BE FOUR O'CLOCK.
SO AND I UNDERSTAND FROM PLANNER NEU THAT THE LETTER HOPEFULLY THAT WAS APPROVED IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, THE TIME HAS FLOWN WILL HOPEFULLY BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL REGARDING THE PRE 1990 LIST OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES OF 13 THAT ARE REMAINING.
SO HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
BUT I UNDERSTAND PLANNER NEU HAS DEFINITELY UNDERSTANDS THIS LIST AND KNOWS THAT THOSE ARE SENSITIVE RESOURCES AND DOES GEAR A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE INFORMATION AND REPORTS SURROUNDING THOSE.
SO I'M GLAD THAT THOSE ARE BECOMING MORE AND MORE AVAILABLE.
BUT I DO KNOW THAT THESE ARE VALUABLE RESOURCES.
I THINK THAT'S THE 14TH OF--IS THAT THE COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 14TH? YES, IT'S ON A TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR THE 14TH.
SO I DON'T HAVE A WAY OF KNOWING IF THAT'S FIXED, BUT THAT'S WHERE IT IS AS OF NOW.
WELL, LET'S CROSS OUR FINGERS.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY OR MAYBE MR. NEU, IS THERE ANY UPDATES AT ALL IN REGARD TO THE HISTORICAL HOME THERE IN HIGHLAND AT CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE? I'M NOT SURE I'M 100 PERCENT CURRENT ON IT, BUT I KNOW IT WAS CONSIDERED AGAIN AT A COUNCIL MEETING.
I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL'S ULTIMATE DIRECTION WAS TO DIRECT STAFF TO EXPLORE CREATING A MILLS ACT PROGRAM.
I HAVE SEEN THAT ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEM FOR STAFF TO RETURN WITH INFORMATION FOR THAT.
I DON'T BELIEVE THEY SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THE ACQUISITION OF THE STRUCTURE, BUT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO HELP PRESERVE IT.
WELL, I KNOW COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY HAS UPDATED US CONSISTENTLY OVER THE LAST OVER A YEAR NOW.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, WHICH I APPRECIATE, I THINK IT HAS NOW GOTTEN TO THE COUNCIL LEVEL, WHICH IS GOOD.
WELL, CERTAINLY A TEAM EFFORT ON EVERYONE'S PART, AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T TAKE CREDIT FOR IT, I JUST WANT TO I'M EXCITED THAT THE OWNERS OF THE [INAUDIBLE] HOUSE WANTED TO MAINTAIN THEIR HISTORIC STATUS.
AND THAT'S REALLY THE APPLAUSE NEEDS TO GO TO THE OWNERS OF THAT HOME, THAT VALUE THAT PROPERTY AND WANT TO SEE IT PRESERVED IF POSSIBLE.
SO I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD THING.
MR. NEU IN REGARD TO COMMENTS IN REGARD TO THE WORKSHOP AGENDAS FOR OUR NEXT MEETING, DO WE NEED TO TAKE A MOTION ON THAT? OR MAYBE IT'S MR. KEMP? I'M SORRY.
DO WE NEED TO TAKE A MOTION ON THAT, OR IS IT OK JUST WITH WHAT WE'VE SAID? IS THE ITEM THAT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A VIRTUAL WORKSHOP OR IN-PERSON WORKSHOP OR TO ACTUALLY HAVE THE WORKSHOP? NO, DISCUSSION TO FIND OUT OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US, AS WELL AS MAYBE AN UPDATE IN REGARD TO THE POSSIBILITY OF IN-PERSON.
BUT NO, JUST AN AGENDA ITEM TO DISCUSS.
YOU DON'T NECESSARILY NEED A MOTION [INAUDIBLE] TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.
IF YOU DID MAKE A MOTION, WE MIGHT FEEL MORE MOTIVATED.
WE'LL TAKE A MOTION, IF THAT'S WHAT'S NECESSARY.
I MOVE THAT WE PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA.
COMMISSIONER LUNA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? YES, I MOVE AS.
COMMISSIONER MERZ IS GOING TO--I SECOND THAT WE MAKE, YOU KNOW, MR. KEMP MORE MOTIVATED.
I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO MOTIVATE COUNCILOR KEMP.
I DON'T EITHER, BUT I JUST COULDN'T LET THAT ONE SLIDE.
MR. NEU, DO YOU HAVE ANY REPORTS TO US? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I DON'T HAVE A REPORT THIS EVENING.
[CITY ATTORNEY REPORT:]
HO ABOUT OUR ILLUSTRIOUS CITY ATTORNEY? YEAH, I DO, ACTUALLY.COMMISSIONER SABELLICO ASKED ME IF I WOULD TALK TO YOU REAL BRIEFLY ABOUT SB 9 AND
[02:30:07]
SB 10.SB 9 AND SB 10 BOTH PASSED THE LEGISLATURE THIS WEEK AND THEY'RE AT THE GOVERNOR'S DESK FOR SIGNATURE.
