[00:00:02]
CALL TO ORDER THE JUNE 1ST, 2022 MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.
[CALL TO ORDER:]
WE WILL START NOW WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN, WOULD YOU PLEASE, PLEASE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
MADAM CLERK, WHAT YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.
SO WE HAVE FIVE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMISSION IN ATTENDANCE.
THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 6TH MEETING.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES:]
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO THOSE MINUTES? SEEING NONE. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? I MOVED TO APPROVE.IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MERZ.
OKAY, LET'S TAKE OUR VOTE AND WE WILL USE OUR MACHINES HERE TO DO SO.
AND FOR THE RECORD, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO HAS ARRIVED IN HIS IN ATTENDANCE.
ALL RIGHT. GOING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, AND THAT IS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
YOU'LL NEED TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER, SLIP AND PRESENT IT TO THE CLERK AND YOU WILL HAVE 3 MINUTES.
MADAM CLERK, IS THERE ANYBODY SUBMITTED A SPEAKER SLIP? MR. CHAIR, THERE IS NO SPEAKER SLIPS FOR TONIGHT FOR NON AGENDA ITEMS. THANK YOU. AND SEEING NO ONE COMING UP.
SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
AND THERE ARE AS LISTED ON THE SCREEN.
REQUESTS TO SPEAK FORMS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL ITEMS. REQUESTS TO SPEAK FORMS MUST BE TURNED IN TO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING, ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN 3 MINUTES UNLESS THAT TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.
OKAY. THOSE ARE THE [INAUDIBLE] SO WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE.
[1. PUD 2021-0006/SDP 2021-0018/CDP 2021-0036/MS 2021-0004 (DEV2021-0145) – ACACIA BEACH HOMES]
AND BEFORE I TURN IT TO STAFF, I INVITE DISCLOSURES FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.LET'S JUST START AT MY FAR END.
COMMISSIONER LUNA ANY DISCLOSURES? NONE. MR. KAMENJARIN? I'VE DRIVEN BY THE SITE.
COMMISSIONER SABELLICO? I HAVE DRIVEN BY THE SITE.
COMMISSIONER MERZ? YES. I VISITED THE SITE.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. I WALKED BY IT AND I HAVE VISITED THE SITE AND WALK THE SITE AND I'LL INVITE THE CITY PLANNER, MR. KNEW, TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM.
MR. NEU? YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
THE PROJECT SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 0.2 ACRES OR 8712 SQUARE FEET ON A GENERALLY, GENERALLY FLAT LOT. CURRENTLY ON SITE, TWO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCES EXIST THAT ARE BOTH SINGLE STOREY WITH ATTACHED GARAGES.
[00:05:01]
THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS OUR THREE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OVERLAID BY THE BEACH AREA ZONE AND IN A LAND USE DESIGNATION OF R-23 RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS THE SAME AS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO DEMO THE TWO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND TO CONSTRUCT THREE THREE STOREY AIR SPACE CONDOMINIUMS WITH AN UNDERLYING LOT TO BE IN COMMON OWNERSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE OWNERS.
THE THREE STORY UNITS ARE 30 FEET IN HEIGHT AND RANGE IN SIZE FROM 3026 SQUARE FEET TO 3089 SQUARE FEET EACH PROVIDING THREE BEDROOMS AND THREE AND A HALF BATHS.
THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT IS CONTEMPORARY, FEATURING RECTANGLE, RECTANGULAR MASSING, GABLE ROOFS, BALCONIES AND VARIATION IN BUILDING FACADES.
THE PROJECT ALSO WILL PROVIDE THREE VISITOR PARKING SPACES, WHICH IS TWO MORE THAN REQUIRED.
HERE'S A VIEW FROM ABOVE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ITS LAYOUT.
THE DRY VIAL IS 24 FEET WIDE, WHICH IS ADEQUATE FOR VEHICLE TURNING INTO GARAGES AND OUT THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE UNITS ALLOWED FOR ADDITIONAL VISITOR PARKING.
PRIVATE RAILYARD SPACE LANDSCAPING.
DETAILS ALONG THE FRONTAGE AND BETWEEN THE UNITS.
THE PROJECTS LAND USE DESIGNATION OF R-23 ALLOWS FOR A DENSITY OF 15 TO 23 UNITS PER ACRE.
WITH A DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE OF 0.2 LAND USE DENSITY WOULD ALLOW FOR 3 TO 5 UNITS.
THEREFORE, THE THREE UNIT PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH DENSITY.
THE PROJECT MEETS THE CITY'S STANDARDS FOR PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION AND AS DESIGNED AND CONDITIONED, IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, BEACH AREA OVERLAY, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR ACACIA BEACH HOMES.
BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION CONTAINED THEREIN.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
MR. DAN, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANK YOU, MR. DAN. WHY IS A GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONTROL POINT BEING USED? WE UNDERSTAND THAT SOMEHOW.
HOW DOES THIS COMPLY WITH STATE LAW? AS REFERRED TO IN THE STAFF REPORT.
WE DO ANALYZE THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONTROL POINT, BUT WE DO STATE PURSUANT TO SB 330 THAT AT THE MOMENT THE IMPLEMENTATION CANNOT BE APPLIED SO.
EXAMINATION AND DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED.
HOWEVER, IT IS NOT NECESSARILY IMPLEMENTED DUE TO STATE LAW.
POINT TWO TIMES 23 EQUALS 4.6 UNITS.
SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT WE'RE LOSING AT LEAST ONE UNIT WITH THIS APPROVAL? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
SHOULD WE BE COLLECTING IN LIEU INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEES ON 1.6 UNITS LOST.
I WOULD DEFER THAT TO MR. NEAL. NO, THE FEE ACTUALLY APPLIES TO THE ACTUAL UNITS BEING APPROVED OR PROPOSED.
SO IT'S ON A NOT WHAT YOU COULD ACHIEVE AT SOME HYPOTHETICAL CALCULATION.
[00:10:06]
IT'S REALLY BASED ON WHAT THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING.THERE IT IS. ONE MORE QUESTION.
HOW MUCH IS BEING PAID FOR THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AND MOVIE? IT'S A TRICKY BUTTON.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, ALLOW ME TO DO SOME MATH AND LET ME GET BACK TO REALLY QUICK.
I HAVE TWO OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT HAS THIS BEEN SHARED WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, NO IT HAS NOT.
OKAY. AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION IS, WHY WAS POLICY 44 NOT USED AS A GUIDE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? IT CLEARLY STATES THAT THE IT'S APPLICABLE FOR PROJECTS WITH 2 TO 4 HOMES, AND IT SEEMS INCONSISTENT THAT THE POLICY ISN'T UNIVERSALLY APPLIED. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, EXCUSE ME, I CAN ADDRESS THAT.
SO THE POLICY REFERS TO THE UNIT TYPE IS SINGLE FAMILY AND IT WAS DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS THAT HAD INDIVIDUAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS.
THE PROJECT, THAT'S FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT.
IT'S A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, SO IT'S A ONE LOT AIRSPACE SUBDIVISION.
SO ESSENTIALLY OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE COUNCIL POLICY WAS IT DIDN'T APPLY TO THIS TYPE OF PROJECT.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
IF I MAY PURSUE A COUPLE OF ITEMS. ONE, SINCE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, I HAD AN ISSUE AND PERHAPS JUST A CLARIFICATION WOULD WOULD BE HELPFUL HERE WITH REGARD TO PROPOSED CONDITION 23D AS IN DOOR, IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT THE APPLICANT'S OBLIGATION IS IF THERE IS A APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMITS WITHIN TWO YEARS OF DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING RESIDENCE.
WHAT I'M NOT CLEAR, AND I THINK THE STAFF REPORT IS A LITTLE BIT CLEAR, IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE DEMOLITION.
MR. DAN, CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR ME? COMMISSIONER STERN, ARE YOU TALKING IN REFERENCE TO CONDITION 18? I THINK IN SOME ON THE WRONG ONE HERE.
NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT CONDITION.
SURE. GOT THE RIGHT ONE? YES. CONDITION 23D AS IN DOOR.
OKAY, SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THERE IS A FINDING.
IF YOU GO A COUPLE OF PAGES FURTHER, THERE'S A CONDITION 18.
AND THE LAST PART OF THAT CONDITION, THE BULB TEXT TALKS ABOUT THE TWO YEARS OF DEMOLISHING THE UNITS THAT IF THAT DOESN'T OCCUR, THEN THE INCLUSIONARY FEE WILL BE PAID FOR THREE UNITS.
I SEE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.
THANK YOU. THAT CLARIFIES THAT.
I DID RECEIVE, AND I ASSUME ALL COMMISSIONERS RECEIVED A COPY OF A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS DONE FOR THIS PROPERTY DATED JULY 2021. IN MY MIND, THAT'S A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE, EXHAUSTING APPROACH THAT DOES DEAL WITH THE HISTORIC ANALYSIS, AT LEAST FOR CEQA PURPOSES, AND CONCLUDES THAT THESE PROPERTIES ARE NOT OF, WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY TYPE OF HISTORICAL PROTECTION.
SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT ON THE ISSUE OF HISTORICAL PRESERVATION.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. AND THEN WE WILL INVITE THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD IF HE OR SHE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.
IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.
I SUPPOSE MY LAST NAME S-T-C-L-A-I-R, ADDRESS IS 5315 AVENIDA ENCINAS IN CARLSBAD 92008.
[00:15:06]
THINK THE ARCHITECTURAL THAT WE DESIGNED DID ACTUALLY IN FACT MEET ALL THOSE GUIDELINES.IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT THE FOUR SIDED ARCHITECTURE THAT WE DID PROVIDE, AND I JUST I REALLY PAUL DID A GREAT JOB PRESENTING IT AND I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT AS FAR AS THE DENSITY GOES, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A PROJECT LIKE THIS, HAVING FOUR HOMES ON THIS SITE BECAME A LITTLE BIT OF A CHALLENGE FOR US TO PROVIDE PARKING.
AND WE COULD WE THEORETICALLY COULD HAVE DONE IT.
THE HOMES WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY NARROW.
AND ULTIMATELY, WE DECIDED THAT THREE WAS A BETTER DESIGN FOR THIS SITE, AND WE'RE ALLOWED TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOT FOR EACH HOME, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, DOWN THERE AT THE BEACH IS A VERY BIG ADDED BENEFIT.
SO AGAIN, THANKS EVERYONE FOR THEIR TIME AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
OKAY. ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. ST CLAIR? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU, SIR.
THIS WILL BE THE PORTION OF OUR HEARING WHERE WE OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC INPUT.
COME FORWARD, PRESENT THE SPEAKER SLIP AND WE'LL RECOGNIZE YOU.
MADAM CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT, CHAIR.
WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT PORTION OF THE HEARING.
NOW WE HAVE AND THAT WOULD BE THE TIME FOR FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS.
ANYBODY WANT TO GET US STARTED? BUT HAVE ANY THOUGHTS WITH REGARD TO THIS PROJECT? PRO? CON? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY.
COMMISSIONER MERZ? YOU KNOW, I WAS JUST IMPRESSED BY THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, PARKING'S KIND OF AN ISSUE.
I THINK YOU MENTIONED MR. [INAUDIBLE] IS REQUIRED TO DO ONE VISITOR PARKING PLACE AND ACTUALLY DID THREE RIGHT.
WHICH I THOUGHT WAS I THOUGHT WAS VERY FAVORABLE.
I WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO DO THAT ON THAT SITE.
SO I LIKE THAT ABOUT THE PROJECT.
MY THOUGHTS ARE ALONG THE SAME LINES WITH COMMISSIONER MERZ.
I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE FACT THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE THREE VISITOR PARKING SPACES HERE.
THEY'RE FINDING A PARKING SPACE.
SO I'M GLAD THAT WE HAVE THE VISITOR PARKING HERE.
