[CALL TO ORDER:]
[00:00:06]
>> CALLED THE MEETING TO AN ORDER.
WELCOME TO OUR JULY 6TH, 2022 MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE'LL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEASE REPEAT AFTER ME.
>> MICHELLE, WOULD YOU DO THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE?
>> HERE. RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE HERE TODAY.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANY MATTER NOT ON THE AGENDA.
MICHELLE, DID WE RECEIVE ANY SLIPS FOR OFF-AGENDA ITEMS.
>> THANK YOU. SEEING NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE, WE HAVE NONE AND WE WILL PROCEED.
WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS A LITTLE LESS FORMALLY OR MORE INFORMALLY THAN WE WOULD NORMALLY DO A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WHERE WE HAD PROJECT APPLICATIONS IN FRONT OF US.
THIS IS MORE OF AN EDUCATIONAL FORUM HERE TODAY.
I'VE ASKED STAFF, DON NEU AND RON KEMP TO SIT IN THE STAFF POSITION THERE SO EASY INTERACTION BETWEEN US.
I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO YOU, DON, TO GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE PRESENTATIONS,
[1. Development Projects (Action Type: Quasi – judicial)]
STARTING WITH THE OUTLINE ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
AS CHAIR STINE MENTIONED, THIS IS A WORKSHOP.
YOU MAY RECALL THE COMMISSION HAS PROVIDED A GREAT DEAL OF INPUT INTO THE AGENDA FOR THE WORKSHOP.
THE PRESENTATION TODAY WILL FOLLOW THAT OUTLINE.
THERE WILL BE MANY POINTS WITHIN IT THAT I WILL STOP, MR. KEMP AND I.
AS WELL, WE ALSO HAVE OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL, [INAUDIBLE] AND OUR ENGINEERING MANAGER, JASON GELDNER, HERE TO DO A PORTION OF THE PRESENTATION AS WELL.
WE INTEND TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ON SOME OF THE DIFFERENT AGENDA TOPICS AND THEN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO HAVE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS.
WE DON'T INTEND FOR THIS TO BE JUST A GIANT LECTURE SESSION.
IF YOU DO HAVE A QUESTION, IF YOU COULD WORK THROUGH THE CHAIR AND I WILL TRY TO DO THE SAME.
BUT I DID WANT TO MENTION TO YOU BEFORE WE GET GOING TOO FAR THAT ON THE SLIDES WE'VE GIVEN TO YOU, THERE IS A NUMBER AND A LETTER UP IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER, AND THIS IS TO CORRESPOND TO THE AGENDA.
IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW ALONG AND MAKE ANY NOTES, HOPEFULLY THAT'LL BE AT SOME ASSISTANCE FOR YOU.
OUR LONGEST PART OF THE AGENDA IN TERMS OF TODAY'S PRESENTATION IS REALLY THAT FIRST ITEM WHERE THE INTENTION WAS TO FOLLOW A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OR A QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEM THROUGH THE VARIOUS STEPS THAT IT NAVIGATES TO GET BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND THEN REALLY FOCUSING ON THE PARTS OF THE PROCESS WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS A DECISION POINT OR INTERACTS IN REGARD TO THE ITEM.
THE SECOND PART OF THE AGENDA, IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DISTINGUISH A LEGISLATIVE ACTION FROM THE QUASI-JUDICIAL OR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
THEN THE THIRD PART, WE WANTED TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME ON THE ROLE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HOW THAT ROLE IS DIFFERENT WHEN YOU'RE THE FINAL DECISION-MAKER OR ACTING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY.
THEN ALSO ANY KIND OF PROCEEDINGS WHEN THERE'S A COURT CHALLENGE TO A COMMISSIONER OR COUNCIL DECISION.
THEN LASTLY, WE WANTED TO SPEND SOME TIME AND HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AROUND HOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S WORKING.
WHAT YOU AS A GROUP AND STAFF THINK IS WORKING WELL.
MAYBE SOME AREAS THAT COULD BE IMPROVED UPON.
WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON THAT TOPIC.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUMP INTO THE FIRST PART.
AS YOU'VE SEEN, AND WE DID CHANGE THE AGENDA.
I THINK THIS WAS FROM OUR PREVIOUS WORKSHOP IN ABOUT 2018 WHERE WE CHANGED UNDER THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT THE COMMISSION'S REQUEST TO INDICATE WHAT TYPE OF ACTION WAS THE PROJECT, WAS IT A QUASI-JUDICIAL OR A LEGISLATIVE ACTION OR IN SOME CASES BOTH? THAT WAS DONE. I THINK COMMISSIONERS HAD A CONCERN ABOUT WELL, BASED ON THE TYPE OF PROJECT, I KNOW MY LEVEL OF DISCRETION MAY BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
[00:05:01]
IN THE QUASI-JUDICIAL FORMAT, THIS IS A CASE WHERE YOU'RE APPLYING EXISTING PLANS, CODES, AND POLICIES.I THINK MR. KEMP HAS MENTIONED MANY TIMES YOU'RE ACTING AS A JUDGE WHERE YOU'RE APPLYING EXISTING LAWS TO A CASE IN POINT AND SEEING WHETHER A PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE OR NOT.
IT'S TYPICALLY A TYPE OF ACTION THAT'S AUTHORIZING SOME TYPE OF PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS OR CONSTRUCTION.
WE HAVE SEVERAL TYPES OF PROJECTS AS YOU'VE SEEN.
THEY COULD BE A PRIVATELY SPONSORED PROJECT, OR IT COULD BE A CITY PROJECT OR EVEN A PROJECT FROM ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.
ONE OF THE THINGS WHETHER IT'S A CITY DEPARTMENT OR A PRIVATE APPLICANT CAN AVAIL THEMSELVES OF IS A PROCESS OR AN APPLICATION TYPE WE HAVE CALLED THE PRELIMINARY REVIEW.
THIS IS AN OPTIONAL APPLICATION TYPE.
IT'S NOT REQUIRED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A COUPLE OF CODE SECTIONS THAT DO REQUIRE IT.
I THINK IN OUR COMMERCIAL VISITOR OVERLAY AND SOME OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS DO REQUIRE IT.
WE HAVE A MINOR PROCESS THAT'S REALLY RESERVED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS.
IT'S A VERY NOMINAL FEE, I THINK IT'S $240.
THEN WE HAVE A MAJOR PRELIMINARY REVIEW THAT'S FOR ALL OUR OTHER TYPES OF APPLICATIONS AND THAT'S AN $852 FEE.
PRIOR TO THE WORKSHOP, I DID SEND OUT TO YOU A CHECKLIST FOR OUR FORMAL APPLICATION.
IT'S VERY DETAILED, LISTS WHAT NEEDS TO BE ON PLANS, TYPES OF STUDIES THAT MUST ACCOMPANY THE APPLICATION.
FOR PRELIMINARY REVIEW, THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS LIKE THAT.
