Jun 15, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting

[00:00:04]

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE, CALLING TO ORDER THE JUNE 15TH MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.

[CALL TO ORDER:]

HARDY, WOULD YOU TAKE ROLL, PLEASE? THANK YOU. ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE IN ATTENDANCE.

FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT IS THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 18TH MEETING.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES:]

BUT COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE MAY 18TH MINUTES? YES, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

THANK YOU. PAGE TWO.

SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE.

VICE CHAIR LAFFERTY REPORTEDT HE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MET ON APRIL 25, 2022.

IT SAID HERE THAT ANN REQUESTED TO RECEIVE COMMENTS.

I DIDN'T REQUEST TO RECEIVE COMMENTS.

COMMENTS WERE REQUESTED TO BE RECEIVED BY MONDAY, MAY 16TH, 2022 BY ALL OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

AND SO I WAS ONE OF NINE OR TEN WHO SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON THAT DATE AFTER THE APRIL 25TH MEETING THAT WERE FORWARDED TO SHELLEY GLENNON.

STAFF MEMBER SHELLEY GLENNON.

SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF THAT'S SO COMMENTS FROM SO BASICALLY AFTER APRIL 25TH, 2022 PERIOD, COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE REQUESTED BY MAY 16TH, 2022 AND FORWARDED TO STAFF.

THAT WOULD BE MY CORRECTION IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.

ANYONE ELSE? STAFF HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY'S PROPOSED CHANGES? MR. CHAIR, THOSE CHANGES WOULD BE FINE WITH STAFF OK.

SEEING NO FURTHER COMMISSIONER HANDS.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

I MOVE TO APPROVE WITH COMMENTS.

I'LL SECOND I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER WHO SECONDED? COMMISSIONER MEENES SECOND.

OK WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND PLEASE VOTE.

HAS EVERYONE WALKED IN.

YEAH. IS IT RELUCTANT? IT'S SHOWING ON MY SCREEN AND I THINK WE HAVE TO DO.

RE VOTE. RE VOTE.

OKAY. SURE.

ALL RIGHT. PLEASE RE VOTE.

I DIDN'T. ALL THE LIGHTS ARE ON.

SHOULD WE TRY IT AGAIN? OKAY.

ONE MORE TIME, FOLKS.

THEY WERE ALL FLASHING.

SHOULD WE TRY IT ONE MORE TIME?

[00:05:03]

THE MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO WITH TWO ABSTENTIONS.

THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA WILL BE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 1ST, 2022 MEETING.

ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. YEAH, THERE'S PAGE THREE.

THE MIDDLE OF THE PARAGRAPH.

THE COMMISSIONER, LAFFERTY ASKED.

IF A SPEED.

SO THIS WAS TALKING ABOUT SPEED REDUCTION IN THE FUTURE FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT.

I WAS ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY ASKING ABOUT THE BIKE LANES.

SO THE REASON I WAS ASKING ABOUT A SPEED REDUCTION WAS BECAUSE BIKE LANES WERE BEING INCLUDED IN THIS EL CAMINO PROJECT.

AND THAT SORT OF IS CONFIRMED WITH THE REST OF THE COMMENTS THAT ARE MADE AT THE END OF THE DISCUSSION.

SO I'D LIKE JUST TO CLARIFY THAT COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY ASKED IF A SPEED REDUCTION IS BEING CONSIDERED DUE TO THE INCLUSION OF BIKE LANES.

THAT WOULD BE THE CORRECTION.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS? I HAVE TWO VERY MINOR ONES.

THEY'RE JUST CLEANUP ITEMS ON THE SECOND PAGE TOWARD THE BOTTOM WHERE IT SAYS, COMMISSIONER STINE COMMENTED, I BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE THE WORD "IT" BETWEEN AND CONCLUDED ON THE SECOND LINE THERE BECAUSE THE REFERENCE WHAT CONCLUDED THE PROPERTIES DID NOT QUALIFY.

IT WASN'T THE COMMISSION MAKING THE DETERMINATION, IT WAS THE ANALYSIS, THE REPORT.

SO I WOULD ASK THAT THE WORD IT BE BETWEEN AND AND CONCLUDED ON THE SECOND LINE THERE.

AND THEN FINALLY ON PAGE FIVE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY ASKED IF THERE WAS.

I THINK THERE'S JUST A I THINK THAT SHOULD BE NOT A QUESTION MARK.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE A PERIOD THAT DID YOU ALREADY.

OKAY. THAT'S FINE.

SO. WITH THOSE TWO MODIFICATIONS, I WOULD BE FINE WITH THE MINUTES, DOES STAFF HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT OR ANY COMMENTS? MR. CHAIR, THOSE CHANGES ARE ACCEPTABLE.

SEEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

I MOVE TO APPROVE, AS NOTED, WITH THE CHANGES THAT YOU RECOMMENDED AND THE ONES THAT I DID.

RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

OKAY. LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

IS EVERYONE LOCKED IN? SEEM TO HAVE MORE DIFFICULTY HERE.

HERE WITH OUR TECHNICAL HICCUPS HERE.

WE'LL GET THROUGH IT.

SO REVOTE.

EVERYONE LOCKED IN.

HERE WE GO. THAT MOTION CARRIED SIX ZERO WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

THANK YOU. MY ABSTENTION IS BECAUSE I WAS.

I WAS NOT HERE AT THAT MEETING.

YEAH, ABSTENTION.

COMMISSIONER MEENES BECAUSE HE WASN'T PRESENT.

GOING TO THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.

WELL, LET'S BEFORE WE DO THAT, INVITE PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR MATTERS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA.

[00:10:05]

THANK YOU, MA'AM. AND SEEING NO ONE COME UP, WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS ON NON AGENDA ITEMS. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING ITEM AND THAT IS ITEM NUMBER ONE.

[1. ZCA2022-0002/LCPA 2022-0014 – 2022 ZONING ORDINANCE CLEANUP (Part 1 of 2) ]

COUNCIL, I DON'T THINK I NEED TO DO DISCLOSURES ON THIS ONE.

OR DO I? IT'S A LEGISLATIVE MATTER.

OKAY. OKAY.

NO DISCLOSURES ARE NOT NECESSARY AND THEN WE'LL INVITE CITY PLANNER TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM , MR. NEU. WELL, MR. CHAIR, BEFORE I DO THAT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU DIDN'T WANT TO GO OVER ANY OF THE PROCEDURES FOR THE MEETING THIS EVENING.

WE CAN DO THOSE NOW THAT THEIR OWN PROCEDURES ARE, AS INDICATED ON THE SCREEN.

REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM REQUIRED FOR ALL ITEMS. REQUESTS TO SPEAK FORMS MUST BE TURNED INTO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING.

ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN 3 MINUTES UNLESS THAT TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.

THOSE ARE OUR PROCEDURES, AND THIS IS THE ORDER THAT WE WILL BE CONDUCTING THE EACH OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. SO, AGAIN, TURN IT TO YOU, MR. NEU. OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO WE HAVE SEVERAL AGENDA ITEMS THIS EVENING, THE FIRST BEING A 2022 ZONING ORDINANCE CLEANUP.

SO MAKING THE STAFF PRESENTATION THIS EVENING ON THIS ITEM IS ASSOCIATE PLANNER COREY FUNK.

GOOD EVENING CHAIR STINE, VICE CHAIR LAFFERTY AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS COREY FUNK AND I'LL BE PRESENTING TONIGHT A PROJECT TITLED ZONING OR 2022 ZONING ORDINANCE CLEANUP.

SO FOR A BRIEF OVERVIEW, THIS PROJECT IS A CITY INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

SO THIS PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

WE ARE ALSO PRESENTING OR INCLUDING WITH THIS PACKAGE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS.

THOSE ARE PRESENTED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, AS IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE. THEY OCCUR OUTSIDE OF TITLE 21.

SO THIS PROJECT TONIGHT IS THE INAUGURAL CODE AMENDMENT FOR A NEW RECURRING WORK PROGRAM.

EVERY TWO YEARS, STAFF WILL BE REVIEWING CITY CODES AND REGULATIONS AND EVALUATING THOSE AND BRINGING FORWARD A PACKAGE FOR PLANNING, COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION.

THIS WOULD INCLUDE A VARIETY OF MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS.

WE ANTICIPATE ADDRESSING STATE MANDATED CHANGES, TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESOLVE ERRORS OR FIX AMBIGUITIES OR OTHER INCONSISTENCIES.

WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD CLARIFICATIONS TO IMPROVE THE CODE AS WELL AS ADD NEW MINOR NEW REQUIREMENTS.

THIS WOULDN'T THIS WOULD NOT BE A PROJECT WHERE WE WOULD BE BRINGING FORWARD SUBSTANTIAL OR SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE.

THOSE WOULD BE BROUGHT AS STANDALONE ITEMS FOR PLANNING, COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL.

SO NEXT, I'M GOING TO JUMP INTO A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

I'VE BROKEN THEM UP INTO SEVERAL CATEGORIES TO GENERALIZE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD TONIGHT.

SO THE FIRST GROUP WOULD BE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE MADE TO THE CODE TO IMPROVE CLARITY AND CODE USABILITY.

SO EXAMPLES WOULD BE THERE ARE DEPARTMENT INTERPRETATIONS AND DEPARTMENT POLICIES THAT WOULD BE ADDING TO THE CODE.

ADDITIONALLY, WE'D BE MAKING SOME CHANGES TO ADDRESS REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE VAGUE.

WE'RE ALSO ADDING AND DELETING SOME MINOR REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE CODE.

EXAMPLES WOULD BE WE'VE GOT A SITUATION WITH REGARDS TO POOL SETBACKS WHERE THEY ARE ADDRESSED IN THE ZONING CODE AND ADDRESSING THE BUILDING CODE.

SO WE WOULD BE PROPOSING TO DELETE THE ONE IN THE ZONING CODE SINCE THEY ARE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN THE BUILDING CODE.

ANOTHER AMENDMENT WOULD BE ANOTHER AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO ADD NEW REQUIREMENTS OR SUPPLEMENT EXISTING REQUIREMENTS TO CLARIFY THOSE STANDARDS.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE'D BE ADDING SUPPLEMENTING THE LIST OF EXEMPTIONS FOR GRADING PERMITS WITH THIS PROJECT TONIGHT.

WE'RE MAKING SEVERAL AMENDMENTS RELATED TO CARLSBAD'S CODE CONSISTENCY WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

THE FIRST OF THOSE WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO IMPLEMENT HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM 1.3G.

A PORTION OF THAT PROGRAM AS IT RELATES TO STATE LAWS FOR FOR RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING.

ADDITIONALLY, WE'D BE MAKING CHANGES TO CARLSBAD'S CODES TO MAKE THEM CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW IN REGARDS TO CHILD DAYCARE HOMES AND MOBILE HOMES.

[00:15:02]

AND THAT WOULD BE DONE.

WE'RE ESTABLISHING A MINISTERIAL PROCESS IN ORDER TO MEET FCC TIMELINES FOR THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

WE'VE GOT AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO ADDRESS ERRORS AND INCONSISTENCIES SUCH AS BAD CODE REFERENCES.

AND ALSO WE ARE UPDATING REFERENCES AND TERMINOLOGY.

WHEN THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN WAS UPDATED, WE SWITCHED THE GENERAL PLAN LANGUAGE DESIGNATION TITLES.

THERE'S A NEW NAMING CONVENTION THAT WE'RE USING NOW.

AND SO WE ARE UPDATING THE CODE TO REFLECT WHAT WAS ADOPTED WITH THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN.

THE THE WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE DESIGNATIONS AND WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED IS NOT BEING CHANGED.

IT'S JUST THE TITLES, THE NAMES OF THOSE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS.

AS FAR AS NEXT STEPS ARE CONCERNED.

PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS PROJECT.

STAFF WOULD PRESENT THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

IF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS IT, IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE OUTSIDE THE COASTAL ZONE 30 DAYS AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION.

AFTER THAT, THE STAFF WOULD PREPARE AND SUBMIT A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION.

THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THEIR PROCESS AND AFTER THEY FINALIZE THAT, IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE INSIDE THE COASTAL ZONE AT THAT POINT AS WELL.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 21 ZONING ORDINANCE.

AND AGAIN, THIS ACTION ALSO INCLUDES A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT DISTRIBUTED TO YOU WAS AN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MEMO, WHICH INCLUDES THE FIX A FIX FOR INCORRECT CODE ERROR.

THAT WAS FOR A CODE SECTION THAT WAS NOT CORRECT IN THE STAFF REPORT PACKAGE.

SO THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION AS WELL.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT.

CREATE NEW PUBLIC POLICY.

HERE IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

THIS IS A CLEAN UP AND CLARIFICATION EXERCISE, CORRECT? IT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. SO WE HAVE ISSUES THAT COUNCIL HAS ALREADY WEIGHED IN ON OR STATE LAWS CONTROLLING, AM I RIGHT ON THAT? THAT IS A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THIS.

YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

AND NORMALLY I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION BECAUSE BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT HERE BECAUSE THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE MATTER AND THERE'S NO TRUE APPLICANT.

I WILL OPEN THE HEARING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.

OH, I'M SORRY. DO ANY OF THESE CHANGES, THESE CLEANUP AMENDMENTS, CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF PAPERWORK THAT PEOPLE REQUESTING PERMITS WILL WILL HAVE TO FILE WITH THE CITY? NO, NOT I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

IT'S WHAT IT WOULD DO IN SOME CASES WOULD IMPROVE THE THE UNDERSTANDING, THE USABILITY OF THE CODE AND WOULD REDUCE CONFLICTS BETWEEN STAFF AND APPLICANTS.

BUT IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY CHANGE THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATIONS.

SO IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T IMPOSE LIKE A WHOLE OTHER STEP ON THE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE.

NO. AND MY OTHER QUESTION WAS, IF WE'RE MOVING SOMETHING FROM.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU SAY THAT IT'S IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE BUILDING CODE AND WE TAKE IT OUT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR THE BUILDING CODE, SO IT'S ONLY IN ONE OF THOSE TWO.

DOES THAT CHANGE THE DEPARTMENT WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION? SO IT DOES.

IT WOULD BE FALLING UNDER.

WELL, THE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

THE BUILDING DIVISION WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE BUILDING CODE.

THE PLANNING DIVISION WOULD NO LONGER HAVE A CODE REQUIREMENT THAT APPLIES TO THAT STANDARD ANYMORE.

BUT IT WOULD STILL BE OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO YOU KNOW, AS A COMMISSION HERE TO ENSURE THAT PERMIT REQUESTS ARE COMPLIANT WITH THE ENTIRE CODE.

SO IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE OUR JOB NECESSARILY, RIGHT? NO. WITH RESPECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU'RE EVALUATING THE PROJECTS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ALL CITY CODES, GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND SO FORTH.

AND IN REALITY, I MEAN, STAFF WORKS TOGETHER AND LOOKS AT PROJECTS IN TOTALITY AND, AND ADDRESSES THINGS TOGETHER AND SO ENSURES THAT ALL CODES ARE MET.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

THE COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I HAD.

[00:20:06]

IS THAT CORRECT? SO NO, THOSE STANDARDS OR THOSE POLICIES WERE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL IN DECEMBER OF 2021.

THIS WOULD JUST CREATE A SEPARATE PERMIT PROCESS FOR WIRELESS, SMALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES THAT WOULD MEET THAT DEFINITION.

BUT THE STANDARDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CREATED AND ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNCIL IN DECEMBER OF 2021.

AND SO RIGHT NOW THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHEREAS UNDER THE PROPOSAL, THAT PROPOSAL THAT WE ARE PREPARING TONIGHT, IT WOULD BE A BUILDING PERMIT.

SO IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT PERMIT, BUT THE STANDARDS ARE THE SAME.

OKAY. SO SO THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH POLICY 64 THEN? YES, IT IS. SO THAT'S THE THAT'S THE CHANGE, CORRECT.

IS THE CODE THE ZONING CODE IS COMING IN LINE WITH POLICY 64.

OKAY, THAT SOUNDS ACCEPTABLE.

BUT THEN IT WOULD JUST IT WOULDN'T BE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

IT WOULD BE EXPEDITED AND ONLY BE A BUILDING PERMIT.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER CONVERSATION WE DISCUSSED IN THE BRIEFING WAS THE SIZE OF THE DEVICE ON AMENDMENT 13 ITEM C TALKS ABOUT 28 CUBIC FEET IN VOLUME.

CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE? 28 CUBIC FEET AS I'VE SEEN IN PRESENTATIONS, IT'S APPROXIMATELY THE SIZE OF A REFRIGERATOR.

HOWEVER, MOST, MOST WIRELESS COMPANIES ARE NOT UTILIZING THAT MUCH EQUIPMENT SPACE AND DEPENDING ON.

SO WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY, WE'RE NOT WE ARE ALLOWED TO REGULATE TO WHAT'S FEASIBLE AND WOULD REQUIRE A SMALLER SIZE OUTSIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IT COULD BE UP TO 28 FEET.

THAT IS JUST WHAT THE FCC SETS AS A DEFINITION FOR IT.

SO ANY WHERE UNDERNEATH THERE COULD MEET THAT DEFINITION, HOWEVER, OUTSIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY WOULD HAVE TO MEET STANDARDS SUCH AS STEALTH DESIGN AND WITHIN AN EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE, SO SCREENED EQUIPMENT AND THAT SORT OF THING.

SO THERE'S NO WAY THAT THIS NUMBER COULD BE SMALLER? AND WITHIN A TELEPHONE POLE THAT THAT NUMBER IS SMALLER WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE THAT WOULD BE 9 CUBIC FEET OR I BELIEVE IT'S 14 OR 17 CUBIC FEET IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE.

SO WE HAVE REGULATED THAT WITHIN POLICY 64 AND WHAT COUNCIL ADOPTED, THEY ESTABLISHED SMALLER REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

WHAT'S BEFORE THE COMMISSION TONIGHT IS JUST THE PERMIT PROCESS FOR OUTSIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SO WE DO WE ARE GETTING SMALLER SIZES AND THOSE THE WIRELESS COMPANIES HAVE SAID THAT THEY CAN COMPLY WITH.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'LL BE WE'LL BE SEEING ON THOSE APPLICATIONS.

BECAUSE YEAH, THAT'S MY CONCERN IS 28 FEET, 28 CUBIC FEET SEEMS LIKE A VERY LARGE BOX.

IT DOES ON A, I UNDERSTAND, VERY LARGE.

AND IF IT'S NOT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, IT BECOMES VERY LARGE ON A BUILDING OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO HANDLE THAT KIND OF STRUCTURE.

SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

BUT IF YOUR EXPERIENCE IS THAT THESE ARE COMING IN AT 14 TO 17 CUBIC FEET, CUBIC FEET IN COMMERCIAL AND 9 CUBIC FEET IN RESIDENTIAL, AND THAT'S DEFINED IN POLICY 64.

I THINK THAT'S GOOD.

THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE, YOU MENTIONED STEALTH DESIGN.

WHERE IS THAT DEFINED? THAT'S IN POLICY 64 AS WELL.

THAT'S IN POLICY 64.

GREAT. OKAY.

THE OTHER QUESTION GOES TO AMENDMENT 9.

AND BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TAKING OUT ONE AREA AND MOVING UP THE RAILROAD TRACK BEDS AS AN AREA THAT SHOULD NOT BE AS UN DEVELOPABLE LAND.

HOW DOES THAT IMPACT ANY TYPE OF UNDERGROUNDING TO GET ACCESS TO THE OTHER SIDE OR ANY KIND OF BURYING OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY IMPACT? HOW DOES THAT IMPACTED AND WILL THAT BECOME A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE IF THESE PROPOSALS FOR BURYING THE RAILROAD TRACKS OR ANY KIND OF TRENCHING OF SOME SORT TO BE ABLE TO GAIN MORE ACCESS AS DEVELOPMENT INCREASES BECOMES AN ISSUE.

SO I'D LIKE YOU TO SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT, PLEASE.

SO THE THE RAILROAD TRACK BED REQUIREMENT, THAT'S AN EXISTING REQUIREMENT THAT'S BEEN IN THE CODE AND WORD.

[00:25:08]

SO IF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT HAS THESE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS ON IT, NUMBER ONE, THEY'RE UN DEVELOPABLE.

AND NUMBER 2, UNDER MOST CASES, EXCEPT THE TWO AT THE BOTTOM AND 2A AND 2B THEY WOULD NOT BE COUNTED TOWARDS DENSITY CREDIT . RAILROAD TRACK BEDS AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY'VE BEEN LISTED AS A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.

THOSE. YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE A PROJECT SUCH AS TRENCHING, OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPING IN THAT IN THAT RIGHT OF WAY THAT THE RAILROAD OWNS.

THERE WOULD BE A VARIETY OF ISSUES.

WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR CODES, THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN AND AS WELL AS WORK THROUGH JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES.

AND SO THAT WOULD BE EVALUATED WITH ANY FUTURE PROJECT THAT WOULD COME FORWARD AT THAT POINT.

MY CONCERN IS THAT IF THIS IS IF THIS REMAINS IN, DOES IT PROHIBIT THOSE TYPES OF EXPLORATIONS? I MEAN, ENCINITAS IS GOING UNDER THE TRACKS NOW.

I THINK THAT REQUIRES A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO BE ABLE TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE 101.

I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THOSE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR CITY.

IT DOES, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD APPLY IN THIS CASE WHERE SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE GOING UNDERNEATH THE RAILROAD TRACK BED.

WHEREAS THIS IS LOOKING AT DEVELOPING ON THE RAILROAD TRACK BED AND ALSO PRIMARILY FOCUS ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

SO IN THAT CASE, THAT'S A PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM THAT THAT WOULD HAVE I DON'T THINK IT WOULD APPLY IN THAT CASE.

WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS A CODE SECTION, HOW WE CALCULATE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ON INDIVIDUAL LOT FOR DENSITY BONUS PURPOSES.

SO USUALLY YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF ACREAGE CALCULATION FOR THAT LOT.

SO THIS IS A LIST OF THINGS THAT COULD BE ON THAT LOT THAT WOULDN'T BE COUNTED FOR DENSITY BONUS PURPOSES.

SO THEY'RE JUST SAYING THIS TYPE OF LAND WOULD NOT BE DEVELOPABLE.

SO WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH DENSITY BONUS COULD BE USED ON A PARTICULAR LOT FOR THE DENSITY, WE WOULDN'T COUNT THIS PARTICULAR AREA.

SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A PROHIBITION PER SE.

IT'S JUST ACCOUNTING.

WELL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AREN'T EXCLUDING AN OPPORTUNITY.

AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW SAN DIEGO IS ACTUALLY BUILDING OVER THE FREEWAYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO I SEE THIS ACTUALLY AS THE FUTURE.

AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO TRY TO MAKE IT WHERE IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY, NOT A PROHIBITION.

THE OTHER PART THERE WAS THE SECTION WHERE YOU WERE CHANGING THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT ON WHAT WAS IT CALLED? THE WELL, WHAT WHAT MY QUESTION IS, IS WITH THE HOMES THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT, THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES, SOBER LIVING, LIVING HOMES HAVE BECOME AN ISSUE IN OUR CITY.

WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF THEM.

AND I'M WONDERING IF ANY OF THESE CODE CHANGES ADDRESS SOBER LIVING HOMES SPECIFICALLY, OR IS THE HOUSING ELEMENT ADDRESSING THOSE IN A WAY THAT THIS CODE IS CHANGING BECAUSE OF IT? SO I'M NOT TOTALLY SURE ABOUT SOBER LIVING HOMES.

I KNOW THAT THIS IS ADDRESSING EMPLOYEE HOUSING.

SO THAT WOULD BE IN THE CASE OF IF THERE'S AN EMPLOYER THAT HAS A RESIDENCE THAT WOULD BE USED AS AS HOUSING FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES, THEN IN THAT CASE.

BUT WITH REGARD TO SOBER LIVING, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT IS COVERED UNDER RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES OR NOT.

AND SO I NEED TO DEFER THAT QUESTION.

YEAH, I'M NOT SURE EITHER.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF IT'S NOT, THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT IS COVERED UNDER RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES.

IF THAT'S IF THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS, BUT I WANTED TO FIND OUT IF THEY WERE IMPACTED AT ALL OR IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF MITIGATION TO THAT.

AND IF I COULD JUST ADD.

NO, WE DON'T CONSIDER THOSE AS PART OF RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES.

THERE ARE OTHER HOUSING PROGRAMS THAT WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS THAT MAY BE BEFORE THE COMMISSION IS SEPARATE ACTIONS AT A LATER DATE, SIMILAR TO THE ITEMS I BROUGHT FORWARD IN MARCH.

BUT THEY'RE NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS ACTION.

[00:30:04]

MS. HARDY DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? MR. CHAIR, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS FOR ITEMS FOR THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

OKAY, THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT PORTION OF THIS HEARING AND WE WILL INVITE COMMISSIONER COMMENTS OR RESPONSES, WHO WANTS TO GET US STARTED? MR. KAMENJARIN.

YES. THANK YOU, MR. FUNK. I FOUND THIS DENSE BUT INTERESTING READING.

I ESPECIALLY LIKED EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH WAS BLUE LINED, SO WE COULD EASILY READ THAT.

GOOD JOB. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, YOU'RE WELCOME. AND IF I CAN MAKE A COMMENT OR TWO.

I KNOW WE'RE NOT CREATING NEW PUBLIC POLICY, BUT I JUST WANT TO COMMENT ON A COUPLE OF THE CHANGES BEING MADE BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE GREAT.

FIRST ONE IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH TALKS ABOUT AUTOMATIC RENEWAL OF CUPS EVEN IF THEY HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE.

I THINK THAT'S LONG OVERDUE.

WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF CUPS COME OUT AND IN FACT, ONE RECENTLY FROM A JEWISH FACILITY, I RECALL, WHERE THERE REALLY WERE NO ISSUES. AND I'M CONCERNED THAT HAVING WHEN THERE ARE NO ISSUES, HAVING A NON PROFIT IN PARTICULAR A SMALL BUSINESS HAVING TO GO TO THE TROUBLE AND EXPENSE OF A CUP APPLICATION IS UNFORTUNATE AND MANY OF THEM RUN VERY LEAN TO BEGIN WITH AND THEN FURTHER HAVING STAFF SPEND TIME ON THESE.

SO WE HAVE PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES IF THERE'S A DIFFICULTY OR A CHANGE WITH THE CUP TO BRING IT BACK FOR COMMISSION REVIEW, FOR MODIFICATION OR POSSIBLY EVEN REVOCATION IF THERE WAS A REAL PROBLEM.

BUT NOT HAVING THEM COME IN AND BASICALLY DEDICATING TIME AND THE APPLICANT TO GETTING MONEY I THINK IS A VERY POSITIVE THING AND I COMMEND THE CITY FOR GOING IN THAT DIRECTION.

AND THE FINAL THING WOULD BE ON NUMBER EIGHT, IT WOULD BE THE SMALL, WHAT THEY CALL THE S WF.

AND I. AND MY COMMENT ON THAT IS THAT I READ THROUGH THE POLICY.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH THAT POLICY.

THE POLICY DOES SPECIFICALLY REFERENCE THESE SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES.

SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOME HUGE 50 FOOT STRUCTURE HERE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SMALLER ONES.

AND ON THE SMALLER ONES, WE NEED KIND OF A STREAMLINED PROCESS FOR DEALING WITH THOSE.

THERE'S SOME FEDERAL LAW THAT CONSTRAINS US VERY SIGNIFICANTLY HERE.

SO I THINK ALL WHAT WE'RE DOING IS LOOKING AT THE COUNCIL POLICY.

THE COUNCIL HAS MADE A DECISION, QUITE FRANKLY.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD ONE, TOO, AND WE'RE BASICALLY CHANGING OUR RULES TO COMPLY WITH THAT POLICY.

SO I THINK BOTH OF THESE, THE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL OF THE CUPS AND THE SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY PROTOCOLS ARE STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

GOOD CHANGES, COMMISSIONER LUNA.

A LOT OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS USUALLY HAVE AN ANNUAL PROCESS LIKE THIS.

THIS IS GOVERNMENT BEING EFFICIENT.

I KNOW PEOPLE THINK THAT'S AN OXYMORON, BUT IT'S NOT.

AND I THINK IT'S EXCELLENT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH THESE TYPE OF UPDATES AND RENEWALS IN THAT IT KEEPS YOU INFORMED AS A COMMISSIONER AS TO WHAT THE OTHER PARTS OF OUR CITY GOVERNMENT IS DOING AND MAKES YOU AWARE OF IT.

IN ADDITION, IT IS PROVIDING FOR A MORE EFFICIENT PUBLIC POLICY, IMPLEMENTATION AND REFINEMENT THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR REGULARLY.

SO I APPLAUD THE CITY FOR DOING THIS.

EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT STAFF REPORT.

AND I'M GOING TO I USUALLY HATE TO REPEAT WHAT OTHER COMMISSIONERS SAY, BUT I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

AND WHAT I REALLY APPRECIATED WAS, AS THE COMMISSIONERS WERE DISCUSSING AN ISSUE ON THERE, YOU WENT RIGHT TO THAT POINT IN THE STAFF REPORT, PULLED UP THE DOCUMENTS SO THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DIG THROUGH OUR PACKET.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

KUDOS TO STAFF ALL AROUND AND TO OUR ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER MERZ. YOU KNOW, SO I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH COMMISSIONER STINE ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS WORKING IN THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE REALM.

AND IT'S TRUE MANY PEOPLE WHO DO NEED CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS SUCH AS A CHURCH OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, YOU KNOW, STRETCH FOR FUN.

SO HAVING THAT AUTOMATIC RENEWAL IS A VERY GOOD THING.

SO GETTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUCH AN ONEROUS, DIFFICULT, LONG AND EXPENSIVE PROCESS UNLESS THERE'S A PROBLEM.

YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S A GREAT A GREAT CHANGE I VERY MUCH SUPPORT IT.

ANYTHING FURTHER? SEEING NONE DO WE HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER LUNA. I MOVE APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

[00:35:03]

PLEASE VOTE. EXCELLENT, MOTION CARRIED SEVEN ZERO.

THANK YOU.

MOVING NOW TO OUR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING, AND THAT IS ITEM NUMBER TWO.

[2. CUP 2021-0014, CDP 2021-0052, HDP 2021-0003, HMP 2021-0006 (PUB 2019-0012) – VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK CIP 4609 (Part 1 of 2) ]

SO WE'LL DO THE TYPICAL ASK FOR DISCLOSURES.

WE'LL OPEN THAT HEARING AND WE'LL ASK FOR COMMISSIONER DISCLOSURES.

MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD INTERRUPT YOU FOR A SECOND.

IT'S COME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT OUR PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEM TWO REFLECTED A 6:00 P.M.

START TIME. AND WE'RE NOT AT 6:00 YET.

SO I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE OPTIONS.

YOU COULD RECESS TILL 6:00 OR IF YOU PREFERRED YOU COULD BETWEEN NOW AND AT LEAST 6:00 WORK ON AGENDA ITEM THREE, WHICH IS A DEPARTMENTAL REPORT AND COME BACK TO AGENDA ITEM TWO.

BUT WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU WAIT UNTIL 6:00 P.M..

I THINK THIS IS A CARRYOVER FROM OUR PREVIOUS START TIME.

SO WE HAD A NOTICE THAT WAS USED THAT REFLECTED 6:00 INSTEAD OF 5:00 P.M..

I THINK THAT'S A GOOD CATCH.

MY OWN THOUGHT AND [INAUDIBLE] LET'S GO AHEAD TO ITEM NUMBER THREE.

GO AHEAD AND WORK ON THAT, PERHAPS COMPLETE THAT.

AND THEN BY THAT TIME IT MIGHT BE 6:00.

ALL RIGHT. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? OKAY. WE WILL BASICALLY PUT NUMBER TWO TO THE FOOT OF OUR CALENDAR AND WE WILL PROCEED NOW TO A NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, AND THAT IS ITEM NUMBER THREE.

[3. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA]

AT THE LAST MEETING, YOU HAD ASKED THAT WE RETURN WITH A DRAFT OUTLINE OF AN AGENDA FOR THE WORKSHOP FOR YOUR FINAL APPROVAL.

SO YOU DO HAVE AN ATTACHMENT TO THE STAFF REPORT THAT LISTS THE TOPICS THAT WE WOULD INTEND TO COVER DURING THE DAY.