I WILL SAY I HAD AN INITIAL CONCERN ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE PROJECT.
IT'S TRUE THAT OUR STANDARDS ARE A HEIGHT OF 30 FEET IS PERMITTED, AND I BELIEVE THIS COMPLEX GOES RIGHT UP TO THAT 30 FOOT LEVEL WHEN I WALK THE AREA YESTERDAY I NOTICED IT WAS PRIMARILY ONE AND TWO STOREY COMPLEXES WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY.
BUT AS THAT, AS I WALKED DOWN A LITTLE BIT EAST ON THE SAME SIDE OF ACACIA, I DID FIND A COMPLEX WITH THREE FLOORS. SO I'M NOT TROUBLED BY THAT.
I THINK IT'S WELL DESIGNED, GOOD PARKING, ADEQUATE GARAGE SPACE SEEMS TO BE ENOUGH SPACE FOR GETTING IN AND OUT OF THOSE GARAGES.
THAT ALSO CAN BE A CONCERN HERE.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? YES, IT MEETS ALL THE MINIMUM STANDARDS.
WHEN YOU JUST STATED THAT, REALLY WHAT'S AROUND THEM IS ONE AND TWO STOREY HOMES.
SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THAT.
I THINK IT'S A LOSS OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ON GRADE PARKING.
[00:20:03]
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER LUNA? OH, NO, I THOUGHT MY COLLEAGUE HERE.
OH, MR. DAN, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE MATH? SO THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IS THE THE COUNCIL NOT TOO LONG AGO CHANGED THE FEE CALCULATION AND IT'S $15 PER SQUARE FOOT OF WHAT WE'RE USING AS NET BUILDING AREA.
AND SO THAT EXCLUDES THINGS LIKE GARAGES AND PORCHES, PATIOS, THAT TYPE OF THING.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD CALCULATE AT THE TIME THE BUILDING PLANS ARE PROCESSED.
THE PREVIOUS FEE WAS, I WANT TO SAY, WAS IT 4,995 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT, DO I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER LUNA? DO WE NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND IS THERE A MOTION I MOVE? APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
OK MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LUNA TO APPROVE.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.
I THINK WE NEED TO START THE ROADS.
I'M LIT UP LIKE A CHRISTMAS TREE HERE.
EVERYBODY LOCKED IN? YEAH. IF YOU HAVE A TECHNICAL PROBLEM, JUST START THE VOTE OVER.
YOU WANT US TO REVOTE? OK. REVOTE, PLEASE.
IS EVERYBODY LOCKED IN? I KNOW I'M SPECIAL, BUT YOU KNOW YOU ARE.
RIGHT. AND YOU GIVE HER THAT REQUEST TO SPEAK.
WE HAVE A TECHNICAL PROBLEM. OKAY.
WE ALL SET? OKAY. LET'S VOTE AGAIN, PLEASE.
CLOSE THAT PUBLIC HEARING OK AND.
OKAY TO PROCEEDING TO ITEM NUMBER TWO ON OUR AGENDA, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NUMBER TWO.
[2. CT 2021-0002/PUD 2021-0007/CDP 2021-0038 (DEV2021-0154) – GARFIELD BEACH HOMES]
FIRST OF ALL, DISCLOSURES OR EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS BEGIN.COMMISSIONER LUNA? COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN? COMMISSIONER SABELLICO? I'VE ALSO DRIVEN BY THE SITE.
COMMISSIONER MERZ? YES, I VISITED THE SITE.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.
THANK YOU. AND I VISITED THE SITE, WALKED BY THE SITE YESTERDAY.
ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE'LL INVITE OUR CITY PLANNER TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM, MR. NEU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A PROJECT TITLED GARFIELD BEACH HOMES.
AND MR. PAUL DAN IS ALSO HERE TO PRESENT THAT ITEM.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
SIMILARLY TO ITEM ONE, THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 3570 THROUGH 3590 GARFIELD STREET.
THE PROJECT SITE IS COMPRISED OF TWO ADJOINING LOTS THAT TOGETHER ARE APPROXIMATELY 0.57 ACRES OR
[00:25:02]
24,829 SQUARE FEET.TOGETHER, THE TWO LOTS HAVE THREE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCES THAT RANGE FROM SINGLE TO TWO STOREY WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS ARE THREE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OVERLAID BY THE BEACH AREA ZONE AND IN A LAND USE DESIGNATION OF R-23, WHICH IS THE SAME AS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO DEMO THE THREE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND TO CONSTRUCT 12 THREE STOREY AIR SPACE CONDOMINIUMS WITH THE UNDERLYING LOT TO BE IN COMMON OWNERSHIP OF THE 12 OWNERS.
THESE COMMON INTEREST AREAS BETWEEN THE OWNERS ARE BUT NOT LIMITED TO A PRIVATE DRIVE AISLE, GUEST PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND STORM WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. ACCESS TO THE UNITS WILL CONTINUE TO BE OFF OF GARFIELD STREET WITH THE DRIVE AISLE MOVED TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT.
THE THREE STORY UNITS ARE 30 FEET IN HEIGHT AND RANGE IN SIZE FROM 2503 SQUARE FEET TO 2760 SQUARE FEET, PROVIDING THREE BEDROOMS AND TWO AND A HALF TO THREE AND A HALF BATHS.
THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT IS ALSO CONSIDERED CONTEMPORARY, WITH BUILDING MATERIALS SUCH AS WHITE, SMOOTH, STUCCO, WHITE AND BLUE AND TIME COLORED HORIZONTAL SIDING AND COMPLIMENTARY DARK BRONZE MATERIALS FOR WINDOWS AND DOORS.
THE CONFIGURATION OF THE 12 UNITS ARE DIVIDED INTO THREE CLUSTERS.
UNIT ONE AND 12 ARE SELF STANDING.
THESE ARE THESE UNITS ARE THE ALONG THE FRONTAGE FACING GARFIELD UNITS TWO, THREE, TEN AND 11 ARE CONSTRUCTED AS DUPLEX.
AND UNITS FOUR THROUGH SIX AND SEVEN THROUGH NINE ARE CONSTRUCTED AS TRIPLEXES.
HERE'S A VIEW FROM ABOVE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ITS LAYOUT.
THE MIDDLE DRIVE AISLE IS 24 FEET WIDE WITH ATTIC, WHICH IS ADEQUATE FOR VEHICLES.
THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE CLUSTERED UNITS PROVIDES SPACE FOR VISITOR PARKING.
RECREATIONAL SPACE IS ON THE SIDE YARD AND LANDSCAPING DETAILS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.
GRADING QUANTITIES INCLUDE 265 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT, 2370 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL AND 2105 CUBIC YARDS OF IMPORT.
REASON FOR THIS SITE, REQUIRING SUCH QUANTITIES OF EARTHWORK IS DUE TO, IN PART TO THE PROPERTY'S CURRENT ELEVATION THAT LOWERS FROM GARFIELD STREET TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
BY TEN FEET, HOWEVER, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S ENGINEERING STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT, SUCH AS HAVING STORM WATER FLOW TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, WHILE UTILITIES SUCH AS SEWER BE CONNECTED TO GARFIELD STREET, THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING TO PAD UP THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY TO ACHIEVE BOTH REQUIREMENTS. A GRADING PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT.
HERE'S A VIEW OF THE INTERNAL LAYOUT OF THE UNITS EACH DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER, AND PROVIDING VARIATIONS AND INTERESTS ON THE INSIDE AS WELL AS THE OUTSIDE. THE PROJECTS LAND USE DESIGNATION OF OUR 23 ALLOWS A DENSITY OF 15 TO 23 UNITS PER ACRE WITH A DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE OF 0.57.
LAND'S DENSITY WILL ALLOW FOR 9 TO 13 UNITS.
THEREFORE, THE 12 UNIT PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH DENSITY.
AS 12 UNITS ARE PROPOSED, TWO UNITS ARE REQUIRED TO BE AFFORDABLE FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
WHEN NEW CONSTRUCTION IS DETERMINED TO BE INFEASIBLE OR PRESENT A HARDSHIP TO PROVIDE ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ALTERNATIVES TO CONSTRUCTION ARE EXAMINED. IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR, THE CITY'S HOUSING POLICY TEAM REVIEWED A RECOMMENDATION EXCUSE ME REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
[00:30:01]
WHICH IS TO ALLOW THE PURCHASE OF TWO AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS FROM THE TEVARA HOUSING BANK, AS REFLECTED IN CONDITION SEVEN OF THE RESOLUTION.STANDARDS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISIONS AND AS DESIGNED AND CONDITIONED, IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, BEACH AREA OVERLAY, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
IN ADDITION, DURING THE PUBLIC NOTICING, STAFF RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM AN HOA MEMBER FROM THE CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH STATING THEIR SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACK MAP, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND EQUAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE GARFIELD BEACH HOMES BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION CONTAINED THEREIN.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
MR. DAN, DO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR MR. DAN? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
THE GRADING PAD HEIGHT DESCRIBED IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER IN PAGE TWO.
HOW MUCH HIGHER? AT ITS HIGHEST POINT, I BELIEVE IT'S FOUR AND A HALF TO FIVE FEET.
TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THE CLAY AWAY RE COMPACT AND BUILD UP FIVE FEET.
SO YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING THAT THEY'RE DIGGING DOWN FIVE FEET.
COMPACTING TO THE GRADE AND THEN ADDING ANOTHER FIVE FEET.
I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW ALL THE REMEDIAL GRADING, BUT THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT.
OR THEY WOULD GRADE THE UPPER PORTION OF THE EXISTING PAD TO RECONDITION IT AND GET IT TO A COMPACTION THAT'S SUITABLE FOR FOUNDATION SUPPORT.
SO WOULD THERE BE ANYTHING THAT WOULD PRECLUDE BELOW GRADE PARKING? IN THE SOILS REPORT.
IN THE SOILS REPORT? NO, THERE WOULDN'T BE.
SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHY WE'RE NOT ONLY WE HAVE TO TAKE THIS MUCH SOIL AWAY.
AND THEN WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY ELEVATE IT EVEN HIGHER.
SO THE LOWER GRADE IS THE LOWEST GRADE POINT THAT'S ON THE MAP HERE.
EXISTING. YEAH SO WELL SHOWS THE LOWEST POINT IN THE FAR SOUTHERN EAST.
AND WE'RE ACTUALLY SAYING THAT ALL THE PADS ARE AROUND 57.
SO YOU'RE ELEVATING IT AROUND SEVEN FEET FROM THAT LOWEST POINT.
WHICH ADDS ANOTHER 30 FEET TO IT.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE.
BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING IT'S 30 FEET, BUT IT'S REALLY 37 FEET.
THE ISSUE IS THE GRAVITY FLOW OF THE SEWER.
SO THE SEWER NEEDS TO FLOW OUT TO GARFIELD.
SO THAT PAD'S RAISED TO ALLOW A MINIMUM FLOW FOR SEWAGE TO REACH GARFIELD AND INTO THE SEWER MAIN.
GRADING AND COMPACTING IS A LITTLE BIT.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S MUCH HIGHER THAN WHAT POTENTIALLY IS NECESSARY.
SO BECAUSE HOW LOW IS THE SEWER LATERAL? YOU KNOW WHAT? I HAVE TO I HAVE TO CALCULATE THIS ALL OUT.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS WAS THE MINIMUM TO MAKE THE GRADE FOR THE SEWER.
FROM THE. AND REMEMBER RUNNING FROM THE VERY BACK ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT.
AND SO THERE HAS TO BE ENOUGH FALL FOR THAT SEWER TO MAKE IT.
AND WITH THERE'S THERE'S SOME DROPS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE NECESSARY WITHIN THE SEWER LINE.
SO THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT TO MAKE THAT OUT THERE TO THE STREET.
AND IT'S ACTUALLY DRAINS TO THE BACK.
