[00:00:03] OKAY, HERE WE GO. [CALL TO ORDER] I'D LIKE TO CALL TODAY'S MEETING IN ORDER. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE TARDINESS. AND LET'S BEGIN BY CALLING ROLL. COUNCILMEMBER NORBY. HERE. COUNCILMEMBER ACOSTA. HERE. COUNCILMEMBER BHAT-PATEL. HERE. MAYOR PRO TEM BLACKBURN. PRESENT. MAYOR HALL. HERE. LET THE RECORD SHOW--. I NEED TO CALL ROLL FOR THE REST OF THE GROUP. OH, I'M SO SORRY. [LAUGHTER] I'M AHEAD OF MYSELF AGAIN. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS. JOSEPH STINE. HERE. ALICIA [INAUDIBLE]. ALICIA LAFFERTY. LAFFERTY. ROY MEENES. HERE. PETER MERZ. HERE. CAROLYN LUNA. WILLIAM KAMENJARIN. HERE. KEVIN SABELLICO. HERE. HOUSING. SHIRLEY COLE. HERE. JOHN NGUYEN-CLEARY. HERE. ALLEN MANZANO. HERE. AND MARISSA CORTEZ TORRES ABSENT FOR THE RECORD AS WELL AS CAROLYN LUNA. OKAY. AGAIN, THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR BEING HERE TODAY. I'M SURE THIS IS GOING TO BE AN EXTREMELY PRODUCTIVE DAY. AND AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I'M GOING TO ASK MR. BLACKBURN TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE. FOR PUBLIC SPEAKERS? [PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM ONLY] YES, WE DO HAVE ONE GROUP REPRESENTED BY DIANNE LECK, WILL BE REPRESENTING JAN NEFF-SINCLAIR, DIANA FIELD, DANNY FIELD AND LUIGI PERSICO. YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR 10 MINUTES. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR HALL, COUNCIL MEMBERS, MS. BREWER, CITY STAFF AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PUBLIC. I AM HERE TODAY TO MAKE AN URGENT REQUEST OF THE CITY TO ESTABLISH OBJECTIVE DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE EXISTING COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND THE FAMILY ORIENTED WAY OF LIFE FOR DETACHED HOMES ON PARCELS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE VILLAGE IN BARRIO, AND TO TAKE A STAND AGAINST SB 9 AND SB 10 AND OTHER-- AS OTHER CHARTER CITIES ARE DOING WITH THE LITIGATION RECENTLY FILED AGAINST THESE RADICAL, AGGRESSIVE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE LAWS. SB 9 IS A DIRECT ATTACK ON OUR STATE CONSTITUTION, WHICH FOR OVER 100 YEARS DESIGNATED PLANNING, ZONING AND LAND USE AS A MATTER OF LOCAL CONTROL. THIS IS A DECISION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT BEFORE ALL VOTERS. THE CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE LIVID. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE WONDERING HOW WE LET THIS HAPPEN, WE WERE ALL BUSY BEING INSTILLED WITH FEAR, WITH NONSTOP PANDEMIC DATA BEING FED TO US 24/7 FOR TWO YEARS, NOT EVEN OUR OWN CITY'S ONLINE WEEKLY UPDATES MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT IT WHEN SB 9 WAS QUIETLY SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE GOVERNOR TWO DAYS AFTER HE SUCCESSFULLY DEFEATED THE RECALL EFFORT. 28 OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, WHO SOME OF US ACTUALLY VOTED FOR, AGREED WITH THE GOVERNOR AND WITH A FLICK OF A PEN, ELIMINATED THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF NEARLY EVERYONE'S AMERICAN DREAM OWNING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THIS ACTION HAS MAJOR IMPLICATIONS FOR HOMEOWNERS AND RENTERS ALIKE IN THE FORM OF PERMANENT ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION, DIMINISHED QUALITY OF LIFE, AND HIGHER TAXES. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT FROM THIS ARE THE DEVELOPERS, THE BUILDING INDUSTRY, THE WEALTHY WHO LIVE SURROUNDED BY VACANT LAND, LIKE OUR GOVERNOR, AND THOSE WHO RESIDE IN HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOODS, LIKE SENATOR ATKINS, THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL WHO LIVES IN SAN DIEGO. LET ME SHOW YOU SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT THOUGHTLESS, POORLY PLANNED, UNCONTROLLED, HIGH DENSITY HOUSING LOOKS LIKE. HAVING SOME SORT OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS IN PLACE MAY HAVE PREVENTED THIS FROM HAPPENING. THIS HOME IS LOCATED IN WHAT USED TO BE A TYPICAL LOVELY SINGLE FAMILY ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD IN SAN DIEGO. HERE'S THE SAME HOUSE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WITH THE GARAGE CONVERTED INTO AN ATTACHED ADU IN THE BACK YARD. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL BACKYARD. NOW IN THE BACKYARD ARE FIVE ADUS ZERO FOOT REAR YARD SETBACKS. IT'S THE ONLY TWO STORY STRUCTURE IN THE AREA. [00:05:04] THE SIDE YARD HAS FOUR FOOT SETBACKS. PROPERTY NUMBER TWO IS LOCATED IN AN AREA OF OLD RANCH STYLE HOUSES. HERE IS THE NEW TWO STORY 1200 SQUARE FOOT ADU IN THE FRONT YARD. THERE ARE NO OTHER TWO STORY STRUCTURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. PROPERTY NUMBER THREE, THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT ADDED A TWO STORY DWELLING UNIT, A SEPARATE UNIT, FOUR BEDROOMS AND TWO BATHS IN THE BACK YARD. THIS SHOWS IT UNDER CONSTRUCTION, OVERLOOKING AND SHADOWING LIGHT IN THREE ADJACENT BACKYARDS. THIS IS THE PARKING SITUATION IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THIS SHOWS THAT IT IS THE ONLY TWO STORY STRUCTURE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN THIS PICTURE KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE THE HOUSE WITH THE PALM TREE. THEY'RE ALL SINGLE STORY HOMES. NOW IT HAS TWO TWO STORY TWO UNIT ADUS PLOP DOWN IN THE DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PROPERTY NUMBER FIVE, THE HOMEOWNER WHO HAS LIVED IN HIS SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR 23 YEARS IS ABOUT TO FACE THREE, TWO STORY DUPLEXES OVERLOOKING HIS YARD, WHERE CURRENTLY ONLY A SHED EXISTS. HE PLANTED 34 TREES AT A COST OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO HELP WITH HIS LOSS OF PRIVACY. HE CALLS IT A BACKYARD APARTMENT BUILDING, NOT ADUS, AND THERE'S ANOTHER PARCEL PERMITTED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM HIM WITH SEVEN ADUS. ANYTHING GOES IN SAN DIEGO. WE ALL KNOW THAT WHAT HAPPENS IN SAN DIEGO DOESN'T STAY IN SAN DIEGO. THE TRENDS MOVE NORTH. HERE WE ARE IN CARLSBAD, A DETACHED ADU ON A FRONT LAWN. IMAGINE IF EVERYONE DID THIS. I KNOW THIS AREA OF CARLSBAD HAS DIFFERENT ZONING, BUT MY CONCERN IS THAT IF WE CONTINUE ON THE TREND WE'VE BEEN GOING, THIS WILL BE WHAT ALL PARCELS LOOK LIKE THROUGHOUT OUR CITY. I URGE YOU AND THE PUBLIC TO NOT ELECT OR REELECT ANY LEGISLATOR WHO SUPPORTS ANY FUTURE LEGISLATION OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WEAKENS OR INTERFERES WITH THE POWERS OF CHARTER CITIES AND DIMINISHES OUR LOCAL AUTHORITY. MANY SACRAMENTO LEGISLATORS SEEM TO WANT US LIVING LIKE PIGEONS IN HIGH DENSITY, HIGH RISE, HIGH CRIME, TREELESS CONCRETE, SLUM LIKE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO THE FOLLOWING NEIGHBORS ARGUING OVER PARKING SPOTS BECAUSE UNDER SB 9, DEVELOPERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A GARAGE OR A PARKING SPACE IF WITHIN HALF A MILE OF A BUS STOP. YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED ALL THE NEW BUS STOPS CREATED RECENTLY, BUT THERE IS ALMOST NEVER ANYONE WAITING FOR THE EMPTY BUSSES. HOW MANY OF US TOOK THE BUS HERE TODAY? PRIVACY WILL BE GREATLY DIMINISHED OR ELIMINATED AS THE SETBACKS IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE NO MORE THAN FOUR FEET FROM WHAT USED TO BE MAYBE 20 OR MORE IN SOME REAR YARDS. ANOTHER DESTRUCTIVE BILL, AB 2221 IS ON ITS WAY TO REDUCING FRONT YARD SETBACKS AS WELL. NOISE. NOISE COMPLAINTS AND MORE NEIGHBOR DISPUTES WILL INCREASE AS NEIGHBORS WILL MORE EASILY HEAR DOMESTIC QUARRELS, LOUD MUSIC, NOISY CHILDREN, BARKING DOGS, AND THERE WILL BE NO BACKYARDS. WHERE WILL THE CHILDREN PLAY? IN THE STREETS BETWEEN ALL THE PARKED CARS? LACK OF ADEQUATE EVACUATION ROUTES. THE REAL REASON FOR SETBACKS BETWEEN HOMES WAS CREATED DECADES AGO FOR FIRE AND EARTHQUAKE SAFETY. WE NEED SEPARATION AND PROTECTION FROM FALLING WALLS OR CHIMNEYS IN AN EARTHQUAKE OR FIRE. WE NEED A WAY TO EVACUATE OUR HOMES AND STREETS. DO THESE LONGTIME STANDARDS FOR FIRE AND EARTHQUAKE SAFETY NO LONGER APPLY? LET'S NOT FORGET THE POINSETTIA FIRE IN MAY OF 2014 THAT STARTED NEAR THE LA COSTA GOLF COURSE AND JUMPED ACROSS SIX LANES OF EL CAMINO REAL ASPHALT TO CONTINUE ITS DESTRUCTION NEAR AVIARA, CAUSING TWO SCHOOLS AND A SENIOR CARE FACILITY TO EVACUATE. [00:10:04] WILDFIRES ARE NOT GOING AWAY, NEITHER IS OUR WATER SHORTAGE, WHICH NO ONE SEEMS TO WANT TO TALK ABOUT IN THE SAME CONVERSATION WHEN PUSHING FOR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING . TREES. OUR TREASURED TREE CANOPY WILL DIMINISH AS OUR MATURE SHADE TREES IN BACKYARDS WILL NEED TO BE DEMOLISHED TO MAKE WAY FOR CONCRETE, CREATING MORE HEAT AND MORE ENERGY USE FOR AC. THE ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION JUST NAMED CARLSBAD TREE CITY, USA, BECAUSE OF THE CITY'S 18 YEAR COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING AND PRESERVING TREES AS THEY ARE SO VITAL TO THE COMMUNITY'S WELL-BEING. ARE TREES NO LONGER IMPORTANT OR JUST IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS? WHY AREN'T THE SO CALLED ENVIRONMENTALISTS SPEAKING UP AGAINST SB 9? FLOODING. WHEN IT RAINS, WHERE WILL THE WATER GO? NO BACKYARDS MEANS NO GREEN SPACE TO ABSORB THE RAIN. OUR AGING SEWERS AND ROADS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE EXCESS RUNOFF THAT IS NOT BEING ABSORBED AS GROUNDWATER. AND LASTLY, INCREASED TAXES AS TAXPAYERS WILL BE LEFT TO FOOT THE BILL FOR MORE FREQUENT MAINTENANCE OF OUR STREETS, UPGRADING OUR AGING SEWER AND WATER DELIVERY SYSTEMS, BUILDING MORE SCHOOLS FOR THE INCREASING POPULATION, HIRING MORE POLICE OFFICERS FOR THE INCREASED CRIME THAT COMES WITH HIGH DENSITY HOUSING ALONG WITH MANY, MANY OTHER EXPENSES. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING MAYOR HALL, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND ALL THE STAFF, PARTICULARLY THE STAFF AT THE CITY HALL AND CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE WHO HAVE BEEN SO PATIENT WITH ME. THE CITIZENS TRUST THAT YOU WILL MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS FOR OUR CITY. I HOPE WE CAN ALL WORK TOGETHER IN ALLEVIATING THE FINANCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL DAMAGES CREATED BY THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS PASSED WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL. WE HAVE NO MORE SPEAKERS. OKAY WITH THAT, THEN I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MS. [1. STATE HOUSING LEGISLATION PRESENTATION] BREWER TO MAKE THE INTRODUCTIONS FOR TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO SAY WELCOME TO THIS JOINT MEETING OF OUR PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING COMMISSION. THIS WAS ACTUALLY AN IDEA WE HAD A FEW YEARS AGO TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AND ALL OF THE ENTITIES AT THE SAME TIME, BECAUSE HOUSING IS OF SUCH KEEN INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC. UNFORTUNATELY, WE TOOK A COUPLE OF YEARS HIATUS DUE TO COVID, SO WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE TO WELCOME BACK THE SOHAGI LAW FIRM WE HAVE. MS. MARGARET SOHAGI, HER BUSINESS PARTNER, TYSON SOHAGI. THE FIRM SPECIALIZES IN COMPLEX LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION, NEPA/CEQA, PUBLIC TRUST, TIDELANDS, ZONING, LAND USE, YOU NAME IT. THEY HAVE FABULOUS PROJECTS AND A LOT OF CASES ON THE BOOKS, AND SO WITH THAT, I WILL GIVE IT TO YOU, MS. MARGARET. THANK YOU, CELIA, AND IT'S WONDERFUL TO BE BACK AND SEE EVERYBODY IN PERSON. SO THANK YOU, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR INVITING US. AND SO NICE TO SEE BOTH COMMISSIONS AGAIN AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC BEHIND US. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH THE 2021 LEGISLATION ON HOUSING, IT IS AN OVERVIEW GIVEN THE LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME, BUT WE WILL SUGGEST RESOURCES THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT IF YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ENOUGH TODAY. WE WILL TRY TO KEEP THE LEGALESE TO A MINIMUM AND KEEP THE PLANNER SPEAK TO A MINIMUM, BUT DON'T KILL THE MESSENGERS. WE DID NOT WRITE THIS LEGISLATION. TALK TO SACRAMENTO ABOUT THE WAY IT'S WORDED. AS YOU KNOW, PROBABLY FROM READING MANY ARTICLES, THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS DEFINITELY ENCOURAGING HOUSING PRODUCTION THROUGHOUT THE STATE, INCLUDING GREATER DENSITY, AND THEY ARE DOING THIS BY REDUCING EVERY CITY AND COUNTIES DISCRETION THROUGHOUT THE STATE. I LOOKED ON HCD WEBSITE FOR SOME CURRENT STATISTICS, THE STATEWIDE PROJECTIONS SHOW A NEED OF 180,000 ADDITIONAL NEW HOMES PER YEAR, AND IT SHOWS THAT WE ARE PROVIDING STATEWIDE, ON AVERAGE, LESS THAN 80,000 UNITS A YEAR SINCE THE RECESSION IN 2008. NEXT TIME. SO WE ARE GOING TO REVIEW TEN PIECES OF LEGISLATION TODAY, ALL ADOPTED IN 2021, AND MOST OF THEM AMEND OR CLARIFY THE LEGISLATION THAT WAS ON THE BOOKS THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE IN 2019. SO IN A COUPLE PLACES, WE'LL GIVE YOU A BRIEF RECAP OF THAT LEGISLATION, BUT ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT VARIOUS INFORMATIONAL BULLETINS ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE IN MORE DEPTH. I BELIEVE, AS WELL, OUR PRIOR POWERPOINT PRESENTATION IS ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE THAT GOES INTO SOME GREATER DETAIL. [00:15:10] AND ANY BILL THAT IS OF INTEREST TO YOU, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SEARCH TERM CALIFORNIA AND THE BILL NUMBER, AND TRUST ME, IT WILL POP RIGHT UP AS WELL AS MANY ARTICLES THAT YOU MAY WANT TO READ ABOUT THE PIECE OF LEGISLATION. SO WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO START AND TYSON IS GOING TO KICK IT OFF WITH SB 9, WHICH WILL SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME ON BECAUSE IT'S NEW. YOU'VE SEEN A LOT IN THE NEWSPAPERS ABOUT IT AND HEARD A LOT ABOUT IT TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS I THINK WE SAW FROM THE EARLIER PRESENTATION, I THINK SENATE BILL 9 FROM 2021 IS PROBABLY OF THE GREATEST PUBLIC INTEREST OUT OF ALL THE HOUSING BILLS THAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING TODAY. IN ESSENCE, IT ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND PARCELS TO CONSTRUCT UP TO FOUR TOTAL HOUSING UNITS ON THOSE SITES. AS MARGARET DISCUSSED, IT'S PART OF THIS STATE'S SOLUTION TO TRY AND ADDRESS THE HOUSING CRISIS, AND AS PART OF THAT PROCESS, AND THIS WILL BE A THEME THAT YOU SEE AMONG A NUMBER OF THE BILLS WE DISCUSSED TODAY, IS THAT THE PROCESS MAKES APPROVAL OF THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS MINISTERIAL IN NATURE, MEANING THAT THE PUBLIC AGENCY HAS LIMITED DISCRETION TO DENY THESE PROJECTS SO LONG AS THEY FALL WITHIN CERTAIN SPECIFIED CATEGORIES THAT ARE WRITTEN OUT IN THE VARIOUS STATUTORY PROVISIONS. THANK YOU. SO THIS SLIDE PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF THE WAY THIS BILL WORKS. THERE'S TWO PRIMARY COMPONENTS TO IT. THIS INCLUDES THE SINGLE LOT DUPLEX AND THE URBAN LOT SPLITS. SO IN ESSENCE, THE SINGLE LOT DUPLEX ALLOWS YOU TO TAKE AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PARCEL AND BUILD TWO HOMES ON IT. ALTERNATIVELY, YOU CAN ALSO TAKE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME PARCEL, SPLIT IT INTO TWO INDIVIDUAL PARCELS, AND THEN HAVE TWO HOMES ON EACH ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL PARCELS. IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO SEE HERE, BUT I THINK YOU CAN ALL SEE THE INDIVIDUAL BOXES IN THIS EXAMPLE. AND THIS EXAMPLE IS AN AERIAL OVERVIEW OF WHAT A SINGLE FAMILY PARCEL MIGHT LOOK LIKE AS DEVELOPED UNDER SB 9. SO THIS PARCEL ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE SHOWS TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON AN INDIVIDUAL PARCEL. THAT NEXT FIGURE SHOWS AN ATTACHED SECONDARY HOME ON THE ORIGINAL PARCEL. THE THIRD FIGURE SHOWS AN EXISTING PARCEL WITH A SECONDARY HOME CONSTRUCTED IN THE BACK YARD. AND THEN THE THIRD EXAMPLE WITH JUST A DUPLEX CONSTRUCTED IS TECHNICALLY FOUR UNITS, TWO OF WHICH ARE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. SO THOSE ARE THE FOUR EXAMPLES ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE HERE. THE THREE EXAMPLES ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE ARE A SB 9 DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES BOTH A SINGLE LOT DUPLEX AND AN URBAN LOT SPLIT, MEANING THAT THERE ARE NOW TWO LEGAL PARCELS OF RECORD AND YOU CAN HAVE UP TO FOUR TOTAL HOMES ON ANY ONE OF THESE. SO THIS SLIDE PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF THE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY WHERE THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT COULD POTENTIALLY BE PERMISSIBLE. SO ONE OF THE INITIAL QUALIFYING REQUIREMENTS IS THAT THE CITY BE CONSIDERED AN URBAN AREA OR AN URBAN CLUSTER, WHICH THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DOES MEET. IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT THE PARCEL BE A SINGLE FAMILY ZONE, AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT TERM ISN'T DEFINED UNDER THE STATUTE, SO I IMAGINE THERE MAY BE SOME SUBSEQUENT LITIGATION ON THAT. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL ZONE, ALSO KNOWN AS RA, THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE ZONE KNOWN AS RE, AND THE ONE FAMILY ZONE, ALSO KNOWN AS R1 ZONE, WOULD LIKELY BE SUBJECT TO SB 9. AND THESE PARCELS CAN BE SEEN--. THE RA ZONES OR THE AQUAMARINE COLORS IN THE NORTHERN CENTRAL PORTIONS OF THE CITY, THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ESTATE ZONES, ARE THE DARKER AQUAMARINE COLOR IN THE EASTERN AND CENTRAL PORTIONS OF THE CITY. AND THEN BY FAR THE MOST WIDESPREAD WITHIN THE CITY ARE THE R1 ZONES, WHICH ARE THE YELLOW ZONES, THE LIGHTER YELLOW ZONES THAT ARE LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND A COUPLE OF LOCATIONS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE. NOW, THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS ON WHERE THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS CAN BE PROPOSED, AND A LOT OF THESE LIMITATIONS INCLUDE VARIOUS HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS. SO FIRE HAZARD ZONES, HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES, EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES, FLOOD ZONES, ZONES OF BIOLOGICAL [00:20:08] SIGNIFICANCE LIKE WETLANDS AND HISTORIC LANDMARK ZONES, AND GENERALLY TO SOME EXTENT, COASTAL ZONE, ALTHOUGH WE'LL GO INTO THAT IN SOME GREATER DEPTH BELOW. AND THESE EXEMPTIONS ARE SOME OF THE AREAS OF REGULATION BY OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND A FIGHT BETWEEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AND SOME OTHER CITIES SUCH AS PASADENA THAT WILL BE DISCUSSING AT THE END OF THIS PRESENTATION. SO HERE WE HAVE AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT BUILDING STANDARDS THE CITY CAN APPLY TO SB 9 DEVELOPMENTS. THE STANDARDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE OBJECTIVE, AND WE'LL DEFINE THAT IN A MOMENT. AND YOU CANNOT--. THOSE STANDARDS CANNOT BE APPLIED IF THEY WOULD PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SB 9 UNITS OR WOULD PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE UNITS AT 800 SQUARE FEET. HERE, THE LEGISLATURE ADDED THE ABILITY TO APPLY OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND THIS IS A TERM OF [INAUDIBLE] THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN APPLYING TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT HOUSING LAWS, INCLUDING THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND SB 330 THAT WE DISCUSSED SEVERAL YEARS AGO. AND OBJECTIVE STANDARDS REQUIRE NO PERSONAL JUDGMENT OR NO SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT ON THE PART OF THE DECISION MAKERS. THEY MUST BE VERIFIABLE, SUBJECT TO EXTERNAL BENCHMARKS OR CRITERIA. AND THIS HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION, NOT NECESSARILY IN THE CONTEXT OF SB 9, BUT THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AS TO WHAT STANDARDS CONSTITUTE SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS. SO EXAMPLES OF STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO BE SUBJECTIVE AND THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE TO A NUMBER OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ARE THINGS LIKE THE SITE OR THE STRUCTURE BEING PHYSICALLY SUITABLE AND THINGS THAT MAY SEEM OBJECTIVE IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, LIKE REQUIRING UPPER FLOOR SETBACKS OR TRANSITIONS IN HEIGHT. HOWEVER, SINCE THOSE TERMS WERE NOT OBJECTIVELY DEFINED, THE COURTS HAVE NOT ALLOWED THEIR APPLICATION IN SIMILAR CONTEXTS. THE CITY CAN REQUIRE OFF STREET PARKING OF UP TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT, EXCEPT IN LOCATIONS THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT CORRIDORS OR WITHIN A BLOCK OF CAR SHARE PROGRAMS. THE CITY CAN STILL APPLY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF FOUR FEET ON REAR AND SIDE YARDS, AS WELL AS--. IF THERE WAS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THAT SINGLE FAMILY SITE, IF IT WAS NON COMPLIANCE WHEN IT WAS DEMOLISHED, THE NEW STRUCTURE CAN BE REBUILT IN THE SAME LOCATION WITH THE SAME SETBACKS. SB 9 DOES NOT ALLOW SHORT TERM RENTALS IF IT IS UTILIZED, AND THAT'S RECORDED THROUGH A COVENANT THAT TRANSFERS WITH THE LAND. SO NOTHING UNDER 30 DAYS. THERE'S ALSO VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS FOR ONSITE WASTEWATER TESTING IF A SITE IS NOT CONNECTED TO A SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. SO THOSE WERE THE GENERAL STANDARDS FOR THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION. HOWEVER, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS IF THERE IS AN URBAN LOT SPLIT. IF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCEL IS SPLIT, THE TWO PARCELS MUST BE GENERALLY THE SAME SIZE, MEANING THAT ONE OF THE SMALLER LOTS, CAN'T BE MORE THAN 40% OF THE SIZE OF THE ORIGINAL LOTS, AND THERE IS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 1200 SQUARE FEET. YOU'LL SEE THERE'S AN ASTERISKS HERE BECAUSE THAT'S ONE AREA OF POTENTIAL LOCAL REGULATION, BECAUSE THE CITY DOES HAVE THE ABILITY UNDER THE LAW TO ALLOW A SMALLER MINIMUM LOT SIZE. THERE'S ALSO THE ABILITY TO SET PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL EASEMENT FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC UTILITIES. THINK WE CAN MOVE ON. OH, I'M SORRY. GO BACK. ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT I THINK WILL LIMIT HOW WIDELY USED SB 9 IS, IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL ELECTING TO APPLY FOR AN SB 9 DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING THAT THEY INTEND TO LIVE ON THE SITE, OR AT LEAST IN ONE OF THE UNITS FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS. THERE ARE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS FOR NONPROFIT DEVELOPERS, BUT THIS ISN'T A TOOL THAT'S INTENDED TO BE USED BY LARGER FOR PROFIT HOUSING DEVELOPERS, SO IT IS INTENDED TO BE USED BY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS. SB 9 DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE COASTAL ACT, THE BILL IS VERY EXPLICIT IN THAT, THE ONLY PROVISION IN SB 9 THAT EXPRESSLY RELATES TO THE COASTAL ZONE IS THAT IT [00:25:09] PRECLUDES A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN SB 9 DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL ZONE. AND THE CITY HAS PREPARED A GREAT BULLETIN ON ALL THINGS SB 9 RELATED, AND IN THAT THERE WAS AN OVERVIEW OF HOW SB 9 LIKELY WORKED IN THE COASTAL ZONE, AND THAT APPEARS TO BE CORRECT BASED UPON COASTAL COMMISSION'S GUIDANCE THAT WAS JUST RELEASED TWO OR THREE MONTHS AGO. IN ESSENCE, AGAIN, COASTAL COMMISSION AGREES THAT THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM REGULATIONS WOULD CONTROL WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE. SO REALLY THE ONLY WAY IN SB 9 DEVELOPMENT COULD OCCUR THERE IS IF THE ZONING ALLOWS IT, BUT GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT IS REQUIRED TO BE IN A SINGLE FAMILY ZONE, I DON'T THINK YOU COULD BE BUILDING FOUR HOMES IN THAT LOCATION IN THE COASTAL REGION. WE HAVE A LINK TO THE MEMO THERE FROM COASTAL COMMISSION, IF ANYONE ELSE IS INTERESTED IN FURTHER GUIDANCE ON THAT. I WILL NOTE THAT COASTAL COMMISSION AT A MINIMUM RECOMMENDS THAT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM PROCEDURES BE AMENDED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE LACK OF PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN THEY DO RECOMMEND THAT PUBLIC AGENCIES CONSIDER SB 9 TYPE OF DEVELOPMENTS MOVING FORWARD WITH THEIR LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS, IF IN THE APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS. AND BY APPROPRIATE, THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT NOT ALLOWING THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS SUBJECT TO SEA LEVEL RISE. NOW THE PERMITTING PROCESS--. AGAIN, THE CITY HAS PREPARED GREAT INFORMATIONAL BULLETINS AND CHECKLISTS FOR THE PERMITTING PROCESS FOR BOTH SINGLE LOT DUPLEXES AND URBAN LOT SPLITS . AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THEORETICALLY, IF IT WAS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WOULD ALSO BE NEEDED WITHIN THE CITY'S COASTAL ZONE, BUT THAT PROBABLY APPEARS TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AS IT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED. THERE IS A VERY, VERY HIGH STANDARD FOR DENYING SB 9 DEVELOPMENTS. AGAIN, THIS IS A MINISTERIAL PROCESS, AND THIS VERY MUCH MIRRORS A LOT OF THE STANDARDS REQUIRED FOR DENIAL OF REALLY ANY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS UNDER THE STATE'S HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND AS WELL AS SENATE BILL 330, THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT OF 2019 THAT WE WERE HERE TWO YEARS AGO TO DISCUSS . IN ORDER TO DENY AN SB 9 DEVELOPMENT, THAT PUBLIC AGENCY NEEDS TO ADOPT EXPRESS FINDINGS ABOUT SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACTS BASED UPON OBJECTIVE, QUANTIFIABLE STANDARDS THAT ARE IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME THAT THE PERMIT APPLICATION COMES IN. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, AND AS I'VE DISCUSSED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO LOCAL REGULATION IN SB 9, ALBEIT IN A LIMITED MANNER. THIS LAYS OUT SOME OF THOSE LOCATIONS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT NOW, GENERALLY, YOU CANNOT FULLY DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME IF IT WAS OCCUPIED WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS BY A RENTER, A TENANT. THERE IS SOME ABILITY TO LOWER THAT AMOUNT OR TO ALLOW FULL DEMOLITION OF THAT STRUCTURE. THERE'S ALSO AN ABILITY TO ALLOW OUR SMALLER LOT SIZES TO REQUIRE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS AND PUBLIC ACCESS AND TO REQUIRE ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER PROVISIONS. SO IF THE CITY IS INTERESTED, THAT IS GENERALLY THE SCOPE OF THEIR REGULATORY AUTHORITY MOVING FORWARD UNDER SENATE BILL 9. AT THE END OF THIS ENTIRE PRESENTATION, WE WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW ABOUT SOME ONGOING LITIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH SENATE BILL 9 FROM THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, AS WELL AS THREE OTHER CHARTER CITIES. ANOTHER RECENT BILL, SENATE BILL 10, IS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE LIMITED AND THIS IS AN OPTIONAL PLANNING TOOL FOR THE CITY. IT ALLOWS UP ZONING TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF TEN DWELLING UNITS OR LESS IN ANY ZONE WITHIN THE CITY, SO LONG AS THOSE LOCATIONS ARE IDENTIFIED AS BEING A TRANSIT RICH AREA OR AN URBAN INFILL SITE. URBAN INFILL SITES ARE GENERALLY DEFINED AS HAVING DEVELOPMENT ON 75% OF THEIR PERIMETER. THE--. IF ANY, SITE IS ZONED UNDER SENATE BILL 10 AS ALLOWING TEN DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, THEN THAT ZONING CANNOT BE UNDONE MOVING FORWARD. HOWEVER, THAT DECISION IS MINISTERIAL IN NATURE AND EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. WITH THAT TOUR THROUGH 9 AND 10, WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO SENATE BILL 8, WHICH IS A BILL [00:30:04] AUTHORED BY SENATOR SKINNER OUT OF BERKELEY. THIS AMENDS THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. I GENERALLY REFER TO IT AS SB 330. IT EXTENDS THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT, WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO SUNSET OR EXPIRE IN 2025. IT EXTENDS IT TO 2030, RIGHT? AND IT PROVIDES SOME FURTHER CLARIFICATIONS. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GIVE A BRIEF REFRESHER OF OUR PRE-COVID REVIEW OF SB 330. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE MAJOR BILLS FROM 2019, THE HOUSING CRISES ACT, THAT SEVERELY LIMITED ALL CITIES AND COUNTIES AUTHORITIES . JUST BY WAY OF EXAMPLE. IT PROHIBITS CITIES ABILITIES TO REDUCE DENSITY ON PROPERTIES THAT ARE DESIGNATED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES UNLESS THERE'S A CONCURRENT DENSITY INCREASE ON ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY. THE CITY CANNOT ENFORCE CAPS ON HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. IT STREAMLINES CERTAIN ENTITLEMENTS AND GENERALLY ALLOWS FOR VESTING OF LAND USE POLICIES AND FEES FOR HOUSING PROJECTS. VESTING MEANS LOCKING YOUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND YOUR FEES INTO PLACE. SO IT'S SEVERELY CHANGED THE LANDSCAPE, AND THE CITY HAS BEEN OPERATING UNDER SB 330 NOW FOR TWO YEARS. IN THE COURSE OF THAT, TWO YEARS OF QUESTIONS CAME UP, REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATIONS. SO WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOME OF THESE ON THE NEXT SLIDE. QUESTION IS WHAT IS A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT? SO TO BE CLEAR, UNDER THE LEGISLATION, IT REFERS TO PROJECTS WITH ONLY RESIDENTIAL UNITS OR PROJECTS THAT ARE MIXED USE, MEANING TWO THIRDS OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROJECT IS RESIDENTIAL OR TRANSITIONAL AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. SB 8 CLARIFIES THAT--. NEXT SLIDE. TO SAY THAT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS INCLUDE ANY OF THOSE PROJECTS WITH NO DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS, SO WE'RE GETTING BACK TO THIS MINISTERIAL CONCEPT. SORRY, PLANNING COMMISSION--. HOUSING COMMISSION. DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY. WITH BOTH EITHER NO DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS OR PROJECTS WITH OUR-- THAT ARE DISCRETIONARY AND NON DISCRETIONARY OR EVEN IF YOU'RE PROPOSING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. SB 330 APPLIES. THERE WAS QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT ONE PROVISION OF SB 330 THAT SAYS THAT A CITY HAS TO ACT ON THAT HOUSING PROJECT BY THE 5TH HEARING, WHICH IF I'M TAKING IT BACK, THAT MEANS AT LEAST NEEDS TO BE THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE 4TH, RIGHT? SO WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS FIVE HEARING REQUIREMENT? IT DOES NOT--. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO FIRST. THERE'S A BIT. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS. SO THAT MEANS A SPECIFIC PLAN, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, A ZONE CHANGE, BUT IT DOES APPLY TO OTHER TYPES OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMITS, DISCRETIONARY, NON-DISCRETIONARY, AND THE FIVE COUNTS FOR ALL APPEALS, INCLUDING ANY HEARINGS OR APPEALS ON DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS. SO THOSE ARE CLARIFICATIONS FROM SB 8. BASICALLY, ANYTHING YOU'RE DOING DURING YOUR REVIEW PROCESS HAS TO END AT THE COUNT OF FIVE. JUST LET THAT SETTLE IN HERE FOR A MOMENT. THERE WAS FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROVISION THAT WE CALL THE NO NET LOSS PROVISION, AND I REFERRED TO IT EARLIER. SB 330 LIMITS A CITY OR A COUNTY'S ABILITY TO REDUCE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WITHOUT CONCURRENTLY INCREASING DENSITY ELSEWHERE. SO THE OBVIOUS QUESTION CAME UP IS WHAT DOES CONCURRENTLY MEAN? HOW CLOSE DO WE HAVE TO BE TO CORRECTING THIS BALANCE? AND THE LEGISLATURE HAS TOLD US QUITE SUCCINCTLY AND EXPLICITLY THAT MEANS AT THE SAME MEETING, UNLESS HERE'S THE EXCEPTION, UNLESS THE PROJECT YOU'RE HEARING IS A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE APPLICANT ASKS FOR 180 DAYS TO ADJUST THIS INCREASE ELSEWHERE. SO BASICALLY YOU'RE BALANCING AT THE SAME MEETING UNLESS YOU HAVE A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, OK? [00:35:03] WHAT DOES DOWN ZONING MEAN? IF YOU'RE DOWN ZONING SOMETHING ON ONE SIDE, WHEN IS THIS NO NET LOSS PROVISION TRIGGERED? IT'S TRIGGERED WHEN YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ACTION THAT WOULD REDUCE THE SITE'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE, AND THAT'S STRAIGHT LANGUAGE FROM THE LEGISLATURE. SB 8--. IF WE CAN GO BACK ONE OTHER [INAUDIBLE] HERE. IT ALSO MODIFIES THE PROTECTIONS THAT WAS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS FOR REPLACING EXISTING DWELLING UNITS, RELOCATING TENANTS AND ASSISTING TENANTS. IF YOU--. A CITY, MAY NOT APPROVE A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT DEMOS ANY OCCUPIED OR VACANT PROTECTED RENTAL UNITS UNLESS YOU REPLACE THOSE PROTECTED UNITS, AND HERE'S THE OTHER HALF, YOUR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INCLUDES AS MANY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS THE GREATEST NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT EXISTED ON THE SITE WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE NOT HAVING A REDUCTION. SO WHAT DO WE MEAN BY PROTECTED UNITS? THOSE ARE BASICALLY RENT CONTROLLED UNITS OR THOSE DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO SOME SORT OF RECORDED COVENANT THAT RESTRICTS RENTS TO AFFORDABLE LEVELS. THERE'S ONE MORE ADDITION FROM SB 8, AND THAT IS IF THE PROJECT GOES SOUTH IN LAYPERSON'S TERMS , IN OTHER WORDS IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THE EXISTING OCCUPANTS ARE ALLOWED TO RETURN INTO THE EXISTING PROJECT AT THE SAME RENTAL RATE WHEN THEY WERE RELOCATED OUT OF THE PROJECT. PROJECT DOESN'T GO FORWARD, THE PROJECT ISN'T-- THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ISN'T DEMOLISHED, RENTERS ARE ALLOWED BACK IN. THE CITY'S INFORMATIONAL BULLETIN ON SB 330 LAYS THINGS OUT IN LAYPERSON'S TERMS, STEP BY STEP, AND IT HAS ALREADY BEEN UPDATED TO INCLUDE THESE AMENDMENTS TO SB 8. SO IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THIS COMES TOGETHER, I DO REFER YOU TO THE INFORMATIONAL BULLETIN ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. AND BY THE WAY, THESE BULLETINS ALL HAVE VERY HELPFUL LINKS. YOU CAN SORT OF SEE THEM, I CAN'T WITH MY EYES, BUT IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER, THEY'RE LINKS THAT WILL LINK YOU TO THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION, TO THE LEGISLATION, TO ANYTHING ELSE YOU MIGHT WANT TO FIND ABOUT THESE VARIOUS PIECES OF LEGISLATION. AND I WILL SAY THAT THAT'S TRUE ABOUT ALL THE OTHER LEGISLATIVE BILLS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DONE A GREAT JOB OF UPDATING SENATE BILL 9 AND THE VARIOUS OTHER PROVISIONS, INCLUDING SB 330, AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL CHECKLISTS TO ASSIST APPLICANTS IN DETERMINING WHETHER THEIR PROJECTS COMPLY OR DON'T COMPLY WITH THE STATE LEGISLATION. NOW, ANOTHER BILL THAT CAME OUT THIS YEAR IS KNOWN AS AB 1174. IT MODIFIES WHAT'S MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS SENATE BILL 35, WHICH IS A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECT BILL. AND JUST TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THAT PROCESS, THIS WAS A BILL THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2018, AND IT GENERALLY ALLOWS MINISTERIAL REVIEW OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS, THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CHANGES, MEANING THAT THOSE PROJECTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. IN THIS CASE, THE STATE HOUSING-- STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IS MAKING INSUFFICIENT PROGRESS ON ITS VERY LOW AND LOW INCOME COMPONENTS OF ITS REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION. SO THE CITY HAS RECENTLY BEEN SUBJECTED TO A 50% AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT FOR SB 35, SUCH THAT A PROJECT COULD COME IN THAT PROPOSES 50% OF THE UNITS TO BE AFFORDABLE AND IT COULD GO THROUGH A MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S BEEN THE CASE SINCE KIND OF MID JUNE OF 2020. HOWEVER, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO SB 35 APPLICATIONS IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, AND THAT NUMBER CAN GO AS LOW AS 10%, DEPENDING UPON HOW VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES MEET THEIR REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION OVER THE COURSE OF THE EIGHT YEAR PERIODS. AB 1174 MAKE SOME MINOR CLARIFICATIONS TO THIS BILL THAT INCREASE THE TIME PERIOD FOR VESTING. SO ORIGINALLY THERE WAS SOME UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHEN PROJECTS WOULD VEST AND IT RESULTED IN SOME LITIGATION AND SOME DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS UP IN CUPERTINO HAD SOME ISSUES WITH [00:40:07] THIS. AND IN ESSENCE, THE TIME OF VESTING HAS BEEN PUSHED BACK TO THE TIME OF DEMOLITION RATHER THAN STICKS IN THE GROUND AND ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACTUAL PROJECTS THEMSELVES. THE CITY DOES HAVE A VERY HELPFUL SB 35 INFORMATIONAL BULLETIN, AND I BELIEVE THERE IS AN APPLICATION CHECKLIST AS WELL. I SUPPOSE YOU'RE GETTING THE THEME THAT THERE ARE LOTS OF CITIES' INFORMATIONAL BULLET, THAT'S ONE THING-- BULLETINS, THAT'S ONE THING THEY'VE KEPT UP ON DURING COVID. SO IN BETWEEN THIS PERIOD OF WORKSHOPS AND UPDATES, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING VERY HARD TO MAKE SURE THE CITY STAYS IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT ENFORCEMENT AT THE END OF THIS PRESENTATION. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT NOW SOME MINOR FIXES TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LAWS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS. REMEMBER, ADUS, AS WE CALL THEM, HAVE MANY DIFFERENT NAMES. WHEN I STARTED AS A PLANNER, WE CALLED THEM GRANNY FLATS. I GUESS THAT'S OUT NOW AND WE CAN CALL THEM IN-LAW UNITS, THAT MAY BE OUT OF VOGUE AS WELL. SECONDARY UNITS, I THINK, IS THE MOST COMMON TERM NOW FOR AD UNITS. THEY CAN BE ATTACHED OR DETACHED. SO THE CITY NOW MUST ALLOW THE SALE OR THE CONVEYANCE OF AN ADU, BUT ONLY IN ONE MINOR CIRCUMSTANCE. THAT'S IF IT IS DEVELOPED BY A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, A QUALIFIED NONPROFIT CORPORATION. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. THIS BILL MAKES IT EASIER FOR THEM TO SELL AN ADU UNIT TO LOW OR MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. IT DOES IT IN TWO WAYS. THE FIRST IS, MOST OBVIOUS, IT REQUIRES CITIES AND COUNTIES TO ALLOW THOSE SALES, AND THEN IT ADDS LANGUAGE TO THE LEGAL AGREEMENTS TO TIGHTEN THAT UP. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS CAN SELL AN ADU SEPARATE FROM THEIR PROPERTY. THIS IS PURELY FOR A QUALIFIED NONPROFIT. SO IT'S A VERY NARROW EXCEPTION TO THE STANDARD RULE. HERE AGAIN, WE'RE FLASHING THAT BULLETIN, BUT WHAT I WANT TO ADD ON HERE IS, JUST LIKE SB 9, THE COASTAL COMMISSION HAS COME OUT WITH A MEMO ON HOW THEY SEE ADUS AND THE COASTAL ACT WORKING TOGETHER OR NOT WORKING TOGETHER, DEPENDING WHERE YOU VIEW IT. THIS IS A MEMO THAT WAS ISSUED JANUARY 21ST OF THIS YEAR. YOU CAN FIND IT ON THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S WEBSITE. IT REPLACES THREE PRIOR MEMOS THAT THEY HAD. SO IF YOU PULL UP ONE OF THOSE MEMOS, JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE 2021-- 2022 ONE. WHAT DOES IT SAY? IT SAYS THAT YOU NEED A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN MOST CASES, AND LIKE SB 9, A LOCAL PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED. IT SAYS THAT ANY ADU PROVISIONS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE CITY'S LCP, THEIR LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND PLAN ARE NOT SUPERSEDED BY THE STATE LEGISLATION. NOW, WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT COASTAL RESOURCES? BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT'S THE MAJOR FOCUS OF THE COASTAL ACT. BASICALLY, IT SAYS THAT SOME OF THE COASTAL RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS IN THE COASTAL ACT MAY NEGATE SOME OF THE STATEWIDE REQUIREMENTS, BUT ONLY IF IT'S REALLY TIED TO A COASTAL RESOURCE IMPACT THAT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED UNDER THE COASTAL ACT. SOME COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WAIVERS MAY BE PROVIDED BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION THAT'S DISCUSSED IN THE MEMO. SOUNDS TO ME LIKE IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK OUT AT THE CITY COUNTER OR AT THE COASTAL COMMISSION. IN THEIR DISCUSSIONS, THEY NOTE THAT THE BIGGEST AREA OF, I'D SAY CONFLICT, MAYBE THEY SAY DISCUSSION, WOULD BE AROUND PARKING BECAUSE ADU REQUIREMENTS AND MANY OF THESE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING. YET WE KNOW THAT THE COASTAL ACT PROTECTS COASTAL ACCESS AND THAT OFTENTIMES MEANS A SUPPLY OF PARKING. THIS MEMORANDUM FROM THE COASTAL COMMISSION SAYS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT ISSUES BETWEEN COASTAL ACCESS AND PARKING ON A CASE BY [00:45:06] CASE BASIS. SO THERE'S NO STRAIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD RULES THAT COME OUT OF THAT MEMO EXCEPT TO SAY YOU'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING TIME TALKING TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION ABOUT PARKING VERSUS COASTAL ACCESS. I WILL SAY THAT COASTAL COMMISSION HAS BEEN ACCEPTING LOWER PARKING RATIOS IN AREAS THAT ARE TRANSIT ORIENTED. I KNOW THEY OFFERED SOME REDUCED PARKING IN CITY OF SANTA MONICA RECENTLY AS WELL, SO THEY ARE MUCH MORE WILLING TO BALANCE THOSE ISSUES MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU. THERE ARE THREE PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT ARE BASICALLY CLARIFICATIONS ON THE DENSITY BONUS LEGISLATION THAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS. THEY'RE ALL GEARED TOWARDS, HERE AGAIN, REMOVING BARRIERS TO CREATE AFFORDABLE DENSITY BONUS UNITS. THE DENSITY BONUS LAWS, I THINK, HAVE BEEN ON THE BOOKS SINCE ABOUT 1979, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY GROWN IN GIRTH. I MEAN, I LOOKED AT YOUR MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION ON DENSITY BONUS, AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T TAKEN A MATH CLASS LATELY, YOU'VE GOT SEVERAL PAGES OF MATH TO WORK YOUR WAY THROUGH. THAT'S NOT THE FAULT OF THE CITY. THAT'S THE WAY THE LEGISLATION HAS GROWN OVER TIME. BUT THE BASIC CONCEPT FOR ANYBODY THAT HASN'T BEEN INTRODUCED TO DENSITY BONUS IS IT'S A MANDATE THAT ALLOWS FOR MORE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS IN EXCHANGE FOR PROVIDING AFFORDABLE OR SENIOR HOUSING. SO QUALIFYING APPLICANTS CAN RECEIVE REDUCTIONS IN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH AS SETBACKS AND HEIGHT LIMITS. IF THOSE STANDARDS WOULD PREVENT AN APPLICANT FROM ACHIEVING THE DENSITY UNDER STATE LAW, THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER INCENTIVES THAT ARE SET FORTH, INCLUDING NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. IN EXCHANGE FOR ALL OF THESE, WITH THE INCREASED DENSITY AND THE REDUCED STANDARDS, CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS MUST BE RESERVED FOR LOWER INCOME OR SENIOR OR OTHER ELIGIBLE PROJECTS. AND YOU CAN SEE, I GUESS-- EXCUSE ME, LISTED THAT WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THERE'S A LISTING OF INCENTIVES AND CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS. GREAT WEEKEND READING. SO HERE'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE, PARKING [INAUDIBLE] PEOPLE ALWAYS ASK ABOUT PARKING. IF YOU HAVE A ONE BEDROOM UNIT AND YOU'RE UTILIZING DENSITY BONUS LAW, ONLY ONE SPACE CAN BE REQUIRED TWO BEDROOMS, 1.5 SPACES AND THE LIKE. THERE'S NO PARKING [INAUDIBLE] REQUIRED IN SOME PROJECTS, FOR EXAMPLE, 100% AFFORDABLE TO LOWER INCOME. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SB 290 JUST EXPANDS DENSITY BONUS TO INCLUDE STUDENT HOUSING PROJECTS THAT HAVE 20% LOWER INCOME STUDENTS. IT PROVIDES SOME MORE PARKING INCENTIVES FOR MODERATE INCOME PROJECTS, AND SIGNIFICANTLY, IT TIGHTENS UP A CITY OR COUNTY'S ABILITY TO DENY INCENTIVES OR WAIVERS OR CONCESSIONS. IT USED TO SAY THAT A LOCAL AGENCY COULD DENY ANY OF THESE DENSITY BONUS QUALIFYING PROJECTS IF THERE WAS WHAT I WOULD CALL A CEQA IMPACT, IF THERE WAS A SPECIFIC IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT. NOW, TO DENY A PROJECT, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A FINDING THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY, NOT A CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, BUT A HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT. PROBABLY THE BIGGEST CHANGE IN SB 290 VIS A VIS THE CITY. AB 634 SAYS THAT IF A CITY OR COUNTY DOESN'T LIKE THE REQUIREMENT OF A 55 YEAR COVENANT, THAT WOULD BE A RECORDING THAT SAYS THAT YOU'RE THE PROPERTY HAS TO REMAIN AFFORDABLE FOR 55 YEARS, YOU CAN EXTEND IT TO 65 YEARS OR 70 YEARS OR HOWEVER LONG YOU WANT. BUT RIGHT NOW ON THE BOOKS IN THE MINIMUM YOU CAN DO IS 55 YEARS. SO THAT'S A PRICE THAT COMES WITH A DENSITY-- USING THE DENSITY BONUS IS THAT 55 YEAR COVENANT. AND AB 571, THE LAST OF THE NEW DENSITY BONUS LAWS, PROHIBITS ANY [00:50:09] AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEES TO BE IMPOSED UPON THE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT WERE GRANTED VIS A VIS DENSITY BONUS APPLICATIONS ONLINE. LAST PIECE OF LEGISLATION, BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT ENFORCEMENT, IS AB 140. DOES TWO THINGS. IT MAKES AMENDMENTS TO THE STATE'S RULES ON SURPLUS LANDS, AND IT ALSO HAS A ROBUST HOME BUYERS PROGRAM, OR AT LEAST DOLLARS TOWARDS A FUTURE HOMEBUYERS PROGRAM. WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE'S SURPLUS LANDS, IT NOW ALLOWS THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SOME EXPANDED AUTHORITY OVER STATE LANDS. SO IF THEY, AS THE STATE, INTEND TO LEASE LAND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR STRUCTURE OR RELATED RECREATION, THEY DO NOT NEED TO COME TO ANY CITY OR COUNTY FOR APPROVAL. THEY CAN DO THIS ON THEIR OWN. THAT'S THE BIGGEST CHANGE. IT ALSO ALLOWS THE STATE TO LEASE THAT PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IF THAT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROVIDING AMENITIES TO SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT'S A GREATER AUTHORITY TO THE STATE IN HOW IT HANDLES ITS EXCESS LANDS. THE OTHER PART OF AB 140 IS OFFICIALLY CALLED THE CALIFORNIA DREAM FOR ALL FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS PROGRAMS, AND IT REQUIRES THE STATE TREASURER TO DEVELOP A FRAMEWORK TO DEVELOP-- TO REDUCE BARRIERS TO HOME OWNERSHIP. THAT FRAMEWORK OR REPORT WAS UNDER THE LEGISLATION IS DUE THIS MONTH. I DID LOOK ONLINE LAST NIGHT AND COULD NOT FIND THAT FRAMEWORK [INAUDIBLE] BEING POSTED YET, SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A LITTLE BIT LATE. IT ALLOCATES, OVERALL, $2 BILLION IN FUNDS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS FOR FLEXIBLE AID TO COMBAT HOMELESSNESS. $800 MILLION. $800 MILLION OF WHICH WILL BE ALLOCATED TO CITIES AND COUNTIES AND OTHER PROVIDERS OF CARE TO ASSIST WITH HOMELESSNESS AND THE PROVISION OF HOUSING. THERE'S A LOT OF QUALIFIED VARIABLES IN THAT AB 140 FOR THE MONEY, AND I THINK A LOT HAS TO BE WORKED OUT AND LOOKING FOR THAT FRAMEWORK TO SEE WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE, BUT $80 MILLION TO CITIES AND COUNTIES, I TOOK NOTE OF THAT. THAT'S YOUR WHIRLWIND THROUGH THE LEGISLATION. I'M SURE WE'RE ALL HAPPY THERE'S NOT MORE AT THIS POINT, ALTHOUGH THERE IS MORE PENDING. BUT I WANTED TO TALK A MINUTE ABOUT WHAT I SEE AS A SHIFT IN ENFORCEMENT THAT'S GOING ON RELATED TO ALL OF THESE HOUSING LAWS. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAN ENFORCE THESE LAWS. WE'VE SEEN WHAT SOME MIGHT CHARACTERIZE AS NASTY LETTERS ARRIVING SOME PLACES TO SOME JURISDICTIONS, WHETHER IT'S ABOUT A HOUSING LAW OR THE HOUSING ELEMENTS. AND THEN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO THEN HAND IT OVER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IF THEY FEEL THAT THEY'RE NOT WORKING WITH THE CITY OR COUNTY TOWARDS COMPLIANCE. THERE IS NOW, [COUGH] EXCUSE ME, UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, THE ABILITY FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INDEPENDENTLY ENFORCE ALL THE HOUSING LAWS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. THEY DO NOT NEED A REFERRAL FROM HCD. GIVEN THIS AUTHORITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THIS LAST YEAR HAS CREATED A HOUSING STRIKE FORCE AND IT'S A VERY ACTIVE HOUSING STRIKE FORCE. THE QUOTE, I THINK, WAS ON THE LAST SLIDE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. WE WILL ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO RAMP UP OUR EFFORTS TO TACKLE THE HOUSING CRISIS AND ADVANCE ACCESS, ETC.. THIS IS A TOP PRIORITY AND A FIGHT WE WON'T BACK DOWN FROM. I AM COMMITTED TO USING ALL THE TOOLS OF MY OFFICE THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO ADVANCE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO HOUSING. WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN DOING TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE? THEY HAVE BEEN SENDING WARNING LETTERS, THREATENING TO SUE. SO LET'S START WITH FURTHEST FROM YOU GEOGRAPHICALLY, WOODSIDE, THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE. [00:55:06] YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THIS, IT DETERMINED ITS WHOLE TOWN WAS A MOUNTAIN LION SANCTUARY AND THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM SB 9. NEED I SAY THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TOOK ISSUE WITH THAT? TYSON TALKED ABOUT AN EXCEPTION IN SB 9 FOR SENSITIVE RESOURCES AND THE LIKE. I DON'T THINK THEY CALLED OUT A MOUNTAIN LION SANCTUARY. WE KNOW THEY NEED CORRIDORS. NONETHELESS, THAT WAS WOODSIDE'S ATTEMPT TO AVOID SB 9. PASADENA SIMILARLY DECLARED THAT IT WAS EXEMPTING ALL HISTORIC LANDMARK DISTRICTS FROM SB 9, WHICH, IF YOU SPEND ANY TIME IN PASADENA, COVERS A RATHER LARGE [INAUDIBLE] OF THE CITY, AND THEY RECEIVED A LESS THAN FAVORABLE LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SAID THAT THE PRECISE LANGUAGE OF SB 9 DOES NOT GO TOWARDS LANDMARK DISTRICTS IN THEIR ENTIRETY. THERE WAS A LENGTHY, EQUALLY COMBATIVE LETTER BACK FROM THE MAYOR. SO THAT SEEMS TO BE GOING BACK AND FORTH AT THIS TIME. AND THEN THE LAST EXAMPLE, WHICH YOU ALL MAY HAVE READ ABOUT IN THE NEWSPAPER IS THE LETTER TO THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, IT'S BEEN CARRIED IN THE UNION TRIBUNE. THE ORIGINAL LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STRIKE FORCE TO ENCINITAS, OF COURSE, IT WAS CONCERNING THE CITY'S DENIAL OF A I'VE HEARD 277 UNITS OR 271 UNITS WITH 41 UNITS RESERVED FOR LOW INCOME CITY DENIED THAT PROJECT. THE DEVELOPER'S APPLICATION WAS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE EXEMPTIONS FROM THE CITY'S ON BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARDS, I BELIEVE, AND OTHER STANDARDS UNDER SB 330 AND UNDER DENSITY BONUS. AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I READ THE LETTER SAYS IF THE CITY FAILS TO APPROVE THE REVISED PROJECT, THEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL TAKE PROMPT ACTION TO HOLD THE CITY ACCOUNTABLE. I DID READ YESTERDAY IN THE UT THAT AT LEAST A SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY, THIS OTHER LITIGATION OUT THERE, BUT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY THAT INVOLVES A PROPOSED REVISED PROJECT, SLIGHTLY FEWER UNITS AND NOW 50 AFFORDABLE UNITS INSTEAD OF 41. WHERE THAT GOES AND HOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FEELS ABOUT IT, I DON'T KNOW. MY KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITED TO WHAT I READ IN THE UNION TRIBUNE ON THAT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS LOOKING CLOSELY AT PROJECTS AND JURISDICTION'S APPLICATIONS OF THE LAW. TYSON--. AGAINST THE STATE CHALLENGING THE EFFICACY OF SENATE BILL 9, AND THAT CASE IS LARGELY BASED UPON THE ASSERTION THAT IT VIOLATES THE HOME RULE DOCTRINE, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE CONCEPT THAT RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND ZONING ARE MATTERS THAT ARE MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS. HOWEVER, I WILL NOTE NOT NECESSARILY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LEGALITY OF SENATE BILL 9, BUT ARGUMENTS RELATED TO OTHER HOUSING LAWS AND BOTH THE CITY OF BERKELEY--. OR SORRY, IN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND THE CITY OF BERKELEY, OTHER HOUSING LAWS WERE CHALLENGED ON SIMILAR GROUNDS, AND THE COURTS FOUND THAT THE STATE'S LEGISLATION DID NOT VIOLATE MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. SO [INAUDIBLE]--. THAT'S LITIGATIONS IN ITS EARLY STAGES-- YES, THAT PETITION, I THINK, WAS FILED A MONTH AGO. I IMAGINE THAT THAT WOULD GO TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, SO WE'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT A TWO YEAR TIME FRAME FOR A FINAL DECISION ON THAT CASE. AND WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES OUR REMARKS, MAYOR HALL. SO I'M SURE THERE'S NO QUESTIONS FROM THIS GROUP. SO IF--. SO, LET'S DO IT THE FAIR WAY, LET'S START OVER THERE WITH YOU JOE, AND DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M JUST GOING TO GO AROUND THE ROOM AND GIVE EVERYBODY A SHOT AT THAT. THEN, I'LL START WITH KEITH AND COME DOWN THIS SIDE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YES, I DO HAVE A QUESTION. WITH REGARD TO SB 9 AND THE URBAN LOT SPLITS, AM I UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY THAT IF YOU [01:00:04] DID THE LOT SPLIT, YOU COULD GO FROM ONE DWELLING UNIT ON A LOT TO A TOTAL OF EIGHT UNITS ON TWO LOTS? NO, IT WOULD ONLY-- IT WOULD BE FOUR TOTAL UNITS ON THE ORIGINAL SINGLE FAMILY PARCEL. YOU CAN'T HAVE-- YOU CAN'T USE THE FOUR TOTAL UNITS FROM SB 9 IN COMBINATION WITH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. SO, NO MATTER WHAT, IT'S A TOTAL OF FOUR UNDER SB 9. SO THERE WOULD BE TWO LOTS AND, AND TWO UNITS ON EACH CORRECT. OK. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD, IS THERE ANY ALLOWANCE OR ANYTHING IN THE LEGISLATION WHEREBY THE STATE IS RECOGNIZING SOME OF THE IMPACTS THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE ON LOCAL JURISDICTION, IN TERMS OF PARKING, IN TERMS OF OTHER [INAUDIBLE] EXTERNALITIES OR IMPACTS? IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE LEGISLATION WHEREBY THEY'RE GRANTING CITIES LIKE CARLSBAD, ANY TYPE OF FUNDING, ANYTHING FOR THOSE IMPACTS? UNFORTUNATELY, NO. I MEAN, I THINK THE ONLY WAY THAT SOME OF THOSE OTHER ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED ARE THE EXCEPTIONS FOR HIGH FIRE ZONES, EARTHQUAKE ZONES, FLOOD ZONES, BUT IN TERMS OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, UNFORTUNATELY, NO. TO THE EXTENT WE'RE SEEING IF YOU BACK THIS UP TO THE ALLOCATIONS, THE REGIONAL HOUSING ALLOCATION PROCESS, WE HAVE COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE ARE SAYING WE UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR HOUSING, BUT WE HAVE NO WATER. WHICH IS A POINT COMMISSIONER AND HCD IS SAYING, WELL, HOUSING PREVAILS UNDER STATE LEGISLATION. SO KIND OF TOO BAD? A LITTLE BIT, UNFORTUNATELY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. CAN YOU HEAR ME? IS YOUR MIC ON? OKAY. YOU'RE SOUNDING JUST A LITTLE SOFT. SORRY. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. UNDER SB 9, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE NO NET LOSS AND REPLACING IN THE SAME MEETING, RIGHT? IS THAT SB 9? THAT'S SB 330--. 330, BUT THAT'S OKAY. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NO NET LOSS PROVISION WE'RE AND HOW, IF THERE'S NO OTHER PROJECT, DOES THAT KIND OF WORK IN THE SAME MEETING? HOW DO YOU REPLACE THAT NO NET LOSS? RIGHT? THAT'S ALREADY A NET LOSS, AND THEN HOW DOES IT GET REPLACED? YOU HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER-- BE ABLE TO EFFECTUATE THAT INCREASE AT THE SAME MEETING. SO I DON'T MEAN TO SOUND FLIPPANT, BUT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEM THAT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO USE AT THE SAME MEETING. SO BASICALLY YOU'RE GOING TO BE COMING FORTH WITH HANDLING THAT CALIBRATION ON THE AGENDA AND IT'S HARD TO PUT TOGETHER THAT THAT PROJECT. NOW, IF A HOUSING DEVELOPER COMES IN WITH SOMETHING AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY IN ANOTHER LOCATION, THEN YOU TRIGGER THAT 180 DAYS. SO THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE. OKAY. SO DOES IT APPLY TO ONLY MULTIFAMILY HOUSING OR IS IT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING? SINGLE. SO IF SOMEONE COMES IN AND SAYS, I HAVE A VACANT LOT IN R4 AND I'M GOING TO BUILD ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. IS THERE A NET LOSS NOW? YES. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO IN THAT CASE, AT A MINIMUM, I THINK UP ZONE OTHER LOCATIONS AND BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT YOU CAN MEET YOUR REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION IN THOSE OTHER LOCATIONS AS WELL. SO WILL THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING OWNER BUILDING ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE BE REQUIRED TO PAY IN LIEU FEES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE WE'RE LOSING THREE ADDITIONAL UNITS? NO, YOU CAN'T PAY THE FEE IN LIEU OF HANDLING THIS NO NET LOSS PROVISION. SO THE ASSUMPTION--. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS BECAUSE BASICALLY EVERY SINGLE FAMILY LOT THAT ZONED WHAT DID YOU SAY, RA, RE, AND R1? THAT'S FOR SB 9, NOT SB 330. SB 330 IS APPLICABLE TO BOTH MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE PARCELS, BASICALLY ALL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND MIXED USE. BUT THOSE ARE YOUR ZONES IN SOME OF YOUR SINGLE YES. SO THE ASSUMPTION RIGHT NOW IS WITH SB 9, THOUGH, THEY WOULD BE FOUR UNITS, IS THAT CORRECT? [01:05:04] DOES THAT GET ACCOMMODATED IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT? HOW DOES THAT WORK? AND HOW DO WE ACTUALLY ACCOMMODATE PEOPLE WHERE THEY DO BUILD LOW DENSITY TO BE ABLE TO UP ZONE SOME OTHER AREAS? I'M GOING TO TURN THAT OVER TO SOME SPECIFICS [INAUDIBLE] JEFF. GOOD AFTERNOON. FOR THE RECORD, JEFF MURPHY, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY DO WHEN YOU HAVE AN APPLICATION COME IN, WE WOULD REQUIRE THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF LOTS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR ZONING. PARTICULARLY WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT, WE-- WHEN AN APPLICATION COMES IN, IF THEY PROPOSE SOMETHING LESS, WE WOULD PROBABLY RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THAT AND REQUIRE THAT THEY PUT IN AT LEAST THE MINIMUM THAT WE ASSUMED IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT. THAT WAY WE WON'T RUN INTO AN ISSUE WITH THE NO NET LOSS. GREAT. THE OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE BASED ON THE LIEU FEES THEMSELVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO IS THIS PROGRAM WORKING AND ARE WE GETTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN LIEU FEES ON A REGULAR BASIS, OR ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY PAYING THE FEES OR NOT PAYING THE FEES OR SORT OF JUMPING OVER IT OR HURDLING IT SOMEHOW? SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THAT PROGRAM IS WORKING OR IF WE, IN LIGHT OF ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, NEED TO MAYBE UPDATE SOMEHOW SOME OF THE PROGRAM WITH THE IN LIEU FEES? SO TO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION AS TO IN THE LIEU-- THE INCLUSIONARY PROGRAM WORKING, I WOULD SAY IN SHORT, IT IS EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL. SINCE THE CITY ADOPTED THAT ORDINANCE BACK IN THE EARLY NINETIES, WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL THE HOUSING HAS BEEN DEVELOPED SINCE THEN, ROUGHLY 13% OF THE HOUSING STOCK BUILT IS CONSIDERED AFFORDABLE. AND SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S VERY-- SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF IN CARLSBAD. NOT A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS CAN BRAG ABOUT THAT. PART OF THE REASON WHY IS THE WAY THE PROGRAM IS STRUCTURED IS THAT UNITS THAT ARE ONLY SIX UNITS OR LESS ARE ELIGIBLE TO PAY THE IN LIEU FEE. THAT MEANS THAT UNITS THAT ARE SEVEN UNITS AND LARGER HAVE TO BUILD THE UNITS ON SITE. THEY DON'T GET THE OPTION TO PAY THE IN LIEU FEE, LIKE SOME OF THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT WE SEE, LIKE THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO. SO THOSE SMALLER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS DO THE PAY THE IN LIEU. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CITY COUNCIL JUST AMENDED THE IN LIEU FEE AND ADJUSTED IT TO BE A PER SQUARE FOOT RATE, WHICH WAS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE GIVEN THAT WE HAVEN'T INCREASED THE FEE SINCE 1996. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I HAVE PLANS ACTUALLY TO BRING THAT ACTION THAT THE COUNCIL TOOK A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO UPDATE YOU ON THE INCLUSIONARY PROGRAM, NOT JUST THE IN LIEU FEE, BUT ALSO THE OTHER WHAT WE REFER TO AS ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE, WHERE IF YOU HAVE A PROJECT THAT CANNOT MEET THE THE LITERAL INTENT OR THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE INCLUSIONARY CODE, THERE'S ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE THAT ACHIEVE OUR HOUSING ELEMENT OBJECTIVES. AND THOSE HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN A POLICY, AND YES, I HAVE AN INFORMATION BULLETIN ON THAT, AND THAT WE'LL PRESENT THAT TO YOU AT A FUTURE DATE REAL SOON. ROY? YES. THANK YOU. EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU IN REGARD TO, AND I REMEMBER WHEN THE HOUSING LEGISLATION WAS COMING DOWN-- HOUSING LEGISLATION WAS COMING DOWN A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. THERE WERE STATEMENTS MADE IN REGARD TO IMPACTS ON OUR GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND I REMEMBER THERE WERE SOME ISSUES IN REGARD TO THE DATE OF MAYBE A SUNSETTING OF 2026 OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. COULD YOU EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT AS TO, YOU KNOW, NOW TWO YEARS OR MORE HAS GONE BY AND WHAT THAT IMPACT IS AND POSSIBLE CHANGES OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE ON OUR GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN? SO, I BELIEVE IN MARGARET'S OVERVIEW OF THE AMENDMENTS TO SB 330, THAT SUNSET PROVISION WAS PUSHED OUT, AS WE ANTICIPATED WOULD OCCUR. AND I THINK IT'S 2030 NOW, AND THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE BACKING DOWN. SO I WOULD ANTICIPATE THERE MAY BE ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, THE SUNSET DATE GETS PUSHED BACK EVEN FURTHER IN THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS, DEPENDING UPON HOW SB 330 IS IMPLEMENTED AND WHETHER THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS CONTINUES TO INCREASE OR DECREASE OR WHETHER PUBLIC AGENCIES CONTINUE TO MEET THEIR REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATIONS. THE CITY DID ADOPT PREEMPTION FINDINGS PURSUANT TO SB 330 UNDER THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT DID INCLUDE HOUSING CAPS, AND HOUSING CAPS WERE DETERMINED TO BE IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER SB 330. THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU. IT WAS A VERY INFORMATIVE PRESENTATION. [01:10:02] I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. BILL? MARGARET AND TYSON, THANK YOU BOTH. WE'RE ALL HERE BECAUSE WE LOVE THIS CITY AND WE'RE ALL HERE BECAUSE WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE OVERREACH, IN MY OPINION. WHAT IS THE SOLUTION TO A RESTORING CARLSBAD? IS IT LITIGATION? IS IT POLITICAL? YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ON ANY OF THAT? I WOULD DEFER TO YOUR CITY COUNCIL [LAUGHTER] ON THAT. I CAN TELL YOU THROUGHOUT THE STATE, ALL ARMS OF GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN TWISTED. HOW DO WE UNTWIST THEM? [LAUGHTER] OR WHICH ARMS DO WE UNTWIST OR TWIST? [LAUGHTER] KEVIN? THANK YOU FOR THAT EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. I HAVE A SLIGHT FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN. SO UNDER A DENSITY BONUS, DEVELOPERS ARE ENTITLED TO UNLIMITED WAIVERS AND CONCESSIONS OF BUILDING STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS. SO HCD HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT EVEN IF A DEVELOPMENT COULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT THOSE WAIVERS AND CONCESSIONS, THE DISCRETIONARY BODIES LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAVE NO RIGHT TO REDESIGN THOSE PROJECTS. SO WHEN WE'RE EVALUATING THE PROJECT FOR CONSISTENCY WITH OUR MUNICIPAL CODE AND OTHER STATE LAWS, WHAT ARE WE REVIEWING FOR IF THEY CAN JUST ASK FOR A WAIVER OR A CONCESSION? WELL, FOR CLARIFICATION, THERE AREN'T UNLIMITED WAIVERS AND CONCESSIONS DEPENDING UPON THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE PROVIDED OR THE PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE PROVIDED, YOU GET ONE, TWO, THREE OR FOUR CONCESSIONS AT THE APPLICANTS ELECTION. THERE ARE SOME LIKE PARKING THAT ARE ALSO AUTOMATICALLY APPLIED, AND THEN OF COURSE THERE ARE CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS FOR STANDARDS THAT WOULD PRECLUDE BUILDING THE DENSITY PROPOSED IN THE PROJECT. BUT WHAT I'M HEARING, YOU ASK IS, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING LEFT WE CAN DO? WHAT'S OUR ROLE? AND YES, YOU DO HAVE LIMITED DISCRETION, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY APPLIED. AND FRANKLY, THAT'S NOT A NICETY, I MEAN, THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, SO. AND I WILL SAY, IN THE RECENT CALIFORNIA RENTERS ADVOCACY CASE AGAINST CITY OF SAN MATEO, THAT WASN'T A DENSITY BONUS CASE, BUT IT'S SIMILAR PROVISIONS. THE COURT RULED THAT THE CITY CAN STILL APPLY SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS SO LONG IT DOESN'T RESULT IN DENIAL OR A REDUCTION IN DENSITY OF THE PROJECT. AND I IMAGINE THAT THAT WOULD PROBABLY EQUALLY APPLY IN THE CONTEXT OF DENSITY BONUS, AND I THINK THAT WAS THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT CASE. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. ARE MEETINGS THAT DEVELOPERS ARE REQUIRED TO HOLD WHERE NEIGHBORS CAN PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THEIR PROPOSAL, DO THOSE COUNTS IN THE FIVE MEETING RULE? NO. THE FIVE MEETING RULE WOULD BE A CITY REVIEW PROCESS MEETING. SO IF YOU HAVE A DEVELOPER HOLDING A MEETING BY HIM OR HERSELF THAT DOES NOT COUNT. WE'RE TALKING OFFICIAL CITY REVIEW HEARINGS. BUT IF WE REQUIRE THEM TO DO THAT? IT STILL IS--. I MEAN, THAT QUESTION HASN'T COME UP, BUT MY FIRST SENSE WOULD BE THAT'S NOT A CITY REVIEW PROCESS. THAT'S SOMETHING THEY ARE DOING. WHO KNOWS WHO WILL CHALLENGE THAT OR WHAT THE LEGISLATION MAY SAY NEXT YEAR, COMMISSIONER, BUT THAT'S MY SHOOT FROM THE HIP LEGAL RESPONSE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. A LOT OF THE CITY OVER THE YEARS HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BY GROUPS THAT FORM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, GATED COMMUNITIES, AND I UNDERSTAND THE LAW OVERCOMES A LOT OF THEIR RULES, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING AS TO EXACTLY WHAT ROLE THEY MAY HAVE IN TERMS OF DETERMINING WHAT IS ALLOWED AND NOT ALLOWED WITHIN THEIR OWN RULES? I HAVEN'T STUDIED HOA MEETS STATE HOUSING LAW, WHICH I THINK IS THE AREA THAT YOU'RE TALKING [01:15:01] ABOUT. MOST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RULES ARE ENFORCED VIA RECORDED COVENANTS, AND WE KNOW THROUGH HISTORY THAT SOMETIMES COVENANTS ARE CONSIDERED ILLEGAL. AND I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT THE STATE HOUSING LAW IS VERY STRONG, AND IF YOU'RE COMING TO BAT THAT WITH SOMETHING FROM A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, I KNOW WHERE I WOULD WAGER AND IT WOULD BE ON THE STATE LEGISLATION. BUT I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT ALL ABOUT INDIVIDUAL HOA REQUIREMENTS. I KNOW I HAVE SEEN SOME LAWS, I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS SB 330 THAT DO REFERENCE IT AND THEY DO SAY THAT THE STATE OVERRIDES, BUT I DON'T THINK AN EXPLICIT REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE IN ALL THE VARIOUS STATUTORY PROVISIONS DISCUSSED TODAY. MY SECOND QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE NATURE OF SERVICES UTILITIES PROVIDED TO UNITS. A LOT OF UNITS ARE SHARING COMMON LINES AND THIS IS BASICALLY ALLOWING THE SALE OF SUCH LINES, AND I'M WONDERING-- I MEAN, OF UNITS, HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL LINES, SEWER LINES, OTHER UTILITIES AND WHO CARES THAT BURDEN? YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT YOU HAVE PROPER SERVICES, SO THAT'S STILL THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT. AND REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ADUS, THE ABILITY TO SELL OFF THAT UNIT WAS LIMITED TO QUALIFIED NONPROFITS. I DON'T--. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO COME UP VERY OFTEN, BUT WITHOUT A DOUBT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SERVICE AND SHOW THAT THERE'S THE ADEQUATE PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE. IN SB 9, SOME OF THE EXPLICIT PROVISIONS DO DISCUSS THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE UTILITY EASEMENTS. THAT WAS ONE EXPRESSLY CALLED OUT IN SB 9. THANK YOU. JOHN? THANK YOU, MARGARET AND TYSON, FOR AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. AND ALSO, I WANT TO THANK THE PUBLIC SPEAKER EARLIER. SEEING THE IMAGES OF SOME OF THOSE ADUS THAT DWARFED THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS WAS A LITTLE EYE OPENING AND A BIT CONNECTED TO THAT IN PARTICULAR FOCUSED ON SB 9, AND REALLY MANY OF THESE THAT YOU DISCUSSED, THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF A CURTAILING OF THE CITY'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT, ESPECIALLY OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, ETC., BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ESTABLISH FEES. IS THERE ANYTHING IN SB 9 OR ANY OF THE OTHER LAWS THAT RESTRICT OR OTHERWISE GOVERN APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT FEES? THAT WAS ADDRESSED GENERALLY AS PART OF THE SB 330 PACKAGE OF BILLS FROM TWO YEARS AGO. THERE'S A NEW PRE APPLICATION APPROVAL PROCESS THAT GENERALLY LOCKS IN FEES AT THE TIME THAT THE PRE APPLICATION COMES IN. THERE ARE SOME LIMITED WAIVERS FOR FEES THAT I THINK HAVE ANNUAL INCREASES THAT ARE TIED TO CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE NUANCED, BUT GENERALLY THERE IS SOME VESTING UNDER SENATE BILL 330 WHEN THOSE APPLICATIONS COME IN. RIGHT. BUT OTHER THAN VESTING, SAY, A CITY FOUND A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT TYPE TO BE ONEROUS. COULD A CITY ESTABLISH LIKEWISE ONEROUS FEES ON THAT HOUSING TYPE? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT PREVENTS A CITY FROM DOING THAT? YES. EVEN BASIC IMPACT FEE STUDY LAW TALKS ABOUT REASONABLE FEES AND NEXUS. SO NO, AND NOT GOING TO WANT TO DO IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. AS WELL, REMEMBER, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INCLUSIONARY FEES, WHICH I KNOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BROADER FEE, BUT THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEES CAN NOT BE APPLIED TO A DENSITY BONUS PROJECT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND THEN ON 8140, THE DISCUSSION OF STATE EXCESS LANDS, HOW MUCH DOES THIS IMPACT CARLSBAD? DO WE HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF STATE EXCESS LANDS THAT COULD NOW BE SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT CITY INVOLVEMENT? JEFF? [LAUGHTER] WE DO HAVE A FEW. THERE ARE THREE SITES THAT WE IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL SITES IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT. AND SO IF THOSE ARE ULTIMATELY SELECTED FOR FUTURE HOUSING, WE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF NOTIFYING THE STATE AND OFFERING UP FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS PART OF THAT AS THAT BILL THAT THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. GREAT. THANKS, JEFF. AND WERE THOSE LARGE PARCELS? [INAUDIBLE] OFF THE OUT OF ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU COULD BE ASKED TODAY, OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT IMPACT COULD BE? [01:20:01] [INAUDIBLE]. THEY KIND OF RUN THE GAMBIT. I MEAN, WE HAVE A COUPLE I THINK ONE-- TWO OF THEM ARE AROUND 2 TO 6 ACRES IN SIZE. THE OTHER ONE IS MUCH LARGER. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND LAST QUESTION. THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S INCREASING ROLE, THE CONSTRUCT OF A HOUSING STRIKE FORCE, JUST YOU TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF, QUOTE, MEAN LETTERS THAT HAVE BEEN SENT TO CITY. DO WE HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT LEGAL REMEDIES ARE ACTUALLY AVAILABLE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL? BECAUSE A NUMBER OF THESE LAWS, FOR EXAMPLE, ALREADY HAD REMEDIES BUILT IN, FOR EXAMPLE, AMENDING AFFORDABILITY THRESHOLDS FOR MINISTERIAL REVIEW DEPENDING ON PROGRESS TOWARDS THE CITY'S [INAUDIBLE] REQUIREMENTS, BUT IF THERE ISN'T SOMETHING EXPLICITLY WRITTEN AS A REMEDY IN A LAW, WHAT ELSE IS AVAILABLE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL? WE HAVE A LOT OF TEETH IN THIS AREA, INCLUDING MASSIVE DAILY FINES ALL THE WAY--. I MEAN, IT GOES TO A COURT EVENTUALLY, CORRECT? AND THEN THAT CAN EVEN GO SO FAR AS THE COURT HAVING THE ABILITY TO SHUT DOWN A BUILDING COUNTER. I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT IN DECADES, BUT THAT IS ON THE BOOKS AND THEN WHAT WE'VE ALSO DISCUSSED UNDER SB 330, IF THE CITY DOES ATTEMPT TO IMPLEMENT A MORATORIUM THAT IT BELIEVES COMPLIES WITH SB 330, THAT MORATORIUM CAN'T BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL IT GOES BEFORE HCD FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AND SIGN OFF. SO THERE'S ALSO SOME ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED INTO SOME OF THESE VARIOUS BILLS TO ENSURE STATE OVERSIGHT. GREAT. THANK YOU. AND ALSO, IF I MAY ADD, YOU KNOW, WHEN I FIRST STARTED IN THIS BUSINESS, THERE WAS DEFERENCE GIVEN TO LEGISLATIVE BODIES TO FIND FINDINGS. AND NOW A LOT OF THAT, THE LEGISLATIVE BODY JUST HAD TO MAKE THE FINDINGS, AND WE GOT THE NOD IN COURT, RIGHT? THE JUDGE DEFERRED TO THE PUBLIC AGENCY, AND A LOT OF THAT HAS BEEN EFFECTIVELY TURNED ON ITS HEAD BY SOME OF THESE STATUTES THAT PUT THE BURDEN BACK ON THE PUBLIC AGENCY TO BE THE ONES BEARING THE BURDEN OF PROOF. SO IT'S, REALLY, ANOTHER SHIFT, SIGNIFICANT SHIFT THAT GIVES LESS POWER TO CITIES. THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT BECAUSE IT'S REALLY SETTING A HIGH BAR IF A CITY OR COUNTY GOES INTO COURT UNDER ONE OF THESE CHALLENGES, ITS HEAVY BURDEN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. JUST ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION. IF A SINGLE HOMEOWNER CHANGED THEIR GARAGE INTO AN ADU UNIT AND THEN THEY PUT IT UP FOR SALE AND THE NEW HOMEOWNER WANTS TO PUT IT BACK INTO A GARAGE, DO THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH A NET LOSS? NO, THAT'S NOT UNDER--. UNLESS I'M--. THAT'S NOT UNDER ADU [INAUDIBLE]. THAT'S UNDER--. [INAUDIBLE] 35. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION OF HOW THE UNIT WAS CALCULATED IN THE [INAUDIBLE], BUT I THINK MOST SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DON'T TAKE CREDIT FOR [INAUDIBLE]. SO EVEN IF THEY BUILT THE UNIT SEPARATE FROM THE GARAGE, IT WOULDN'T MATTER, THE NEW HOMEOWNER COULD RAISE THAT AND JUST BUILD ONE UNIT? YEAH, BUT LET ME GO BACK AND CHECK ON THAT WHILE WE GO FORWARD. OKAY. YOU STUMPED US. [LAUGHTER] I KNOW. I GOT ALL HALFWAY AROUND THE TABLE. VERY GOOD. MR. BLACKBURN? I'M NOT HEARING A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR THESE STATE LAWS, [LAUGHTER] AND WE'RE A LITTLE BIT HELPLESS. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF LAWSUITS, BUT IS THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES PUSHING BACK? IS THERE A GROUP OF CITIES WHO ARE TRYING TO PUSH BACK? AND WHAT COULD WE DO TO HELP SUPPORT THAT PUSH BACK? THE ONLY CITIES THAT I KNOW THAT ARE PUSHING BACK ARE THE FOUR IN THE REDONDO BEACH LAWSUIT THAT TYSON MENTIONED. AND WHILE WE'RE GOING TO A LEAGUE CONFERENCE NEXT WEEK THAT'S BEING HOSTED HERE IN CARLSBAD, AND CELIA'S DOING THE INTRODUCTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S GROUP, I'M SURE THERE'LL BE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING RIGHT NOW THAT'S TRYING TO UNWIND ANY OF THIS. I'D BE INTERESTED TO HEAR WHEN YOU COME BACK FROM THAT, IF THERE'S SOME GRUMBLINGS. I'M GUESSING WE'RE NOT THE ONLY CITY NOT PLEASED WITH THIS. AND THERE MUST BE SOME PUSH BACK SOMEWHERE AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS WE CAN DO THAT WOULD BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND COST EFFECTIVE. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR. LET ME JUST RESPOND BRIEFLY, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN VERY INVOLVED AS THE LEGISLATIVE-- AS A MEMBER OF OUR LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OUR CITY COUNCIL, BUT ALSO SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN VERY INVOLVED WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES FOR OVER 15 YEARS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT RECENTLY THAT WE HAVE NOT YET TAKEN A POSITION ON IS A FUTURE BALLOT MEASURE, POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE [01:25:06] FOR NOVEMBER, AND IT'S BEING PROPOSED BY SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE, INCLUDING REDONDO BEACH MAYOR BILL BRAND, THAT HAVE DRAFTED THE LANGUAGE, AND IT'S CALLED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD VOICES. AND YOU CAN LOOK IT UP AND IT'S A BALLOT MEASURE DRAFTED TO ROLL BACK SB 9. AND IT'S REALLY JUST BASED ON THE OUTRAGE OF CITIES BECAUSE THE STATE CONTINUES TO TRY TO TAKE AWAY LOCAL CONTROL. IT'S ALL ABOUT THAT, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU TAKE A LOOK AND WEIGH IN WITH US, BECAUSE THE MAYOR AND I SIT ON THE LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU. BUT RIGHT NOW, IT SOUNDS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE INTERESTING. I HAVEN'T READ THE FULL LANGUAGE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOMETHING IN THERE THAT I WOULD DISAGREE WITH. BUT THE CONCEPT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S THE STATE TAKING AWAY OUR LOCAL AUTHORITY AND A WAY FOR US TO FIGHT BACK. I KNOW THAT SCAG JUST TOOK A SUPPORT POSITION, SCAG IS THE SANDAG OF NORTHERN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. SO LA, VENTURA, RIVERSIDE, ALL THOSE OTHER COUNTIES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EXCEPT FOR SAN DIEGO, JUST TOOK A SUPPORT POSITION FOR THE BALLOT MEASURE. SO THEY'RE GAINING SUPPORT. IT'S SNOWBALLING, AND WE'LL SEE IF IT GETS UP ENOUGH STEAM TO GET ON OUR BALLOT. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M I DON'T THINK IT'S--. I DON'T THINK IT'S-- MR. NORBY? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. BOY, IT'S KIND OF--. YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER THE BATTLES 20 YEARS AGO ABOUT MANSIONIZATION ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT, AND I ALMOST FEEL NOSTALGIC FOR THOSE OLD DAYS, RIGHT? WHERE WE WERE JUST DEALING ABOUT A BIG HOUSE ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT COMPARED TO WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH NOW. YOU KNOW, ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, NATIVE SAN DIEGAN GREW UP IN THE KIND OF THE SAN DIEGO STATE AREA, AND ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES HAVE HAVE GENERALLY TRIED TO MAINTAIN A 30 FOOT OR A 35 FOOT OR A 40 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT, ESPECIALLY ALONG THE COAST, AND IT'S JUST THE WAY OUR COMMUNITIES HAVE CHOSEN TO--. THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO LOOK LIKE. THIS IS WHO WE ARE. THIS IS WHAT WE VALUE. THIS IS THE DENSITY THAT WE LIKE. THE STATE COMES TO US AND SAYS, WELL, YOU'VE GOT TO CREATE THESE [INAUDIBLE] NUMBERS. AND WE'RE LIKE, FINE, WE'LL CREATE THEM. WE'LL MAKE THIS [INAUDIBLE] HOUSING, WE'LL DO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. IN FACT, WE'LL BE ONE OF THE FIRST IN THE STATE TO TAKE IT UP TO 15% AND 10% BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND SO I LOOK AT OUR CITY TO THE SOUTH, WHICH I HAVE A LOT OF INVOLVEMENT IN IN THE PAST, AND THE TWO THINGS THAT ARE STRIKING TOWARDS ME RIGHT NOW IS ONE, IN A MORE OF A RURAL AREA, THE LIVE HIGH IN AREA OF ENCINITAS, THEY'RE LOOKING AT A 67 FOOT BUILDING, 67 FEET. AND I JUST I SHAKE MY HEAD AS WELL GOING, MY GOSH, THAT'S EVERY COMMUNITY AND EVERY COASTAL CITY IS GOING TO BE DEALING WITH THAT OR CERTAINLY HAS THE POSSIBILITY OF DEALING WITH THAT. A FEW HUNDRED UNITS AT 67 FEET TALL IN AN AREA THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T HAVE ANOTHER BUILDING THAT GOES BEYOND 30 FEET, AND THAT'S JUST BECOMING THE NORM. AND IT'S LIKE THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT. THE OTHER SCENARIO THAT'S GOING ON IN ENCINITAS IS A PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN AGRICULTURE IN PERPETUITY. THERE WERE FIVE PROJECTS THAT RESULTED FROM A SPECIFIC PLAN, AGRICULTURE IN PERPETUITY, AND I'D LIKE TO ASK OR JUST HAVE THIS COMMUNITY KNOW HOW MUCH WE VALUE OUR OPEN SPACE. AND NOT ALL THAT OPEN SPACE IS PUBLICLY OWNED. SOME OF IT'S PRIVATELY OWNED, WHETHER IT'S A SLOPE ORDINANCE OR SOME SORT OF A CONCESSION THAT WAS GIVEN FOR A DEVELOPMENT OF A PROJECT. AND THE CITY OF ENCINITAS BASICALLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION AFTER A LOT OF LAWSUITS AND A LOT OF UPS AND DOWN, THAT THEY WOULD TAKE THEIR AGRICULTURAL LAND AND PUT 200 PLUS UNITS ON TO MEET THEIR AFFORDABILITY AND THE [INAUDIBLE] NUMBERS. AND IT'S UNFATHOMABLE THAT A COMMUNITY WOULD DO THAT. AND SO THIS IS, AGAIN, THE TYPE OF DECISIONS AS THE STATE GOES HARDER AND HARDER AND HARDER AND HARDER, REQUIRING US TO DO MORE AND MORE AND MORE AFTER WE'VE ALREADY DONE A LOT AND BEEN COMPLIANT FOREVER, THAT THESE ARE THE TYPES OF DECISIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT OVER THE NEXT 30 YEARS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE DIFFICULT DECISIONS. SO I HOPE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, OUR SUCCESSOR DOCUMENT TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, WHETHER IT'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 2.0 OR SOME SUSTAINABILITY DOCUMENT, CAN GUIDE US FOR THE NEXT 30 OR 40 YEARS OF WHERE WE WANT TO PUT THIS. AND THE UNFORTUNATE PART OF SB 9 IS THAT WE DON'T EVEN GET TO DECIDE WHERE WE WANT TO PUT IT. IT'S EVERY SINGLE FAMILY LOT. SO I ECHO OUR DEPUTY MAYOR, MR. BLACKBURN, MAYOR PRO TEM MR. BLACKBURN, ANYTHING WE CAN DO AS A CITY, I MEAN, I'M A NATIVE. I LOVE SAN DIEGO. I DON'T WANT TO SEE 67 FOOT STORIES IN ANY OF OUR TOWNS AND OUR COASTAL AREAS. [01:30:05] SO ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO IMPROVE THIS AND TO FIGHT BACK, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE I JUST-- . THE WHOLE HOUSING APPARATUS AT THE STATE, IT'S ONE SLEDGEHAMMER FITTING EVERY CITY AND EVERY TOWN IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND MODESTO HAS DIFFERENT PROBLEMS THAN SAN FRANCISCO HAS, AND CARMEL HAS DIFFERENT PROBLEMS THAN FRESNO HAS AND CARLSBAD HAS DIFFERENT PROBLEMS THAN ESCONDIDO HAS, AND THIS KIND OF ONE SIZE FITS ALL SLEDGEHAMMER THAT YOU ALL HAVE TO DO THIS. WITH FALSE OUTCOMES, 30 UNITS PER ACRE TO MEET [INAUDIBLE] NUMBER CHECK THE BLOCK $30 MILLION CONDOS THAT ARE NOT AFFORDABLE. SO WHATEVER WE CAN DO AS-- MY 20% ECHOING MR. BLACKBURN'S COMMENT, WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO PUSH BACK AS AUTHORITATIVELY AS POSSIBLE AND JOIN WHATEVER WE NEED TO JOIN TO CHANGE THIS, TO AMEND THIS, TO PRESERVE ESSENTIALLY WHILE MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE STATE AND HOUSING, BUT TO PRESERVE THE TYPE OF COMMUNITY THAT WE ARE AND THAT WE ALL WANT AND THAT WE ALL KIND OF GREW UP IN AND WANT TO MAINTAIN. AND IT'S JUST IT'S A TRAVESTY. IT'S AN ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY. SO WHATEVER, I GUESS, WHATEVER WE CAN DO FORWARD LOOKING TO HELP OURSELVES WITH THIS NEXT DOCUMENT, THAT'S SOMETHING I'M GOING TO BE REALLY, REALLY LOOKING AT HARD. COUNCILMEMBER ACOSTA? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE WONDERFUL PRESENTATION. AND IT'S SO EXCITING TO BE HERE WITH BOTH COMMISSIONS. I HAVE NOT BEEN TO A MEETING LIKE THIS SINCE I WAS ELECTED DURING THE PANDEMIC AND HAVE NOT HAD MANY MEETINGS IN PERSON SINCE MARCH, YOU KNOW. SO IT'S VERY EXCITING TO BE HERE. I JUST WANTED TO ALSO SHARE BEFORE I ASK MY QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING REALLY HARD ON THE LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE AND AS A CITY COUNCIL AGAINST HOUSING PROPOSALS FROM THE STATE, BILLS FROM THE STATE THAT ERODE OUR LOCAL CONTROL. WE HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT OF WORK. WE'VE BEEN SENDING LETTERS. WE'VE BEEN SHOWING UP AT ZOOM MEETINGS WITH OUR LEGISLATORS, WITH LEGISLATORS FROM ALL OVER THE STATE TO ARGUE OUR PERSPECTIVE, TO SAY THIS IS NOT A COOKIE CUTTER CITY. NONE OF US ARE. YOU CAN'T TAKE A ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH TO HOUSING. AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT LEGISLATORS ARE TRYING TO INCREASE OUR HOUSING SUPPLY, BUT THEY'RE GOING ABOUT IT THE WRONG WAY. SO WE CONTINUE TO TRY TO DO THAT. I DID HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, AND THEY MIGHT BE FOR EITHER STAFF, MR. MURPHY, OR FOR OUR SPEAKERS TODAY OUR ATTORNEYS. SO MAYBE THE FIRST ONE IS FOR THE ATTORNEYS. CREDIT FOR [INAUDIBLE] NUMBERS. ARE WE GETTING CREDIT IN SOME OF THESE BILLS, SOME OF THIS LEGISLATION FOR HAVING A CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT? YOU DEFINITELY HAVE CREDIT FOR HAVING A CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT OR YOU'D BE GETTING SEVERAL LETTERS FROM THE NEW STRIKE FORCE, DARE I SAY MEAN. BUT DOES THE LEGISLATION THAT WE'VE TALKED TODAY GIVE YOU ANY PASS FOR THAT? NO, EXCEPT IN ONE AREA. WHEN TYSON TALKED ABOUT SB 35, WHICH IS STREAMLINING ON AFFORDABLE UNITS, IF YOU HAVE MET ALL OF YOUR CATEGORIES WITHIN YOUR [INAUDIBLE], YOU ARE NOT SUBJECT TO SB 35, AND YOU RECALL TYSON SAID CARLSBAD IS STILL SUBJECT TO IT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR VERY LOW AND LOW. IF YOU CAN FULFILL THAT WITHIN THE NEXT CYCLE, THEN YOU'RE OUT OF THE SB 35 WORLD UNLESS ANY OF THE OTHER CATEGORIES DIP INTO IT. GREAT. THANK YOU. AND I SEE MR. MURPHY ALSO HAS AN ANSWER. JUST TO ADD ON THAT, EVERY YEAR WE'RE REQUIRED TO REPORT TO THE STATE IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL REPORT, HOW MANY UNITS WE'VE BEEN TITLED, HOW MANY OF THOSE HAVE BEEN BUILT, AND SO THOSE UNITS THAT GET BUILT UNDER SB 9 OR SB 35 OR 330, THEY ALL GET REPORTED AND WE HAVE TO REPORT THEM AT WHAT INCOME LEVEL THEY ACTUALLY GET BUILT AT. MOST OF THEM ARE THE ABOVE MODERATE CATEGORY, BUT WE DO GET CREDIT FOR THEM. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY END UP SATISFYING OUR LARGER OR HIGHER INCOME. THANK YOU. WHEN I GO TO MEETINGS AT THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES OR OTHER GROUPINGS OF CITIES, PEOPLE ASK ABOUT OUR HOUSING ELEMENT AND IS IT CERTIFIED? AND THEY SAY, WOW, YOU'RE ONE OF THE 26. SO CAN YOU ELABORATE ON HOW WE FIT WITHIN THE 382 CITIES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA? WHERE ARE WE IN TERMS OF HAVING A CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT? HONESTLY, I HAVE NOT CHECKED RECENTLY AS TO WHERE BECAUSE DIFFERENT REGIONS HAVE DIFFERENT DEADLINES FOR THEIR FOR THEIR HOUSING ELEMENTS. AND SO I CAN'T SPEAK EXACTLY AS TO--. [01:35:01] I BELIEVE RIVERSIDE'S IS COMING UP. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S IT'S DONE--. IF IT'S PASSED YET OR NOT. I CAN SAY WE WERE ONE OF THE FIRST TO GET CERTIFIED, WHICH IS VERY-- I WAS VERY HAPPY. WE WERE--. THE STAFF WAS VERY HAPPY WITH THAT. BUT I CAN'T SPEAK TO HOW MANY OTHERS HAVE ADOPTED ONE AND HAD THEM CERTIFIED. I KNOW SOME JURISDICTIONS HAVE ADOPTED THEM, BUT THE STATE HAS NOT CERTIFIED THEM. THEY KICKED IT BACK FOR CHANGES AND THOSE JURISDICTIONS ARE WORKING ON THAT. I AM WORKING WITH SEVERAL OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT ARE IN THE PROCESS AND I HAVE REFLECTED SEVERAL TIMES HOW FORTUNATE IS THAT JEFF AND HIS TEAM GOT THE SIGN OFFICE OF THE CITY, BECAUSE IT'S BECOME MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT. THERE'S A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH AND IF YOU DON'T MEET YOUR CERTAIN TIME REQUIREMENTS AND YOU NEED TO TAKE SOME ZONING-- UP ZONING AND YOU DON'T MEET THAT TIME REQUIREMENTS, THEN YOU HAVE ONE YEAR TO DO YOUR ZONE CHANGES AS OPPOSED TO THREE. AND MOST LARGE JURISDICTIONS, PARTICULARLY A LARGE COUNTY, CANNOT MANAGE A MAJOR ZONE CHANGE WITH ONE YEAR, THEN THEY BECOME IMMEDIATELY OUT OF COMPLIANCE. I'M SURE YOU'RE HEARING THESE STORIES AT THE LEAGUE AND IT'S INCREDIBLY ONEROUS. SO GOOD JOB TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF FOR GETTING A CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT. THANK YOU. THAT WAS KIND OF A SOFTBALL QUESTION JUST SO WE COULD PAT OURSELVES ON THE BACK. [LAUGHTER] IT'S WELL DESERVED. GREAT JOB. AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION RELATES TO THE BIGGER DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING. AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT OUR STATE LEGISLATURE IS TRYING TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING AND ESPECIALLY OF MID LEVEL AFFORDABLE AND VERY AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND WHILE WE KEEP SEEING PEOPLE WANT TO BUILD HIGHER END OR LUXURY HOUSING, WHAT KINDS OF CARROTS AND INCENTIVES AND POSITIVE ENCOURAGEMENT ARE WE GETTING? BECAUSE AT THE LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE, WE SAW ONE BILL, IT WAS A [INAUDIBLE] STERN BILL, SB 1466, AND I BELIEVE THAT IT'S ON PAUSE. IT DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE IN THE LEGISLATURE. IT WAS A NEW BILL FROM THIS YEAR, BUT IT WAS THE ONLY THING THAT I'VE SEEN IN JUST THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE CAN WORK WITH THE LEGISLATURE ON? WE GET THE IDEA AND WE WANT TO WORK TOGETHER, BUT ARE THERE ANY OTHER CARROTS OR IS IT JUST THESE STICKS AND PUNISHMENTS AND PENALTIES? HARD TO SAY-- MONIES THAT BECOME AVAILABLE. AND THERE'S THE $800 MILLION THAT'S DUE TO COME TO CITIES AND COUNTIES FOR HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS CURES, YET TO SEE WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK AT, SO I THINK THE ANSWER MAY BE MORE STICKS THAN CARROTS. OKAY. WELL, I LISTENED VERY CAREFULLY TO COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN'S FIRST QUESTION, LIKE, WHAT CAN WE DO? IS THIS POLITICAL? LIKE, HOW CAN WE DO THIS? SO JUST, I KNOW ON THE CITY COUNCIL SIDE THAT WE'RE WORKING REALLY HARD AND ON THE LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE, WE'RE FIGHTING REALLY HARD. WE CONTINUE TO BE VERY ENGAGED WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, WHICH IS THE GROUP OF ALL THE CITIES IN THE STATE. I THINK THERE'S MAYBE ONE OR TWO CITIES IN THE STATE THAT ARE NOT MEMBERS, BUT WE'RE FIGHTING ALONGSIDE WITH THEM, TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR VOICES ARE HEARD AND THAT WE GET THE POINT ACROSS THAT WE'RE NOT ALL THE SAME. THEY SHOULDN'T BE ADDRESSING THIS ALL WITH THE SAME APPROACH. I THINK YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A HAMMER. I ALWAYS THINK, YOU KNOW, DON'T USE A HAMMER WHEN A SCALPEL IS THE TOOL THAT WE NEED TO USE. SO WE'RE WORKING ON THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, AND I JUST WANT TO ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO WORK TOGETHER WITH US AND TO CONTINUE TO SEND IN YOUR PUBLIC INPUT OR LETTERS, NOTES, EMAILS TO US ON THE CITY COUNCIL SO WE CAN WORK TOGETHER. THANKS. YES, COUNCILMEMBER DR. BHAT-PATEL? YES, THANK YOU AND THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? GREAT. PERFECT. SO, YES, I MEAN, JUST BRIEFLY ON, WITH REGARDS TO SOME QUESTIONS AND THEN I'LL GO INTO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT I HAVE. JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THE $800 MILLION SINCE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT IT, WOULD WE HAVE TO APPLY FOR THESE FUNDS OR WOULD THEY JUST BE SENT OUT TO CITIES THAT ARE IN COMPLIANT? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE WILL BE AN APPLICATION PROCESS AND A LOT OF QUALIFIERS. I DON'T THINK ALL THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT AT THIS POINT. OKAY. YEAH, I WAS CURIOUS AS TO HOW THEY WERE GOING TO QUALIFY FOLKS. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S STILL IN THE--. IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS. AND THEN WITH REGARDS TO I KNOW THERE WAS A QUESTION ASKED AROUND HOAS, JUST WAS CURIOUS WITH FOLLOWING THAT LINE OF THINKING IF THERE WERE SPECIFIC CARVE OUTS, I HAD THOUGHT THAT THERE WERE SPECIFIC CARVE OUTS WITH REGARDS TO HOAS. I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF WE HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THAT SPECIFICALLY? [01:40:05] I DON'T THINK ANY MORE THAN WE DISCUSSED EARLIER. I DO RECALL I THINK ONE OF THE BILLS REFERENCED HOAS BUT I THINK IT WAS A BILL FROM SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN SB 330. WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THAT FOR THE COUNCIL, BUT OFFHAND, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO HOAS AND SB 9 OR SB 10. AND WHAT I RECALL WAS, UNLIKE BEING A CARVE OUT, IT BASICALLY WAS SAYING THAT STATE LAW PREEMPTS THE HOAS. YEAH. OKAY, GREAT. PROVIDE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT HOAS AT ONE POINT WERE RESISTANT TO NEWER, DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPE PRACTICES AND THEY WEREN'T ALLOWING HOMEOWNERS TO ADOPT THOSE, AND A STATE LAW WAS ADOPTED THAT OVERRODE MOST OF THOSE HOA RULES IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE STATE'S GOAL. AND I THINK THE SAME THING OCCURRED WITH SOLAR PANELS AND HOA PROHIBITIONS. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND THEN THESE NEXT COUPLE OF QUESTIONS MIGHT BE MORE FOR FOR STAFF, BUT ONE OF THE-- OR THE SPEAKER HAD TALKED ABOUT ARE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, AND I KNOW YOU TALKED ABOUT IT AS WELL, AND WE DO HAVE THAT SPECIFICALLY IN THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN AREA WHERE WE HAVE THAT DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT WE'RE PUTTING TOGETHER WITH REGARDS TO SPECIFICALLY OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I KNOW I'VE MENTIONED AND I THINK A COUPLE OF OTHER MEMBERS ON OUR COUNCIL WHEN WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION IS AROUND MAKING SURE THAT WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY AS WELL. SO I WAS CURIOUS IF YOU COULD JUST REFRESH OUR MEMORY ON WHERE THAT CONVERSATION WAS LEFT OFF AND HOW WE COULD POTENTIALLY-- I KNOW WE CAN'T DO THAT TODAY, BUT IN THE FUTURE CONSIDER DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT? SO THAT THERE WAS TWO ACTIONS THAT RELATED TO OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. ONE WAS FOR THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN AREA, THAT ONE SPECIFICALLY HAD A SUBCOMMITTEE CREATED TO HELP DEVELOP THOSE GUIDELINES. SEPARATE FROM THAT IS A CITYWIDE OUTSIDE THE VILLAGE BARRIO MASTER PLAN AREA WHERE WE'RE DOING SIMILAR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WILL BE APPLIED CITYWIDE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE, AND BOTH ARE UNDERWAY, EARLY STAGES, BUT THEY ARE UNDERWAY. I CAN'T SAY--. THE CITY DOES HAVE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, WE HAVE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, WE HAVE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, WE HAVE FAR REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE THOSE STANDARDS THAT ARE WRITTEN DOWN THAT ARE CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE THAT THEY'RE EASILY TO BE APPLIED TO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. I THINK WHAT A LOT OF CONFUSING GETS INTO WHEN YOU LOOK AT ARCHITECTURAL STYLES AND THERE'S SOME SUBJECTIVITY AND INTERPRETATION ON [INAUDIBLE], THAT'S WHERE THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS POINTING AND SAYING YOU CANNOT DENY PROJECTS BECAUSE OF THOSE TYPE OF STANDARDS. AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE DOING THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS EFFORTS IS TO TAKE THOSE, PARTICULARLY IN THE VILLAGE BARRIO MASTER PLAN AREA, TAKE THE SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT ARE IN PLACE TODAY AND CONVERT THEM INTO OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. AND SO THAT WILL BE COMING WITHIN THE NEXT, I BELIEVE, 18 MONTHS THAT WE'LL HAVE A DECISION [INAUDIBLE] BRINGING FORWARD AN ACTION FOR THE COUNCIL. AS A REMINDER TO THE CALIFORNIA RENTERS ADVOCACY CASE DID SUGGEST OR DID STATE THAT PUBLIC AGENCIES ARE STILL FREE TO APPLY SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS. IT'S JUST THAT THOSE SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS CAN'T BE USED TO DENY OR REDUCE THE DENSITY OF PROJECT. SO YOU STILL DO HAVE THAT DISCRETION TO APPLY THOSE STANDARDS TO PROJECTS, SO LONG AS THAT DOESN'T RESULT IN THAT OUTCOME. AND THAT'S HELPFUL. I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL FOR FOLKS TO KNOW AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THE PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING BEFORE US SO THAT WE STILL HAVE A BIT OF LATITUDE, EVEN THOUGH A LOT OF IT IS BEING TAKEN AWAY. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. AND THIS IS MORE, I THINK ONE OF OUR COUNCILMEMBERS ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT OUR LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEES HAVE BEEN, WHETHER IT WAS IN THE PAST WHEN WE HAD LEGISLATION THAT HAD COME BEFORE US, WHETHER IT WAS SB 50 OR ANY OF THE OTHER IS THAT TOOK AWAY A LOT OF OUR LOCAL CONTROL, SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ADVOCATING FOR AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO RETAIN OUR LOCAL CONTROL ON HOW WE ARE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. ANY OF THESE HOUSING PROJECTS, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I DO THINK THAT WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT. BUT I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE TO DO IT BEING MINDFUL OF EACH COMMUNITY AND ESPECIALLY LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HAS SAID, IT'S EVERYONE'S TAKING KIND OF A COOKIE CUTTER APPROACH WHEN THEY'RE CREATING SOME OF THIS LEGISLATION VERSUS THINKING ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. AND IT KIND OF IS DISHEARTENING WHEN SOME OF THEM ARE ALSO LOCAL-- HAVE BEEN LOCAL LEGISLATORS AND THEY HAVEN'T NECESSARILY THOUGHT ABOUT HOW WOULD THIS IMPACT X COMMUNITY OR Y COMMUNITY ACROSS THE STATE. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. I KNOW THE QUESTION WAS ASKED. WE'RE DOING--. WE'RE ADVOCATING. I THINK A LOT OF IT IS IS LIKE IF YOU WANT TO REACH OUT TO SOME OF YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS, I KNOW THAT THEY'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU, TOO. BUT IT'S REALLY JUST GOING TO BE ADVOCACY FROM OUR SIDE AND THEN, OF COURSE, ADVOCACY FROM OUR STATE LEGISLATORS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY STANDING UP FOR US AS [01:45:06] WELL. OKAY. MS. LAFFERTY, YOU WERE WAVING AT ME? I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MET YESTERDAY. SO WE DID TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT JUST BRIEFLY SB 9 AND HOW TO PLAN FOR IT, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE AND I APPRECIATE WANTING TO FIGHT IT, BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT IT'S THE LAW RIGHT NOW AND WE HAVE TO TRY TO PLAN FOR IT, AND SO HOPEFULLY--. THE COMMITTEE SEEMED REALLY ENTHUSIASTIC AND I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN MAKE SOME PROGRESS. AND SO WE WELCOME ANY OF YOUR SUGGESTIONS TO BE ABLE TO--. YOU GUYS ARE IN THE TRENCHES WITH THE LEGISLATION AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT ALL PART OF OUR CITIES TO HELP OUR CITY MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY, WHICH IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO AS A COMMUNITY. SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S HELPING AND ANY INFORMATION YOU WANT TO FORWARD TO ME WOULD BE GREAT TO BE ABLE TO SHARE WITH THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. OKAY. I'M GOING TO START OFF WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND THE CHANGES THAT THE NEW LAWS HAVE BROUGHT AND HOW THAT AFFECTS GROWTH MANAGEMENT. SO I DON'T KNOW, MR. MURPHY, IF YOU WANT TO START OFF, YOU KNOW, FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, HOW MANY DIFFERENT ISSUES ARE WE HAVING TO DEAL WITH IN REGARDS TO OUR GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND MAKING SURE WE'RE FOLLOWING THOSE? IF YOU DON'T MIND, MR. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO LEAVE THE LEGAL INTERPRETATION TO THE LAWYERS THEN I'LL FOLLOW UP [INAUDIBLE]. I DON'T THINK THAT THE CURRENT LAWS CHANGE THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IN SUBSTANTIVE WAYS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE DISCUSSED TWO YEARS AGO. YOU KNOW, THE MAIN LAW BEING SENATE BILL 330 THAT AGAIN PREVENTED THE APPLICATION OF HOUSING CAPS IN SIMILAR MORATORIA. WE'RE DETERMINED TO BE IMPERMISSIBLE, ACCEPTED VERY, VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES TO ADDRESS IMMEDIATE CONCERNS. I DON'T THINK THE MODIFICATIONS THAT MARGARET DISCUSSED TODAY REALLY CHANGE THOSE RESULTS OR THE PREEMPTION FINDINGS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THE SUNSET PROVISIONS FOR SB 330 HAVE BEEN PUSHED OUT TO THE YEAR 2030 RATHER THAN THE 2026. AND THEN KIND OF JUST TO EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT IS HOW THAT HAS IMPACTED OUR HOUSING ELEMENT IN PARTICULAR IS AGAIN, WITHOUT THE HOUSING CAPS, WE HAD TO PLAN FOR NOT ONLY OUR [INAUDIBLE], BUT WE DID HAVE TO BUILD A BUFFER WITHIN THAT IN THOSE NUMBERS THAT AS A RESULT EXCEEDED OUR GROWTH MANAGEMENT NUMBER. AND SO BECAUSE OF 330, WE COULDN'T UPHOLD THAT THAT CAP. WE HAD TO GO OVER THAT. AND ACTUALLY IT'S ALSO-- SB 166 ALSO IMPACTS OUR HOUSING ELEMENT IN THE SENSE THAT WHAT THAT BILL STIPULATES IS THAT WE HAVE TO SHOW CAPACITY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE HOUSING ELEMENT CYCLE, THAT WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TAKE ON THE [INAUDIBLE] UNITS THAT WE'RE OBLIGATED TO BUILD. AND SO THAT--. IRRESPECTIVE OF 330 WAS TO SUNSET, WE STILL HAVE TO ADHERE TO SB 166 FOR THAT PROVISION. SO IT HAS HAD A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. I THINK IT WILL CONTINUE SO LONG AS THE STATE CONTINUES TO IMPOSE MORE AND MORE HOUSING UNITS IN THE CITY, NOT ONLY CARLSBAD, [INAUDIBLE] STATEWIDE. OKAY. BUILDING HOUSING. SO THAT ACTUALLY PRECEDED SB 330. OK, AND I JUST--. YOU KNOW, I WAS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER ONCE AND I, YOU KNOW, I GREW UP STARTING TO 1985 ALL THROUGH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADOPTION PROCESS, AND I KNOW IF I WAS SITTING IN YOUR SHOES, I'D BE EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED. YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT HAS A 20 YEAR TRACK RECORD OF BEING JUST ABSOLUTELY, I THINK, POSITIVE FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, EVEN DOWN TO THE [INAUDIBLE] AND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE'VE CREATED MORE DEED RESTRICTED HOUSING THAN ANY OTHER CITY GOING BACK TO 1990 THAN ANY OTHER CITY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CITY OF SAN DIEGO. SO, I MEAN, WE HAVE BEEN GETTING THE HOUSING AND WE HAVE--. MOST OF IT WAS, I THINK IN THE BEGINNING IT WAS 30 YEARS DEED RESTRICTED AND NOW IT'S 50 YEARS DEED RESTRICTED. SO I THINK WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO AS BEST AS WE CAN, AND YOU CAN JUST SEE NOW ADJOINING CITIES WHERE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT GETTING 10%. YOU KNOW, WHERE WE'RE WORKING ALREADY AT 15%, GOING TO 20%. SO I THINK THAT'S WELL DONE, AND I--. ANY TIME WE'RE IMPACTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT, THAT CAUSES EXTREME FRUSTRATION TO ME, SO. THE OTHER, I THINK, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DESIGN GUIDELINES, I WON'T GO MUCH DEEPER INTO THAT, JUST THAT TO THEIR IMPORTANCE IN ALL MASTER PLANS SPECIFIC PLANS SINCE GROWTH [01:50:08] MANAGEMENT HAVE HAD DESIGN GUIDELINES, BUT WHERE WE'VE LACKED THOSE IS LIKE IN THE VILLAGE OR IN THE OLDER PART OF THE CITY IN THOSE AREAS. AND I THINK FROM A DEVELOPER STANDPOINT, IF HE HAD SPECIFIC DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT MAKES IT SO MUCH EASIER TO THEM, WHATEVER THEY ARE, BECAUSE THEN THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO BUILD TO, THEY DON'T HAVE TO GUESS AND TIME IS MONEY. THE OTHER QUESTION I WOULD HAVE WHICH BODIES WILL REVIEW THE DESIGN GUIDELINES BEFORE IT COMES TO COUNCIL? WE'LL HAVE ERIC LARDY, THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER, COME UP AND ANSWER THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. THE DESIGN GUIDELINES WILL HAVE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT, BUT PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THEY WOULD BE GOING THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW. OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO YOU'LL GET YOUR SHOT AT IT. I JUST WANT TO, BEFORE I FORGET IT, KEITH, YOU SAID ABOUT TYSON AND WHAT CAN WE DO? I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THE STRONGEST POSITION POSSIBLE, SO I'LL LET YOU LEAD THE CHARGE ON THAT. BUT I'M GUESSING YOU'VE GOT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF DOING SOMETHING THERE. ADEQUATE SERVICES. I MEAN, THAT'S PART OF WHAT GROWTH MANAGEMENT IS ALL ABOUT, AND YOU'VE MENTIONED IT MORE THAN ONCE, SO. I CAN REMEMBER BACK IN THE LATE EIGHTIES, WE HAD A SEWER MORATORIUM. SO YOU'RE TELLING ME TODAY, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH SEWER CAPACITY, WE CAN STILL BUILD? UNDER SB 330, THE MORATORIUM PROVISIONS, THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS FOR EMERGENCIES. IF A SEWER IS ABOUT TO START OVERFLOWING, IF YOU ADD ANOTHER HOME, POTENTIALLY THAT MIGHT BE IT, BUT IT DOES HAVE TO BE AN IMMEDIATE NEED. SO IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD FORESEE HAPPENING A YEAR OR TWO OUT, THAT PROBABLY WOULD NOT MEET THE DEFINITION. AND JUST TO COMMENT AND I KNOW IT'S CIRCUMVENTED, BUT LIKE WATER, I MEAN, UNDER THE BEST CONDITIONS, WE'RE IN A 10 TO 20 YEAR TURNAROUND ON WATER. BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO REDUCE OUR WATER NEEDS DOWN TO 50 SOME GALLONS A DAY, THEY'RE WANTING TO GO TO 42 GALLONS A DAY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S BUILD, BUILD, BUILD. AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN ANY STUDIES THAT HOW LOW YOU CAN GO BEFORE YOU AFFECT OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE, SUCH AS THE SEWER SYSTEM. IT TAKES WATER TO OPERATE THE SEWER SYSTEM. SO, I MEAN, THERE NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE THOUGHT IN THE ENGINEERING SIDE OF THINGS BEFORE YOU JUST KEEP SAYING BUILD, BUILD, BUILD, AND I COULD GO INTO ELECTRIFICATION AND A WHOLE HOST OF THINGS, BUT I WON'T. THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO MAKE US AWARE OF, IT'S NOT ONLY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT'S HAVING AN IMPACT ON OUR HOUSING IN THIS REGION. BUT IN NOT TOO RECENT, WHEN THE [INAUDIBLE] NUMBERS WENT PAST SANDAG, THEY WERE VOTED AT 116,000 UNITS, AND THAT WAS LED BY SUPERVISOR DESMOND TO BRING IT DOWN FROM 172,000 TO 116,000 UNITS. IT WAS CALLED BACK AND WANTED-- AND IT HAD TO GO TO A WEIGHTED VOTE ABOUT THREE WEEKS LATER. AND ALTHOUGH, AGAIN, THE TALLY VOTE WAS VASTLY IN FAVOR OF 116,000, THE WEIGHTED VOTE TOOK IT TO 172,000. SO, YOU KNOW, WE ALL HAD TO SHARE THAT. SO ONE OF THE THINGS YOU THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU START SHARING 172,000 UNITS IF BUILT, REPRESENTS 1.4 MILLION TRIPS MORE A DAY ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. SO WHEN YOU START CHANGING NUMBERS AND THAT GOES INTO, FROM WHAT I CALL THEORY, INTO REALITY AND INTO SERVICES, YOU CAN'T IMAGINE THE DIFFERENCE AND HOW YOU NEED TO THINK HOW AND WHY WE'RE DOING THIS. THE OTHER THING AND SOMETIMES I COULD GET FRUSTRATED ON SOME OF THIS, AND I THINK MR. MURPHY MIGHT SHARE SOME OF MY THOUGHTS, BUT RECENTLY, WHEN WE WERE DOING OUR MOBILITY PLAN FOR THE REGION, IN THE PAST, WE'VE ALWAYS WORKED VERY CLOSELY TOGETHER. SO WE HAVE ALIGNED OUR GENERAL PLANS WITH THE REGIONAL PLAN. IN THIS PLAN, WE HAD 3000 RESIDENTIAL UNITS PLACED IN AND AROUND THE AIRPORT ON LAND THAT WASN'T EVEN ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS. SO THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE HERE, AND I DON'T WANT TO GET DOWN INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL BECAUSE I QUITE OFTEN DO THAT, BUT WE NEED TO BE [01:55:08] AWARE ON A REGIONAL BASIS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. AND I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MUCH PRESSURE THERE IS TO GO TO BUSSES AND TRANSIT. AND WE TALK ABOUT MOBILITY HUBS AND THERE'S GOING TO BE MOBILITY HUBS IN AND AROUND OUR TRANSIT STATIONS. SO, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I TRY TO START IMMEDIATELY PUTTING EVERYTHING TO NUMBERS, AND IF WE DO WANT TO HAVE TRANSIT TO WORK--. IN SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD, IT WORKS REALLY WELL, BUT IN DOING THAT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE DENSITY IN AND AROUND THE MOBILITY HUB TO MAKE IT WORK. SO WHAT IS DENSITY? WELL, YOU START LOOKING AT PLACES WHERE IT REALLY WORKS. THE DENSITY STARTS AT FOUR OR FIVE STORIES AND GOES UP. SO I'M JUST MAKING YOU AWARE BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO BE HERE, YOU KNOW, INTO THE FOLLOWING YEAR OR BEYOND. BUT THERE ARE OTHER AGENCIES THAT COULD BE WELL IMPACTING OUR LAND USE, ESPECIALLY IN AND AROUND THE VILLAGE IN POINSETTIA. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THAT. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE AS A AS A COMMUNITY NEED TO BE AWARE OF. AND THEN I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION IS SOMEBODY BROUGHT UP AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHO ABOUT THEY WERE USING OPEN SPACE, I THINK IT WAS PEDER, OPEN SPACE PERHAPS IN OTHER CITIES AND TURNING THAT INTO RESIDENTIAL. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR OPEN SPACE IS ALL DEED RESTRICTED? OUR OPEN SPACE IS SUBJECT TO VARIOUS TYPES OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND OTHER PROTECTIVE DEVICES. MOST OF IT, YES. SO IS THERE UNDER ANY SITUATION THAT WE WOULD TAKE OPEN SPACE AND CONVERT IT TO RESIDENTIAL? HOW WOULD WE GO ABOUT THAT? I'M SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT. I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. IT WOULD REQUIRE ME TO DO A LOT OF LEGAL RESEARCH BEFORE I'M SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT ON THAT. I'M JUST THINKING, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY BROUGHT IT UP AND I THOUGHT, WOW, IF IT COULD HAPPEN THERE, COULD IT HAPPEN HERE? AND, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, I DON'T THINK ANYONE IN THIS ROOM WOULD WANT TO DO THAT, BUT I'M THINKING THERE ARE OUTSIDE PEOPLE THAT MIGHT SAY, HEY, CARLSBAD, YOU'RE SITTING ON 38-40% OF YOUR CITY IS OPEN SPACE. WHY DON'T YOU START BUILDING ON IT? AND I MEAN, THAT WOULD PROBABLY START WORLD WAR FOUR. [LAUGHTER] YEAH. MAYOR I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT-- TO THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT, THAT PARCEL WAS DEED RESTRICTED FOR AGRICULTURAL FOREVER IN PERPETUITY, AND IT IS NOT GOING TO BE THAT WAY. IT'S GOING TO BE HOUSING NOW. AND SO I'M AMAZED THAT THAT DECISION WAS MADE. QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S SHOCKING, BUT IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT ONE COMMUNITY DID TO SOLVE THEIR ISSUE. AND AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP BECAUSE, I MEAN, I HADN'T EVEN THOUGHT OF THAT. WHO WOULD EVER DO THAT? BUT, YOU KNOW, AND HERE WE SEE IN OUR NEIGHBORING CITY, THEY'RE HAVING TO REVERT TO THAT. SO I DO THINK MOVING FORWARD, AT LEAST, WE'RE GOING TO GET THROUGH THIS [INAUDIBLE] CYCLE. OKAY. I THINK IF WE'RE WILLING TO DEAL WITH A LITTLE BIT OF DENSITY IN A FEW SPECIFIC SPOTS, WHEN WE LOOK TO THE NEXT GO ROUND IN EIGHT YEARS OR SO, WE PROBABLY WILL BE ABLE TO FIND SOME UNITS. BUT I CAN'T STRESS ENOUGH IT'S ALL OF US, IT'S ALL OF US WORKING TOGETHER TO TRY, MAINTAIN, IF NOT INCREASE THE QUALITY OF OUR CITY AND HOW WE GROW OUR CITY, SO. SHOULD I--. ANY LAST QUESTIONS? OKAY. OKAY, SIR? I WANT TO THANK YOU, MAYOR, FOR BRINGING UP THE BROADER ISSUES THAT ARE CONNECTED. USUALLY, POPULATION GROWS AS THE BASIS FOR WHY WE NEED MORE HOUSING. AT SOME POINT, CARLSBAD IS A GROWING CITY. NOT ALL CITIES IN CALIFORNIA ARE GROWING. SAN FRANCISCO IS BEGINNING TO SHRINK, BUT POPULATION IS WHAT DRIVES HOUSING. AND THAT MEANS THAT IT INVOLVES ALL SECTORS OF OUR ECONOMY, BUSINESS, SCHOOLS, TRANSIT . A WIDE, WIDE RANGE OF SUBJECTS WHICH WHEN YOU VIEW IT, WHAT SEEMS TO ME A NARROW PERSPECTIVE OF HOUSING ALONE, YOU MISS THE BIG PICTURE. YES. AND I MEAN, PEOPLE WILL SAY OVER THE LAST 10-12 YEARS, WE'VE HAD THIS UNCONTROLLED GROWTH. WHEN IN FACT, WE'VE HAD THE LOWEST RESIDENTIAL GROWTH [INAUDIBLE] PROBABLY IN 30 OR 40 YEARS. [02:00:02] YOU KNOW, BUT WITH THAT SAID, LOOK AT OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND HOW WELL OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAS GROWN OUT OVER THE LAST 10-12 YEARS, AND SO IT'S JUST IT'S AMAZING HOW THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN HAS WORKED. AND I JUST HOPING THAT GROWTH MANAGEMENT 2.0 OR WHATEVER THAT'S NAMED IS THAT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO CREATE A ROAD MAP FOR THE NEXT HOPEFULLY 20 YEARS SO WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING TO FOLLOW, SO. I'M NOT SEEING ANYBODY WAVING OR SHAKING THEIR HANDS, SO ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO ACCOMPLISH? THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS WAS HOPEFULLY GOING TO BE AN ANNUAL, EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATION. AND HOPEFULLY MR. BLACKBURN AT SOME MOMENT IN TIME YOU'LL MAKE IT A POINT TO TALK ABOUT THE TYSON BILL AND WE'LL BRING THAT FORWARD. SO WITH THAT, I CAN'T THANK EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE AUDIENCE, FOR PARTICIPATING TODAY. THANK YOU FOR COMING. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THANK YOU TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU AND THE JOB THAT YOU DO. IT DOESN'T GO UNNOTICED. SO THANKS AGAIN. AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT ON THIS MEETING. YEAH. BOY, WITH TIME TO SPARE. OKAY. MEETING'S ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.