AND HOPEFULLY YOU SEE IN THE AGENDA THAT WE'RE INTENDING THIS TO BE VERY INTERACTIVE, A LOT OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION ABOUT EACH OF THE AREAS AND THEN CONCLUDING WITH THINGS THAT AS A GROUP YOU THINK ARE WORKING WELL IN AREAS THAT WE COULD IMPROVE UPON AS A GROUP AND MAYBE DO DIFFERENTLY GOING FORWARD.

SO AT THIS POINT WE'D ASK THAT YOU AT LEAST CONSIDER THAT OUTLINE AND GIVE US ANY DIRECTION THAT YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT CHANGES.

ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT AGENDA.

ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS? WHAT I THINK COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

THANK YOU, MR. NEU EXCELLENT JOB.

A COUPLE OF GENERAL COMMENTS.

HAVE YOU GIVEN ANY CONSIDERATION ON THE TIME FOR SOME, IF NOT MANY OF THESE ELEMENTS? THEY WE HAVEN'T PLANNED OUT, YOU KNOW, AN EXACT TIMING FOR EACH ONE.

I THINK A LOT OF THAT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON THE EXTENT OF THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU AS A GROUP HAVE.

BUT CERTAINLY THE INTENTION IS NOT FOR STAFF TO BE LECTURING YOU LONG PERIODS OF TIME ON THESE.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE PROVIDE YOU SOME BACKGROUND, BUT THEN REALLY HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION OF THE DIFFERENT AREAS, PARTICULARLY AS THEY RELATE TO TO FINDINGS AND HOW YOU APPROACH THE HEARINGS AND THINGS WE CAN DO IN THE BRIEFINGS, EVEN TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE WELL PREPARED.

AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION WOULD BE, WILL THERE BE A HANDOUT AND IF SO, WILL WE BE ABLE TO REVIEW IT AT LEAST A WEEK BEFORE THE WORKSHOP? YES, THERE WILL BE A HANDOUT.

I KNOW ONE OF THE ITEMS IN PARTICULAR, I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY OR YOURSELF, SOMEONE HAD ASKED ABOUT WHAT DO WE USE TO MAKE SURE WE REVIEWING PROJECTS FOR ALL THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS? SO WE DO HAVE A HANDOUT THAT I CAN GET TO YOU AHEAD OF TIME ON THAT.

BUT FOR THE DIFFERENT TOPIC AREAS, I THINK WE'LL HAVE AT LEAST SOME BRIEF MATERIALS.

I CAN GET TO YOU AHEAD OF TIME.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YES, THANK YOU.

I THINK WE'VE ADDRESSED MANY OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT NUMEROUS TIMES OVER THE LAST YEAR.

[00:40:08]

AGAIN, AS I'VE INDICATED BEFORE, IT WOULD BE IDEAL TO HAVE THE STAFF GIVE A BRIEF, MAYBE POWERPOINT OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, GIVING BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND THEN AGAIN HAVE IT BE QUITE INTERACTIVE AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE COMMISSIONERS BE ABLE TO INTERACT AMONG THEMSELVES, BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF, CLARITY ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEYS OFFICE, ETC..

SO I COMMEND THAT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. LET ME WEIGH IN.

I PASSED DOWN THE DAIS HERE AND I'LL PASS IT TO STAFF.

FIRST OF ALL, MY GENERAL COMMENT IS EXCELLENT OUTLINE.

I LIKE THE BREAKDOWN OF QUASI JUDICIAL, WHICH IS PRIMARILY WHAT WE DO AND GOING INTO SOME OF THE NUTS AND BOLTS ISSUES ON THAT AND THEN GOING TO THE LEGISLATIVE, WHICH WE DO OCCASIONALLY, LIKE TONIGHT WE HAD ONE LEGISLATIVE ITEM AND WE, WE HAVE A QUASI JUDICIAL ITEM THAT WE WILL BE BRINGING BACK AFTER 6:00.

SO I LIKE THE FORMAT AND I AM GOING TO SUGGEST, HOWEVER, THAT WE MIGHT ADD A COUPLE OF TOPICS.

I DON'T WANT THAT THAT I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL TO A NUMBER OF US.

AND I'VE AND THE THREE TOPICS I'M GOING TO SUGGEST AND I WANT STAFF AND MY COMMISSIONER COLLEAGUES TO WEIGH IN ON THIS WOULD BE NUMBER ONE AND THESE WOULD BE VERY CITY SPECIFIC ISSUES.

NUMBER ONE WOULD BE A ROLE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ON PROJECT APPLICATIONS HERE IN THE CITY.

SOMETIMES WE ARE THE FINAL DECISION MAKER SUBJECT TO AN APPEAL.

SOMETIMES WE'RE ADVISORY AND ALSO COURT CHALLENGES.

WHAT KINDS OF THINGS WOULD BE LOOKING TO AND REVIEWING OUR DECISION? I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KIND OF GET A VERY CARLSBAD SPECIFIC BREAKDOWN ON THAT.

AND PERHAPS THE CITY ATTORNEY COULD TAKE A LEAD ON THAT.

I'M ENVISIONING DISCUSSION ABOUT TEN OR 15 MINUTES ON THAT.

NUMBER TWO WOULD BE KIND OF A BROWN ACT, KIND OF A REINFORCEMENT, IF YOU WILL.

BROWN ACT ISSUES COME UP PERIODICALLY WHEN COMMISSIONERS WANT TO COMMUNICATE OUTSIDE OF A MEETING.

IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S A DELICATE ISSUE AND PERHAPS AGAIN HAVING THE CITY ATTORNEY GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC BACKGROUND, MAYBE A REFRESHER.

WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE BROWN ACT IS, ESSENTIALLY MAYBE A REFRESHER AND KIND OF A REMINDER OF SOME OF THOSE PROVISIONS AND HOW THEY IMPACT WHAT WE COULD DO, I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL. AND THEN THIRDLY, THE ISSUE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AS WE ALL KNOW, IS A BIG ISSUE STATEWIDE AND HERE IN CARLSBAD.

BUT I WAS HOPING THAT PERHAPS STAFF COULD GIVE MAYBE 15 TO 30 MINUTES AND WE CAN HAVE SOME DISCUSSION KIND OF HIGHLIGHTING, AGAIN, THE CARLSBAD SPECIFIC CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE, WHAT OUR ARENA REQUIREMENTS FROM SANDAG AND HOW DOES OUR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE FIT IN TO SATISFYING THE STATE LAWS.

AND BECAUSE THESE ISSUES DO COME UP PERIODICALLY, WE GET A PLETHORA OF HOUSING RELATED PROJECTS.

MOST OF OUR PROJECT APPLICATIONS ARE HOUSING RELATED.

SO THESE ISSUES COME UP QUITE A BIT AND I THINK A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION, A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF ON HOW WE ARE DOING HERE IN CARLSBAD AFFORDABLE HOUSING WOULD BE HELPFUL.

SO THOSE ARE MY SUGGESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER MEENES. YES, THANK YOU.

IN LOOKING AT YOUR ADDITIONS THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT WE MIGHT POSSIBLY INCLUDE LOOKING AT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I KNOW WITHIN THE LAST TWO MONTHS WE HAD A JOINT MEETING WITH THE HOUSING COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND I THINK WE DISCUSSED MANY OF THESE ISSUES IN REGARD TO ARENA INCLUSION, INCLUDING HOUSING AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT REDUNDANT.

AND WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE MEETING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, OUR WORKSHOP, LOOKING AT THE STAFFS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE CONTENT IS GOING TO BE QUITE LENGTHY AS IT IS.

AND DUPLICATING WHAT WE'VE ALREADY, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY IN A RECENT MONTHS HAD DISCUSSED ALREADY WITH CITY COUNCIL.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT MAYBE POSSIBLY THAT NOT BE A PART OF THIS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

LET ME RESPOND BRIEFLY ON THAT.

THE IDEA OF PUTTING THAT LAST ITEM ON THERE, COMMISSIONER MEENES, WAS TO NOT REVISIT THOSE THAT WAS FOCUSED ON NEW PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT

[00:45:02]

IT WAS VERY SPECIFIC ON THOSE TWO NEW CHANGES AND LAWS.

I'M INTERESTED HERE IN MORE OF A BACKGROUND HOW WE'RE DOING, WHAT'S OUR ARENA REQUIREMENTS, HOW WE'RE DOING, AND HOW DOES THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE WORK INTO THAT? SO I'M ENVISIONING SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WE GOT WITH THE JOINT MEETING, AND THAT'S THE REASON I PUT THAT IN.

NO, I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE A REHASH OF THAT LEGISLATION.

WE GOT WE GOT THAT IN SPADES.

BUT BUT I'M THINKING THESE NEW TOPICS WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO GET SOME BACKGROUND ON COMMISSIONER MEENES.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD MAYBE ADD A COMMENT ON THAT ONE.

SO WE DO HAVE A FAIRLY NEW CITY COUNCIL POLICY ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE VARIOUS OPTIONS TO SATISFY THE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT, AS WELL AS AN UPDATED INFORMATION BULLETIN ON THE TOPIC.

SO WE COULD PROVIDE YOU THAT.

IT DOES. I KNOW IT CAME UP AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT THE CALCULATION OF FEES AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE NEW PER SQUARE FOOT FEE SO WE CAN PROVIDE YOU THAT INFORMATION.

AND THEN I THINK THAT MAYBE THE ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE IS, IS IT SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS ON, IN WHICH CASE WE COULD HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA? MAYBE WHAT WE WOULD DO IS, DEPENDING ON HOW LENGTHY THE WORKSHOP RUNS, MAYBE PUT THIS TOWARDS THE END.

WE CAN GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION AHEAD OF TIME.

AND THEN IF WE FIND OURSELVES RUNNING OUT OF TIME, YOU COULD DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK AND JUST HAVE A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD ON IT.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER LUNA.

SO I THINK THE FIRST SECTION ROLE OF PC AND PROJECT APPLICATIONS, I THINK CHAIR STINE LOOKING AT THE AGENDA WE HAVE BEFORE US. THOSE TYPE OF ITEMS THAT YOU'VE BROUGHT UP I THINK WOULD BE ADDRESSED WITHIN THE BODY OF THE EXISTING WORKSHOP FORMAT.

SECOND ITEM, WITH RESPECT TO THE BROWN ACT, I REALLY DON'T SEE A NEED FOR THAT.

I THINK EVERYBODY IS FAMILIAR WITH THAT.

WE TAKE CLASSES.

I'D RATHER USE THAT TIME FOR BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSION.

AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY, I'M GOING ALONG COMMISSIONER MEENES LINES.

BASICALLY, I'M LOOKING AT THINGS THAT WE AS A COMMISSION CAN EFFECTUATE.

AND I THINK THE INFORMATIONAL BULLETINS THAT HAVE BEEN PROMULGATED WITHIN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF OR TWO YEARS HAVE BEEN WONDERFUL.

THEY KEEP US CURRENT.

AND SO I'M LOOKING MORE AT WE CAN POSSIBLY INCORPORATE IT SOMEWHERE, BUT TOWARDS THE END, POSSIBLY.

AND THEN I'M MORE INTERESTED IN WHAT RELEVANCE THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE WITH RESPECT TO BEING ABLE TO EFFECTUATE SOME OF THIS.

YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS CALCULATION OF FEES.

SURE. TELL US HOW THEY CALCULATE IT.

BUT HOW CAN I SITTING UP HERE CHANGE THAT FEE STRUCTURE AWAY IN THAT FEE STRUCTURE? IS IT REALLY IN MY PURVIEW TO DO THAT? SO I'M A LITTLE CAUTIOUS AS TO AS TO WHERE WE GO WITH RESPECT ON SOME OF THESE ITEMS. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

I'D LIKE TO SECOND EVERYTHING THAT COMMISSIONER LUNA JUST SAID.

SHE SAID IT BETTER THAN I COULD HAVE.

SO THANK YOU. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ASK FOR ITEM 1J POST APPROVAL PLAN CHECK TO POTENTIALLY I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW HOW THOROUGH, YOU KNOW, HOW THOROUGHLY IT'S BEEN THOUGHT OUT TO TO WHAT EXACTLY WILL GO INTO EACH OF THESE ITEMS. BUT I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE EXTREMELY THOROUGH BECAUSE I AM PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THIS ITEM.

I WAS JUST CHATTING EARLIER TODAY, IN FACT, WITH A MEMBER OF THE ROCKLAND CITY COUNCIL UP IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.

ABOUT ONE OF HIS BIGGEST FRUSTRATIONS AS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IS AFTER THEY APPROVE SOMETHING, IT JUST GETS STUCK IN PLAN CHECK AND NOTHING GETS DONE IN THAT CITY. HE WAS TELLING ME THAT I DON'T HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE, BUT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HEARING, YOU KNOW, WE'LL BE AT THE FARADAY CENTER.

SO I'LL BE I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE HOUSED THERE.

LIKE, I CAN'T RATTLE OFF THE DEPARTMENTS, BUT I KNOW IT'S NOT JUST PLANNING IN THERE THAT ARE RELATED TO PLANNING.

AND THEY PROBABLY HAVE THEY'RE INVOLVED IN THE PLAN CHECK IN SOME WAY.

AND IF WE COULD BRING THEM IN AND JUST HEAR WHAT THEIR ROLE IS IN THAT, IT WOULD BE REALLY INFORMATIONAL FOR MYSELF AND I WOULD FIND IT EXTREMELY VALUABLE.

COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

[00:50:01]

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT, COMMISSIONER STEIN TALK.

YOU'RE WELCOME. TALK CAN BE REAL CHEAP.

BUT WRITING MEANS A LOT TO ME AS A LAWYER.

I AGREE ENTIRELY WITH COMMISSIONER LUNA ON SOME OF THESE THINGS.

I THINK WE ALL KNOW THE BROWN ACT, AND IF NOT, OUR COUNSEL'S DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB IN REMINDING US OF IT.

YEAH, I THINK. I THINK A LOT OF THE TIME SHOULD BE SPENT ON THE ROLE OF THE PC IN PROJECT APPLICATIONS.

YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, AS COMMISSIONER LUNA POINTED OUT.

THAT'S IN THE HANDOUT OR THAT'S IN THE POTENTIAL AGENDA THAT MR. NEU HAS PREPARED. SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE IN GOOD HANDS.

ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS? WHAT I'M HEARING IS A DISTINCT LACK OF ENTHUSIASM BY GOING INTO THE BROWN ACT AGAIN, BEING CHARITABLE HERE.

WELL, YOU DO GET AN AWARD FOR BRAVERY, SHOT DOWN OK AND ALSO A LACK OF ENTHUSIASM FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MATTERS.

BUT I AM A LITTLE BIT OF SALVATION HERE.

I'M FINDING THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME INTEREST IN DEALING WITH THE FIRST ITEM, PERHAPS AS INTEGRATED WITH THE REST OF THE WORKSHOP.

IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? I'M SEEING SHAKING OF HEADS RATHER THAN IS A SEPARATE ITEM, CORRECT? STAFF MR. NEU, MR. KEMP, COULD YOU INCORPORATE SOME OF THAT IN THE EARLIER PARTS OF THE WORKSHOP? YES, MR. CHAIR. IN FACT, I THINK JUST IN GENERAL, THE IDEA WAS TO FOCUS ON SOME OF THESE TOPICS ARE MORE TO GIVE YOU JUST A VERY LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, BUT TO EMPHASIZE THE AREAS WHERE YOU AS COMMISSIONERS ARE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE WANTED TO SPEND THE BULK OF THE TIME.

BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY INCORPORATE YOUR SUGGESTIONS ON THE FIRST PART.

GREAT. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM MY COMMISSION COLLEAGUES? LET'S SEE. COMMISSIONER ARE YOU TRYING TO WEIGH IN HERE? YEAH. OKAY.

I'M JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR OUR WORKSHOP, WHICH WOULD INCORPORATE THE FIRST ITEM, WHICH WOULD INCORPORATE THE ONE CHANGE THAT WE SPOKE OF IN REGARD TO THE ROLE OF THE PC IN PROJECT APPLICATIONS.

THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MERZ.

ALL RIGHT. FOR THE DISCUSSION, LET'S VOTE.

MINE IS STILL BLINKING.

EVERYBODY WEIGHED IN AND LOCKED.

I'LL TRY MINE AGAIN.