THIS IS REALLY LEFT TO AN APPLICANT TO PROVIDE A CONCEPT PLAN.
OFTENTIMES, YOU GET A VERY LIMITED TYPE OF GRAPHIC OR DRAWING.
IN SOME CASES, ACCOMPANIED BY A LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT AN APPLICANT WANTS STAFF TO FOCUS ON AND PROVIDE THEM A RESPONSE AND SOME DIRECTION.
WHAT HAPPENS AS PART OF THIS PROCESS? WE DO OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO MEET WITH STAFF BEFORE.
STAFF SPENDS TIME REVIEWING AND SPENDING TIME GOING THROUGH THE PROJECT.
MANY TIMES, APPLICANTS WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
THEN ONCE THAT'S OCCURRED, THE STAFF WILL GO OFF.
WE DO SEND IT TO THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON.
THEN WE PREPARE A WRITTEN COMMENT LETTER THAT ADDRESSES ANY QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP OR JUST RESPOND TO THE PROJECT IN GENERAL ABOUT.
DOES IT COMPLY WITH THE VARIOUS PLANS AND CODE SET APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT? THEN SECONDLY, ARE THERE OTHER ISSUES THAT STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED? THAT TYPICALLY LEADS TO AN APPLICANT FOLLOWING UP WITH CITY STAFF WITH FURTHER QUESTIONS OR REQUESTS TO MEET.
BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THIS IS VERY PRELIMINARY.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS NOT REQUIRED EXCEPT IN A FEW CASES.
IT'S REALLY SOMETHING THAT AN APPLICANT, WE ENCOURAGE THEM TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF BEFORE THEY SPEND A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY IN VERY EXPENSIVE DESIGN PROCESS. ONCE AN APPLICANT DOES, GO AHEAD AND MAKE AN OFFICIAL APPLICATION, THERE ARE A VERY DETAILED LIST OF APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, AND WHAT I DID PROVIDE TO YOU AND I THINK YOU HAVE A COPY WITH YOU TODAY UP THERE IS ONE OF OUR APPLICATION CHECKLIST.
IT'S ONE THAT'S USED FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PERMIT TYPES.
IT'S JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE TYPES OF INFORMATION THAT IS REQUIRED.
TYPICALLY, THE COMMISSION SEES THE PLANS THAT AN APPLICANT'S PROVIDED AFTER THEY'VE GONE THROUGH, SOME CASES THREE OCCASIONALLY MORE THAN THREE REVIEWS.
THERE'S SOME BACK-AND-FORTH WITH CHANGES AS WELL AS MAKING SURE ANYTHING THAT'S MISSING IS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF AND PUT ON THE PLAN.
AS PART OF THIS, THE FIRST STEP AFTER IT'S SUBMITTED THAT AN APPLICATION NEEDS TO GO THROUGH IS A DETERMINATION OF COMPLETE FILING.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE REFERRING BACK TO THAT CHECKLIST I DID PROVIDE TO YOU AS WELL.
IT'S A COUPLE OF PAGE DOCUMENT, I THINK ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ASKED FOR WELL, WHAT DOES STAFF USE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'VE COVERED EVERYTHING? WHAT THAT DOCUMENT IS, IT'S TITLED ENTITLEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST.
IT'S REALLY AN INFORMAL CHECKLISTS THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THE PLANNERS TO USE TO LIST THE UNIVERSE OF THINGS.
WHETHER THEY'RE CITY SPECIFIC PLANS OR CODES, THINGS LIKE THE AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN THAT THE REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY IS ADOPTED.
[00:10:04]
JUST A REMINDER OF HERE'S ALL THE THINGS YOU NEED TO BE AWARE OF.OBVIOUSLY, NOT EVERYTHING WILL APPLY TO EVERY PROJECT, BUT IT'S A GOOD MEMORY JOGGER FOR STAFF TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT OVERLOOKING ANYTHING.
THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO IS SOMEHOW SOMEONE OVERLOOKS SOMETHING WE SPENT MONTHS WORKING WITH AN APPLICANT.
IT GETS DISCOVERED AT THE TIME THAT WE'RE FINALIZING THE STAFF REPORT AND WE NOTICE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T COMPLY AND THERE NEEDS TO BE A TIMEOUT TO FIX THAT, SO WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT THAT FROM OCCURRING.
AS PART OF THE COMPLETENESS REVIEW, STAFF WILL RELY ON THAT AS A GUIDE.
THEY ARE CHECKING IT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH PLANS, ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS, COUNCIL POLICIES, VARIOUS THINGS.
THE SECOND PART OF THAT REVIEW IS GOING TO LOOK AT OTHER ISSUES OF CONCERN.
AN APPLICATION COULD BE COMPLETE, BUT IT MAY NOT COMPLY WITH ALL THE PLANS AND REGULATIONS.
IT ALSO COULD HAVE SOME VERY POOR DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT OFTENTIMES WE'RE TRYING TO GET AN APPLICANT TO MODIFY SO THAT WE HAVE A BETTER PROJECT.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED IN A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO AN APPLICANT.
I THINK WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS PART, BUT I THINK IN THE VARIOUS TRAININGS COMMISSIONERS HAVE ATTENDED, YOU'VE BEEN EXPOSED TO THE PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT.
THAT IS AN ADDITIONAL COMPLICATION IN THIS WHOLE EFFORT WITH PROJECTS AND THAT IT SETS DEADLINES OR MAXIMUM TIMELINES IN WHICH THE CITY NEEDS TO RESPOND, SO THAT THEIR FIRST SUBMITTAL, THE CITY AND ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE LOOKING AT A PROJECT HAS 30 DAYS TO REVIEW THE SUBMITTAL FOR COMPLETENESS.
AS PART OF THAT COMPLETENESS, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO CLUE IN AN APPLICANT TO ANY OTHER ISSUES SO THAT IF THERE ARE REVISIONS THAT THEY COULD DO THAT IN ONE STEP VERSUS WELL, I JUST CHANGED IT TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS.
NOW YOU'RE TELLING ME THESE OTHER ISSUES EXIST.
I GOT TO GO BACK AND REVISE IT AGAIN.
WE'RE TRYING TO COMBINE THAT AND MAKE IT A MUCH SMOOTHER PROCESS. LET'S SEE. BRIEFLY, I JUST WANTED TO HIT UPON ONE OF THE NEXT STEPS AFTER AN APPLICATION IS DEEMED COMPLETE.
THAT'S THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PHASE.
AS WE'VE DISCUSSED IN SOME OF THE PAST MEETINGS, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF MAIN RULES OR REGULATIONS THAT APPLY, AND THAT'S THE CALIFORNIAN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, FIRST AND FOREMOST.
WE ALSO HAVE TITLE 19, WHICH IS OUR LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF CEQA.
CEQA DOES APPLY TO ALL THE DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS THAT ARE UNDERTAKEN OR FUNDED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY.