[00:35:02]
SO THIS PAD, THEY'RE RAISING IT JUST ENOUGH TO GET THE SEWER OUT.COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, IF I MAY ALSO ADD TO THAT, I ADDED A BACKUP SLIDE TO SHOW ON THE PLANS. THE SUB OR THE SECTION CALLED OUT AS A AND ABOVE IS IN RED ROUGHLY WHERE THE EXISTING ELEVATION IS.
AND YOU AT THE TOP OF IT YOU CAN SEE THE FINISHED GRADE.
SO TO GIVE SOME MORE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT THE FINISH GRADE WOULD BE FROM THE EXISTING. AND ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE DRAWING, THAT'S THE SIDEWALK. IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SHOW THE SEWER LATERAL, CORRECT? YES. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE SEWER LATERAL.
SO WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT LOSING ONE UNIT, IS THAT CORRECT? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY IN TERMS OF A LOSS.
SO THESE WEREN'T SITES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN OUR INVENTORY FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT.
IF THEY WERE, WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO HOLD THE DEVELOPER TO WHAT WE HAD IN THE ELEMENT OR PROVIDING REPLACEMENT UNITS IN THIS CASE. OUR GENERAL PLAN REQUIRES THAT YOU BUILD TO THE MINIMUM OF THE RANGE.
SO IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE WITHIN THE RANGE, THEY'RE ABOVE THE MINIMUM.
WE'RE STILL TRACKING THE UNITS RELATIVE TO THE CONTROL POINT.
IN THE EVENT THAT THE CITY WERE TO EVER HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO USE THOSE IN THE FUTURE, WE COULD SEE WHERE WE WERE IN RELATION TO THE PROP DWELLING UNIT MAXIMUMS. BUT AT THIS POINT IT'S REALLY JUST AN ACCOUNTING EXERCISE ON OUR PART.
ANY FURTHER? YEAH. OKAY. SO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT FEE ARE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT FEES APPLIED TO FUTURE INCLUSIONARY INCLUSIONARY PROJECTS. OR IS THERE SOMETHING DIFFERENT? YOU ARE CORRECT, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
SO YOU MENTIONED THAT CONDITION 17 SAYS THAT THE INCLUSIONARY CREDIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT FEE IS GOING TO BE APPLIED TO THE TRAVEL ERA, WHICH IS ALREADY BUILT.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND SO HOW ARE THESE FEES APPLIED TO SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BUILT? LET ME TAKE A TRY AT EXPLAINING THIS.
SO THE PROJECTS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO PURCHASE A CREDIT OR PROJECTS BETWEEN SEVEN UNITS AND 50 UNITS, AND THEY ARE PURCHASING A CREDIT IN A PROJECT THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
SO WE HAVE AN UPDATED INFORMATION BULLETIN ON THIS.
THE CREDITS ARE BEING PAID BY THE DEVELOPER TO SATISFY THEIR INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT.
SO THE IN ORDER TO TO HAVE CREDITS IN EXISTENCE, THEY HAVE TO BE EXCESS UNITS OR A PROJECT THAT THE CITY HELPED WITH A NONPROFIT BUILDER CREATE THAT WAS NOT AN INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT.
SO THEY'RE KIND OF BUILT AHEAD OF TIME.
SURPLUS UNITS? WELL, SURPLUS AND THE EXTENT THAT THEY WEREN'T REQUIRED FOR ANY PROJECTS.
SO THE TAVARA UNITS WERE NOT REQUIRED FOR A PROJECT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT OR PERMITTED.
THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY SITTING THERE AS CREDITS THAT CAN BE BE USED BY OTHER PROJECTS.
SO MY CONCERN IS THAT IT'S NOT ADDING TO OUR HOUSING, INCLUSIONARY HOUSING.
[00:40:05]
IT'S PAYING FOR WHAT'S EXISTING, RIGHT? IT'S PAYING FOR WHAT'S EXISTING.BUT WHAT'S EXISTING WAS BUILT IN ADVANCE OF THE REQUIREMENT.
SO IT KIND OF FUNDS ITSELF AS IT GOES.
SO AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL BE BUILT WITH THIS MONEY AT SOME POINT IN TIME.
BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S BEING APPLIED TO SOMETHING THAT'S EXISTING.
IT'S REIMBURSING THE CITY FOR BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WASN'T REQUIRED OF A DEVELOPER.
SO IT'S NOT CREATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IT'S FREE AT THE MOMENT, BUT IT WILL ADD TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK IN THE FUTURE.
THANK YOU. SO ONE MORE QUESTION.
NOTED ON PAGE TEN ARE ESTIMATED TO RANGE FROM 40 TO 96 YEARS OLD, PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED.
THE HISTORIC REPORT STATES THAT THE BUILDING WAS BUILT IN 1925 AND IN 19.
THE ONE BUILDING WAS BUILT IN 1925 AND THE OTHER ONE WAS BUILT IN 1952.
THE 1925 BUILDING IS ACTUALLY 97 YEARS OLD.
HAS THIS REPORT BEEN SHARED WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND.
ARE THERE OTHER PACIFIC READY CUT HOMES IN CARLSBAD? THE PROJECT HAS NOT BEEN SHARED WITH THE HISTORIC COMMISSION PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
AND THANK YOU FOR IDENTIFYING.
ONE, WITH OUR CULTURAL RESOURCE GUIDELINES FOR STRUCTURES, I THINK IT'S OVER 45 YEARS OLD.
AND SO WHEN WE RECEIVE THAT CONFIRMATION IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE PROJECTS ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT, THEY STILL QUALIFIED FOR AN EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA, AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ISSUED AND NOTICED ON OUR WEBSITE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ALTHOUGH THE COMMUNITY KEEPS ASKING FOR SMALL SCALE CHARACTER AND CHARM TO BE MAINTAINED IN CARLSBAD, SO EVEN THOUGH SHARING THIS INFORMATION IS NOT REQUIRED, IT'S IMPORTANT TO VERIFY THE INFORMATION IS PROVED ACCURATE.
THESE HOMES SHOULD BE VETTED THROUGH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO GET A SECOND OPINION.
SEEMS TO ME THESE MEET THIS CRITERIA.
BOTH HOMES WERE PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED IN THE CARLSBAD HISTORIC INVENTORY OF 1990.
HOWEVER, A RESOURCE DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, EITHER THROUGH LISTING OR SURVEY TO BE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT UNDER CEQA.
JUST BECAUSE THERE'S NO OFFICIAL LIST AT THIS TIME DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE ARE NOT SEVERAL LISTS THAT HAVE AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER BEEN PART OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY, OR COULD BE PART OF A FUTURE INVENTORY YET TO BE DETERMINED FOR CARLSBAD.
ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
DEMOLISHING THESE HOMES CREATES A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE TO AN HISTORICAL RESOURCE.
CEQA EXEMPTIONS SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR PROJECTS THAT MAY CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AN HISTORICAL RESOURCE. THE CITY HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO EVALUATE ALL POSSIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES AGAINST THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA PRIOR TO MAKING FINDINGS AS TO PROPOSED PROJECTS IMPACT TO HISTORICAL RESOURCES.
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RIGHTLY.
CONSIDERED THE RESOURCE POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE HISTORIC REGISTER.
BUT THIS IS WHERE THE UNFORTUNATELY, THE POLICY STARTS TO BREAK DOWN.
[00:45:01]
THE CITY. IF WE ONLY HAD AN APPROVED LIST, CITY POLICIES COULD BE APPLIED TO PROTECT POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES.RESOURCES. SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, COULD THIS AGENDA ITEM BE POSTPONED TO REQUEST HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPINION? IF THESE BUILDINGS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION ON CARLSBAD HISTORIC LIST? AND IF NOT, COULD A CONDITION BE ADDED TO THIS PROPOSAL THAT PROVIDES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THE OPPORTUNITY TO DOCUMENT ALL INFORMATION REGARDING THESE HOMES THAT ARE BEING DEMOLISHED? THERE ARE BOTH GOOD EXAMPLES.
THESE ARE BOTH GOOD EXAMPLES OF VERNACULAR DESIGN, AND THAT DOCUMENTATION COULD PROVIDE SURVEYS, DRAWINGS AND PHOTOS THAT MAY HELP THE MEMORY OF THE EXISTING OF THIS PARTICULAR ERA AND COULD ALSO POSSIBLY HELP EVEN OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE FUTURE.
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO LOOK AT THESE.
THEY WERE LISTED AND WE DON'T HAVE A LIST.
SO ALMOST ANYTHING IS UP FOR GRABS AT THIS POINT.
STAFF CARE TO COMMENT? WELL, THE COMMENT THAT I GUESS I WOULD HAVE IS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SETS THE RULES IN WHICH WE EVALUATE PROJECTS BY.
AND CURRENTLY THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT ENACTED A LIST.
BUT AS A COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO FOLLOW THE RULES THAT WERE SET INTO PLACE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND CANNOT COME UP WITH ITS OWN AD HOC PROCEDURE. SO THE CEQA DETERMINATION WAS MADE BY THE CITY PLANNER THAT THE IN I'M NOT SURE IF THIS WAS INFILL EXEMPTION OR NOT, BUT IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY WAS EXEMPT FROM A CEQA REVIEW.
AND THERE WAS A HISTORIC RESOURCES REPORT PREPARED BY A QUALIFIED EXPERT THAT THE CITY PLANNER RELIED ON, THAT IT WASN'T HISTORIC UNDER THE CEQA CRITERIA AND THEREFORE THE EXEMPTION STOOD.
THE EXEMPTION WAS THEN NOTICED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND ALSO PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU FEEL STRONGLY AND I THINK YOU HAVE A POINT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THIS COMMISSION DOESN'T HAVE THE TOOLS TO CONSIDER IT IN THE WAY IN WHICH YOU WISH IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED. AND THERE WOULDN'T BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONDITION IT WHERE THE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED AS A COURTESY IN A CONDITION TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW THE.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO DOCUMENT IF THEY SO SEE SO.
STOP IT. THERE REALLY ISN'T A LEGAL BASIS TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED AND THAT DETERMINATION HAS BEEN FINAL THAT IT WAS NOT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT.
BUT THAT IS A DETERMINATION BASED ON A REPORT THAT'S PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER.
IS THAT CORRECT? THE REPORT WAS PREPARED BY, I WOULD ASSUME IT INDEPENDENT.
ANALYST AND THEN REVIEW BY CITY STAFF FOR ITS ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS.
SO THE CITY PLANNER HAD MADE THAT DETERMINATION THAT THE REPORT WAS ACCURATE.
DID IT? WAS IT REVIEWED BY ANYONE ELSE OR.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD MANY THAT HAVE DONE MULTIPLE REPORTS FOR THE CITY.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SABELLICO?
[00:50:04]
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'D LIKE MR. KEMP TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY AFTER I SAY IT SO HE CAN TELL ME IF I'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK.I THINK I DON'T THINK WE CAN POSTPONE AN ITEM UNLESS THERE'S A REASON WHY WE CAN'T, NOT, WON'T, BUT CAN'T MAKE A DECISION ON THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION WITH THE FACTS IN FRONT OF US.
I THINK WE HAVE A DUTY TO APPROVE THE PROJECT OR DENY THE PROJECT ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER IT MEETS THE CRITERIA ON WHICH WE'RE EVALUATING IT FOR.
AND THERE'S ALSO SB 330 TO CONSIDER.
I BELIEVE THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE CONSIDERED A MEETING.
THAT'S THREE. I MEAN, THERE'S.
IT'S JUST. NOT A GOOD IDEA GIVEN THE ENVIRONMENTS THAT WE'RE IN TO GET OPINIONS THAT.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO GET AND AS ATTORNEY KEMP MENTIONED, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE DOES NOT. YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY TWO REASONS WHY WHY IT WOULD GO TO A HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
AND I DON'T SEE THIS MEETING EITHER OF THOSE TWO REASONS.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD POSTPONE THE MEETING.