[INAUDIBLE] SHOULD WE START AGAIN? OKAY, REVOTE.

AHA. MOTION PASS SEVEN ZERO.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE ABOUT A SIX MINUTE RECESS AND WE WILL RECONVENE AT 6:00 WITH ITEM NUMBER TWO. THANK YOU.

[1. ZCA2022-0002/LCPA 2022-0014 – 2022 ZONING ORDINANCE CLEANUP (Part 2 of 2) ]

[2. CUP 2021-0014, CDP 2021-0052, HDP 2021-0003, HMP 2021-0006 (PUB 2019-0012) – VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK CIP 4609 (Part 2 of 2) ]

[01:06:28]

[01:06:32]

[01:06:36]

SO WE WANT TO START WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE ON OUR AGENDA.

WE'LL CALL THAT ITEM BACK.

IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT OR SPEAK ON THAT ITEM? SEEING NONE AND, MADAM CLERK, WE HAVE NO SPEAKER SHIPS ON ONE.

MR. CHAIR, THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY. AND SO I UNDERSTAND, MR. ATTORNEY, WE NEED TO REVOTE ON THIS ITEM.

IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.

OKAY. SO YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL ASK FOR A MOTION ON THIS MATTER.

IT COULD BE BY THE SAME PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION THE LAST TIME.

DOESN'T HAVE TO BE.

SO MOVED WITH THE SAME AMENDMENTS THAT WERE MADE PREVIOUSLY.

A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SABELLICO TO APPROVE WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE MADE PREVIOUSLY.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MEENES.

OKAY, LET'S VOTE.

YES. MOTION CARRIED SEVEN ZERO.

THAT WILL DISPENSE WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE.

TURNING TO OUR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

ITEM NUMBER TWO.

MR. NEU, FIRST OF ALL, ON THIS ITEM, BECAUSE IT IS A QUASI JUDICIAL MATTER.

I WILL ASK FOR DISCLOSURES.

I HAVE PARTICIPATED IN ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO, INITIAL WORKSHOP, I THINK IT WAS PRE-COVID, ABOUT A YEAR BEFORE THAT.

THAT'S HOW I KEEP TIME NOW AND I REGULARLY DO HIKE THAT PARK.

ALL RIGHT FOR THE DISCLOSURES, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN I'VE WALKED TO THIS AREA SEVERAL OCCASIONS, SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH IT.

COMMISSIONER MEENES YES.

I ALSO HAVE WALKED THE SITE AS WELL AND DRIVE BY IT OFTEN.

COMMISSIONER SABELLICO NONE.

COMMISSIONER MEENES EXCUSE ME.

MERZ. SO I VISITED THE SITE.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

I WALKED THE SITE.

AND I HAVE BEEN BY THE SITE.

I'VE WALKED THE PARK. I'M QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA.

CITY PLANNER NEU, WOULD YOU INTRODUCE THE ITEM, PLEASE? YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

SO AS YOU STATED, THIS IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.

IT'S A PROJECT TITLED VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK.

IT'S A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PROJECT 4609 PRINCIPAL PLANNER ERIC LARDY IS HERE TO MAKE THE STAFF PRESENTATION ON THE ITEM.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

I WILL START WITH A BRIEF OVERVIEW.

FIRST, I'LL REVIEW THE PROPOSED PROJECT, THEN THE ASSOCIATED PERMITS AND FINDINGS AND THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT.

THIS MAP SHOWS THE LOCATION OF VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK, LOCATED NORTH AND ALONG FARADAY AVENUE, WEST OF WHITMAN WAY.

[01:10:01]

THE SITE IS SUBJECT TO THE OPEN SPACE GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE DESIGNATION AND IS ZONED OPEN SPACE.

THE SITE HAS LONG BEEN DISCUSSED FOR IMPROVEMENT AS A PARK PROJECT IN THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AND THROUGH REPORTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

MOST RECENTLY, ON FEBRUARY 23RD, 2021, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND DIRECTED STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND USE PERMITTING.

THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SITE EXHIBIT IS INCLUDED AS AN ATTACHMENT TO EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH OUTLINES THE PROPOSED USES ON THE SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN THOSE AREAS.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A 93.7 ACRE PUBLIC PARK.

38.82 ACRES WILL BE DEVELOPED AND THE REMAINING 54.88 ACRES WOULD BE PRESERVED.

IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES, I'LL WALK THROUGH COMPONENTS OF THE SITE PLAN.

THE NORTHERN AREA WILL INCLUDE A PARKING LOT THE VETERANS MEMORIAL PLAZA, A COMMUNITY GATHERING AREA, TWO BUILDINGS CONNECTED BY A WALKWAY, AN INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND, AND PART OF AN AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.

ACCESSIBLE PATHWAY.

THE CENTRAL AREA WILL INCLUDE AN ACCESSIBLE PATHWAY, A FITNESS CLIMB, PICNIC AREAS, A RUSTIC AND RUSTIC INSPIRED NATURE PLAYGROUND.

IT WILL ALSO INCLUDE PASSIVE RECREATION AREAS, A PUBLIC ART FEATURE, NATIVE PLANT GARDENS AND A FITNESS RUN.

AND THE SOUTHERN AREA WOULD INCLUDE THE SECOND PARKING LOT, A PLAYGROUND, AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING THAT INCLUDES RESTROOMS AND STORAGE AND INCLUDES A FAMILY ORIENTED BIKE PARK.

FOUR DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC PARK AND THE OPEN SPACE ZONING DESIGNATION, AS THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE COASTAL ZONE. A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.

PORTIONS OF THIS PROJECT AREA ARE WITHIN THE APPEALABLE AREA OF THE COASTAL ZONE, THEREFORE COULD BE APPEALED TO CITY COUNCIL.

A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED DUE TO THE TOPOGRAPHY ON THE SITE AND A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO THE IMPACTS AND THE MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN.

A PUBLIC PARK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

AS PART OF THAT, A MASTER SITE PLAN EXHIBIT IS REQUIRED AND IS INCLUDED AS AN ATTACHMENT.

IT SHOWS THE GENERALIZED LAND USES THAT WOULD BE APPROVED AS PART OF THIS PARK.

THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS NOT SPECIFIED FOR A PARK IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND A PARKING STUDY WAS PREPARED TO OUTLINE THAT THE ON AND OFF STREET PARKING IS ENOUGH TO PROVIDE FOR THE USES INCLUDED.

ALL THE FINDINGS FOR CONSISTENCY CAN BE MADE WITHIN THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN APPROVE THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE POLICIES OF THE MELLO TWO SEGMENT OF THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PLAN.

THE PLAN INCLUDES POLICIES THAT REGULATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND BUT ALSO HAVE LONG PLANNED RECREATION ON THIS SITE.

THE SITE IS IN THE MELLOW TWO SEGMENT, WHICH INCLUDES POLICY 3-7E THAT OUTLINES THAT VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT AREA IS DESIGNATED FOR RECREATIONAL USE WITH A VARIETY OF RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES.

THE PROJECT IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE.

THE PROJECT IMPACTS SOME STEEP SLOPE AREAS AND THERE WAS AN EVALUATION OF WHAT IS CONSIDERED STEEP SLOPE AND SENSITIVE HABITAT.

THE PROPOSED GRADING ONLY IMPACTS 0.11 ACRES OF THESE DUAL SLOPES, AND THE CODE ALLOWS FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THESE LANDS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE NATURAL HABITAT. THE SITE IS DESIGNATED IN THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN AS HAVING A MIX AND PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT AREA.

THIS IS CALLED A HARD LINE AREA.

DUE TO IMPACTS THE HABITAT AND OPEN SPACE, THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT AND AMEND THIS HARD LINE TO HAVE A BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL CONFIGURATION. THIS IS ALLOWED AS LONG AS THE HABITAT AMENDED IS EQUIVALENT OR BETTER.

THE PROJECT WILL IMPACT 3.36 ACRES IN THE HARD LINE AREA, BUT ADD ADDITIONAL ACRES WITH A NET INCREASE OF 9.5 ACRES INTO THE OPEN SPACE AREA.

THE BLUE OUTLINE SHOWS THE AREAS REMOVED FROM THE HARD LINE AND THE GREEN OUTLINED AREAS SHOWS THE AREAS ADDED TO THE HARD LINE.

THE PERMIT IS ALLOWED AND THE MINOR AMENDMENT HAS BEEN SENT AND REVIEWED FOR EQUIVALENCY FROM THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE.

THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SENT A LETTER CONCURRING WITH THESE FINDINGS, AND THERE WAS NO COMMENTS OR OPPOSITION RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT.

THEREFORE, THESE CAN BE CONSIDERED APPROVED.

[01:15:01]

THIS PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED AND THE PROJECT WILL CONTINUE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.

THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN AND IT IS IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE SAFETY ZONE WHERE BOTH GROUP AND NON-GROUP RECREATION USES ARE ALLOWED. THE PROJECT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPOSED NOISE LEVELS OF THE LUCP.

THE PROPOSED PARK IS WITHIN LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE EIGHT IN THE CITY'S NORTHWEST ZONE.

THE PROVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PARK WILL NOT IMPACT THE GROWTH PLAN STANDARDS.

HOWEVER, THIS 93 ACRE PARK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN PROGRAM AND WILL PROVIDE 93 ACRES EQUALLY DIVIDED BY ALL FOUR OF THE CITY'S QUADRANTS. AN INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WERE PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT.

THE STUDY WAS PUT OUT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW ON MARCH 11, 2022.

THE STUDY INCLUDES MITIGATION MEASURES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN, AND THESE MEASURES ARE INCLUDED FOR BIOLOGY, GEOLOGY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES.

THEY REDUCE THE LEVEL OF IMPACT TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

EIGHT COMMENT LETTERS WERE RECEIVED FROM AGENCIES, INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS ON THE MND.

WHILE NOT REQUIRED TO FOR AN MND.

ALL THE COMMENTS WERE RESPONDED TO AND INCLUDED IN THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ALONG WITH SOME MINOR REVISIONS.

NONE OF THE REVISIONS IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND DID NOT REQUIRE RECIRCULATION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

A MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTS WERE ON VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

HOWEVER, THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS RELATED TO BIOLOGY.

SOME MITIGATION MEASURES WERE REVISED IN RESPONSE TO THESE COMMENTS.

ADDITIONALLY, THE RING CON BAND OF LOUIS SARNO INDIANS ASKED FOR INCLUSION IN THE TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE.

THIS COMMENT WAS REVIEWED WITH OUR TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE GUIDELINES, AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CHANGE WAS NOT NEEDED BECAUSE THIS ALREADY MENTIONED OTHER LOUIS INYO TRIBES. AS I SAID, A MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTS WERE ON VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, AND THERE WAS A STUDY COMPLETED UNDER THE CITY'S VMT GUIDELINES.

LOCALLY SERVING PUBLIC FACILITIES COULD BE DETERMINED TO BE SCREENED OUT OR DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE NO IMPACTS TO VMT.

BUT SINCE IT WAS NOT CLEAR THAT THIS LARGER FACILITY WOULD BE LOCALLY SERVING, A SPECIFIC VMT ANALYSIS UNDER THE CITY'S ADOPTED VMT GUIDELINES WAS PREPARED.

THE ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING PARK USER CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM BIG DATA SOURCES AND COMPARISON TO FOUR SIMILAR REGIONAL PARKS THAT INCLUDE SIMILAR AMENITIES IN THE SAN DIEGO REGION.

THIS MODEL WAS CHOSEN DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE SANDAG MODEL ONLY INCLUDES GENERIC PARK LAND USES AND RELIES ON GENERALIZED GEOGRAPHIES, SO IS NOT AS SENSITIVE TO A SPECIFIC PROJECT OF THIS SIZE.

AS DESCRIBED IN THE CITY'S VMT GUIDELINES, THE USE OF THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS MODEL IS NOT REQUIRED FOR VMT CALCULATIONS.

BASED ON AN EVALUATION OF THIS DATA, THE PROPOSED USES AND COMPARISON TO THESE PARKS.

THIS PROJECT IS NOT EXPECTED TO HAVE A NET INCREASE IN VMT AND THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD SUPPORTS A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT TRANSPORTATION VMT IMPACT UNDER CEQA.

COMMENTS ON THE PROJECT MAKE SEVERAL CLAIMS REGARDING THE USE OF THE SANDAG MODEL, POTENTIAL FOR SPECIAL EVENTS AND HOW THIS WAS CONTRACTED OUT.

HOWEVER, NONE OF THEM PROVIDED ANALYSIS THAT OUR INFORMATION WAS INADEQUATE.

THE CITY RESPONDED TO EACH INDIVIDUAL COMMENT ON THE TOPIC AND ONLY ONE TYPOGRAPHICAL EDIT WAS MADE TO THE VMT ANALYSIS INCLUDED, WHICH CORRECTED A REFERENCE FROM ZIP CODE TO CENSUS TRACTS.

THERE WASN'T A RADA PREPARED AND DISTRIBUTED THAT MADE SOME REVISIONS TO THE TIRE ANALYSIS THAT IS NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CITY'S MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.

AND WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE SIERRA CLUB ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT BASED ON THE COMMENTS ON THE VMT.

THAT LETTER WAS DISTRIBUTED, BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE A POSTPONEMENT IS WARRANTED.

THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED ACTION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADOPT TWO RESOLUTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE FIRST APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ITS MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND THE SECOND TO INCLUDE THE FINDINGS, CONDITIONS AND APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE PERMITS.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS ARE FROM FROM COMMISSIONERS.

[01:20:06]

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MERZ.

YES. SORRY. ON THAT ONE SLIDE ON THE HARD LINE BECAUSE USE AGAIN THE DEFINITION OF HARD LINE AGAIN ON THAT ONE SLIDE YOU HAD.

SO IN THE CITY'S HABITAT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, THERE ARE SOME SITES THAT WERE DESIGNATED WITH LAND THAT IS EITHER FOR PRESERVE OR FOR DEVELOPMENT.

AND THOSE ARE HARD LINE.

THEY WERE NOT NECESSARILY MOVED INTO PRESERVE AT THAT TIME.

AND SO THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES THAT ARE ALLOWED THROUGH WHAT'S CALLED A MINOR AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GEOGRAPHY.

WHAT THIS PROJECT IS DOING WITH THAT MINOR AMENDMENT IS TAKING THIS AREA THAT'S OUTLINED IN BLUE AND ALLOWING AN IMPACT TO THAT, BUT IT'S PUTTING AN ADDING AREAS INTO THE PRESERVE WITH IT.

AND SO THERE'S A NET GAIN OF 9.5 ACRES INTO THE PRESERVE AS A PART OF THIS LAND USE ACTION.

SO THE WORD HARD LINE, AGAIN, THE DEFINITION OF THAT WORD IS WHAT IS THAT? THAT'S JUST KIND OF WENT BY ME QUICKLY THERE.

I'M SORRY. IT'S A TERM IN THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND IT MEANS THAT THERE'S SPECIFIC LINES ON THE MAP IN THAT PLAN OF WHAT SHOULD BE PRESERVED AND WHAT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED. OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

COMMISSIONER MEENES. YES.

THANK YOU, MR. LARDY, COULD YOU PROVIDE SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AS TO THE CONTENT OF THE PARK AND THE DESIGN OF THE PARK FOR PUBLIC RECORD AS TO THE DESIGN REGARDING, IT'S KIND OF MORE OF A PASSIVE OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE TYPE, A PARK DESIGN VERSUS SOME OF THE OTHER TYPES OF PARKS WE HAVE IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. AND I THINK FOR THE RECORD, IT'D BE GREAT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AS TO THAT CONTENT AND THE TYPES OF BUILDINGS AND THE TYPES OF DESIGN THAT WAS IN THERE.

FOR THE RECORD, THANK YOU.

SURE. SO THIS AND THE OTHER SLIDES I WALK THROUGH THE FACILITIES THAT ARE ON THERE.