THE PURPOSE IS REALLY TO FOSTER TRANSPARENCY AND INTEGRITY IN THE PUBLIC DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, AND WITH AN EMPHASIS ON REALLY TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE DAMAGE THAT A PUBLIC DECISION WILL HAVE ON THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE THAT ACTION IS APPROVED OR CARRIED OUT.
ON THE SLIDE WE ARE SHOWING, IN THE SECOND THROUGH FINAL BULLET, THE FOUR TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS OR DOCUMENTS THAT A PROJECT COULD HAVE.
AS YOU'VE SEEN IN THE AREA OF EXEMPTIONS, UNDER OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE, THESE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DELEGATED TO A STAFF LEVEL FOR APPROVAL.
IN MANY CASES WHEN WE HAVE AN EXEMPTION, THE COMMISSION SEEING SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN FINALIZED.
FOR THE OTHER DOCUMENTS, THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
THOSE WOULD BE THINGS THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD BE ASKED TO REVIEW AND ACTUALLY ADOPT OR CERTIFY AS PART OF YOUR ACTION.
I THINK FOR THOSE COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE WORKED THROUGH AN EIR ON THIS COMMISSION, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE TYPICALLY TRY TO GET TO THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT 30-45 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING BECAUSE THEY TEND TO BE QUITE LENGTHY, AND WE WANT YOU TO HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GO THROUGH IT.
I'M GOING TO GIVE MR. KEMP AN OPPORTUNITY HERE IN CASE THERE'S SOMETHING HE WANTS TO ADD ON THIS ONE.
>> JUST WANTED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT EACH ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS, UNLESS YOU ALL THINK YOU DON'T NEED IT.
THE CEQA LAW IS BASICALLY A PROCEDURAL LAW WHICH IS FORCING US TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
IT MAKES US LOOK AT WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF A PROJECT WOULD BE.
THAT FIRST-CLASS THAT YOU SEE UP THERE IS EXEMPTIONS, AND THAT IS PROJECTS FOR THE MOST PART, THAT SOMEBODY AT A STATE LEVEL IS DETERMINED THAT PROJECTS THAT FIT INTO
[00:15:02]
THOSE DEFINITIONS DO NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.YOU'VE SEEN THEM A LOT FOR INFILL EXEMPTIONS, LITTLE MINOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS THAT ARE REHABILITATION, THAT KIND OF THING.
THE STATE HAS SAID RIGHT OFF THE TOP, THERE IS NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT THERE, SO YOU DON'T NEED TO STUDY IT.
YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXEMPTIONS.
WHEN WE EVALUATE THEM FOR EXEMPTIONS, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EXCEPTIONS DO NOT APPLY AS WELL.
UNDER OUR CODE, THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE THE EXEMPTIONS IS BEEN DELEGATED TO THE CITY PLANNER.
THE CITY PLANNER MAKES THAT DETERMINATION.
WE HAVE A NOTICE PROCEDURE WHERE THE PUBLIC IS NOTIFIED THAT THAT DECISION HAS BEEN MADE, AND IF THERE IS NO APPEAL RECEIVED WITHIN 10 DAYS THEN THAT DECISION IS FINAL.
BY THE TIME IT COMES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT SHOULD BE A FINAL DECISION.
THE CEQA PART [NOISE] IF THERE IS AN EXEMPTION, IS JUST NOT BEFORE YOU, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXEMPTIONS AS WELL.
YOU DON'T NEED TO BE DISCUSSING CEQA IF THERE'S BEEN AN EXEMPTION TO THE PROJECT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW AT THAT POINT.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WOULD BE ONE OF THE EXEMPTIONS DOESN'T APPLY, BUT THEY'VE LOOKED AT THE PROJECT AND SEEN THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM THE PROJECT.
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS, THEY DID FIND THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, BUT MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO MITIGATE THE EFFECT AND NULLIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT.
IF IT TURNS OUT THAT WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO IDENTIFY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, IT CAN'T BE MITIGATED AT LEAST AT THE BEGINNING, THAT'S WHEN WE DO AN EIR.
THE EIR REQUIRES THE PROJECT TO BE STUDIED.
THERE WILL BE SOME MITIGATION MEASURES, BUT THERE ALSO COULD BE AN OUTCOME WHERE THE DECISION-MAKER IS BEING ASKED TO PASS A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONCERN.
WHICH MEANS, YES, THERE'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT THAT CAN'T BE MITIGATED, BUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT IS SUCH THAT IT WILL BE APPROVED WITH THAT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT.
>> WHEN YOU MENTIONED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, YOU SAID, THEY DETERMINED.
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE CITY PLANNER ON THAT.
TO DETERMINE NEGATIVE AND MITIGATED, YOU SAID THEY DETERMINED, WHO ARE YOU REFERRING [OVERLAPPING]?
>> THE DECISION-MAKER, FOR THAT.
I BELIEVE THAT THE DECISION-MAKER ON MITIGATED NECK DECKS IS EITHER GOING TO BE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE CITY COUNCIL DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE PROJECT.
>> WILL WE HAVE MORE TIME TO DISCUSS CEQA OR SHOULD WE GET IT ALL OUT NOW? [LAUGHTER]
>> IT DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF YOUR QUESTION. MAYBE WE'LL DEFER IT.
>> IS CEQA GOING TO COME UP AGAIN?
>> NO, I DON'T REALLY THINK IT IS BECAUSE THIS IS AN OVERVIEW.
>> IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW DETAILED YOU WANT TO BE. [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, THEN I'LL ASK MY QUESTION NOW.
I WENT TO THE INSTITUTE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRAINING ALONG WITH COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING US KNOW ABOUT THAT BY THE WAY, DON.
THEY WERE TALKING EXTENSIVELY ABOUT THE FAIR ARGUMENT STANDARD VERSUS THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD, AND SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO MITIGATED NEG DECS.
JUST LIKE WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AT ONE OF OUR LAST MEETINGS.
WHEN I READ THE STATUTE THAT THEY WERE CITING, IT SOUNDED LIKE TO HAVE A FAIR ARGUMENT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FAIR ARGUMENT.
BUT THEY WERE SAYING AT THE TRAINING THAT I WAS AT THAT A FAIR ARGUMENT IS JUST LIKE ANYONE COULD LOOK AT THE SAME FACTS AND COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.
CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THE FAIR ARGUMENT STANDARD?
>> WELL, I THINK YOU ACTUALLY REPEATED IT MORE OR LESS CORRECTLY.
THE WAY THE FAIR ARGUMENT STANDARD, I THINK IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS IF THERE WAS A NEGATIVE DECK OR A MITIGATED NEG DEC BEFORE THE DECISION-MAKER FOR ADOPTION AND SOMEBODY SHOWED UP AND MADE WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE A FAIR ARGUMENT, THEN THE ITEM WOULD GET PULLED THEORETICALLY, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A FULL EIR.