AND IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE FIRST ITEM TODAY, SB 9 WILL HELP YOU OUT, BECAUSE WHAT SB 9 DOES, THE ENTIRE STATE [INAUDIBLE] SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND ALLOWS ANY LOT BY RIGHT TO SPLIT IN TWO AND THEN TO PUT TWO UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
AS LONG AS AND I DID LOOK THIS UP, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, THE RESULTING LOTS ARE A MINIMUM OF 1200 SQUARE FEET.
AND SO THE OWNER HAS TO SIGN A DECLARATION OF INTENT THAT THEY WILL LIVE ON THE PROPERTY FOR THREE YEARS.
BUT THERE IS NO MECHANISM TO PENALIZE SOMEBODY IF THEY DON'T LIVE UP TO THEIR DECLARATION.
AND IT ALSO SAYS THAT THEY ONLY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT OR ZERO PARKING SPACES IF THEY'RE WITHIN A HALF MILE OF A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP.
AND THAT IS JUST A REALLY CONDENSED VERSION THAT GIVES YOU.
BUT IF YOU APPLY THAT TO THE FIRST PROJECT THAT YOU HAD TODAY, YOU WOULD NOT EVEN HAVE SEEN THAT BECAUSE THEY COULD HAVE SPLIT THAT INTO TWO PARCELS WITH TWO UNITS ON THERE.
AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED MINISTERIAL.
SB 10, AND THAT ALL THAT TAKES RIGHT NOW IS THE GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE.
SB 10 IS A LITTLE BIT MORE FRIENDLY IN THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ENACT AN ORDINANCE FOR IT TO COME INTO EFFECT IN OUR CITY.
AND WHAT THAT ALLOWS IS FOR THERE TO BE, CONSIDERABLY A DENSE PROJECT, I.E., 10 UNITS ON ANY PARCEL THAT'S DESIGNATED BY THE COUNCIL, THAT'S WITHIN A HALF MILE OF A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP AND ALLOWS THEM TO FOREGO ANY SQUARE REVIEW.
SO THE COUNCIL COULD ADOPT BY ORDINANCE THAT ANY PARCEL, YOU KNOW, DOWN BY THE TRAIN STATION WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE REDEVELOPED WITH 10 UNITS ON IT WITHOUT HAVING TO DO A CEQA REVIEW.
EVERYTHING WOULD BE APPROVED MINISTERIAL.
BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO ADOPT.
SO IT'S NOT BEING FORCED ON THE CITIES BY THE STATE.
THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES WAS AGAINST THE FIRST ONE IN IN THE SECOND ONE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THEY TOOK A STANCE.
SO DID I GET IT RIGHT, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO? I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT I THINK HOAS ARE EXEMPT FROM SB 9.
ARE YOU SAYING ANY PROPERTY THAT'S WITHIN IT? THAT'S WHAT I HEARD.
YEAH, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LAST MINUTE ADD.
SO WE CAN DISCUSS THAT IN TWO WEEKS IF THE GOVERNOR SIGNS IT.
COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, THANK YOU FOR ASKING THE ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS THOSE TWO BILLS, THAT'S IMPORTANT.
I THINK ANOTHER THING, TOO, THAT A LOT OF OUR CONSTITUENTS THAT LIVE IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, AS WELL AS THE WHOLE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
I KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE ARE DEALING WITH IT ON MANY ITEMS THAT WE DEAL WITH ON PROJECTS.
AND A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION COMES INTO PLAY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VILLAGE.
BUT A LOT OF CONSTITUENTS OUT THERE REALLY FULLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS DICTATING TO THE LOCALS SO MUCH PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES.
AND THIS HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THEM, SB 9 AND 10.
AND I DON'T THINK THEY REALLY APPRECIATE THAT THE CITY IS TRYING TO DO THE BEST JOB POSSIBLE IN BEING ABLE TO DO OUR JOB.
BUT YET WHEN THE STATE, YOU KNOW, TAKES CONTROL OF OUR LOCAL PLANNING, THESE ARE FINE EXAMPLES THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY REALLY COME TO US AND THEY SAY, WELL, WE DON'T WANT OUR VILLAGE TO LOOK LIKE THAT OR WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS AND WE DON'T WANT THE DENSITY, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, DENSITY BONUS, ETC.
BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, SO MUCH OF IT IS OUT OF OUR HANDS.
AND THEN I WANT TO THROW IN ONE MORE THING THAT I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN REALLY RAISES AN ARGUMENT.
BUT WE HAVE UTILITY PLANS, BASICALLY, DRAINAGE MASTERPLAN SEWER MASTER PLANS, WATER MASTER PLANS THAT ARE BASED ON OUR GENERAL PLAN.
SO UNDER PROP 218, PROP 13, TO A LESSER EXTENT, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CHARGE MORE FOR A SERVICE THAN WHAT IT COSTS US TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE.
[02:35:01]
AND THAT ALSO APPLIES TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT GOES TO SERVE THE PARCELS.SO OUR SEWER FEES, OUR WATER FEES, OUR DRAINAGE FEES ARE ALL BASED ON MASTER PLANS THAT WERE PREPARED BY ENGINEERS WHO PREPARED THOSE BASED ON WHAT WE ESTIMATED WOULD BE THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE.