MR. KEMP, DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT OR NOT? I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANYTHING THERE FOR ME TO COMMENT ON.
I THINK HE JUST KIND OF REPEATED WHAT I'VE ALREADY SAID TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THAT BIG OF A CONCERN.
AND WE DON'T HAVE A FOUNDATION ON WHICH TO SEND THIS BACK TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO LOOK AT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
AND IN ANY EVENT, THAT DECISION HAS BEEN MADE AND IS FINAL AND NOBODY APPEALED IT.
SO THE CEQA DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE.
COMMISSIONER LUNA? I HAVE TWO COMMENTS. THE FIRST IS FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY'S COMMENTS, AND COUNCILOR KEMP, YOU MAY NEED TO WEIGH IN AS LIAISON TO THE HISTORIC COMMISSION. I'VE HEARD YOU SAY IS THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT AND I MAY BE JUST ASSUMING THIS BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS, IT MAY NOT BE ACCURATE.
SO YOU CAN CORRECT ME THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THE HISTORIC COMMISSION TO HAVE AN INVENTORY OR A RECORD THAT THESE PROPERTIES ARE GOING AWAY AS LIAISON.
YOU SIT ON THIS COMMISSION, I'M SURE YOU COULD ADVISE THEM OF THAT IN YOUR REPORT AND THEN POSSIBLY THAT CAN THEN GO INTO THEIR INVENTORY.
I MEAN, COUNCILOR KEMP, IF THAT'S SOMETHING WITHIN HER AUTHORITY.
YEAH. AND COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY AND I'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.
CURRENTLY, THE CITY IS WRITING A MILLS ACT ORDINANCE AND THEY AT THE SAME TIME ARE UPDATING TITLE 22, WHICH IS THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. AND THERE WILL BE CHANGES MADE TO IT.
IT COULD CHANGE WHAT GOES TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION? I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE DRAFT YET BECAUSE A DIFFERENT ATTORNEY IS WORKING ON THAT.
AND I BELIEVE ACTUALLY BECAUSE COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY INFORMED ME OF IT, THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DID TRY TO GET AN UPDATED INVENTORY BECAUSE WE DID HAVE A LIST OF EITHER 18 OR 19 PROPERTIES THAT HAD BEEN.
ACCEPTED ESSENTIALLY AT ONE POINT IN TIME AND THEN.
REJECTED BASICALLY LATER, AND THAT LIST IS DOWN TO 13.
AND SO THE [INAUDIBLE], I BELIEVE, I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE THE NAME CORRECT.
AND I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL POSTPONED THE LIST UNTIL THE MILLS ACT ORDINANCE GETS ADOPTED.
[00:55:04]
AND WHEN PROPERTIES GO INTO THE MILLS ACT, WHICH IS BASICALLY GIVING HISTORIC PROPERTIES A TAX BREAK.THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE TAXED AT THEIR HIGHEST AND BEST USE, BUT I THINK TAXED AT A DIFFERENT RATE.
I THINK REGARDING THE INCOME IT CAN MAKE, THEY HAVE TO BE IDENTIFIED AS HISTORIC AND PUT ON A LIST.
SO I THINK COUNCIL PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, NOW I'M PUTTING THOUGHTS IN THE COUNCIL'S HEAD BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW AND I WASN'T AT THE MEETING BUT MAY HAVE LOOKED AT THOSE TWO THINGS AS EXERCISE THAT SHOULD GO TOGETHER.
AND SO I BELIEVE THE MILLS ACT ORDINANCE IS GOING FORWARD PROBABLY SOMETIME THIS SUMMER AND MAYBE SOME OF THESE CONCERNS THAT COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY HAS WILL BE ADDRESSED SOMEWHAT.
BUT IN THE INTERIM, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS IT WITHIN HER PURVIEW AS LIAISON THEN TO ADVISE THE HISTORIC COMMISSION OF THIS ACTION OR ACTIONS THAT WE ARE TAKING SO THAT THEY CAN MAINTAIN THEIR INVENTORY, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE? I SUPPOSE, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE A COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I'M SURE, CAN CONFIRM IT.
NO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE.
BECAUSE THAT'S, IT BECOMES AN ISSUE OF THEY DON'T SEE THE REPORTS.
THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BEING DEVELOPED.
THEY DON'T GET EVEN THE LISTS OF WHAT'S BEING DEVELOPED.
I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE STAFF LIAISON AND SHE DOESN'T FOLLOW THE PLANNING LISTS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING.
SO. SO I'M NOT SURE HOW WE WORK INTO DEPARTMENTAL TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE THAT.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE BASICALLY THIS REPORT DIDN'T GET.
SENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO DO SO.
SO THAT'S THE CONCERN IS, I THINK OUT OF A COURTESY, IT WOULD JUST BE HELPFUL.
BUT THEN I'M LOOKING AT THE INFORMATION THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO ACCRUE FROM SEQUOIA AND FROM THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
AND THEY'RE SAYING THAT THIS SHOULD BE.
I APPRECIATE THE HISTORIC INFORMATION.
YOU KNOW, AND MAYBE THESE AREN'T BUT I'M NOT THE PERSON TO DETERMINE THAT.
SO I'M JUST I'M AFRAID THAT WE'RE MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY HERE.
AND JUST HAVING THAT SECOND OPINION IS, TO ME, HELPFUL.
AND I THINK IT'S JUST DOING OUR COMMUNITY DILIGENCE, YOU KNOW? SO THIRD TIME'S THE CHARM.
SO, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I WOULD, AS A LIAISON, I BELIEVE YOU WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT IN YOUR REPORT TO THE HISTORIC COMMISSION. THIS IS PUBLIC INFORMATION.
SO, YOU KNOW, GRANTED, IT'S IT'S NOT REALLY WHAT YOU WANT, BUT AT LEAST THE ENDING PART OF YOUR COMMENTS WAS THAT THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE AND THEY THEY'RE THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP SOME TYPE OF A LEDGER.
AND SO YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AVAIL THEM OF SUCH INFORMATION.
AND THEN IF I'M TOTALLY GOING TO DIGRESS TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
IF WE TAKE A LOOK AT CONDITION.
ON THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE UNDER PRUNING, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
AND I NEED TO PROBABLY GET THE APPLICANT WHEN THEY COME UP HERE TO AGREE TO IT.
IF WE COULD JUST ADD UNDER THE PRUNING UNDER NUMBER ONE, AND THIS IS BECOMING A PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THE HOAS THAT I ENCOUNTER IN BASICALLY SOMETHING IT'S JUST MORE JUST A REMINDER THAT THE HOA SHALL AND OR THEIR DESIGNEE SELF CERTIFY TO THE CITY PLANNER THAT THE PRUNING DURING THE SECOND YEAR IS IS IN COMPLIANCE.
WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING A LOT IS, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE THE STAFF TO GO AROUND.
[01:00:01]
WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THAT THEY ARE BUTCHERING THE CROWNS.AND AS A RESULT, THESE TREES ARE GETTING GIGANTIC AND GROWING THIS WAY INSTEAD OF THIS WAY, CAUSING ALL KINDS OF DAMAGE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO THE STRUCTURES, TO THE PAINT, BIRDS ROOSTING IN THEM, ROOT DAMAGE.
AND IT'S ALL BECAUSE AND IT'S THE SECOND YEAR THEY GO IN THERE AND THEY TOP THE CROWN.
WE DON'T HAVE THE STAFF TO GO AROUND AND CHECK CROWN TOPPING IS HAPPENING.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST NOT REALISTIC, BUT AT LEAST THAT WAY I THINK WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, AT LEAST YOU GOT A LITTLE SELF CERTIFICATION IF A HOMEOWNER OR SOMETHING MAYBE WANTS TO TAKE UMBRAGE WITH THEIR HOA.
YOU KNOW, THEY SAID, YEAH, WE DIDN'T TOPPLE THEM AND MORE THAN LIKELY THEY DO.
SO I DON'T KNOW, MR. DAN, IF YOU COULD WE COULD THROW SOMETHING IN THERE LIKE THAT.
AND THEN IF THE APPLICANT AGREES, IT'S IT'S JUST A SELF CERTIFICATION.
THE HOA MANAGER OR SOMEONE SAYS, YEAH, WE DID WHAT IT SAYS TO DO AND OR WE DID IT, PERIOD.
MR. DAN, ANY THOUGHTS? I AM IN AGREEMENT.
I WOULD JUST SEE WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO SAY TO THAT.
THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT TO THAT.
WELL, THAT'S A GOOD SEGUE TO THE NEXT PORTION OF OUR HEARING.
WE INVITE THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD.
AND ONCE AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, I KNOW YOU DID THIS PREVIOUSLY.
IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE.
NO PROBLEM. MY NAME IS TOM ST CLAIR AT ST CLAIR STEELE.
AIR ADDRESS IS 5315 AVENIDA ENCINAS, CARLSBAD 92008.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU TO PAUL AGAIN.
SPECIFICALLY WITH OUR FIRST DEVELOPERS CONFERENCE.
WE RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM STAFF AND WE COMPLETELY REDESIGN THE SITE.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE DID HAVE TO GRAVITY FLOW, THE SEWERS, SO WE HAD TO BUILD UP THE BACK OF THE SITE AND THAT IS THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM THAT WE DID TO GET SEWER OUT AND THAT'S ALL WE DID. ADDITIONALLY, WE RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT THE WALL HEIGHTS AND ALSO FROM STAFF, AND WE WERE ABLE TO REDUCE OUR WALL HEIGHTS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY BY 2 TO 3 FEET, DEPENDING ON THE LOCATION BY PROVIDING SLOPE AND THAT AID INTO OUR USABLE YARD. BUT I THINK IT WAS HELPFUL FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND THEY WERE APPRECIATIVE OF THAT.
SO YOU BROUGHT UP THE TREES AND THE NEIGHBORS BROUGHT UP THE TREES AS WELL ON JUNIPER.
AND THERE'S WE HAVE A LOT OF SHARED TREES ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND WE WORKED WITH OUR NEIGHBORS QUITE EXTENSIVELY OVER MONTHS TO DEVELOP A PLAN THAT WE FELT WAS GOOD FOR THEM AND GOOD FOR US. AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE BACK OF THIS BIG CONDO PROJECT OFF JUNIPER, RIGHT WHERE HE'S POINTING, THERE ARE A TON OF TREES THAT WERE KIND OF AN INVASIVE SPECIES.
AND WE'RE FALLING DOWN, IN OUR OPINION AND SHOULDN'T BE THERE.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO PLANT THOSE TREES ANYMORE.
SO WE RECOMMENDED PULLING THEM ALL OUT.
NEIGHBORS DIDN'T WANT THEY WANTED THE TREES, WHICH SO WE PROPOSE PUTTING ALL THOSE JUST [INAUDIBLE].
I'M HAPPY TO PUT THAT IN THERE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
BUT IN THIS CASE, THEY REALLY WANTED SOME TALL TREES TO FOR PRIVACY.
IN ADDITION, WE REDESIGNED THE WHOLE PROJECT WAS WE WERE TRYING TO CAPTURE OCEAN VIEWS ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE AND WE REORIENTED ALL OF OUR DECKS BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT PRIVACY LOOKING DOWN INTO THEIR YARD.
SO WE REDESIGNED IT FROM THAT STANDPOINT.
YOU KNOW, MY BELIEF IS THEY'RE NOT HISTORICAL BUILDINGS.
[01:05:01]
RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, THEY'RE HIGHLY RESPECTED.THEY PUT A 73 PAGE DOCUMENT TOGETHER IN THAT DOCUMENT.