AS YOU STATED, A FAIR ARGUMENT HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
[00:20:01]
IF YOU REMEMBER IN OUR LAST HEARING THAT WE HAD ON THE VETERANS PARK, YOU HAD ASKED ME IF THE ARGUMENTS BEING PRESENTED TO YOU WERE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ENOUGH TO POTENTIALLY MAYBE TRIGGER AN EIR AND YOU WANTED ME TO TELL YOU WHETHER WHAT THEY HAD PRESENTED TO YOU WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THAT'S YOUR JOB AS A POLICY PERSON, NOT MINE AS THE LEGAL ADVISOR.ALL I COULD DO IS TELL YOU WHAT THE STANDARD IS.
IT HAS TO BE A REASONABLE ARGUMENT THAT'S SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS THAT ARE IN EVIDENCE, AND NOT JUST OPINION TESTIMONY BY A LAYMAN.
THERE HAS TO BE SOME THEIR THERE, FOR THE ARGUMENT TO BE MADE.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO HAVE A QUALIFIED EXPERT LIKE YOU'D HAVE IN A COURTROOM, BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOME KNOWLEDGE BEHIND THAT OPINION AND NOT SOMEBODY JUST READING SOMETHING AND SAY, I THINK MAYBE IT'S DIFFERENT. DOES THAT HELP?
>> WE WILL TALK ABOUT THESE CONCEPTS A LITTLE BIT MORE LATER, NOT UNNECESSARILY IN RELATIONSHIP TO CEQA, BUT COMMISSIONER STINE HAD ASKED US TO ADDRESS WRITS WHICH IS WHEN YOUR DECISION OR THE COUNCIL'S DECISION, WOULD GET APPEAL TO A COURT AND WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE FOR THAT.
WE'RE GOING TO USE SOME OF THE SAME LANGUAGE, BUT IT'LL BE APPLIED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.
SO WE'RE ONLY TALKING RIGHT NOW, JUST IN THE SCOPE OF CEQA.
>> MY QUESTION DOES RELATE TO THAT.
IF THE PROJECT ENDS UP IN COURT, THE INSTITUTE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PEOPLE, THEY HAD A SLIDE THAT SHOWED, IF YOU DO AN EIR, YOU HAVE TO MEET THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TEST THAT THE CHALLENGERS DO TO CHALLENGE THE FINDINGS OF THE EIR.
BUT IF YOU DON'T DO AN EIR, IF YOU JUST DO A MITIGATED NEG DEC, THEN THERE'S A DIFFERENT STANDARD.
THEY SAID THAT'S A FAIR ARGUMENT STANDARD.
BUT YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT STANDARD THEY USE, THEY STILL HAVE TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE NO MATTER WHAT, TO SUPPORT THEIR CHALLENGE.
>> THEY DO BUT JUST A SNEAK PREVIEW OF LATER WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WRITS IN THE CONTEXT OF CEQA AND WHETHER YOU NEED TO DO AN EIR AFTER A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECK, YOU WOULD HAVE A FAIR ARGUMENT STANDARD THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD PREPARE AN EIR TO LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO PREPARE AN EIR IF WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS MET.
WHEN A JUDGE LOOKS AT THE FAIR ARGUMENT STANDARD AND APPEAL DECISION, THERE COULD BE A FAIR ARGUMENT ON EITHER SIDE BUT THE JUDGE IS ONLY GOING TO CARE IF THE FAIR ARGUMENT FOR THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE CAN BE SUPPORTED BY THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF EACH SIDE CAN MAKE A FAIR ARGUMENT AT THE JUDICIAL LEVEL, AS LONG AS THE DECISION-MAKER WAS ABLE TO MAKE A FAIR ARGUMENT AND RELY ON THAT.
THE JUDGE WILL DEFER TO THE DECISION-MAKER, AT LEAST THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO AND UPHOLD THAT STANDARD.
THAT'S JUST IN THE CONCEPT OF A WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS AS OPPOSED TO CEQA.
>> MY COLLEAGUES ARE GROANING, SO I'LL WITHHOLD BY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> CAROLINE, I THINK YOU HAVE A QUESTION.
>> I'M GOING TO TRY TO TRANSLATE.
[LAUGHTER] FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT LET'S SAY ONE COMMISSIONER OR TWO IS HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH THE MITIGATED NEG DEC OR THE NEG DEC, AND THEY FEEL THAT IT'S NOT APPLICABLE.
WE'RE ALL UP HERE AND THAT CASE IS BEING HEARD.
CAN YOU TAKE US FROM A VOTE AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AND HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO, IF YOU COULD DO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THAT?
>> WELL, IF I UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTION YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT, IT'S GOING TO BE A MAJORITY RULES.
IF A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL [LAUGHTER] FINDS THAT THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET, THEN THE PROJECT WILL GO FORWARD.
IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT?
>> WHEN WE WERE AT THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES [NOISE], THEY TALKED ABOUT IN CEQA BASELINE HAVING NET EFFECTS ON WHAT'S HAPPENING AND THEN THE THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
[00:25:01]
THEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON THOSE BASELINES AND THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE DATA AVAILABLE.OBVIOUSLY, THESE ASSUMPTIONS ARE BASED ON FACT AND DEFENSIBLE IN COURT, BUT BASICALLY WHAT'S HAPPENING IT SEEMS THAT THEY'RE USING PAST APPROVED STANDARDS OR THIS WAS WHAT I WAS TOLD IN THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES.
MY QUESTION IS, HOW DOES PAST EIR EXPERIENCE INFLUENCE NEW EIR DETERMINATIONS?
>> I DON'T WANT TO MIX UP CONCEPTS THERE BECAUSE THE THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE ARE GOING TO BE THRESHOLDS AND MAYBE JASON GELDNER CAN HELP OUT ON THIS ONE BECAUSE HE'S BEEN WORKING ON THOSE FOR GREENHOUSE GASES AND SOME OTHER THINGS.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE IS, LET'S TAKE GREENHOUSE GASES, FOR EXAMPLE, IS THAT A THRESHOLD HAS BEEN SET FOR WHEN IT'S GOING TO HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT AND IF YOU GO OVER THAT THRESHOLD THEN WE HAVE TO STUDY IT.
IF YOU GO UNDER THAT THRESHOLD, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO STUDY IT.
THAT'S INDEPENDENT OF ANY PREVIOUS EIR, SHOULD BE BASED ON SOME SCIENCE SOMEWHERE AND A CITY CAN ADOPT THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF DOING AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO. IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
ONCE THOSE ARE ADOPTED AND THEY'RE BASED ON SCIENCE, THIS STAFF CAN RELY ON THOSE STANDARDS TO EVALUATE A PROJECT TO DETERMINE THAT SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT FOR WHICH THE STANDARD EXISTS.