IT IS A MIX OF PLAYGROUND AND SOME ACTIVE USES, BUT IT ALSO INCLUDES MEANDERING PATHWAYS, TRAILS, ACTIVE TYPE OF FITNESS ACTIVITIES THROUGHOUT IT. WHAT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN IS THOSE LARGE RECREATIONAL FIELDS THAT YOU SEE, THOSE COURTS, THOSE LARGE ROWS OF FIELDS AND COURTS THAT YOU SEE IN A NUMBER OF PARKS. I ALSO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITY'S PARKS DEPARTMENT AVAILABLE TO COME UP AND ANSWER ANY MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

ANOTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTION IS SO THE DESIGN OF THE PARK AND THE CONTENT OF THE PARK, IT WAS DESIGNED IN THIS FASHION AND RATHER THAN BEING AN ACTIVE PARK LIKE AGUA NORTE OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.

SO THIS WAS DESIGNED MUCH DIFFERENTLY.

COULD YOU GIVE US SOME BACKGROUND AS TO WHY THIS WAS DESIGNED DIFFERENTLY? I'M GOING TO ASK THE REPRESENTATIVES OF PARK TO COME UP WITH.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.

KYLE LANCASTER, I'M THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR.

PLEASED TO BE HERE TONIGHT.

TO YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER MEENES, THIS PARK WAS LARGELY DESIGNED BASED OFF OF PUBLIC INPUT.

SO WE WENT THROUGH MULTIPLE WORKSHOPS, AS WAS REFERENCED EARLIER AND ONLINE SURVEYS, AND THIS WAS LARGELY THE RESULT THAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE OF, AS MR. LARDY STATED, COMBINATION OF PASSIVE AREAS WITH WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER ACTIVE BULBS.

SO THE FAMILY ORIENTED BIKE PARK AS AN EXAMPLE, IS AN ACTIVE AREA, BUT THE MEANDERING TRAIL SYSTEM THROUGHOUT IS MORE PASSIVE.

WE'RE ALSO BEING CONSIDERATE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THIS LOCATION.

WE ARE NOT DOING MASQUERADING TO THE EXTENT OF CREATING FLAT AREAS FOR ATHLETIC FIELDS.

THIS INSTEAD AGAIN, WE'LL BE RESPECTFUL TO MUCH OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND CREATE THAT TRAIL SYSTEM WITH THE POCKETS OF PLAYGROUNDS AND PICNIC FACILITIES.

SO AGAIN, TO BRIEFLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THIS DESIGN WAS LARGELY A RESULT OF WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC, AND I BELIEVE WE REALLY ACHIEVED A SUCCESSFUL END PRODUCT.

THANK YOU. THAT'S THE CLARITY I WANTED.

THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. LARDY. TURNING TO THE LETTER FROM THE SIERRA CLUB THAT WE JUST RECEIVED.

I WONDER IF YOU WOULD ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT THEY'RE RAISING.

THEY CLAIM AND I'M JUST KIND OF SCANNING THE LAST PARAGRAPH, THAT THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CONTRIBUTE TO

[01:25:09]

CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT OR HAVE ANOTHER STAFF MEMBER ADDRESS THAT PLEASE? JUST JUST BRIEFLY, THERE'S TWO PARTS OF IT.

ONE, SINCE 2020, THE TRANSPORTATION STANDARD UNDER CEQA IS NO LONGER OF LEVEL OF SERVICE.

IT IS VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED.

AND SO WE REVIEWED IT RELATED TO THAT.

WE DID A SEPARATE ANALYSIS FROM THE SANDAG REGIONAL MODEL FOR THE REASONS I WENT OVER, BUT MOSTLY BECAUSE THIS WAS A MORE PRECISE AND SPECIFIC ANALYSIS BASED ON BIG DATA AND WE DETERMINED THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE IMPACT.

A TIA WAS ALSO DEVELOPED AND IT MEETS OUR STANDARDS UNDER THE RTIA REGULATIONS, AND WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC.

HOWEVER, THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE CEQA DOCUMENT.

SO WE DO DISAGREE WITH THE ASCERTATION THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS WELL AS THAT THAT'S THE STANDARD THAT WE SHOULD BE MEASURING THIS PROJECT AGAINST. ALL RIGHT.

SO YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF INCREASING TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON CANNON.

THIS PARK IS ON FARADAY.

CANNON IS KIND OF AROUND THE CORNER.

SO STAFF DOESN'T BELIEVE AND THE STAFF'S EXPERTS DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE AN INDIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT WILL BOTTLE UP TRAFFIC ON CANNON. I'M SAYING IT'S A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND MEETS OUR STANDARDS ON BOTH CANNON AND FARADAY, AS WELL AS IN THE CEQA DOCUMENT.

IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THE DETAILS AND LEVEL OF VOLUMES, WE ALSO HAVE OUR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT THAT COULD COME UP AND ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.

SO YOU SEE NO REASON TO TO CONTINUE THIS FOR A RESTUDY THEN, RIGHT? NO, WE DO NOT.

UNDERSTAND. COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION.

I ONLY HAD ONE MORE QUESTION.

IS THIS THERE LARGEST PARK? WILL THIS BE OUR LARGEST PARK IN THE CITY? BY ACREAGE.

GOOD EVENING AGAIN.

COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIR.

YES, IT WILL BE OUR LARGEST PARK BY FAR.

THE LARGEST CURRENT PARK IS 42 ACRES.

THAT'S POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK.

AGAIN, THIS WILL BE ROUGHLY 93 ACRES TOTAL.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION THEN.

SO IS THE SINCE THIS IS OUR LARGEST PARK OR WILL BE OUR LARGEST PARK AND IT DOES NOT TRIGGER A SIGNIFICANT LEVEL OF VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PER THE ANALYSIS THAT THAT YOU DID.

IT SEEMS INTERESTING THAT IF IT'S THE LARGEST PARK, IT WOULDN'T DO THAT.

IT JUST. THAT'S AN OBSERVATION.

SORRY, NOT REALLY A QUESTION, BUT IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT AT ALL, I'M INTERESTED.

WELL, WE DID LOOK AT OUR STUDY, LOOKED AT OTHER LARGE PARKS AND GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS OF SIMILAR SIZE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY, AND LOOKED AT PARKS WITH SIMILAR FEATURES, SPECIFICALLY THE BIKE FEATURES AS PART OF THIS.

AND THAT'S WHAT WENT INTO IT.

A DIFFERENT SIZED PARK WITH DIFFERENT FEATURES AND AMENITIES COULD HAVE A VMT IMPACT.

THAT'S WHY WE DETERMINED TO GO THROUGH AND DO THAT SPECIFIC ANALYSIS.

SO SORT OF TO WHAT COMMISSIONER MEENES WAS SAYING ABOUT THE USES, THERE'S NO SPORTING COMPLEXES THERE. IT'S MORE OF A PASSIVE PARK THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO INCREASE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED.

DO YOU THINK IT'S BECAUSE OF THESE SPECIFIC USES? A LOT. OUR STUDY LOOKED AT THESE SPECIFIC USES, WHICH WAS A MAJOR FACTOR INTO OUR VMT ANALYSIS.

SO YES. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER MERZ. YEAH I GUESS I WOULD SAY I'M PRETTY REGULAR USER OF THE POOL OVER AT ALGA NORTE AND SO THAT'S PRETTY INTENSIVE.

I GUESS SOME REALLY QUESTIONS SOME ASK ME SAY THAT FOR COMMENTS, BUT YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

SO YEAH.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANK YOU.

SO WHAT STANDARDS WERE USED FOR THE UTILITY BUILDINGS AND THE RESTROOMS. ARE THERE STANDARDS THAT THE CITY HAS FOR THESE PARTICULAR BUILDINGS IN PUBLIC PARKS? THE CONCEPTUAL BUILDING PLANS WERE INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS ACTION.

THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE REFINED AS THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.

HOWEVER, THE BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO NEED TO COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE.

SO THERE IS NO PARTICULAR CITY STANDARD FOR PARK RESTROOMS OR PARK FACILITIES OR THINGS LIKE THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.

[01:30:02]

SO THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR THESE.

BUILDINGS AND THEY'RE FOUND AT THE VERY LAST PAGES OF THE DRAWINGS IS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

AND MAYBE THIS IS THE CONCERN.

WILL THE BUILDINGS GET NATURAL LIGHT AND VENTILATION? SO WE DID GET CONFIRMATION THAT THE WINDOWS IN THOSE BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE STAINLESS STEEL WOVEN VENTS.

SO THERE WILL BE NATURAL VENTILATION.

HOW ABOUT LIGHT? THAT WOULD ALLOW SOME LIGHT IN, BUT IT WOULD ALSO BLOCK SUNLIGHT.

SO, OSTENSIBLY THESE ARE MECHANICALLY VENTILATED AND MECHANICALLY ILLUMINATED.

IS THAT CORRECT? FOR THE MOST PART.

HOWEVER, I WOULD ADD THAT THESE BUILDINGS ARE MOSTLY FOR RESTROOMS, INTERIOR OFFICES.

THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY FOR PUBLIC GATHERING IN SPACES OTHER THAN THE SMALL OPERATIONS THAT THEY DO PROVIDE.

CONSIDERING THAT THIS ENTIRE PARK FACES SOUTH AND WEST, IT SEEMS PERFECT FOR SOLAR GENERATION.

IS THERE ANY TYPE OF CONSIDERATION THAT THIS WHOLE EFFORT OF CREATING A PARK AND NOT BECOMING A COMPLETELY CARBON NEUTRAL ENDEAVOR? USING MECHANICAL VENTILATION AND ANY KIND OF ILLUMINATION.

IT SEEMS LIKE A MISSED OPPORTUNITY.

SO WILL GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS OF ANY KIND BEYOND THE BUILDING CODE BE USED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THIS ENTIRELY CARBON NEUTRAL? IT WILL COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S BUILDING CODE, AS WELL AS THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN WHEN IT COMES IN THROUGH THE THE BUILDING CODE CHECKLIST.

HOWEVER, THERE'S NOT OTHER ANY OTHER DESIGN ELEMENTS PROVIDED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.

THE MINIMUM STANDARDS ARE CONCERNED.

YOU KNOW, WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SHOWCASE THIS AS A OBVIOUSLY OUR BIGGEST PARK IN CARLSBAD NOW.

AND IF WE CAN PUT A FORWARD STEPPING MOTION TO BE ABLE TO SAY ALL OF OUR RESTROOMS AND FACILITIES ON THIS SITE ARE GENERATING THEIR OWN ENERGY, THAT'S PRETTY IMPRESSIVE.

SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SAY.

AND I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE'S JUST NO WINDOWS ON THESE BUILDINGS AT ALL.

THERE'S NO LIGHT COMING INTO THESE BUILDINGS.

SO IT'S JUST I REALLY HOPE THAT THOSE WILL BE CONSIDERED A VERY IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN THE REST OF THE GENERATION OF THIS FACILITY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LUNA.

MR. LORD, I HAVE A QUESTION WITH RESPECT, FOLLOWING UP WITH COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY'S COMMENTS AND MR. LANCASTER, YOU MIGHT NEED TO ADDRESS THIS TOO, BUT TRADITIONALLY WE REVIEW UP HERE COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AND IF THEY DO HAVE SOME TYPE OF RESTROOM OR OTHER FACILITY.

I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY IS BRINGING HERE TO FORE HAS MERIT.

HOWEVER, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THESE ARE OUTDOOR FACILITIES.

OPEN TO NATURE PEOPLE, CHILDREN, CREATURES, ANYTHING BASICALLY LOCATED OUT THERE.

AND IS THIS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE WOULD HAVE IN OTHER PARKS WITH RESPECT TO MAINTENANCE AND DESIGN? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COMMISSIONER LUNA.

SO AS WE REFERENCED EARLIER, THERE IS NOT NECESSARILY A SPECIFIC CITY STANDARD FOR PARK RESTROOMS. HOWEVER, THERE ARE CERTAIN CONSISTENCIES THROUGHOUT OUR INVENTORY OF PARKS, INCLUDING THE NATURAL VENTILATION THAT WAS REFERENCED, AND MOST RECENTLY WITH OUR NEWER CONSTRUCTION SUCH AS AT AVIARA PARK, AVIARA COMMUNITY PARK OUTLOOK, WE HAVE A COMBINATION RESTROOM FACILITY AND ADJACENT CATERING SUPPORT ROOM.

WE ARE PROPOSING SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR AT THIS PARK.

THAT FACILITY USED NATURAL SKYLIGHTS TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL LIGHTING.

WE DO NOT HAVE NECESSARILY WINDOWS ON THE SIDES OF THE RESTROOM FACILITY FOR PRIVACY ISSUES, BUT CERTAINLY THOSE TYPES OF ELEMENTS WE WOULD LOOK TO APPLY AT THIS LOCATION AS WELL.

IF THERE IS A DESIRE FOR SOLAR BY THE COMMISSION, WE CAN ADDRESS THAT.

IT IS NOT CURRENTLY PART OF THE PLAN BEFORE YOU BECAUSE IT'S STILL CONCEPTUAL.

WE HAVE NOT ENTERED INTO CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AT THIS TIME.

[01:35:01]

BUT AGAIN, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD INCORPORATE INTO THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT DESIGN, IF YOU SO CHOOSE.

SO WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTUAL STRUCTURES THEMSELVES, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT GRAFFITI, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT VANDALISM. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE TYPE OF MAINTENANCE ISSUES.

WOULD THAT EXPLAIN WHY THESE BUILDINGS ARE THE WAY THAT THEY'RE PROPOSED? ABSOLUTELY. AND AGAIN, THAT IS A CONSISTENT FEATURE THROUGHOUT OUR PARKS INVENTORY AND WAS ALSO APPLIED MOST RECENTLY AT AVIARA COMMUNITY PARK.

THEY ARE CONSIDERED BLOCK HOUSE RESTROOMS. THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT WE REFER TO THEM AS.

THEY'RE CONSTRUCTED WITH CONCRETE BLOCKS TO BE MORE DURABLE, TO BE FRANKLY EASIER TO BE CLEANED IF THEY DO RECEIVE GRAFFITI OR OTHER VANDALISM.

THE RECEPTACLES ARE TYPICALLY HIGH QUALITY, DURABLE, OFTENTIMES STAINLESS STEEL TO PREVENT BREAKAGE AND OTHER INTENTIONAL DAMAGE.

SO ABSOLUTELY THOSE SAME DESIGNS WILL BE APPLIED.

AND MOST RECENTLY, I SHOULD ALSO INDICATE THAT WE'VE CONSTRUCTED A NEW RESTROOM FACILITY AT POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DOG PARK AND THE PARKING LOT, WHICH IS, BY THE WAY, DUE TO OPEN END OF JULY.

SO PROUD OF THAT.

AND AGAIN, THAT IS BLOCK CONSTRUCTION.

IT DOES HAVE THE SAME NATURAL VENTILATION AND AGAIN, DURABLE FEATURES THAT I REFERENCED.

SO TO CUT TO THE CHASE, WE DON'T HAVE A PROLONGED DISCUSSION.

CAN SOLAR BE SEATED ON THESE BLOCK HOUSES WITHOUT CONCERN FOR VANDALISM? NO. THERE WILL STILL BE CONCERN FOR VANDALISM.

COULD IT BE PLACED ON THE ROOF? ABSOLUTELY. BUT FRANKLY, WE DO ENCOUNTER VANDALISM THROUGHOUT OUR PARK SYSTEM.

I CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT SOLAR PANELS WOULD NOT BE DAMAGED.

AND ALTHOUGH THEY ARE BLOCK CONSTRUCTION, THEY'RE DURABLE.

THEY ARE ALSO CLAIMABLE.

SO I CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE SOLAR PANELS WOULD NOT BE DAMAGED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

WHAT ABOUT SOLAR ROOFING? ROOF TILES. I WOULD SUGGEST THE SAME ANSWER WOULD APPLY.

CERTAINLY WE CAN INSTALL IT, BUT I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL NOT BE VANDALIZED.

WE DO EXPERIENCE VANDALISM THROUGHOUT OUR PARKS INVENTORY.

IT'S RANDOM, IT'S NOT PREDICTABLE.

AND SO AGAIN, WOULD NOT WANT TO STAND HERE BEFORE YOU AND SAY THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE LONG LASTING OR OVERALL VIABLE LONG TERM. BUT THESE WILL HAVE SOME KIND OF ROOF TILE OF SOME SORT.

RIGHT. OR IS IT GOING TO BE METAL ROOF? WHAT ARE THEY? WHAT'S THE PROPOSED SAYS METAL RIGHT? SO MOST RECENTLY WE'VE USED METAL.