BUT REGARDLESS OF ALL THAT, WE THINK WE'VE PUT TOGETHER A REALLY NICE PROJECT AND IT'S TAKEN A LONG TIME TO GET TO THIS POINT AND WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT IT AND WE'RE REALLY EXCITED THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE NEIGHBORS SUPPORTING US BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
BUT THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LUNA.
STAY RIGHT THERE, MR. COMMISSIONER.
SO, CHAIRMAN STEIN, IF I MAY SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT, SO IS THAT A NOD YES TO THAT LITTLE AMENDMENT IN THE AGREEMENT? BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE PROMISING ME THIS NOW, BUT FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE.
SO I'M PROBABLY GOING TO BE UP HERE AGAIN.
SO I GUESS, MR. DAN. AND THAT'S A YES.
SO SOME LANGUAGE, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE, MR. SINCLAIR, YOU WHOLEHEARTEDLY SHARE COMMISSIONER LUNA'S CONCERNS ABOUT TREES GOING VERTICALLY, NOT HORIZONTALLY, AND CREATING PROBLEMS. YES. SO IF WE DEVISE SOME TYPE OF LANGUAGE AND WE TWEAK THE CONDITION A LITTLE BIT, YOU'RE RECEPTIVE TO SOME TYPE OF ADJUSTMENT THERE? YEAH. AND I THINK THE NEIGHBORS, BECAUSE THIS WAS ALL THAT THAT PRUNING LANGUAGE WAS PUT IN THERE BY THE WE COLLECTIVELY CAME UP WITH THAT LANGUAGE.
SO BUT THEIR GOAL IS FOR THEM TO GO UP.
SO I'M SURE THEY WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYBODY'S GOAL IS FOR THEM TO GO.
ALL RIGHT. ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF MR. SINCLAIR? MR. MERCIER, COMMISSIONER MARSH? WELL, I THOUGHT DURING THE BRIEFING, THE NEIGHBOR WHO HAD THAT CONCERN HAD SOLD THEIR HOUSE AND MOVED AWAY.
THAT WAS THAT. I RECALL IT CORRECTLY FROM THE BRIEFING OR SO.
HE WAS, THERE WAS A LEAD POINT OF CONTACT THAT HE WORKS WITH SAVING HORSES AND HE ENDED UP FINDING A NEW HOUSE OUT EAST THAT HE WANTED TO LIVE IN.
BUT I'VE BEEN I WAS DEALING WITH HIM AND THEN I WAS DEALING WITH SOMEONE ELSE IN THE HOUSE.
BUT IT'S IT'S THAT WHOLE COMMUNITY WAS CONCERNED BY IT.
IT WASN'T JUST HIM, BUT HE WAS THE LEAD PERSON.
BUT IT WAS THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? HI. I NOTICED THAT IN THE HISTORIC REPORT YOU DID.
BUT THESE HOUSES ARE 100 YEARS OLD.
SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER 50 YEARS PRIOR? I'M NOT A HISTORICAL.
EXPERT. YOU KNOW, THAT'S WE JUST PAY THEM TO PUT THE REPORT TOGETHER AND.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. SINCLAIR. WE WILL NOW OPEN THE HEARING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
MADAM CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS? NO, WE DO NOT. AND SEEING NO ONE COME FORWARD, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT PART OF OUR HEARING AND WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR ANY PARTICULAR RESPONSES FROM THE STAFF.
HAVE ANY OTHER RESPONSES TO THE ISSUES THAT WE RAISED? MR. DAN? NO, CHAIR OK.
ALL RIGHT. TIME FOR COMMISSIONER.
FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER SABELLICO? WELL, AFTER EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED, I THINK THAT WE'VE HAD SUFFICIENT DISCUSSION FOR ME TO MOVE APPROVAL, MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH COMMISSIONER LUNA'S SUGGESTION, WHICH I WILL LET HER VERBALIZE BEFORE.
I MESS IT UP. IS THERE A SECOND TO COMMISSIONER SABELLICO MOTION SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MERZ.
COMMISSIONER LUNA, DID YOU HAVE SOME LANGUAGE THAT YOU WOULD SUGGEST TO BE INSERTED IN THAT CONDITION? WELL, SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF THAT THE HOA AND OR THEIR DESIGNEE SHALL SELF CERTIFY TO THE I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S CITY PLANNER.
[01:10:03]
MR. NEU YOU'D LIKE TO GIVE IT TO THE NEW CITY PLANNER.HOW ABOUT HOW ABOUT COUNSELOR KEMP? LET'S GET HIM IN ON THIS.
SO I HAVE TO THE CITY PLANNER THAT PRUNING DURING THE SECOND YEAR IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUGGESTED I DON'T KNOW IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ABOVE LANGUAGE OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
MR. DAN. I'LL LET HIM SMOOTH IT OUT.
THE STAFF COMMENT SO WE CAN SMOOTH OUT THIS LANGUAGE.
MR. NEU? MR. CHAIR, THAT'S GREAT.
IS THE COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE]? ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE? YES. AND IS THE SECOND COMFORTABLE WITH THE LANGUAGE? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? OKAY. HAVEN'T SEEN THAT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
WAS THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED? THE MOTION PASSES 5 TO 1.
MAY I MOVE FOR A FIVE MINUTE RECESS? ABSOLUTELY. WHY DON'T WE TAKE A BREAK UNTIL 6:20? ALL RIGHT. SO RECESS.
I'M RECONVENING OUR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
[3. CDP 2020-0032/SUP2020-0003/HMP 2020-0007 (PUB 2020-0009) – EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING (CIP 6072)]
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE AND START WITH DISCLOSURES.COMMISSIONER, WANT TO START WITH YOU.
ANY DISCLOSURES ON ITEM NUMBER THREE? I DRIVE DOWN EL CAMINO EVERY DAY.
SO I WELCOME THE STAFF REPORT.
I'M DELIGHTED. AND THE SOONER WE CAN DO THIS, THE BETTER.
COMMISSIONER SABELLICO? YES, SAME.
OKAY. COMMISSIONER MERZ? YEAH, THAT'S ON MY COMMUTE TO WORK EVERY DAY.
PRETTY MUCH EVERY DAY. SO, YEAH.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY NOTHING.
LIKE THERE'S I HAVE DRIVEN BY THERE HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF TIMES ON MY WAY TO WORK.
AND THIS MAY HELP TO CURE THAT.
ALL RIGHT. TURNING TO THE MR. NEU, OUR CITY PLANNER TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM, PLEASE.
SO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE IS A PROJECT TITLED EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING CIP 6072.
AND PRINCIPAL PLANNER ERIK LARDY IS HERE WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION.
MR. LARDY. GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
I WILL BE PRESENTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ASSOCIATED PERMITS FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT ALONG EL CAMINO REAL NORTHBOUND FROM POINSETTIA LANE TO CAMINO DE ROBLE.
THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A LANE FROM POINSETTIA AREA TO CAMINO DE ROBLE BY RESTRIPING FROM POINSETTIA TO CINNABAR WAY AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL LANE FROM CINNABAR WAY TO CAMINO VIDA ROBLE FOR APPROXIMATELY 100 OR 1500 FEET.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD ELIMINATE THE SEGMENT WHERE THE NORTHBOUND LANES ARE ONLY TO CONNECTING TO THE THREE NORTHBOUND LANES ON THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT. IT WILL ALSO INCLUDE A BUFFER BIKE LANE SIDEWALKS AND IMPROVE THE MEDIAN ON THIS SEGMENT TO MATCH THE LOOK IN THE FIELD TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH, INCLUDING INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING AND AN IMPROVED MEDIAN ALONG THE PROJECT.
THIS MAP SHOWS THE PROPERTY IN CONTEXT WITH THE AERIAL AND THE LANE MILES ADDED.
THIS PHOTO SHOWS EL CAMINO REAL LOOKING NORTHWARD AT THE AREA WHERE THE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE.
THE PROJECT WAS REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.
IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
[01:15:05]
IT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE MULTIMODAL COMPONENTS BY PROVIDING A SIDEWALK RAISED MEDIAN AND BUFFERED BIKE LANE.THE PROJECT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE TEN.
THE AREA IS ALSO WITHIN THE EL CAMINO REAL SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE.
IT'S WITHIN AREA FOUR AND FIVE OF THESE STANDARDS.
AREA FOUR IS FROM COLLEGE AVENUE TO CASTILLO ROAD WITH THE CAMPUS TYPE LAND USES IN THE AREA.
AND AREA FIVE IS FROM THAT AREA SOUTH TO THE LAGOON.
THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNALS ADDED, BUT THE PROJECT WILL ADD FOUR STREETLIGHTS CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN ALONG THIS CORRIDOR AND THERE ARE NO IMPACTS TO VIEWS DUE TO THIS PROJECT.
THE PROJECT IS ALSO REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE REGULATIONS OF THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN.
THERE WERE NO ENDANGERED SPECIES IDENTIFIED DURING THE SURVEYS, BUT FOR MITIGATION PURPOSES THE AREA WAS PRESUMED TO BE OCCUPIED AND THE PROJECT WILL MITIGATE AT A 2 TO 1 RATIO. THERE ARE ALSO 17 MITIGATION MEASURES TO AVOID AND OR MITIGATE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT IMPACTS TO BIOLOGY, SUCH AS CONSTRUCTION AVOIDANCE AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR CONSTRUCTION.
THEREFORE, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT TWO RESOLUTIONS.
THANK YOU. AND WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE. BUT I HAVE A QUESTION OR WOULD YOU GO BACK TO THE AREA, THE AERIAL MR. LARDY OF THE AREA? I WANT TO FOCUS ON AN AREA I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT.
IT WAS A COUPLE OF SLIDES BACK, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
THERE IS AN AREA WHERE THERE IS A PAVED KIND OF MINI CUL-DE-SAC AND IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT NORTH OF THE CINNABAR WAY.
CAN YOU FOCUS IN ON THAT IF YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT? I BELIEVE YOU'RE REFERENCING THE AREA HERE.
THAT'S PART OF THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE CITY.
COULD YOU FOCUS ON THAT ANYMORE OR IS THAT THE BEST YOU CAN DO? OKAY. YES, I NOTICED THAT.
AND CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE INSIGHT AS TO WHY THAT'S THERE? WAS THAT PART OF A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL? VERY SMALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT ONE POINT.
ANY INSIGHT IS TO THAT CUL-DE-SAC.
I BELIEVE THAT'S RELATED TO SOME UTILITIES THAT ARE THAT ARE IN PLACE ON THAT SITE.
THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL WITH AN R-4 DESIGNATION.
TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO EXISTING PERMITS ON THAT SITE AND IT IS STILL IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.
SO THERE COULD BE POTENTIAL PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE ON THAT SITE.
[01:20:04]
I BELIEVE SO. I DON'T KNOW IF CITY PLANNER KNEW HAS ANYTHING TO ADD ON THAT.NO, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, MR. CHAIR, FURTHER NORTH, AND I'M NOT SURE IF THIS WAS A CUL-DE-SAC, IF MR. LARDY CAN MOVE US TO NORTH THERE.
BUT AT THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROJECT THERE IS A CUL-DE-SAC YOU SEE IN THE RED.
OK, BUT THERE WAS NEVER A APPROVED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND SOME TYPE THAT NEVER GOT BUILT THERE.
NO. SO THE THE STREETS, YOU SEE COPPER WAY AND TRONA WAY.
THIS WAS A NEIGHBORHOOD OF LA COSTA GREENS AT THE TIME THAT MASTER PLAN WAS DONE.
THE THE MASTER DEVELOPER DIDN'T OWN THIS TRIANGULAR PIECE AND WAS NOT INTERESTED IN ACQUIRING IT, I THINK BECAUSE OF THE UTILITY EASEMENTS AND THE HABITAT ON IT.
OKAY, GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SEEING NOTHING FROM FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
NORMALLY I WOULD INVITE THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD.
THE APPLICANT HERE IS THE CITY.