MAYBE JASON CAN SPEAK TO HOW MANY DIFFERENT THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE THERE ARE BECAUSE THERE'S MORE THAN ONE.
BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE LAW ALLOWS US TO ADAPT TO MAKE IT EASIER TO EVALUATE THE PROJECTS.
IN A SENSE, THEY MIGHT BE AKIN TO EXEMPTIONS.
IF IT HITS THAT THRESHOLD OR GOES ABOVE IT, THEN WE THINK THERE'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT THAT HAS TO BE STUDIED.
IF IT'S BELOW THAT THRESHOLD FOR THAT PARTICULAR THING, THEN IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE STUDIED.
I DON'T KNOW, JASON, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD ABOUT.
WHAT KIND OF THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE WE HAVE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THE THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE IF WE'RE GOING TO USE THOSE, GENERALLY SPEAKING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THE SAME ONES, THEN YES, THEY NEED TO BE ADOPTED.
FOR EXAMPLE, OUR VMT THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE WE DID, WE WERE GOING TO USE THOSE GENERALLY FOR ALL PROJECTS.
OTHERWISE, IF YOU DON'T ADOPT THEM, THEN EACH PROJECT WOULD DEVELOP THEIR OWN THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
WHETHER THAT MAKES IT EASIER REGARDING VMT IS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE THRESHOLDS AND SEE IF THE PROJECT MAY HAVE A TRIGGER OR SOMETHING.
THE THRESHOLD IS THE LINE BETWEEN WHERE THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND NOT A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, ONCE YOU MAKE THAT.
AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE IF YOUR PROJECT WAS CUTTING DOWN TREES AND OUR THRESHOLD WAS TWO TREES, AND THEN AFTER THAT, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
IF YOUR PROJECT CUTS DOWN THREE TREES, YOU WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
MITIGATION COULD BE PLANTING FOUR OTHER TREES AND THAT WOULD MITIGATE IT AND THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WOULD BE YOU'RE CUTTING DOWN THE ONE TREE BUT IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
BUT IT STILL HAS TO BE STUDIED.
IF IT'S NOT EXEMPTED, YOU STILL NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS STILL A STUDY OF THE THRESHOLDS TO SEE WHERE YOU STAND.
AN EXEMPTION WOULD BE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT YOUR PROJECT WOULD BE CONSIDERED NOT TO BE AN IMPACT, SO YOU WOULDN'T EVEN LOOK AT IT.
DID I NEED TO TALK ABOUT OUR SCREENING THRESHOLD OR SCREENING CRITERIA? DO YOU WANT ME TO MENTION IT?
>> THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THAT THRESHOLD, SO HOW OFTEN IS THAT SIGNIFICANT THRESHOLD REVIEWED FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ADJUSTMENTS AND OR AMENDMENTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE?
>> EVERY PROJECT THAT COMES IN IS LOOKED AT EITHER IF IT'S EXEMPTED, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT BUT IT'S EVALUATED.
THERE IS A SEQUEL EVALUATION FOR EVERY PROJECT.
>> HE WAS ASKING ABOUT, I THINK THE THRESHOLDS THEMSELVES.
HOW OFTEN DO WE VIEW THRESHOLDS TO SEE IF THERE IS A CURRENT?
>> OH, THE THRESHOLDS THEMSELVES.
>> AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE ONLY HAVE ONE SET OF THRESHOLDS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL AND THOSE HAVE VMT.
[00:30:02]
>> JEFF WANTS TO SHARE SOMEWHAT [INAUDIBLE].
>> THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, JEFF MURPHY, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.
JUST STEPPING BACK A LITTLE BIT ON THIS DISCUSSION.
WHEN WE EVALUATE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A SERIES OF QUESTIONS.
WE RELY ON APPENDIX G FROM THE STATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, THERE'S AN APPENDIX G THAT HAS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO GET ASKED AND ANSWERED.
WE DEVELOP SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS VERY MUCH ALL OF THEM AND THEY'VE BEEN DEVELOPED AND APPROVED OVER THE YEARS.
WHAT JASON'S SPEAKING TO IS MORE SPECIFICALLY ON THE VMT BECAUSE THAT'S THE MOST RECENT THRESHOLD THAT WE HAVE THE COUNCIL ADOPT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING NOW IS TO TRY TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE EASIER FOR OUR CUSTOMERS TO NAVIGATE SEQUEL IS WE DEVELOP AN INFORMATIONAL BULLETIN THAT OUTLINES WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXEMPTIONS? WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF EXEMPTIONS? WHAT ARE THE FINDINGS WE HAVE TO MAKE TO BE ABLE TO USE THOSE EXEMPTIONS? WHAT'S AN MMD VERSUS ND? THAT'S ALL AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE AND OUR INFORMATIONAL BULLETIN.
WHAT WE'RE ALSO DOING IS DEVELOPING A WEBSITE THAT'S GOING TO DEDICATE WHERE YOU CAN FIND ALL THESE SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE RIGHT NOW.
FOR PRACTITIONERS WHO DO EIRS, THEY KNOW HOW TO NAVIGATE THE DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS' WEBSITES TO GET A HOLD OF WHAT THE THRESHOLDS ARE.
WE'RE TRYING TO SIMPLIFY IT AND WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT IN ONE DOCUMENT.
WE'RE GOING TO EVALUATE THOSE THRESHOLDS, ONE, TO SEE, DO WE NEED TO BE UPDATING THEM? BUT ALSO DO WE NEED THE COUNCIL TO ADOPT THEM? HAVE THEY OFFICIALLY BEEN ADOPTED YET? THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S IN OUR WORK PLAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THIS FISCAL YEAR AND SO WE CAN KEEP YOU APPRISED OF THAT EFFORT AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
BUT AGAIN, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS DEMYSTIFY IT AND ONE OF WHICH IS TRYING TO COME TO ONE PLACE WHERE YOU LOOK AT THE APPENDIX G QUESTIONS AND IT WILL CORRESPOND TO WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD THAT WE MEASURED AGAINST.
HOPEFULLY, THAT CLARIFIES SOMETHING [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT HELPS A LOT AND TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THE STAFF IS LOOKING AT IT FROM LONGEVITY STANDPOINT. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE.
>> CAN WE GET SOME FOLLOW-UP LINK OR SOMETHING TO SEE WHAT'S ALREADY ON THE BOOKS? BECAUSE THAT MAY HELP TO NOTES AFTER THIS MEETING, MAYBE.
>> WE CAN MAKE THAT AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW.
STAFF, INCLUDING MYSELF AND THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ARE ALSO WE'RE WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW.