SO. AGAIN, WE'RE NOT INTO CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PARK YET, BUT LIKELY IF WE FOLLOW THE PATTERN THAT WE HAVE WITH AVIARA COMMUNITY PARK AND POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK. MOST RECENTLY, IT WOULD BE METAL ROOF.

YES. AND WERE THOSE PARKS DEVELOPED BEFORE THE PANDEMIC OR AFTER THE OR DURING THE PANDEMIC? AVIARA COMMUNITY PARK OUTLOOK WAS DEVELOPED BEFORE THE PANDEMIC.

POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK DOG PARK WAS DEVELOPED BASICALLY DURING THE PANDEMIC AND AGAIN IS JUST RECENTLY COMPLETED.

THAT RESTROOM FACILITY WAS BUILT WITHIN THE LAST CALL IT EIGHT MONTHS.

HAVE WE LEARNED ANYTHING NEW? POST PANDEMIC OR POST PANDEMIC THAT WOULD INFLUENCE THE DESIGN OF THESE BUILDINGS.

I WOULDN'T SAY ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM THE PANDEMIC.

WE CERTAINLY HAVE RECEIVED COMPLIMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE AVR COMMUNITY PARK DESIGN BECAUSE IT WAS AGAIN A LITTLE BIT LARGER AND THE FACT THAT IT HAS A CATERING SUPPORT ROOM AND MORE WHAT I WOULD REFER TO AS MODERN DESIGN, A LITTLE BIT OF A UPGRADE FROM WHAT YOU MIGHT TRADITIONALLY SEE IN MANY PARKS.

POINSETTIA PARK WAS DESIGNED TO MATCH THE EXISTING TWO BLOCKHOUSE RESTROOMS AT THE PARK.

IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH POINSETTIA PARK, IT'S BEEN A PHASE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SO THE DOG PARK IS ACTUALLY PHASE FOUR.

AND SO THE OTHER PARK BLOCKHOUSE RESTROOMS WERE COMPLETED LONG AGO.

AND WE MIMIC THE CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE SO THAT THE APPEARANCE IS.

CONSISTENT AND SEEMINGLY AS IF THE PARK WAS CONSTRUCTED ALL AT THE SAME PERIOD.

YEAH. I APPRECIATE THAT.

I JUST. I WOULD HOPE THAT MAYBE WE'VE LEARNED SOMETHING NEW THAN TRYING TO REUSE THE SAME TYPE OF TYPOLOGY FOR THESE RESTROOMS ALSO.

[01:40:06]

SO THEY'RE NOT STRICTLY BLOCK HOUSES.

AND I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT MAYBE THAT'S NOT REALLY, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WITH NO WINDOWS AND LIMITED VENTILATION THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ELECTRIFIED AND MECHANICALLY OPERATED.

I'M CONCERNED THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY MAKING MUCH PROGRESS, SO I'D LIKE TO JUST PUT THAT IN AS A COMMENT, AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN CONSIDER SOME ALTERNATES TO BE ABLE TO AT LEAST GENERATE A CARBON NEUTRAL FOOTPRINT FOR A PARK THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A REALLY GREAT INFLUENCE ON OUR COMMUNITY.

MR. NEU, I THINK YOU HAD A COMMENT.

YES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

I DID WANT TO JUST BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT WE DO HAVE CITY COUNCIL POLICY 71 THAT DEALS WITH ENERGY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE POLICY.

IT PROVIDES DIRECTION THAT THE CITY IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE LEED SILVER OR BETTER OR EQUIVALENT.

AND THEN IT GOES ON FURTHER TO TALK ABOUT ENERGY USAGE AND GENERATION.

AND I WILL SAY IT'S KIND OF COUCHED IN THE CONTEXT OF A GOAL TO GENERATE A MINIMUM OF 10% OF THE PROJECT'S ENERGY DEMAND WITH A GOAL OF 20% FROM RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES.

BUT THERE IS A LOT OF LANGUAGE ABOUT THE COST BENEFIT RATIO.

SO THE ONE THING, AND IT'S NOT WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S PURVIEW IS CERTAINLY THE COST OF THE PROJECT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, STAFF IS ALSO WORKING WITH.

SO IT IS A CONSIDERATION AND IT WILL BE A CONSIDERATION AS PARKS MOVES FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT.

I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.

I KNOW THE BUILDING CODE IS SLATED TO CHANGE THIS YEAR.

CORRECT? THIS COMING YEAR? YES. CURRENTLY, CAL GREEN MEETS LEED SILVER.

SO THAT'S ACTUALLY THE MINIMUM STANDARD RIGHT NOW.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO GO BEYOND THAT.

THAT'S MY CONCERN.

I HAD A FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. LANCASTER. KIND OF A BIG PICTURE ISSUE HERE.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WE'VE SEEN SOME INPUT WITH REGARD TO TRAFFIC IMPACTS, AND I KNOW I'VE ASKED STAFF TO RESPOND TO THAT.

IT OCCURS TO ME AND I WANT TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON THIS, THAT THIS MAY BE OUR LARGEST PARK, BUT IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT PARK THAN, SAY, STAGECOACH OR POINSETTIA IN THAT THOSE TWO ARE VENUES FOR OUR TGIF PROGRAMS FOR EXAMPLE.

THEY HAVE LARGE BALL FIELDS ON THOSE PROGRAMS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THOSE PARKS ARE DESIGNED AND ANTICIPATE LARGE PUBLIC GATHERINGS.

WHAT I'M SEEING IN THIS PARK IS IT'S MORE SPREAD OUT.

WE DON'T HAVE A BIG BALL FIELD OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD ATTRACT A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME FOR ONE BIG EVENT.

WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, SIR? ABSOLUTELY. YES, SIR.

OKAY. SO THIS WOULD NOT BE A VENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT STAFF WOULD ANTICIPATE FOR THE TGIF PROGRAM? NO, SIR, NOT FOR TGIF.

IF WE HAD CONCERTS THERE, THEY WOULD BE OF MUCH SMALLER NATURE AND NOT EXPECTED TO DRAW NEARLY THE SAME CROWD.

SO WE WOULD HAVE SMALLER PRIVATE GROUPS, BUT NOT ANTICIPATING ANY BIG PUBLIC RECREATIONAL CONCERTS, ANYTHING LIKE THIS AT THIS PARK. RIGHT. NOT TO THE SCALE OF THE TGIF CONCERTS OR THE SCALE OF PERHAPS WHAT YOU MIGHT IMAGINE FOR A SOCCER OPENING DAY OR A LITTLE LEAGUE. AGAIN, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SPORTS FIELDS, NO COURTS ON THIS FACILITY, WE DO NOT EXPECT THAT TYPE OF PARTICIPATION AND TRAFFIC.

RIGHT. SO WE MIGHT HAVE A SMALL BIRTHDAY PARTY FOR YOUNG PEOPLE, FOR EXAMPLE, BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT HUNDREDS AND MAYBE A THOUSAND PEOPLE COMING FOR A BIG CONCERT.

I COULD SEE POSSIBLY IN THE HUNDRED HUNDREDS RANGE, BUT NOT THOUSANDS, WHICH IS WHAT THE TGIF CONCERTS DRAW.

5000 PLUS.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YES. I THINK IF YOU ADD ON TO THE COMMENT THAT YOU JUST MADE, MR. CHAIR, IS THAT OBVIOUSLY.

ONLY 39 ACRES IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED.

55 ACRES IS BASICALLY GOING TO BE ACRES THAT ARE PRESERVED AND OPEN SPACE.

THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS PARK DIFFERENT THAN ALL THE OTHER PARKS THAT WE HAVE.

AND I THINK WHEN YOU GET TO THE VMT ASPECT OF IT AND LOOKING THROUGH THE STAFF REPORT, BECAUSE SUCH A LARGE PORTION OF IT IS OPEN SPACE, IT DOESN'T DEMAND AND OR CREATE MORE USAGE THAN THOSE AREAS OF THE PARK.

SO THEREFORE, ALTHOUGH IT'S THE LARGEST PARK.

THE DEVELOPED PORTION IS VERY SMALL.

[01:45:03]

WE WILL OPEN UP THE HEARING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.

MADAM CLERK, DO WE HAVE SOME SPEAKER SLIPS? MR. CHAIR. YES, WE HAVE FOUR SPEAKERS.

OK WOULD YOU CALL THE FIRST ONE IN THE ORDER THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU, PLEASE? YES. SCOTT HANSON, WOULD YOU COME TO THE MIC, PLEASE? I'M SORRY. WAS THAT. HANSEN? YES. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY.

I APPRECIATE IT. I'M A CITY OF CARLSBAD RESIDENT AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT ONE.

I SPEAKING TO YOU THIS EVENING TO TELL YOU THAT I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK PLAN.

I'VE PARTICIPATED IN THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, THE WORKSHOPS.

I COMMEND THE EFFORT THE CITY STAFF HAS PUT IN TO DEVELOPING THE PLAN AND GETTING IT TO THIS POINT.

IT'S BEEN VERY INCLUSIVE OF COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY.

I'M A MEMBER AND TRAVEL ADVOCATE FOR THE SAN DIEGO MOUNTAIN BIKING ASSOCIATION.

THIS ASSOCIATION HAS 2000 MEMBERS COUNTYWIDE AND 300.

300 OF THOSE ARE CITY OF CARLSBAD RESIDENTS THAT ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT MOUNTAIN BIKING, OUTDOOR RECREATION AND ENJOYING THE RESOURCES WE HAVE.

THE SAN DIEGO MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK AND THE PLAN THAT'S BEEN PUT IN PLACE.

AND ANOTHER POINT THAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW, MANY PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE THIS, BUT WE HAVE YOUTH MOUNTAIN BIKE TEAM HERE IN THE COMMUNITY.

IT'S CALLED IT'S THROUGH THE NATIONAL INTERSCHOLASTIC CYCLING ASSOCIATION KNOWN AS NICA.

A LOT EASIER TO SAY.

AND IN THIS IN CARLSBAD, THERE'S ABOUT 170 YOUTH MOUNTAIN BIKE TEAM MEMBERS IN BOTH JUNIOR HIGH AND HIGH SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.

SO THAT'S ALSO ANOTHER GROUP.

I WAS SPEAKING WITH ONE OF THE COACHES THIS EVENING THAT VERY MUCH LOOKS FORWARD TO THIS PARK IN OUR COMMUNITY.

FROM THE MEETINGS, I FEEL IT'LL BE AN EXCELLENT FIT FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT MEMORIALIZES OUR VETERANS BUT ALSO BRINGS FAMILIES OUT TO THAT SITE.

I VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO RIDING MY BIKE, NOT DRIVING MY CAR TO THIS PARK.

AND AGAIN, I COMMEND THE CITY FOR THAT THAT THEY PUT FORTH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. HANSEN. NEXT SPEAKER, DEANN WEIMER.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS DEANN WEIMER.

I AM HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF CITIZENS FOR NORTH COUNTY, WHICH HAS FOR MANY YEARS BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSAL AS IT IS PRESENTED TO YOU TONIGHT ABOUT VETERANS PARK, IN PART BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN WAITING FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND IN ONE CASE DECADES FOR THE COMPLETION OF TWO VERY DESIRED PARKS, THE AGUA HEDIONDA SOUTH SHORE TRAILS KNOWN AS HUB PARK, SO IMPORTANT TO REALIZING THE WALKABILITY AND CIRCULATORY AIMS OF THE TRAIL SYSTEM AS WELL AS PONTO PARK, WHICH, AS ITS SUPPORTERS HAVE ESTABLISHED IF NOT CREATED, PUTS ONE SECTION OF OUR COMMUNITY IN A PARKLAND DEFICIT.

IT IS CONCERNING THAT VETERANS PARK IS SO CHALLENGED BY THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE ITSELF, THOUGH CERTAINLY WORTH PRESERVING.

IT POSES ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES FOR A GOOD PORTION OF OUR COMMUNITY WHO WILL BE UNABLE TO EXPERIENCE THE BEST FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED PARK, PARTICULARLY THE VIEW IN THAT RESPECT. AND FURTHER, WE OBJECT TO APPLYING THIS PARK TO ALL FOUR QUADRANTS OF THE CITY.

AS NOTED IN YOUR REPORT TONIGHT, CITIZENS HAVE EXPRESSED A NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS TO THE TYPE OF MODELING THAT HAS BEEN USED TO JUSTIFY SOME ASPECTS OF THIS PROPOSAL. AT ONE POINT IN THE REPORT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, IT SAYS TRAVEL DEMAND MODELS, SKETCH MODELS, SPREADSHEET MODELS, RESEARCH AND BIG DATA CAN ALL BE USED TO CALCULATE AND ESTIMATE VMT AND OTHER ISSUES IMPACTING THE PARK.

AND THAT'S TRUE.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THIS IS BASICALLY THE WE CAN USE ANY MODEL WE WANT ARGUMENT, BUT SOMETHING THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY HAS BEING IGNORED HERE AND IS REFLECTED IN SOME OF THE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP ABOUT DIFFERENT NUMBERS AT RELATING TO THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THAT THESE DEMAND OR THE SKETCH OR THE SPREADSHEET OR THE BIG DATA MODELS ARE SELECTED FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF ANALYSIS.

THIS IS NOT A SMORGASBORD WHERE EACH MODEL PRODUCES EQUALLY SIGNIFICANT OR RELEVANT RESULTS TO CREDIBLY EMPLOY THESE MODELS TO PERSUADE ANYONE TO ANYTHING. THERE MUST BE A DISCUSSION OF EFFICIENCY AND OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE MODELS, BUT THAT IS MISSING IN THE REPORT BEFORE YOU.

IF THE STANDARDS ARE FLUID, THEN IT IS THIS JOB OF THIS PLANNING TO COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH A LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE FOR THE MODELING THAT HAS BEEN EMPLOYED BY STAFF.

TRANSPARENCY REQUIRES THIS CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMMUNITY AND EVERYONE IN IT REQUIRES THIS.

A QUICK ILLUSTRATION OF WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT.

I BET MANY OF YOU HAVE IN YOUR HOMES A REGULAR DRILL, AN IMPACT DRILL AND A HAMMER DRILL.

AND YOU'VE PROBABLY USED THEM ON DIFFERENT PROJECTS.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CHOOSE THE WRONG ONE FOR THE WRONG APPLICATION, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY END UP WITH THE RESULTS THAT ARE DESIRED.

[01:50:08]

BUT ARE WE TREATED TO EXPLANATIONS OF FACT IN HERE TONIGHT THAT WOULD GIVE ONE CONFIDENCE IN THE VALIDITY OF THE STANDARDS APPLIED OR THE CONSISTENCY OF THE APPLICATION HERE? NO, WE ARE GETTING ASSERTIONS, BUT WE ARE NOT GETTING THE TYPE OF FACTS AND DATA THAT REFUTES THE CRITICISM SUPPORTED BY VERIFIABLE ANALYSIS THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY THE COMMUNITY.

THIS IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE THIS REPORT SKIRTS THE RESIDENTIAL CONCERNS.

AND WE ASK YOU THAT YOU TABLE THIS PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU. AND YOU KNOW, YOUR SPEAKER'S TIME ISN'T WORKING.

OKAY? THANK YOU, MA'AM.

THE NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE.

YOUR NAME, PLEASE, MA'AM. HI COUNCIL, NOT COUNCIL.

SORRY, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS PAIGE CICINO.

I'M A LONGTIME CARLSBAD RESIDENT AND HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE SIERRA CLUB.

MY MESSAGE TONIGHT IS THAT THE SIERRA CLUB BELIEVES THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FROM VEHICLE MILES TRAVEL OR VMT, RESULTING IN MORE GREENHOUSE SORRY, MORE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OR GHGS THAT HAVEN'T YET BEEN MITIGATED IN THIS PROPOSAL.

THEREFORE, WE REQUEST THAT YOU TABLE THE CERTIFICATION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT UNTIL IT CAN BE MORE THOROUGHLY EVALUATED.

IN RELATION TO THIS ISSUE.

WE HAVE SB 743 WHOSE INTENT IS TO HELP LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REDUCE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR GHGS, ENCOURAGE INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH THROUGH SUPPORTING MORE ACTIVE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES.

BECAUSE HALF OF CARLSBAD'S GHG EMISSIONS ARE FROM TRANSPORTATION.

IT IS CRITICAL TO ADDRESS THE VMTS CORRECTLY TO HELP US REACH OUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN TARGETS FOR REDUCING GHGS.

THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ADOPTED A STANDARD METHODOLOGY TO IMPLEMENT THIS LAW LAST SUMMER.

HOWEVER, THE METHODOLOGY USED FOR THIS PROJECT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THAT SORRY THAT STANDARD PROCESS AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED. UNREASONABLE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSUMPTIONS WERE USED IN THE VMT ANALYSIS, INCLUDING THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE NEW PARK WILL NOT ATTRACT MORE VISITORS. THE RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY THE SIERRA CLUB AND OTHERS IN THE DRAFT, M AND D ARE INCOMPLETE, MISLEADING AND FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE VERY REAL CONCERNS WITH GHGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECTS.

THIS IS ONE OF SEVERAL PROJECTS THAT HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S OWN VMT ANALYSIS AND OR MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SB 743.

PLEASE ASK STAFF FOR MORE IN-DEPTH EVALUATION OF THE ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR THIS PROJECT.

AS A LITTLE ASIDE, AFTER LISTENING TO THE PRESENTATION, I ASK THAT IF YOU DO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS, THAT YOU ASK STAFF TO ACTUALLY ANALYZE VMT ON AN ONGOING BASIS AND MITIGATE THOSE IF THEY TURN OUT TO BE HIGHER THAN THE CURRENT ASSUMPTION IS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

NEXT SPEAKER, DIANE NYGAARD.

GOOD EVENING. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS DIANE NYGAARD REPRESENTING PRESERVE TALAVERA.

VMT IS WHAT'S NOW USED TO ADDRESS GREENHOUSE GASES THAT COME FROM CARS, AND THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALMOST HALF OF THOSE EMISSIONS IN THE CITY.

THERE ARE LOTS OF DETAILED CRITICISMS OF THE VMT ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE FOR THIS PROJECT, AND WE HOPE YOU'VE READ EVERY ONE OF THEM.

FOR YOU TO APPROVE THE MMD, YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE ALL WRONG AND THAT THE CONCLUSIONS BY THE CITIES CONSULTANT HIRED TO EVALUATE THEIR OWN PROJECT ARE 100% RIGHT. YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT THIS VMT ANALYSIS USING UNIQUE METHODOLOGIES THAT HAS NEVER BEEN USED BEFORE IS CORRECT.

THAT BUILDING THIS HUGE NEW PARK WILL RESULT IN LESS VMT THAN IF THEY DON'T BUILD IT.

THAT WORLD WAR TWO VETS, LIKE MY FATHER AND OTHERS, WON'T TRAVEL MILES TO COME TO A SPECIAL VETERANS MEMORIAL THAT THE KIDS THAT WE HEARD ABOUT EARLIER FROM THIS WHOLE REGION WON'T DRIVE MILES TO COME TO THIS NEW FACILITY.

YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT MOST OF THE TRIPS TO THIS NEW PARK WILL BE MADE BY EXISTING PARK USERS AND CARLSBAD COMING TO THIS PARK INSTEAD OF ONE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT THE DISTANCE THEY WILL TRAVEL TO THIS NEW PARK WILL BE LESS THAN THEY WOULD TRAVEL IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD, WHEN THEY COULD EASILY BIKE OR WALK, TOO.

[01:55:01]

AND YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT SIMPLY ADDING A BENCH TO A BUS STOP ALONG CANON ROAD WITH VERY INFREQUENT BUS SERVICE IS GOING TO RESULT IN LOTS MORE PEOPLE TAKING THE BUS TO THIS PARK. AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ALL OF THAT, YOU CANNOT APPROVE THAT M&D TONIGHT.

WE ALSO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT THIS HUGE PARK IS.

IS IT REALLY WHAT THIS COMMUNITY WANTS? IT WAS A CONVENIENT ANSWER TO FUTURE PARK NEEDS IN 1986 WHEN IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN.

THE ONLY PARK PLAN TO SERVE FOUR QUADRANTS THIS PARK, NOT A COASTAL ACCESS PARK FOR THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE CITY.

EVERY QUADRANT GETS THIS PARK, NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK THEY CAN EASILY WALK OR BIKE TO.

THIS PARK WAS A SOLUTION TO ACHIEVING A MAGIC NUMBER OF PARK ACRES IN 1986.

BUT IS IT THE BEST CHOICE TODAY? PLEASE PUSH THE PAUSE BUTTON.

LET THE NEW CITIZENS COMMITTEE WORKING ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT TO DO THEIR JOB AND REEVALUATE PARK AND OPEN SPACE STANDARDS.

PUSH THE PAUSE BUTTON AND MAKE SURE YOU'RE PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE AND NOT THE PAST.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY MORE SPEAKERS? MR. CHAIR THERE IS NOT.

THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT PORTION OF THE HEARING AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

CNN. THE STAFF WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE CRITICISMS THAT WE'VE HEARD? WE HAD FOUR SPEAKERS.

THREE BASICALLY SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULD NOT APPROVE IT TONIGHT, THAT WE SHOULD PAUSE FOR FURTHER STUDY WITH STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT CRITICISM.

WE'VE REVIEWED ALL THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS.

WE'VE WE'VE RESPONDED TO THEM.

WE REVIEWED IT AGAINST THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH STANDARDS, AS WELL AS THE CITY'S ADOPTED VMT STANDARDS.

WE BELIEVE THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD SUPPORTING OUR USE OF THE BIG DATA MODEL AND OUR STUDY, AND WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO DELAY THAT YOU CAN APPROVE THE PERMIT AND APPROVE THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.

TONIGHT, ONE OF OUR SPEAKERS INDICATED THAT THE METHOD USED FOR VMT WAS UNIQUE.

DO YOU SEE ANYTHING UNIQUE OR SPECIAL ABOUT THE METHOD USED? I'D LIKE TO ASK OUR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT TO COME UP AND ANSWER THAT.

PLEASE, MA'AM. YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? SURE. HELLO. MY NAME IS KATIE COLE.

I'M WITH FERRON PIERCE TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS.

WE PREPARED THE VMT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROJECT WE USED.

WE BASICALLY EVALUATED PARKS IN OUR REGION THAT HAVE SIMILAR USES TO THIS PARK TO UNDERSTAND THE TRAVEL BEHAVIOR ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE EXISTING PARKS THAT ARE SIMILAR.

WE DID THAT BY USING BIG DATA, WHICH IS ANONYMOUS CELL PHONE DATA, TO HELP US UNDERSTAND WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO AND COMING FROM THAT ARE USING THESE PARKS THAT ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE TO THIS PARK.

THIS IS NOT A UNIQUE THING FOR TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS.

BIG DATA IS A TOOL THAT HAS BEEN AVAILABLE TO US FOR AT LEAST THE LAST DECADE, BUT HAS GOTTEN MUCH BETTER OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

WE HAVE ACCESS TO LOTS OF INFORMATION ABOUT HOW PEOPLE TRAVEL, WHERE THEY TRAVEL, AND WHY THEY TRAVEL THROUGH THIS DATA.

AND WE COMMONLY USE IT AS PART OF TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS.

WE USE IT AS AS PART OF VMT ANALYSIS.

IT'S REALLY THE BEST TOOL AVAILABLE TO US TO UNDERSTAND EXISTING VMT, BECAUSE MODELS ARE JUST THAT.

IT'S A SIMULATION OF DATA BASED ON A SMALL RECORD, SMALL SAMPLE OF INFORMATION, WHEREAS BIG DATA GIVES US A KEY AND INSIGHT INTO WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY DOING AND WHERE THEY'RE GOING AND HOW FAR THEY'RE TRAVELING.

WE KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING FROM POINT A TO POINT B, FOR EXAMPLE, HOW FAR THAT IS, WE CAN ASSUME THEIR MOTIVATION FOR IT.

AND SO IT'S JUST VERY GOOD INFORMATION.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WHEN I'M LISTENING TO FOLKS COME UP HERE AND I'M EVALUATING A PROJECT AND REFLECTING THE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT THAT ALL OF US EXERCISE UP HERE, I LIKE TO LOOK AT THE FINDINGS AND THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROJECT, AND I ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE TESTIMONY.

AND IF THERE IS ANY SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS THAT WOULD INFLUENCE MY DECISION OR THAT I WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE INFORMATION, I HAVE

[02:00:05]

EXPERT WITH RESPECT TO VMT.

I DO AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS THAT STAFF HAS WITH RESPECT TO THE FINAL EXAM AND D DOES CONSTITUTE AN ADEQUATE, ACCURATE, OBJECTIVE AND COMPLETE DOCUMENT AND COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LEGAL, LEGAL STANDARDS.

AND I THINK THAT THE EVALUATION THAT THEY SET FORTH IN THIS PROJECT, I HAVE NOT HEARD ANY TESTIMONY THAT WOULD SWAY ME ONE OTHER WAY.

SO I WOULD TOTALLY SUPPORT YOUR ANALYSIS.

THE MND IN ADDITION, THIS IS A BIG WIN FOR THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN.

WE RARELY ACQUIRE THAT MUCH ACREAGE IN ONE FELL SWOOP, AND I THINK THAT'S GOTTEN LOST IN THE DISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION HERE TODAY AS WELL AS THIS IS A VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK MASTER PLAN FOR OUR VETERANS.

AND BASED ON THE WORKSHOP THAT I ATTENDED AND I THINK THE FIRST SPEAKER TESTIFIED TO, I THINK THE PARKS DEPARTMENT DID, IN FACT, CONSIDER THE COMMUNITY AND FOLKS FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY.

SO WITH RESPECT TO THE QUADRANT ISSUE, THERE WERE PEOPLE FROM MANY QUADRANTS THERE PRESENT.

AND I WILL TELL YOU, THEY DID NOT LIKE A LOT OF MY IDEAS.

SO THIS IS THIS WAS NOT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WAS RESPECTFUL, BUT I THINK THEY WERE VERY RECEPTIVE TO ALL OF THOSE THAT ATTENDED THERE.

SO I CAN SEE THE REGIONAL NATURE OR THE QUADRANT NATURE OF THIS PARK AND THE EVALUATION, THEREFORE, SO I CAN SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS? IF MR. CAMERON ARE TRYING TO WIN.

OKAY. THERE WE GO. YOU'RE ON.

THANK YOU. I'M DELIGHTED TO LIVE IN A COMMUNITY WHERE MY FELLOW CITIZENS COME OUT AND EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS.

I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.

EACH OF THE SPEAKERS TONIGHT, I THOUGHT WERE ARTICULATE.

SOPHISTICATED AND OBVIOUSLY LOVE CARLSBAD LIKE EACH OF US DO.

I'VE BEEN A BIG PROPONENT OF THIS PARK.

WHEN I FIRST HEARD ABOUT IT YEARS AGO, I THINK STAFF HAS DONE A VERY GOOD JOB.

I GUESS MY AND I WILL SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT DONE AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.

I HATE TO SEE DELAY, ALTHOUGH I REALIZE YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THESE PROCEDURES.

I FULLY SUPPORT THIS.

COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

SURE. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS? LET ME GIVE YOU MY THOUGHTS THEN.

I SUPPORT THIS PROJECT AS WELL.

HAVING SAID THAT, I WANT TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE CONCERNS OF THE THREE SPEAKERS THAT WE HEARD, AND I'M SURE THEY'RE NOT ALONE IN THESE SENTIMENTS.

WHAT I DID NOT HEAR THEM SAY IS TO DEFEAT THE PROJECT THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE A PARK.

WHAT I HEARD THEM SAY IS THAT WE SHOULD POSTPONE OR DELAY OUR DECISION.

SO I THINK INITIAL DECISION WE NEED TO MAKE IS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO DO THAT.

STAFF OPPOSES A DELAY.

I WAS IMPRESSED BY THE EXPERT, MS..

COLE, WHO CAME UP HERE AND SAYS, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING UNIQUE.

WE'RE MAKING AN ANALYSIS BASED UPON OTHER PARKS IN THE REGION.

THAT IMPRESSES ME.

IT'S NOT JUST A HYPOTHETICAL MODEL.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE DATA BASED UPON OTHER PARKS.

SO WHEN I LOOK AT THE ARGUMENTS FROM SOME OF OUR CITIZENS HERE THAT SAYS DELAY, I HAVE TO WEIGH THAT.

WHAT I'M HEARING FROM STAFF AND FROM THE EXPERT AND I COME OFF ON ON BEHALF OF THE STAFF IN THE EXPERT, I DON'T SEE A REASON TO DELAY THIS.

ANOTHER REASON.

SO I'M NOT I DON'T THINK THERE'S EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT SUGGESTS THAT THE ANALYSIS IS FAULTY AT ALL.

I THINK THE THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY IS SUBSTANTIAL, THAT IT IS ACCURATE.

ANOTHER FACTOR, IN MY JUDGMENT, IS THE VERY NATURE OF THIS PARK.

YES, IT'S A VERY LARGE PARK.

AND IT'S GOING TO BE OUR LARGEST PARK.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT TYPE OF ACTIVITIES THIS PARK HAS, IT PRESERVES A LOT OF OPEN SPACE.

THERE'S NOT A BIG BALL FIELD THERE OR A CONCERT VENUE OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD INHERENTLY ATTRACT LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE.

IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PARK.

IN FACT, A LOT OF IT FOR INDIVIDUAL RECREATION, SUCH AS HIKING AND MOUNTAIN BIKING.

[02:05:04]

SO I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SMALLER GROUPS FOR THE MOST PART.

SO I DON'T SEE THIS AS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO CLOG UP THE STREETS OR CREATE PARKING PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS PARTICULAR PARK AND THE OPEN SPACE THAT WE HAVE AND THE NATURE OF THE RECREATION THAT THIS IS DESIGNED FOR.

SO I THINK GIVEN THAT I AM NOT TROUBLED BY THE ISSUES OF MOBILITY, TRAFFIC AND PARKING, I THINK THIS PROJECT PROVIDES ADEQUATELY FOR THAT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE PARK THAT IT IS.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANK YOU.

I, TOO, APPRECIATE ALL THE SPEAKERS AND THEIR COMMENTS.

I DO. I DID ACTUALLY QUESTION WHEN IT SAID IN THE REPORT THAT THE SANDAG MODEL WASN'T USED.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS, AS COMMISSIONER STINE MENTIONED, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING UNIQUE HERE, WHICH I TEND TO SEE AS A CONCERN.

I THINK POST-PANDEMIC WE SHOULD BE HAVING NATURAL VENTILATION AND NATURAL LIGHT IN OUR BUILDINGS THAT WE'RE CREATING.

THIS PARTICULAR HISTORY OF THE PROJECT IN 1930, THE CALIFORNIA PARKS DEPARTMENT HAD A SURVEY DONE BY THE OLMSTED BROTHERS AND OF FAME OF FREDERICK LAW OLMSTED, THE LANDSCAPE DESIGNER OF CENTRAL PARK.

THEY IDENTIFIED THIS PARTICULAR AREA FROM THE BEACH ALL THE WAY TO VETERANS PARK.

SO THIS AREA HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT, VALUABLE LANDSCAPE RESOURCE BECAUSE OF THE WATERSHED INTO AGUA HEDIONDA.

SO I'M GRATEFUL THAT THE PLAN DOESN'T DISTURB ALL OF THIS PARK.

I'M GLAD THAT THERE'S NATURAL HABITAT STILL REMAINING IN THIS.

BUT I DO FEEL THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THIS BE OUR FLAGSHIP PARK, IF IT'S GOING TO BE THE, YOU KNOW, THE UNIQUE PLACE THAT DOES PRESERVE THIS HISTORY AS WELL AS THIS GREATER REGIONAL AREA,

[PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS:]

WE WANT TO ACTUALLY STRIVE TO GO BEYOND THE MINIMUMS. AND SO HOPEFULLY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW WITH THE CODE CHANGE NEXT YEAR WILL HOPEFULLY BRING US UP TO AT LEAST TRYING TO CREATE A NET CARBON NEUTRAL NET ZERO PARK.

THAT'D BE GREAT. FURTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

I WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK REASONABLE MINDS CAN DISAGREE WITH THE VMT ANALYSIS.

I KNOW MANY HAVE AND THEY'VE WRITTEN TO US ABOUT IT AND THE STAFF HAS RESPONDED TO LOTS AND LOTS OF COMMENTS AND I'VE READ EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM AND EVERY SINGLE RESPONSE, AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE ATTENTION TO DETAIL THAT PEOPLE HAVE AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING THROUGH ON SB 743.