ARE YOU WEARING TWO HATS, MR. LARDY, OR IS THERE SOMEONE ELSE FROM THE CITY IS GOING TO TALK FURTHER ABOUT THIS.
WE DO HAVE CITY ENGINEERS FROM PUBLIC WORKS THAT ARE HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT. WOULD THEY COME FORWARD, PLEASE? AND WOULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF, PLEASE? GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS BRANDON MILES AND I AM AN ASSOCIATE ENGINEER IN PUBLIC WORKS.
OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MILES? SEEING NONE.
THANK YOU. HANG AROUND IN CASE THERE'S SOMETHING FURTHER.
NOW WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR TO THE PUBLIC FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
MADAM CLERK, I UNDERSTAND WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER SLIP.
YES, MR. CHAIR, WE HAVE ONE FOR ITEM THREE.
CLAIR. MR. ST. CLAIR? YOU ARE WEARING ANOTHER HAT.
S-T-C-L-A-I-R. DO YOU NEED MY ADDRESS AGAIN? I THINK WE HAVE IT. OKAY, GO AHEAD.
IT'S SERENDIPITOUS THAT I'M HERE BECAUSE AS LUCK WOULD HAVE IT, WE ARE IN ESCROW ON THIS PIECE.
I DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING.
TONIGHT, I KNEW THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING.
DO YOU GUYS KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY FEET? PERHAPS STAFF CAN COMMENT. GO AHEAD, SIR.
SO IT'S REDUCING THE IT'S REDUCING ITS RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
THIS IS A VERY CHALLENGING SITE FROM A RESIDENTIAL STANDPOINT.
IN ADDITION, BY TAKING THAT, WE'VE ANALYZED THIS AND THAT AMOUNT OF FEET BEING SQUEEZED FROM A TRIANGULAR SHAPED PROPERTY IS GOING TO MAKE THIS VERY CHALLENGING FROM A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT NEED, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST BRINGING THIS UP NOT NOT NECESSARILY.
SHOULD YOU DENY THIS BASED UPON THAT? HOWEVER, WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS SITE AND WE COULD SQUEEZE SOME HOMES IN THERE.
I THINK THE BEST CASE SCENARIO FOR THE CITY IS WE'RE LOOKING IN THE CITY AND THERE ARE NO RV STORES THAT ARE PUBLIC, ALTHOUGH THERE'S AN RV STORAGE RIGHT NEXT TO THIS SITE THAT'S HOA MAINTAINED.
AND THERE'S A HUGE HIGHWAY THAT MAINTAINS THAT.
THEY'RE REQUESTING MORE RV STORAGE, TOO.
I MEAN, THEY'RE GOING TO PAY FOR IT.
BUT I JUST THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT MAYBE SHOULD BE DISCUSSED.
AND I KNOW IT'S NOTHING THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TONIGHT, BUT IT'S GOING TO MAKE THIS SITE.
I KNOW IT'S GREAT FOR EL CAMINO, BUT THIS SITE IS GOING TO BE VERY CHALLENGING FROM ALL OF OUR EXPERIENCE AS DEVELOPERS TO PUT RESIDENTIAL HOMES ON IT NOW THAT THIS IS BEING DONE.
SO JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE.
MR. SINCLAIR, WHAT I HEAR YOUR COMMENTS IS THIS IS A EVEN IN THE BEST OF CASES, A VERY CONSTRAINED SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND IT WOULD BE EVEN MORE CONSTRAINED WITH THIS APPROVAL.
[01:25:01]
IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH.YOU SAID IT WAY BETTER THAN I DID.
YES. SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING AT SOME POINT THE CITY MIGHT CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE REZONING TO FOR SOMETHING ELSE? IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. AND I'D LOVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT, BECAUSE I KNOW WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THE MANDATE FROM THE STATE TO DO HOUSING, I KNOW IT'S TOUGH TO TRANSITION THINGS AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING.
SO BUT I DO THINK THIS IS A GREAT SITE FOR WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING.
BUT QUESTIONS FOR MR. SINCLAIR. NO, THANK YOU, SIR.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, MADAM CLERK? MR. CHAIR, WE DO NOT.
WE WILL THEN CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT PORTION OF THE HEARING AND WE WILL TURN IT OVER FOR COMMISSIONER OR FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS THE CITY, IN THIS CASE, OUR STAFF.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS? COMMISSIONER LUNA? SINCE I'VE BEEN LIVING IN THE CITY, THE PROJECTS THAT THE CITY HAS TAKEN ON AN EL CAMINO AND IMPROVEMENTS, YOU HAVE GREAT COMMAND AND CONTROL.
I HAVE BEEN WATCHING AT CANNON AND EL CAMINO, DRIVE PASS IT EVERY DAY.
I'VE BEEN WATCHING TEN CITY EMPLOYEES.
WATCH AS YOU PUT THE BRIDGE IN THERE AND YOU MADE SURE IT WAS PUT WELL.
I'VE BEEN WE HEARD THAT WE HAD CERTAIN CONDITIONS ON THERE.
SO FOR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT IN THE PAST, BUT AS OF RECENT WHAT THE CITY HAS BEEN TAKING ON, THE CONTRACTORS THAT YOU'RE USING HAVE BEEN COMPLIANT.
ALSO, THIS PROJECT, YOU GOT TO.
SO AND YOU WERE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF OUR NATIVE AMERICAN FRIENDS AND SO WELL WRITTEN STAFF REPORT. SO I SUPPORT THIS WHOLLY AND FOR TIME CONSTRAINTS.
UNLESS ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE SOMETHING, I'M READY TO MOVE ON A RECOMMENDATION.
LET ME JUST MAKE A FURTHER COMMENT, KIND OF PIGGYBACK ON COMMISSIONER LUNA SAID.
I THINK THIS IS I COMMEND STAFF FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
FOR THOSE OF US WHO DRIVE EL CAMINO REAL A LOT, I'M ONE OF THOSE AND PERIODICALLY AND FREQUENTLY DRIVE IT DURING A RUSH HOUR TIME.
YOU GOT THREE LANES TO THE SOUTH OF IT, YOU'VE GOT THREE LANES TO THE NORTH.
THERE'S NO REASON WHY THIS SHOULD REMAIN TWO LANES.
AGAIN, I WALKED MUCH OF THE AREA TODAY.
THERE'S SOME COASTAL SAGE SCRUB TOWARD THE VERY SOUTH END THERE NEAR THE CANABAR WAY.
BUT AS YOU GO FARTHER NORTH, IT'S LARGELY WEEDS.
SO I DON'T SEE THIS AS A REALLY VALUABLE HABITAT AT ALL.
THERE IS SOME SO-SO SAGE, SO THIS IS NOT A BIG HABITAT CORRIDOR.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO SUFFER ANY SIGNIFICANT, IF AT ALL, ANY HABITAT LOSS.
SO I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
AND, YOU KNOW, SO IN THE IN THE AREA THAT'S PROPOSED FOR THE THIRD LANE.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, PLEASE.
I'M ACTUALLY PLEASED THAT CREDITS ARE BEING PURCHASED IN.
IS IT THE CALAVERA THAT THEY'RE BEING PURCHASED FOR THIS PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN HABITAT? YEAH. YES.
SO I WOULD AGREE THAT THAT WOULD BE A CONCERN AND THAT WAS A CONCERN THAT WE DISCUSSED.
WITH THE IN THE BRIEFING BECAUSE IT'S A LARGE LOT, BUT BECAUSE IT'S ON SUCH A BUSY ROAD, WOULD THERE BE CONSIDERATION OF ANY TYPE OF SPEED REDUCTION AT THAT LOCATION? I MEAN, IN THE FUTURE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S BECAUSE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT RUNS ALONG THAT CORRIDOR? THAT ARTERIAL ROAD OF EL CAMINO REAL IS DESIGNATED TO CARRY GOODS, SO THERE'S NO INTENTION TO REDUCE SPEED ON THAT ROADWAY NETWORK.
[01:30:09]
HOWEVER, WE WILL BE NARROWING LANES TO PROVIDE GREATER SAFETY FOR THE BICYCLISTS.SO WE'LL HAVE BUFFERED BIKE LANES IN THAT AREA.
BUT AT THIS TIME, THERE'S NO INTENTION TO REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT IN THAT SEGMENT.
SO RIGHT NOW IT JUST STANDS AROUND 50 OR 55 OR SOMETHING.
IS THAT? THE 85TH PERCENTILE DICTATES A 55 MILE AN HOUR POSTED SPEED LIMIT.
SO. SO THAT'S REALLY THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS IF, YOU KNOW, LIKE SUGGESTED, POTENTIALLY SUGGESTED CHANGING ZONING, I THINK THAT THIS IS A LARGE ENOUGH LOT WHERE WE WILL POTENTIALLY NEED IT IN THE FUTURE TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE CONTINUED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
SO I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE HELPFUL.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE CLARIFICATIONS.
COMMISSIONER SABELLICO? IS THERE GOING TO BE PROTECTED BIKE LANES? I KNOW YOU SAID THERE WILL BE BUFFERED BIKE LANES, BUT WILL THERE BE A PHYSICAL BARRIER BETWEEN CARS AND BIKES ON THE ROAD? THERE WILL BE THERE WILL NOT BE A PROTECTED BY CLAIM THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A CLASS FOUR BIKE LANE.
BUT WE DO HAVE THE CONFLICT AREAS WILL BE PAINTED GREEN WITH A CONTINENTAL TYPE, LIKE A LADDER TYPE FOR THE BUS AREAS AND THE DRIVEWAYS OF THAT NATURE. THIS ITEM WAS BROUGHT BEFORE A TRAFFIC AND MOBILITY COMMISSION AND THEY ALSO WERE CONCERNED WITH THAT.
AND THE WE RECOMMENDED THE GREEN PAINT AND THEY SUPPORTED THAT.
AND WHAT WE'RE ADDING IS THE GREEN PAINT, ESSENTIALLY.
THERE IS A MINIMAL BUFFER EXISTING TODAY THAT WILL BE ENHANCED BUFFER.
SO A LITTLE WIDER BUFFER BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE LANE WIDTHS.
SO ESSENTIALLY WITH THE THREE LANES WILL TAKE A FOOT FROM EACH LANE AND ADD THAT TO THE BUFFER.
SO I HAVE A THREE FOOT BUFFER INSTEAD OF A TWO 1 TO 2 FOOT BUFFER.
AND I KNOW THAT'S TECHNICAL, BUT AS WE GET TO THE INTERSECTIONS TOO, THERE'LL BE SOME GREEN PAINT TO ENHANCE THE CONFLICT AREAS FOR TURNING VEHICLES TO DESIGNATE THAT AREA OF MERGE.
GREAT. THANK YOU. AND FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
IN TERMS OF SIDEWALKS, THERE'LL BE SIDEWALKS THROUGHOUT THE AREA IN QUESTION.
ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE GOING TO ADD NEW SIDEWALKS WHERE NONE EXISTED AND SOME OF THOSE SIDEWALKS WILL BE NONCONTIGUOUS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO PULL THE SIDEWALKS AWAY FROM THE STREET MORE. SO WE'LL HAVE A WIDER SIDEWALK AND THEN THERE'LL BE A GREEN, LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT STORM WATER TREATMENT FEATURE BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THE SIDEWALK.
SO IT'LL BE ANOTHER ENHANCEMENT.
SO NEXT TIME I'M OUT THERE, I DON'T HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH THE WEEDS OR THE COASTAL STAGE RIGHT NOW.
THERE'LL BE A NICE CONCRETE SIDEWALK TO.
YEAH. ANOTHER FEATURE I LIKE ON THIS.
THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD FIRES IN THIS AREA BEFORE AND NOT TOO FAR AWAY FROM THIS.
AND I CAN SEE THEY'RE ELIMINATING SOME OF THE DEBRIS.