AS WE GET INTO A POINT WHERE WE CAN BE ABLE TO SHARE IT WITH YOU IN PUBLIC WE'LL DEFINITELY SHARE THAT.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. BECAUSE I THINK THAT ONE OF THE MOST CONCERNING PARTS, WHEN I WENT TO THE LEGAL CALIFORNIA CITIES, WAS THERE WAS THAT, WE'RE USING PAST STANDARDS BUT IS THAT REALLY RELEVANT FOR TODAY? REALLY, MY CONSTANT CONCERN IS ARE WE REALLY KEEPING OR I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EXPERIENCE LEVEL IN THIS ROOM, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT ARE WE KEEPING UP WITH OUR ENVIRONMENT AS IT CHANGES AND THAT'S REALLY THE BIG CONCERN THAT I HAVE AND THAT'S WHY I WANT TO JUST UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR LEVELS ARE NOW AND IF WE DO NEED TO MAYBE CONSIDER A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT APPROACH. THAT'S ALL. THANKS.
>> BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I HAD A MORE GENERALIZED QUESTION, BUT I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ADDRESS IT NOW.
MY ISSUE ISN'T REALLY A CONCERN, IT' A MISS-INFORMATION.
IS THERE A POINT LONG BEFORE THE STAFF REPORT COMES OUT WE GET IT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHERE ALL THE AFFECTED DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY EITHER PHYSICALLY GET TOGETHER IN ONE ROOM AND SIT AROUND THE TABLE AND TALK ABOUT, DOES POLICE HAVE ANY ISSUES, DO FIRE HAVE ANY ISSUES, DO ENGINEERING HAVE ANY ISSUES, WHERE YOU ROUNDTABLE THOSE PROJECTS? CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW YOU COMMUNICATE WITH THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT MAY BE INVOLVED IN A PARTICULAR PROJECT, PARTICULARLY YOUR LARGER PROJECTS?
>> SURE. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE PLANNER IS THE PROJECT MANAGER ON THE CITY SIDE AND SO THEY'RE THE POINT OF CONTACT FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS.
WE DO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM THAT ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, MIKE STRONG IS CHAIRING AND SO ANY STAFF MEMBER THAT HAS ISSUES THAT COULD AFFECT OTHER DEPARTMENTS, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO SCHEDULE IT FOR THAT INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEETING, AND THEN EVERYONE CAN SEE.
I GUESS REALLY THE ISSUE WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS SOMETIMES YOU'LL HAVE A REQUIREMENT IN A PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT THAT THEN AFFECTS SOME OTHER DEPARTMENTS REQUIREMENTS, SO WE'RE TRYING TO INSTEAD OF PUTTING AN APPLICANT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS BACK-AND-FORTH, HOW DO WE FIGURE OUT, HERE'S HOW YOU CAN RESOLVE IT AND COME BACK WITH
[00:35:01]
ONE PARTICULAR PATH THAT THEY COULD FOLLOW.SO WE DO HAVE THAT. PARTICULARLY ON THE BIGGER PROJECTS, THERE'S, I WOULD SAY A LOT MORE COMMUNICATION ON THOSE AND MAYBE A MORE ROUTINE SMALLER PROJECT.
BUT AGAIN, THE PLANNER IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT WITH GETTING CONDITIONS, GETTING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM EACH DEPARTMENT BEFORE WE START BRINGING IT FORWARD FOR YOUR REVIEW.
>> THE PLANNER ASSIGNED TO THE PROJECT, HE OR SHE WOULD BE THE CLEARINGHOUSE FUNCTION, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT WOULD BE GOING OUT, DOES FIRE HAVE ANY ISSUES, POLICE HAVE ANY ISSUES, AND GETTING THAT INFORMATION TOGETHER.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH, WE HAVE A STANDARD PROCESS BY WHICH THE PLANS ARE ROUTED TO ALL THE DIFFERENT REVIEWERS AND THEN THE PLANNER IS THE POINT WHERE THOSE REVIEWERS ARE RESPONDING BACK TO AND IF THE PLANNERS SEE PROBLEMS AND THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET WITH THOSE DIFFERENT REVIEWERS AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RESOLVE IT, AND OFTENTIMES, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE BRINGING AN APPLICANT AND HAVING A MEETING AND SAYING, WELL, HERE'S THE AREAS WHERE THE PROJECT DOESN'T MEET, LET'S SAY A STANDARD AND TALK ABOUT WAYS IN WHICH IT COULD BE CHANGED TO MEET THE STANDARD.
>> THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE A FORMAL STAFF MEETING WHICH YOU ROUNDTABLE THE ISSUES, BUT THERE'S COMMUNICATION WITH THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS TO GET THEIR INPUT?
>> CAROLYN, I THINK YOU HAD A QUESTION.
>> WELL, I THINK THAT'S EXTREMELY HELPFUL BECAUSE JUST MY CASUAL OBSERVATION AND SITTING IN A LOT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS, WHEN THIS STAFF DELIVERS THE STAFF REPORT IN THE PROJECT TO YOU, ALL THESE OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS, STATE, FEDERAL, THEY HAVE TO KEEP UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, UNIFORM FIRE CODE, THEY ARE UP-TO-DATE.
FROM THE DAIS, A LOT OF QUESTIONS WILL COME.WELL, DID YOU TALK TO FIRE? DID YOU TALK TO POLICE? IT'S REDUNDANT IN THE FACT THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE DELIVERING THIS TO YOU IF IT WAS NOT VETTED.
YOU HAVE THE BRIEFINGS, AND IF YOU ARE READING YOUR STAFF REPORTS BEFORE THE BRIEFINGS, YOU SHOULDN'T BE ASKING THESE QUESTIONS UP HERE.
THERE'S NO REASON TO SPEND 15 MINUTES, 10 MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES ON, DID POLICE GET THIS, DID FIRE? OF COURSE, THEY GOT THIS BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT BE SENDING THIS TO THIS COMMISSION, AND OUR TIME UP HERE IS VERY VALUABLE.
I THINK IF THERE'S A MORE SALIENT POINT THAT YOU COULD FOCUS ON, THIS IS JUST MY GENERAL OBSERVATION, MIGHT BE A BETTER USE OF TIME BECAUSE THEY HAVE VETTED THIS.
IT WOULD NOT BE HERE IF THEY DID NOT VET IT.
THEIR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL NOT LET IT BE HERE.
THE DRT, THEY HAVE LDCS, ALL THE PLANNING AGENCIES, BASICALLY, THE PLANNER IS THE HUB.
THIS DOES NOT GET TO US WITHOUT THOSE FOLKS BEING CONSULTED BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE A BIG DISCUSSION AT THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE THEN WITH RESPECT TO DEPARTMENT HEADS ON WHY THIS WAS AN HONORED OR THIS WASN'T HONORED AND THERE ARE STANDARDS, AS JASON AS ALLUDED TO AND RON, THAT SOMETIMES THERE'S A CONFLICT.
MAYBE A CITY ORDINANCE WILL SAY, OR A CITY CODE WILL SAY THIS AND FIRE THIS, AND MAYBE THERE'S A LITTLE LAPSE AND THEY HAVE TO CATCH UP, BUT I HAVEN'T OBSERVED THAT A LOT OF TIME.
THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THOSE TYPES OF THINGS AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN VETTED.
I THINK IT WAS GREAT THAT JEFF, AND RON, AND JASON WENT THROUGH THAT FOR YOUR OWN EDIFICATION BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.
>> PIGGYBACKING ON CAROLYN'S COMMENTS, I THINK ARE RIGHT AND SPOT ON.
I ALSO THINK IN TERMS OF THE BRIEFINGS, I ALMOST USE HOT BUTTON BUT I DON'T WANT TO SAY HOT, BUT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH FIRE ISSUES BECAUSE FIRE IS SUCH AN ISSUE HERE AND WE'VE SEEN MASSIVE FIRES THAT SOMETIMES IF IT'S A MAJOR PROJECT, I WILL HAVE ISSUES CONCERNING OKAY, WHAT'S THE FIRE SAFETY ISSUE, IS THERE A REASONABLE EXPEDITIOUS EXIT ROUTE AND ALL THAT? IF I HAVE THOSE, LIKE CAROLYN INDICATED, I WOULD NOT LIKE TO BRING THOSE UP AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I WOULD LIKE TO BRING THOSE UP AT THE BRIEFING, SO IF I NEED MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT, I CAN GET THAT INFORMATION OR STAFF CAN BRING THAT INFORMATION TO ME RATHER THAN TAKING UP A LOT OF THE COMMISSION TIME FOR IT. ROY.
>> TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT AS WELL, THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY WE HAVE BRIEFINGS IS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE US BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH OUR AGENDA ITEM, BE ABLE TO SIFT THROUGH, DECIDE ON WHAT QUESTIONS WE NEED TO ASK.
[00:40:02]
BUT MANY OF THE QUESTIONS COULD BE ONES JUST LIKE YOU JUST DESCRIBED OR CAROLYN JUST DESCRIBED, THAT'S WHAT YOU DO AT BRIEFINGS.YOU DRILL DOWN FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO DRILL DOWN ON BASICALLY THE POLICY FINDINGS AND BE ABLE TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT DECISION BASED UPON WHAT IS PROVIDED TO US ON THE DAIS AND THAT'S SO CRITICAL, RATHER THAN SPENDING TIME ON THE DAIS WITH ISSUES AND QUESTIONS THAT VERY EASILY COULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND/OR QUESTIONED AT BRIEF.
>> NOTHING MORE, DON NEU, BACK TO YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IN SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT YOU'VE JUST RECENTLY SPOKEN ABOUT, SEVERAL OF YOU ARE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN OUR LIST, SO WE'LL GET INTO IT IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL.
BUT AFTER THE SECRET PROCESS IS CHARTED OUT AND WE KNOW WHAT TYPE OF DOCUMENT WE'RE PREPARING AND THAT'S COMPLETED, WE GET INTO THE SCHEDULING, HOW DOES THE PROJECT GET FURTHER ALONG TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY PRESENTED BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
I WANTED TO COVER JUST SOME REAL HIGH-LEVEL ITEMS THAT WE DO GO THROUGH.
MANY, MANY YEARS AGO, I THINK BEFORE I JOINED THE CITY, SOMEONE HEARD THAT DINOSAURS ROAMED THE EARTH.
BUT SOMEONE HAD DEVELOPED BASICALLY WHAT WE REFER TO AS A CRITICAL DATES CALENDAR, SO THIS IS A CALENDAR THAT GOES THROUGH THE WHOLE YEAR AND IT CHECKS FOR EACH OF THE TWO MEETINGS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD HAVE IN ANY MONTH AND IT BACKS INTO ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE COMPLETED IN ORDER FOR THAT PROJECT TO BE HEARD.
AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE WHEN WOULD THE PUBLIC NOTICING HAVE TO BE DONE.
WHEN WOULD THE PLANNER NEED TO GET CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FROM ALL THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
WHEN DOES THE DRAFT STAFF REPORT NEED TO BE PREPARED WITH THE FINDINGS AND THEN THE VARIOUS REVIEWERS AND WHAT TIME PERIOD THEY HAVE TO REVIEW IT.
THAT'S THE PLAYBOOK, IF YOU WILL, AS TO HOW A PROJECT GETS TO THE COMMISSION.
IT'S BASICALLY DEVELOPED AROUND ABOUT 6-8 WEEK PROCESS TO WHERE IF A PROJECT DESIGN HAS BEEN FINALIZED AND IT'S IN CONFORMANCE AND WE FEEL WE CAN SUPPORT IT OR AGREE WITH AN APPLICANT THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO AGREE AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL, THAT'S THE POINT AT WHICH WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE DATE AND THESE DIFFERENT STEPS TO GO IN.
ONCE A PLANNER GETS TO THAT POINT, THEY SUBMIT WHAT WE CALL A REQUEST TO SCHEDULE AND THAT'S HOW WE MANAGE THE AGENDAS SO THE PLANNER WILL PUT IN FOR THE PROJECT TO BE CONSIDERED ON A PARTICULAR HEARING DATE AND THEN PROVIDED THERE'S SPACE ON THE AGENDA, IT'LL GET PUT ON THE TENTATIVE SCHEDULE AND COMMISSIONERS, YOU RECEIVE THE TENTATIVE SCHEDULE.
WE TYPICALLY TRY TO GET IT TO YOU SHORTLY AFTER A MORE RECENT HEARING SO THAT YOU CAN PLAN TOWARDS THE NEXT MEETING, BUT THAT'S HOW WE POPULATE THAT SCHEDULE.
OFTENTIMES, I'LL GET QUESTIONS, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE IN THREE MONTHS OR SOMETHING? USUALLY, WE DON'T KNOW THAT FAR IN ADVANCE, THAT'S WHY IT'S MORE LIKE AN EIGHT-WEEK TIMEFRAME.
IF YOU DO HAVE THAT QUESTION, I APOLOGIZE.
BUT USUALLY WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THE WINDOW IS STILL OPEN FOR THINGS TO BE SCHEDULED.
ONE THING I WANTED TO ADD IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF THE SCHEDULING, OFTENTIMES AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE MEETINGS, IF ONE OR MORE OF YOU, PARTICULARLY MORE THAN ONE, WERE ABSENT.
WE HAVE APPLICANTS THAT WOULD LIKE TO KNOW BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT WANT TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION IF THERE'S ONLY FOUR MEMBERS AT NIGHT AND LET'S SAY THEY HAVE A LEGISLATIVE ACTION THAT NEEDS FOUR POSITIVE VOTES AND THEY'RE THINKING, WELL, I NEED TO HAVE ALL FOUR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE IN AGREEMENT TO SUPPORT MY PROPOSAL.
THAT'S WHY I GUESS I JUST WANT TO MAKE A REMINDER.
I THINK MOST OF YOU HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD ABOUT GIVING US AN ADVANCED WARNING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE OUT OF TOWN ON A VACATION OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.