AND WHAT THIS WOULD DO WOULD BE TO ALLOW PLACES ANYWHERE THAT COULD PUT THIS DENSITY ON THERE TO TAX AN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN DESIGNED FOR THAT.
AND THERE MAY NOT BE A WAY TO DESIGN FOR THAT, BECAUSE WE WON'T KNOW UNLESS WE JUST PLAN ON EVERYBODY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT AND THEN UPSIZE THE INFRASTRUCTURE ACCORDINGLY AND THEN SET FEES TO PAY FOR THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO I'M NOT TRYING TO BE A NIMBY ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, BUT I HOPE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE STATE IS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE WE'VE ALWAYS HAD, AT LEAST IN OUR CITY, DEVELOPERS PAY FOR THE IMPACT OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.
AND THIS COULD GET DEVELOPMENT IN HERE THAT TAKES BENEFIT OF THIS INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S HERE WITHOUT ADDING TO UPSIZING IT.
AT LEAST THE WAY I SEE IT, THAT'S THE WAY THAT BILL IS WRITTEN.
HOPEFULLY THE LEGISLATURE WILL MAYBE COME UP WITH SOME SOLUTIONS TO THAT.
ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER LUNA? SO, DON, AS FAR AS EXHIBITS COMING FORWARD IN THAT, YOU PROBABLY WON'T BE SHOWING ADUS AS YOU DID THIS TIME, SINCE IT'S NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW.
OR WILL YOU STILL BE PUTTING THEM ON? NO, I MEAN, WE CAN WORK TO REMOVE THAT.
WHAT'S KIND OF CHALLENGING IS, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANTS WOULD LIKE TO USE ONE SET OF EXHIBITS FOR ALL THEIR PERMITS SO WE CAN WORK WITH THEM TO REMOVE THINGS THAT AREN'T SPECIFICALLY BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
THE ONE ISSUE ON SOMETHING LIKE THE PROJECT THAT YOU HAVE THIS EVENING, IT'D BE EASY NOT TO SHOW THE ACCESSOR UNITS, BUT IF THERE IS A JUNIOR ACCESSORY UNIT, YOU MAY STILL SEE THAT BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE HOUSE FLOOR PLAN.
I MEAN, I DON'T OBJECT TO SEEING THEM.
IT'S JUST AS LONG AS THIS COMMISSION KNOWS THAT WE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THEM.
BUT I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT IF THE APPLICANT HAS AN ADU OR JDU I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE SEE THAT ON THE PLANS.
COMMISSIONER LUNA, IS THAT AS LONG AS IT'S MADE CLEAR IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE AGENDA ITEM IN REGARD TO OUR RESPONSIBILITIES, WE'RE JUST FINE.
BUT I THINK IT GIVES US A MUCH BETTER PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE WE'RE ALSO VERY ATTUNED TO THE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AS WELL.
SO IT GIVES US A MUCH BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT ITSELF AND WHAT IT ENTAILS THAN TO REMOVE SOMETHING AND WE NOT BE AWARE OF IT.
AND THIS IS A DISCUSSION WE CAN HAVE OFFLINE SINCE IT'S NOT AGENDIZED.
COMMISSIONER MS. SABELLICO COMMISSIONER MEENES, I WILL SAY, I MEAN, WE HAVE THAT IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE STAFF REPORT THEY'RE ON THERE, AND THEY'RE NOT PART OF YOUR ACTION.
I THINK WE'VE BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
I CONCUR WITH CHAIRMAN MEENES, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE CAN TRUST OURSELVES TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND STILL HAVE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN THEY WRITE TO US, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE AWKWARD FOR US TO BE LIKE, WHAT ADU? AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IT ACTUALLY BE PART OF THE APPLICATION.
COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO INFORM AND EDUCATE OUR CONSTITUENTS REGARDING WHAT'S HAPPENING, REGARDING BEING DICTATED BY THE STATE, BECAUSE I'M GETTING COMMENTS ABOUT WE'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG.
AND I THINK THE BEST APPROACH IS BEING PROACTIVE.
I MEAN, THERE USED TO BE A WOMAN HERE FOR THE CITY, I THINK HER NAME WAS RACHEL.
SHE USED TO HAVE A COLUMN IN THE CARLSBAD MAGAZINE, DON OR RON, YOU MAY KNOW THE WOMAN I'M TALKING ABOUT.
SHE WAS LIKE A PUBLICIST FOR THE CITY.
I THINK WE NEED TO START DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT JUST TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC.
OK, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.
I WOULD LIKE TO COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, ON BEHALF OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
[02:40:04]
COMMISSION, OFFER OUR CONDOLENCES TO YOU AND YOUR RECENT LOSS OF YOUR FATHER IN LAW.YEAH, WELL, WE'RE STILL HERE, SO.
SO, WE'RE DONE, RIGHT? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LUNA.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL STAND ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.