THE VEGETATION WAS VERY DRY AND MIGHT HELP US IN THAT REGARD IN SOME RESPECT.
WE'LL HAVE A NEW MEDIAN THAT DOESN'T EXIST TODAY WITH LANDSCAPING AND STAMPED CONCRETE.
THANK YOU, OK, FOR THE COMMENTS.
IF NOT, A MOTION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
COMMISSIONER LUNA? I MOVE APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ALL SECOND THAT WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LUNA.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.
TECHNOLOGY IS STARTING TO WORK BETTER.
OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO.
THANK YOU. THAT WILL CONCLUDE THAT ITEM.
[4. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP TOPICS]
WORKSHOPS. AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO CITY PLANNER NEU.THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO AS YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR, WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THE CONCEPT OF A PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP, AND YOU HAD REQUESTED THAT THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS EXACTLY WHAT TOPICS.
[01:35:05]
SO THIS EVENING I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE TO YOU THAT WE WERE ABLE TO CANCEL THE JULY 6TH REGULAR MEETING.WE ONLY HAD ONE AGENDA ITEM, SO WE'RE ABLE TO MOVE THAT TO ANOTHER DATE.
WE'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE USE THE 6TH AS THE WORKSHOP DATE AND LOOK AT AN AFTERNOON START TIME.
IF THAT DOESN'T WORK, WE COULD DO A, YOU KNOW, A 5:00 OR AN EVENING ONE.
BUT THE WORKSHOP WOULD BE SCHEDULED FOR THE FARADAY BUILDING.
SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES THE CITY'S BEEN WORKING WITH.
AND THEN I DID WANT TO MAKE ONE SUGGESTION FOR FOR A TOPIC.
I KNOW A NUMBER OF YOU HAVE GIVEN SOME THOUGHT TO THAT AND LOOKED AT SOME OF THE PAST MATERIAL.
AND, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF THINGS CAME OUT IN SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS.
MR. KEMP AND I WERE DISCUSSING HOW IN SOME OF THE PAST WORKSHOPS, WE SPECIFICALLY AS STAFF LAID OUT SOME OF THE TOPIC AREAS THAT WE FELT WOULD BE USEFUL FOR THE COMMISSION TO KIND OF REFRESH ON THINGS LIKE WHAT YOUR AUTHORITY IS, THINGS THAT WERE WORKING WELL, MAYBE THINGS THAT NEEDED IMPROVEMENT OR COULD BE IMPROVED.
SO ONE IDEA THAT WAS PROPOSED WAS THAT MAYBE WE LOOK AT FOR THE CONTENT OF THE WORKSHOP TAKING A PROJECT AND KIND OF SHOW HOW IT STARTS OFF IN THE PROCESS AND THEN FOCUS MORE HEAVILY ON THE AREAS WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION INTERACTS OR TOUCHES THE PROJECTS. SO AT THAT POINT WE'D BE LOOKING AT WE COULD KIND OF MAKE SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE STAFF REPORTS WHERE YOU MIGHT FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION, HOW BEST TO MAKE THE MOST OUT OF THE BRIEFINGS, ANYTHING TO DO WITH I KNOW THERE'S BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BLUEPRINTS YOU RECEIVE AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE VERSUS SOME OF THE RENDERINGS YOU SEE IN THE HEARINGS.
SO WE COULD TOUCH ON ALL THESE AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AND AND STATEMENTS, THINGS YOU'D LIKE OR DON'T LIKE AS TO HOW THAT'S WORKING. WE COULD, AS PART OF THAT, THEN BE LOOKING AT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FINDINGS FOR THE PROJECTS AND THEN ALSO THINGS LIKE PUBLIC INPUT AND TESTIMONY, EXPERT TESTIMONY, HOW YOU WOULD FACTOR THAT INTO YOUR DECISION MAKING.
CERTAINLY THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO DO IT.
BUT RATHER THAN JUST LEAVE YOU TO YOUR OWN DEVICES, I WANTED TO PROPOSE THAT ANOTHER ANOTHER THOUGHT, TOO, WAS IF YOU WOULD REALLY JUST LIKE TO HEAR FROM ALL THE COMMISSIONERS AND I KNOW WE TALKED IN ONE OF THE BRIEFINGS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A SUBCOMMITTEE AND WHETHER THAT WAS SOMETHING WE'D HAVE TO PUBLICLY NOTICE.
SO AN ALTERNATIVE TO THAT MIGHT BE IF YOU WANT TO THROW OUT A NUMBER OF TOPICS THAT YOU ALLOW MR. KEMP AND MYSELF TO GO BACK AND TRY TO SORT THROUGH THE AREAS OF INTEREST AND SEE IF WE CAN COME TO A LIST THAT WE FIND COULD FIT INTO A WORKSHOP. ONE OF THE THINGS WE WOULD NEED TO KNOW FROM YOU IS ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME YOU WANT TO SPEND IN THE WORKSHOP.
SO IF WE'RE DEALING WITH 2 HOURS AND THE CONTENT CAN ONLY BE SO LARGE VERSUS SOMETHING LONGER.
SO IF YOU COULD, AS PART OF YOUR DISCUSSION TODAY, KIND OF MAYBE TAKE A POLL AS TO WHETHER THE SIX IS A WORKABLE DATE, THE TIME YOU'D LIKE IT ON THE SIXTH, AND THEN YOU CAN GO FROM THERE ABOUT THE CONTENT.
WELL, LET'S START WITH THAT ISSUE IS THE SIXTH IN THE AFTERNOON.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A CONFLICT WHERE THEY COULD NOT MAKE IT THAT AFTERNOON? GOOD. THAT LOOKS LIKE A GOOD.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR COMMISSIONER MEENES BECAUSE HE'S NOT HERE.
BUT IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE SIX.
THEY'RE AVAILABLE IN THE AFTERNOON.
AND FURTHER, IF WE HAD THE TOPICS AND IT JUSTIFIES, WOULD THERE BE ANY OBJECTION TO CONTINUING ON INTO THE EARLY EVENING? WE'RE TALKING 9:00, BUT I MEAN, FIVE, 6:00 IF WE HAD ENOUGH BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE OUR NORMAL TIME THAT WE'D BE MEETING ANYHOW.
ANY ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT? SO I THINK I'M GETTING AN INTEREST IN.
WHAT ABOUT 1:00 ON THE SIXTH? SEEMS TO BE AN INTEREST TO 1:00 ON THE SIXTH AND GOING INTO THE EARLY EVENING, IF WE HAVE TOPICS AS APPROPRIATE.
ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO MR.
[01:40:03]
NEU'S THOUGHTS ON TOPICS IN A FORMAT WHERE YOU HAVE KIND OF A HYPOTHETICAL PROJECT? WOULDN'T IT BE? IT WOULD BE WE CAN DO A HYPOTHETICAL OR AN ACTUAL ONE THAT YOU'VE SEEN, BUT IN EITHER EVENT, IT WOULD SORT OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE STEPS AND THE PROJECT.AND I DIDN'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF TIME ON WHAT HAPPENS BEFORE YOU EVEN SEE IT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.
I'M SURE YOU ALL HAVE DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING IT.
HOW YOU GO ABOUT REVIEWING THE REPORTS, WHAT YOU FOCUS ON.
WE CAN REITERATE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE THINGS IN THE REPORT AS AN EXAMPLE THAT WE BOLD TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO BECAUSE THEY'RE NONSTANDARD WORDING OR THEY'RE JUSTIFICATION FOR FINDING SOME MAYBE JUST REFRESHING YOU ON SOME OF THE WAYS THINGS ARE STRUCTURED TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A SHORTCUT FROM READING STANDARD TEXT OVER AND OVER.
GOOD, COMMISSIONER. OH, GO AHEAD.
YEAH. GEE, I VERY MUCH SUPPORT MR. NEU'S IDEA.
I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE'RE VERY MUCH DRIVEN BY THE STAFF.
THIS ONE HAS TO DO THE WORK AND WE DEPEND ON THEM TO BRING ALL THIS TO US.
AND SO I THINK IT MAKES SENSE IF THE FRAMEWORK IS ESTABLISHED BY THE STAFF AND IF THERE'S THINGS THAT WE WANT TO ADD ON TO THAT, THAT MAKES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SENSE THEN.
AND I ALSO LOVE THE IDEA ABOUT TAKING ON A CASE AND USING THAT CASE TO GO AND DO IT.
SO I THINK THAT'S A WONDERFUL IDEA.
BUT IF WE CAN, IT SEEMS IT'S GREAT.
WE'VE AGREED ON A DATE. WE'VE AGREED ON TIME.
IF WE CAN AGREE ON THIS THIS CASE STUDY THING, WHICH I THINK IS A WONDERFUL IDEA, BECAUSE THAT GIVES US A FRAMEWORK THEN TO BRING OUR DIFFERENT QUESTIONS TO IT, THEN I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA AND WE SHOULD WE SHOULD MOVE ON THAT.
AND I'D KIND OF LIKE TO AVOID, YOU KNOW, HAVING TO REHASH IT REALLY.
FRANKLY, I THOUGHT IT GOT KIND OF LONG LAST TIME WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE THIS THING.
THE OVERARCHING PRINCIPLE IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT PROJECTS.
BUT REALLY I THINK WHAT THE PUBLIC CARES ABOUT IS THAT WE DO A GOOD JOB AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, AND SO IF WE HAVE THIS FRAMEWORK THAT MR. NUS PROPOSED, I THINK WITHIN THAT WE CAN GET OUR STUFF ADDED TO IT.
COMMISSIONER LUNA? WELL, NOT TO BELABOR, I'M 100% IN AGREEMENT WITH COMMISSIONER MERTZ, IF I COULD.
I'D LIKE MAYBE A CASE STUDY IN A LEGISLATIVE AND A QUASI JUDICIAL.
TWO SEPARATE ONES MAKE IT EASIER ON ON YOU FOLKS.
JUST PULL, PULL SOME OLDER ONES, PULL THEM OUT AND AND CHANGE THE NAMES TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT.
I THINK WE'D GET OUR MOST BANG FOR THE BUCK OUT OF A CASE ANALYSIS, GETTING OUR FINGERS DIRTY.
SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT FIND A QUASI JUDICIAL FIND A LEGISLATIVE CASE.
YEAH. I'M IN 100% AGREEMENT WITH EVERYTHING THAT BOTH COMMISSIONERS MERZ AND LUNA JUST SAID.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF A WALK THROUGH ON LIKE A BLANK AGENDA TEMPLATE.
SO LIKE IF YOU HAVE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND YOU KNOW, THE, THE AGENDA ITEM HAS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THINGS THAT IT HAS AND WE HAVE TO PUT IN LIKE WE HAVE TO PUT IN THE SQL FINDING.
YOU HAVE TO PUT IN ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO PUT IN, LIKE JUST SHOW US A BLANK ONE.
AND THAT WAY IT'S SORT OF OBVIOUS TO ALL OF US, LIKE WHAT STAFF HAS TO DO AND WHAT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING FOR, BECAUSE THAT HELPS US WITH, WITH WHAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR AND.
IN THE BRIEFINGS, NOT ALWAYS IN THE PRESENTATIONS, BUT IN THE BRIEFINGS.
AND HERE'S WHERE LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE HAS TO BE A VARIANCE.
YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THERE'S LIKE AN ABBREVIATED LIST OF ALL THOSE DIFFERENT POLICIES.
IF, IF IT'S POSSIBLE, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KIND OF JUST GET A RUNDOWN OF WHAT EACH OF THOSE ARE AND WHAT WHAT YOU GUYS, AGAIN, ARE LOOKING FOR WHEN YOU EVALUATE WHETHER IT COMPLIES OR NOT.
[01:45:02]
AND LASTLY, I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF LIKE AN OVERVIEW OF THE WHOLE CITY AND WHAT EACH OF THE DIFFERENT ZONING. CODES MEAN AND LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR 30 AND OUR 23, WHICH WE JUST SAW TODAY, SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE FUZZY.LET ME JUST ADD, I LIKE ALL THE COMMENTS THAT I'VE HEARD.