I WANT TO NOTE THAT THE ANALYSIS THAT WE ARE RELYING ON IT DOES ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY CALL CURIOUS PARK USERS.

AND I WAS HOPING SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE TO LIKE, LET'S SAY THIS FOR ME IN MORE DETAIL SO I WOULDN'T HAVE TO BECAUSE I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON IT.

BUT I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT IT DOES SAY IT DOES IT DOES MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN CURIOUS PARK USERS AND THE REGULAR PARK USERS AND BIKE USERS. AND IT DOES ESTIMATE, I THINK RELIABLY SO THE NUMBER OF VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED FROM THESE SO CALLED CURIOUS PARK USERS. SO I BELIEVE IN THE RELIABILITY OF THIS VMT ANALYSIS PRODUCED BY OUR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS AND I AM PREPARED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE MITIGATED DECLARATION.

IS THAT WHAT'S MND, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION? SORRY. I WILL ALSO SAY I REALLY APPRECIATED MS. NYGAARD'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF HOW THIS PARKS HOW THE IDEA FOR THIS PARK CAME IN TO BE.

I ACTUALLY DIDN'T KNOW THAT UNTIL YOU SAID THAT.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT HISTORY LESSON.

I WILL SAY THAT IT'S NOT OUR PLACE TO QUESTION POLICY OR WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARK SHOULD EXIST OR EVEN BE

[CITY PLANNER REPORT:]

ALLOCATED, AS IT WERE, TO ALL THE FOUR QUADRANTS.

I HAD AN EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION WITH ATTORNEY KEMP ABOUT THIS, AND ALL ALL WERE SUPPOSED TO DO AS A PLANNING COMMISSION

[02:10:06]

WE TREAT THIS APPLICATION.

THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL APPLICATION THE SAME WAY AS IF THIS WERE OWNED BY SOME SOME PRIVATE DEVELOPER, AND THEY WANTED TO BUILD A PARK THERE OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF THEIR HEART. SO IT'S NOT DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT COMES FROM THE CITY.

YOU KNOW, PERHAPS IT IS DIFFERENT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT IT'S NOT DIFFERENT FOR US.

AND I ALSO DO WANT TO SAY I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF OUR CITY THERE IS A PARK DEFICIT.

I SUPPORT HAVING A PARK AT PONTO.

THIS PARK DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING IN MY MIND ABOUT THE NEED FOR A PARK AT PONTO, AND I HOPE THAT ONE DAY WE WILL HAVE A PARK AT PONTO.

SO. THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YES. I WANT TO THANK THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAD THIS EVENING.

I THINK, AGAIN, MRS. NYGAARD AND AND THE OTHER SPEAKERS HAD WONDERFUL INFORMATION AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO HEAR.

THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT.

YET AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK OUR CONSULTANT CLARIFIED MANY ISSUES THAT SOME OF US ON THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS SOME OF THE PUBLIC WAS CONCERNED ABOUT REGARDING VMT.

I KNOW I MADE A COMMENT TO EARLIER ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE PARK AND THE OPEN SPACE PORTION, HABITAT MITIGATION ISSUES AND, YOU KNOW, HMT ISSUES THAT ARE COMING UP.

I THINK THIS PARK HAS BEEN IN DESIGN AND CONCEPT, CONCEPTUAL CONCEPT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.

AND I THINK WE ARE NOW COMING TO THE JUNCTURE THAT I THINK STAFF AS WELL AS THE CONSULTANTS AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD.

THANK YOU, MR. LANCASTER, FOR CLARIFYING THAT FOR ME AS WELL.

[CITY ATTORNEY REPORT:]

SO THEREFORE, I SUPPORT THE CONCEPT AND I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD IN THAT REGARD.

SO I DO SUPPORT THE PROJECT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. AND HEARING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, I JUST WANTED TO SAY FURTHER THAT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IN THE PIPELINE FOR OVER THREE YEARS.

I LOOKED AT THE STAFF REPORT, IT TALKED ABOUT THE FIRST WORKSHOP WAS WAY BACK IN MARCH OF 2019.

SO I WANT TO THANK AND ACKNOWLEDGE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO GAVE THEIR TIME AND INPUT TO THIS PROJECT.

IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME IN COMING.

MANY INTERACTIONS, MANY WORKSHOPS, CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC INPUT.

THANK YOU ALL AND THANK YOU ALL TONIGHT WHO HAVE COME IN HERE TO PROVIDE YOUR INPUT.

SO THIS IS A LONG PROCESS.

I FURTHER WANT TO NOTE THAT I DID LOOK AT THE PART OF THE TAPE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING WHERE THEY APPROVED THIS PARK.

THEY HAD BASICALLY THE SAME DESIGN THAT WE SEE HERE TONIGHT.

AND I CAN REPORT THAT COUNCIL WAS VERY ENTHUSIASTIC FIVE ZERO IN APPROVING THIS IN CONCEPT.

NOW WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL HERE TONIGHT.

SO OUR ROLE IS MORE.

AGAIN, COUNCIL WAS ENTHUSIASTIC IN THE SUPPORT.

I PERSONALLY THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT PART FOR THE CITY AND TO THE CITY, BUT I THINK OUR ROLE IS MORE LIMITED HERE TONIGHT AND LOOKING AT THE VARIOUS DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, THE CUP AND THE HILLSIDE PERMIT AND HABITAT, ALL THOSE, THAT'S WITHIN OUR PURVIEW.

BUT LIKE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, I JUST DON'T SEE A REASON TO DELAY IT FURTHER.

IT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS AND WE APPRECIATE ALL THE STAFF INPUT, APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC INPUT, BUT I'M READY TO PROCEED AND VOTE TO APPROVE. BEFORE YOU MAKE A MOTION AND BEFORE YOU VOTE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR WHAT YOUR LEGAL STANDARD IS TONIGHT.

PLEASE, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO KIND OF STOLE THE WORDS OUT OF MY MOUTH, BUT I DO WANT TO REEMPHASIZE THAT THE JOB OF THE COMMISSION IS TO LOOK AT THE PROJECT THAT'S HERE BEFORE THEM AND VOTE ON THIS PROJECT ITSELF.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT THE PARKS AND REC COMMISSION.

IT'S NOT THE CITY COUNCIL.

IT'S NOT UP TO YOU TO DECIDE TO STOP THIS PARK BECAUSE YOU THINK ANOTHER PARK SHOULD BE BUILT.

YOU'RE HERE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS ONE.

IN REGARDS TO CEQA.

TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE A MITIGATED NEG DECK.

THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED THE FAIR ARGUMENT STANDARD.

AND SO IF AN OPPONENT TO THE PROJECT HAS COME BEFORE YOU AND MADE A FAIR ARGUMENT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL

[02:15:07]

EVEN IF THERE'S EVIDENCE OUT THERE TO THE CONTRARY.

THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD THOUGH.

WOULD REQUIRE.

FACTS. REASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS PREDICATED BASED ON THE FACTS OR AN EXPERT OPINION SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS.

SO YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU TONIGHT AND JUDGE IT BY THAT STANDARD, WHETHER YOU HAD AN EXPERT OPINION THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU, WHETHER WHAT THEY TESTIMONY WAS WAS SUPPORTED BY FACTS THAT WERE IN THE RECORD.

THE CODE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT.

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE SOMEBODY'S NEED TO GET THAT.

OKAY. ALMOST. ALMOST DONE.

SORRY, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

GO AHEAD. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS IN THE RECORD THAT YOU CONSIDER THESE THINGS.

SO THE FAIR ARGUMENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT INCLUDE ARGUMENT, SPECULATION, UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION OR NARRATIVE OR EVIDENCE, WHICH IS CLEARLY INACCURATE OR ERRONEOUS OR EVIDENCE OF A SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS WHICH DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO OR NOT CAUSED BY PHYSICAL IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

SO THAT'S STRAIGHT OUT OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE, SETTING THE STANDARD FOR HOW YOU SHOULD BE EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THAT, ATTORNEY KEMP.

SO THE VMT ANALYSIS WAS USING.

MR. LARDY, YOU SAID THAT THE.

A CERTAIN STATE DEPARTMENT SORT OF THAT YOU BORROWED A CERTAIN.

THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING RESEARCH SET OUT VMT GUIDELINES STATEWIDE.

EACH JURISDICTION'S RESPONSIBLE FOR ADOPTING THOSE.

SO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD HAS ADOPTED ITS OWN SPECIFIC ONES.

BUT THIS IS ALLOWED UNDER BOTH SETS OF GUIDELINES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU KNEW EXACTLY WHAT I WAS ASKING YOU WITHOUT ME HAVING TO ASK IT.

THANK YOU. SO THE FAIR ARGUMENT STANDARD.

IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE MODELS OUT THERE, AND WE USE THE ONE THAT WE THINK IS THE BEST ONE AND YOU KNOW, ANOTHER MODEL SAYS SOMETHING ELSE, BUT WE THINK THAT THERE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL OPINION TO SAY THAT WE HAVE TO USE THE OTHER ONE.

THAT WOULD NOT BE A FAIR ARGUMENT.

THAT'S FOR YOU TO DECIDE AS THE DECISION MAKER.

WHAT, AGAIN, I CAN TELL YOU IS WHAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS.

IT'S FACTS.

REASONABLE ASSUMPTION THAT'S PREDICATED ON FACTS OR EXPERT OPINION THAT'S SUPPORTED BY FACTS.

WHAT IT ISN'T IS ARGUMENT, SPECULATION, UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION OR NARRATIVE OR CLEARLY INACCURATE OR ERRONEOUS INFORMATION. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE TESTIMONY YOU HEARD IS SUBSTANTIATED BY FACTS.

BUT THE MERE EXISTENCE OF THE TWO BOTTLES CERTAINLY DOESN'T MEET THE THE FAIR ARGUMENT STANDARD.

YOU WON'T YOU WON'T SAY I WON'T ANSWER THAT.

YOU PUNTED IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION ON THAT COUNCIL.

OKAY. OKAY. I GOT IT.

THANK YOU. OK.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? I JUST WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE COUNSEL'S INPUT ON THAT AND CLARIFICATION ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

I THINK I'M AWARE OF THAT STANDARD PER SE.

THAT DOES NOT CHANGE MY OPINION.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS THAT FAIR ARGUMENT BASED UPON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BASED UPON FACTS.

I DON'T THINK I'VE HEARD THAT TONIGHT.

SO SO I WOULD BE PREPARED TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT AND NOT DELAY IT.

IF YOU'RE CHECKING A RECOMMENDATION.

YES, A PROMOTION.

I MOVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CUP, HTP AND HNP AS STIPULATED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

IS THERE A SECOND? MR. MEENES WILL SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER LUNA.

A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MEENES.

PLEASE VOTE. THE PROJECT IS APPROVED.

SEVEN-ZERO. THANK YOU ALL.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND PROCEED.

[02:20:01]

AND SO DO WE HAVE ANY PLANNING COMMISSION OR REPORTS? COMMISSIONER LUNA. WELL, I'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE MR. NEU AND THAT THIS IS HIS LAST ABSENT THE WORKSHOP, THIS IS HIS LAST PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION THAT HE HAS GRACING US WITH HIS PRESENCE.

SO I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.

SO YOU CAN WAVE TO EVERYBODY, DON.

AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN. ANYTHING FROM YOU? NO, THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER MEENES. NO.

COMMISSIONER SABELLICO? NO. COMMISSIONER.

NO. COMMISSIONER. LAFFERTY.

ALWAYS. THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION HAD THEIR THIRD GRADE ART RECOGNITION AT THE COUNCIL MEETING LAST WEEK. IT WAS VERY ADORABLE.

11 STUDENTS RECEIVED RECOGNITION AND THE ARTWORK WILL BE IN THE COLE LIBRARY ALL SUMMER, SO YOU CAN CHECK OUT THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT THEY REPRESENTED IN THEIR ARTWORK.

THE NEXT HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEETING WILL BE JULY 11TH AND THE WORKSHOP FOR THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, WHICH I HOPE MR. NEU WILL ELABORATE ON A LITTLE MORE, IS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 29.

ALL ARE WELCOME TO ATTEND.

IT'S AN OPEN MEETING AND IT'S AT THE SENIOR CENTER.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

GREAT. THANKS.

AND I JUST WANT TO ECHO SENTIMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER LUNA WITH REGARD TO CITY PLANNER NEU, IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE DEALING WITH YOU, DON. I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF KNOWING YOU NOW FOR ABOUT THREE AND A HALF YEARS.

YOU MADE ME WELCOME FROM THE GET GO.

YOU'VE BEEN EXTREMELY RESPONSIVE TO ALL OUR COMMISSION CONCERNS, WHETHER YOU AGREED WITH THEM OR NOT.

YOU'RE ALWAYS RESPECTFUL AND ALWAYS RESPONSIVE.

SO I THINK I CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE COMMISSION TO SAY YOU'RE GOING TO BE MISSED.

YOU'VE BEEN AN ASSET AND YOU'VE EARNED OUR RESPECT, AND WE CAN'T THANK YOU ENOUGH.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE WORKING WITH YOU ALL.

I WAS FIGURING IT OUT THE OTHER DAY.

I THINK I'VE BEEN THE STAFF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ABOUT 19 YEARS.

SO IT'S BEEN A LOT OF WEDNESDAY EVENINGS, SOME SOME LATE.

AND I'VE REALLY ENJOYED, YOU KNOW, GETTING TO KNOW A NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS OVER THE YEARS.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD A FEW THAT WERE NOT BIG SUPPORTERS OF THE CITY AND ITS PLANNING FUNCTIONS EARLY ON.

AND I THINK AS THEY LEARNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO AS A GROUP AND COLLECTIVELY WORKING WITH THE COMMISSION, THEY BECAME VERY GREAT COWORKERS, IN A SENSE.

SO I THANK YOU FOR FOR INDULGING US AND ALL THE THE EFFORT YOU PUT IN AND YOUR VOLUNTEER TIME AND THE TIME YOU TAKE TO READ THROUGH OUR VERY EXCITING STAFF REPORTS.

THANK YOU. OTHER THAN THAT, I DO NOT HAVE A CITY PLANNER REPORT THIS EVENING.

I THINK MR. LARDY CAN GIVE YOU SOME DETAILS IF YOU'D LIKE SOME MORE ON THE WORKSHOP FOR THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.

BUT I WOULD JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE THE YOUR WORKSHOP ON JULY 6TH, AND THAT WILL BE OVER AT THE FARADAY CENTER.

SO WE WILL SEND YOU AN EMAIL WITH MORE INFORMATION ON THAT, AS WELL AS FINAL AGENDA AND ANY MATERIALS THAT WE WOULD HAVE AHEAD OF TIME THAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT TODAY.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

YEAH. AGAIN, WANTED TO THANK MR. NEU FOR HIS EXPERTISE AND HIS ASSISTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ALL THESE YEARS.

I KNOW SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION, IT'S BEEN ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL WORKING WITH YOU.

ONE THING, AND THE REASON WHY I BROUGHT IT UP IS THAT I THINK ONE THING THAT I AS A COMMISSIONER TRULY APPRECIATED WAS THE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE THAT YOU'VE HAD WITH THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.

AND SO OFTEN WITH THE ADVICE AND OR COMMENTS AND OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE, PROVIDES AN AMAZING FOUNDATION OF INFORMATION.

AND THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY, VERY MUCH MISSED HERE FOR AT LEAST FROM THE COMMISSION STANDPOINT.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT STAFF, BUT FROM OUR STANDPOINT, EACH AND EVERY ANSWER HAS A LOT OF BACKGROUND, A LOT OF HISTORICAL INFORMATION THAT MAKES OUR DECISIONS EASIER. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE MISSED.

I'M GOING TO MISS YOU. THANK YOU.

MR. KEMP. I HAVE NO REPORT.

I GUESS I WOULD JUST SAY I THINK ROY HAS COMMISSIONER MEENES SAYS READ DONE ACCURATELY.

[02:25:02]

YES. I THINK WE ALL AGREE ON THAT.

I THINK WE'VE COMPLETED OUR AGENDA ITEM AND I'M NOT SEEING ANY MORE DESIRES TO SPEAK, SO WE ARE ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.