PERHAPS TOWARD THE END OF THE WORKSHOP, A SEGMENT DEVOTED TO EACH OF US HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH OUR COMMISSION COLLEAGUES HOW WE APPROACH THE AGENDA, WHAT WE LOOK FOR.
I'M SURE EACH OF US HAVE OUR OWN LITTLE METHODOLOGY, AND I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN HOW EACH OF YOU I THINK I CAN LEARN SOMETHING AND MAYBE YOU CAN LEARN SOMETHING FROM HOW I DO IT. I DON'T KNOW.
BUT. BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
COME ON. I'M NOT SAYING SPEND AN HOUR AND A HALF ON THAT.
MAYBE, MAYBE 15 MINUTES, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE.
AND THEN FINALLY, UNFORTUNATELY, CITY PLANNER, WHO IS A SHORT TIMER AND I SAY IT UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE HE HAS MEANT HE HAS BEEN THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HERE FOR SO LONG.
AND I KNOW WE'RE ALL GOING TO MISS HIM.
I WOULD WELCOME AN OPPORTUNITY AS PART OF THIS, PERHAPS TOWARD THE END, GIVING MR. NEU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE HIS THOUGHTS, HIS CANDID THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT AS THE CITY IN TERMS OF PLANNING, SPECIFICALLY AS THE COMMISSION, THINGS THAT HE HAS SEEN. HE'S SEEN MANY, MANY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
HE'S SEEN THE GOOD, BAD AND THE UGLY.
OKAY, HOPEFULLY WE'RE ON THE GOOD SIDE.
I DON'T KNOW. BUT I WOULD REALLY I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY INSIGHTFUL TO TO ALLOW HIM, PARTICULARLY SINCE HE IS GOING TO BE LEAVING US, UNFORTUNATELY, VERY SOON, TO KIND OF SHARE A PERSPECTIVE.
AND I THINK WE COULD ALL BENEFIT FROM HIS KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM AS SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN HERE FOR, WHAT, THREE DECADES? MR. NEU? OKAY. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT BE ADDED TO THAT.
SO MY THOUGHT AND I'M CERTAINLY OPEN TO IDEAS FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WOULD BE HAVE THE MR. NEU AND MR. KEMP WORK UP A PROPOSED AGENDA, JUST BULLET POINT ITEMS AND PERHAPS AT OUR NEXT MEETING HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM WHERE WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO OVER THOSE ITEMS, BUT JUST KIND OF HAVE SOME SENSE FROM THE COMMISSION AS TO YES, THAT THAT WAS THE ITEMS WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT.
MAYBE WE WANT TO ADD THIS OR TWEAK THAT.
IS THAT SOMETHING, MR. NEU, THAT YOU AND MR. KEMP CAN HAVE FOR US MAYBE ON ONE PAGE AS WE'RE PROPOSING THESE TOPICS BE COVERED? YES, MR. CHAIR, I THINK WE COULD HAVE THAT.
SO OUR NEXT MEETING WOULD BE THE 15TH.
SO I THINK WE CAN HAVE AN OUTLINE OF AN AGENDA FOR YOU AND SHARE THAT ON THE 15TH.
AND THEN IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS FOR MODIFYING THAT, WE COULD DO THAT, WE CAN TWEAK IT A LITTLE BIT IF YOU NEED IT, RIGHT? YES. COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.
IT'S NICE TO SEE SOME UNANIMITY, AT LEAST.
ON THE SURFACE, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID.
THEY'RE AN EXCELLENT TEACHING TOOL.
YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE WHEN YOU'RE TEACHING, YOU SHOW, YOU DON'T TELL.
AND I THINK THE CASE STUDIES WILL BE A GREAT WAY OF DOING IT.
I DID MENTION ONE THING IN THE BRIEFING THAT I WOULD LIKE MR. KEMP TO DO IS JUST GIVE HIM ENOUGH TIME THAT HE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT ARE SUBJECT AREAS THAT WE CAN CONSIDER FOR POSSIBLE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL, BECAUSE I KNOW WE GO THROUGH THAT A LOT.
I THINK IT SHOULD GO VERY WELL, HOPEFULLY.
I AM TOO. AS A FOUR YEAR COMMISSIONER, I'VE NEVER BEEN TO A WORKSHOP.
THIS WORKSHOPS WERE BEFORE MY TIME.
NOW COVID HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THAT, BUT SO I VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO THAT.
AND I ENCOURAGE ALL OF US TO KEEP OUR CALENDARS OPEN FROM EARLY AFTERNOON ON ON THE SIXTH.
SO WE'LL MAKE THIS A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE WORKSHOP.
[01:50:04]
AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST WAY FOR THIS TO BE HANDLED.MR. NEU OR MR. KEMP, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS.
SO WE'LL BE AGENDA FOR OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE 15TH.
AM I CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO AND JUST AFTER ANY PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO WE'LL HAVE A FINAL CHANCE TO FINE TUNE IT.
WELL, ONE THAT I WOULD BE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED IF THIS IS VIDEOTAPED.
UNDERSTOOD. SO WE WILL HAVE TO POST THE AGENDA.
BUT THE PUBLIC WOULD BE INVITED, ABLE TO ATTEND IF THEY SO CHOSE.
IT'LL BE A BROWN ACT, MEANING THEY'LL BE NOTICED WITH 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN AGENDA THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO STICK TO.
SO HOPEFULLY WE'LL WRITE THE AGENDA ITEM UP WELL ENOUGH THAT WE CAN WORK WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS.
BUT BRANNOCK DOES REQUIRE THAT WE LIST THE TOPICS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE CONSIDERING.
WE'RE AT THE PART OF OUR AGENDA.
[PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS:]
FINAL COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS, STARTING WITH COMMISSIONER LUNA.ANY FINAL COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN FINAL COMMENTS.
IS ANYTHING BEING PLANNED? MR. NEU FOR A PARTY? TO CELEBRATE YOU AND YOUR CAREER.
HE'S BEEN WORKING ON THE PLANS FOR THIS PARTY FOR A YEAR.
THAT'S RIGHT. FOR THREE DECADES NOW.
NO, I THINK SOMETHING IS BEING PLANNED.
I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DETAILS ARE.
AND I HAVE SHARED THAT WITH OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, WHO I THINK HAS SOME HAND IN IT.
AND SO WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU GET, GET NOTIFIED OF IT.
WHY DON'T WE HAVE MISS FLORES INVITED TO THAT ALSO, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT WITH YOU? YES. NO, WE DEFINITELY WILL.
WE HAVE SOME THAT GO BACK QUITE A WAYS THAT I'VE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN IN COMING BACK.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAD SOMETHING RECENTLY FOR FOR ACTUALLY FOR MELISSA.
AND WE HAD SOME OF OUR STAFF THAT LEFT A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO BUT HAD HAD WORKED WITH HER.
SO WE'LL TRY TO MAKE SURE WE INCLUDE AS MANY PEOPLE AS WE CAN.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SABELLICO FINAL COMMENTS.
I LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVING OUR REPORT CARD FROM YOU, MR. NEU, AS IT WERE.
THAT'S ALL. COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, ANY COMMENTS ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT? I KNOW YOU WERE AT THE LAST MEETING AND I WAS ABLE TO ATTEND.
WE RECEIVED. IT WAS A VERY INFORMATIONAL MEETING.
ALL OF THE MEETINGS ARE GOING TO BE INFORMATIONAL UNTIL SEPTEMBER.
IS THAT RIGHT, MR. LAGARDE? INTO THE MIC FOR THE RECORD.
YES, THAT IS CORRECT. THE MEETINGS THE NEXT THREE THROUGH THE SUMMER ARE GOING TO BE INFORMATIONAL ON THE EXISTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND THEN THE FALL WILL REALLY START THE DISCUSSION AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONVERSATION.
YEAH. SO SO NOT NOTHING OF SERIOUS SUBSTANCE WAS DECIDED AT THIS MEETING.
SO I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT.
SO IF YOU'RE CURIOUS ABOUT BUILDING FACILITIES, THEN I SUGGEST YOU WATCH THE VIDEO.
THANK YOU. AND I APPRECIATE YOU PINCH HITTING FOR ME.
COMMISSIONER MERZ. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
AND I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO MR.
[CITY PLANNER REPORT:]
NEU. ANY FINAL THOUGHTS? MR. CHAIR. JUST ONE THING, AND IT'S PROBABLY YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR.SO MICHELLE HARDY IS FILLING IN FOR US RIGHT NOW WITH WITH MS..
FLORES MOVING TO ANOTHER AGENCY.
IN FACT, EARLIER IN MY TIME WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
SO WE'RE VERY GLAD TO HAVE HER BACK.
SO IT'S HELPING TO EASE THE TRANSITION.
[CITY ATTORNEY REPORT:]
MR. KEMP. JUST TO ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO GO TO THE ILG TRAINING THIS MONTH IAG[01:55:08]
INSTITUTE OF WHAT? LOCAL GOVERNMENT. IT'S AN OFFSHOOT OF LEAD CALIFORNIA CITIES, AND THEY HAVE UPDATED THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S HANDBOOK AND THEY'RE DOING A ROADSHOW TO DO PRESENTATIONS FOR LOCAL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND THE LIKE ON.AND IF A COMMISSIONER WAS INTERESTED IN GOING, SHE WOULD CONTACT MR. NEU AND MAKE ARRANGEMENTS OR WHAT DO YOU DO? MR. NEU HAS ALREADY SENT AN EMAIL OUT TO ALL OF YOU WITH THE DATE AND HOW TO SIGN UP, I BELIEVE.
YES. SO THEY HAD A ONLINE REGISTRATION THAT YOU COULD USE IF YOU WERE INTERESTED, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE EMAIL, I THINK IF YOU GO ON, AS MR. KEMP SAID TO THE INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SITE, THEY HAVE A TRAINING SECTION THERE THAT YOU CAN FIND IT.
SO SURE, THEY HAVE THAT LOCKED DOWN.
NOW, I WANT TO SAY THE DATE WAS AROUND THE 17TH OR SOMETHING.
YEAH. I WAS THINKING IT WAS 20 SOMETHING, BUT YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
SO IF ANY OF YOU CAN HELP ME WITH THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I SIGNED UP TO AND I DON'T THINK I GOT I MEAN, I'M SURE IT WOULDN'T HAVE SEEN IT IF IT DID COME, BUT I THINK I DON'T THINK IT ASKED ME FOR ANY, LIKE, CREDIT CARDS.
AND IN CASE ANYONE WAS WONDERING, BUT I'LL IF I GET A CONFIRMATION EMAIL, I WILL SEND IT AROUND OR I'LL SEND IT TO MR. NEU AND THEN YEAH I'LL, YOU'LL ALL HAVE, HAVE THE DETAILS THAT I HAVE.
SO SUBMISSION THAT WE SIGNED UP INDIVIDUALLY AND NOT THROUGH YOU FOR INTEREST, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, MR. CHAIR.
AND IN THIS CASE, YOU CAN PUT YOUR WHATEVER CONTACT INFORMATION YOU WANT TO USE AND ALL THAT.
SO HOPEFULLY IT'S NOT TOO LONG ENTRY, BUT I THINK IT'LL BE EASIER THAT WAY.
COMMISSIONER, WHAT ARE YOUR FINAL THOUGHT? THOSE OF YOU YOU HAVEN'T WORKED WITH MICHELLE BEFORE, AND ALL I CAN SAY IS TOUCHDOWN.
SHE IS UBER EFFICIENT AND HAS A SUPER, SUPER WAY OF WORKING WITH THE COMMISSIONER.
SO. MICHELLE, I AM SO GLAD THAT YOU CAME ABOARD AGAIN.
OKAY. WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.