BUT WE DO APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THAT HELPS US TO KNOW AS WE'RE PLANNING THE AGENDAS AS TO WHETHER THERE COULD BE A POTENTIAL PROBLEM.
IN SOME CASES, THE APPLICANTS WANT TO KNOW AS WELL THAT IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A SEVEN MEMBER BODY THAT NIGHT, THEY WANT TO RECONSIDER IF THEY THINK THEY'RE FACING SOME OPPOSITION.
WHAT'S A GOOD RULE OF THUMB FOR US AS COMMISSIONERS AND LETTING STAFF KNOW THAT WE HAVE A CONFLICT AND WE WON'T BE AT A PARTICULAR COMMISSION MEETING? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 90 DAYS IF WE KNOW IT IN ADVANCE. HOW MUCH LEAD TIME?
>> I WOULD SAY AS SOON AS YOU KNOW, IN SOME YEARS WE TRIED AT THE START OF THE YEAR, IF YOU HAD PLANNED TIMES WHERE YOU
[00:45:02]
WOULD BE OUT OF TOWN IF YOU KNEW THAT AND YOU CAN LET US KNOW.WE WOULD DEVELOP A CALENDAR FOR OUR USE WHERE WE WOULD KEEP TRACK OF HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE AVAILABLE.
IN A WORST CASE IF WE DIDN'T HAVE AT LEAST FOUR OF YOU THAT WERE ABLE TO ATTEND, WE COULDN'T HAVE A MEETING SO THAT'S THE OPPOSITE EXTREME, BUT REALLY IT'S BECOME MORE OF AN ISSUE FOR SOME APPLICANTS IF THEY HAVE SOME AMOUNT OF CONTROVERSY AND THEY'RE JUST NOT SURE WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN AND SO THE ODDS ARE IF I HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS, MAYBE MY CHANCES ARE BETTER.
>> THANK YOU. IS IT A REQUIREMENT THAT WE ALLOW APPLICANTS TO COME BACK? WELL, DO WE HAVE A FULL COMMISSION OR IS THAT JUST A COURTESY THAT WE NORMALLY EXTEND?
>> TO MY UNDERSTANDING HAS BEEN MORE OF A COURTESY.
THE OTHER SIDE, SOME APPLICANTS WILL SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'VE WAITED THIS LONG.
I WANT A DECISION ON MY PROJECT.
I DON'T WANT TO WAIT AN ADDITIONAL TWO WEEKS, BUT THAT'S WHY I THINK IF WE KNOW IN ADVANCE, WE CAN LET APPLICANTS KNOW AND THEN THEY CAN TELL US.
I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT HAVING LESS THAN SEVEN OR PLEASE LET ME WAIT.
>> PERMANENT STREAMLINING LINING ACT.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE OR WHAT THEIR BREATH IS OF THAT, BUT WHEN SOMETHING IS SCHEDULED AND THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED COMPLETE, THERE'S THIS LITTLE THING CALLED THE PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT.
I WAS HOPING MAYBE YOU COULD ELABORATE ON THAT AND WHAT THAT MEANS AS FAR AS CONTINUANCES AND THIS IS REALLY A GOOD ONE.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IT A CONTINUOUS, ARE EITHER WAIVERS? ARE THEY'RE NOT? WHAT DOES IT MEAN? COULD YOU ELABORATE ON IT WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMISSION?
>> SURE. THERE'S A NUMBER OF DEADLINES IN THE PERMANENT STREAMLINING ACT.
THEY TOUCHED ON THE FIRST ONE, WHICH WAS THAT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF AN APPLICATION BEING SUBMITTED THAT WE NEED TO DETERMINE, IS IT A COMPLETE APPLICATION OR NOT? ONCE A SEQUEL FINDINGS HAVE BEEN MADE, OTHER DEADLINES KICK IN IN TERMS OF AN ACTION ON THE PROJECT.
THE EIR IS OUR CURRENT LONGEST ONE WITH I BELIEVE IT'S UP TO A YEAR WITH A 90 DAY EXTENSION.
THE NEG DECKS AND THE MITIGATE NEG DECKS, I WANT TO SAY OR SIX MONTHS.
THEN THE EXEMPTIONS, I BELIEVE ARE 60 DAYS FROM WHEN WE MAKE THE EXEMPTION DETERMINATION.
BECAUSE SO MANY OF THE PROJECTS NOW ARE EXEMPT, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM.
NOW AN APPLICANT CAN AGREE TO AN EXTENSION, AND WE'VE HAD THAT HAPPEN, PARTICULARLY IF THEY'VE CAUSED DELAYS ON GETTING THE CITY INFORMATION.
OR IN SOME CASES THE APPLICANTS WERE TALKING ABOUT YOUR AVAILABILITY.
BUT IN SOME CASES AN APPLICANT WILL SAY, WELL, I CAN'T BE THERE FOR THIS PARTICULAR MEETING.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO LATER.
THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THERE'S SOME TIMELINES LAID OUT THAT ARE THERE SO THAT A CITY DOESN'T SIT ON AN APPLICATION AND NOT ACT ON IT WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME.
>> I GET A SENSE SOMETIMES ANGST UP HERE, I CAN FEEL IT.
WELL, WE GOT TO HURRY AND WE HAVE TO DECIDE BECAUSE THEN THE PROJECT TURNS TO FAIRY DUST IN THE NEXT DAY.
COULD YOU MAYBE ELABORATE A LITTLE FURTHER? LIKE, I KNOW YOU WENT THROUGH IT. I THINK A LITTLE QUICKLY.
I WAS WATCHING THEM AND SO IT MEANS SO MANY DAYS TO GO WHERE AND THEN HOW DOES THEIR ACTIONS UP HERE AS FAR AS CONTINUANCES ARE AN OFF CALENDAR OR A DENIAL RECOMMENDATION, IT CAN STILL BE FORWARDED.
MAYBE THOSE LITTLE NUANCES I THINK WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
>> SURE. WELL, LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET ALL THAT.
BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THE SCHEDULING IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE YOU, BEFORE THAT DEADLINE TO ACT ON IT.
NOW, IF WE GET THERE AND YOU NEED AN ADDITIONAL MEETING.
I HAVE NOT SEEN A CASE WHERE AN APPLICANT SAYS, I NEED A DECISION TONIGHT OR I'M GOING TO FILE A LAWSUIT.
I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE EXPEDITIOUS FOR THEM TO GIVE YOU THAT EXTRA MEETING TOO, TO HAVE THE TIME TO MAKE DECISION.
COMMISSIONER LUNA COULD YOU GIVE ME AS THERE'S SOME SPECIFIC PART THAT I'M JUST NOT TOUCHING ON THAT YOU WANT ME TO COVER?
>> I THINK [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING.
>> IF THEY DID DEMAND A DECISION, THAT DECISION MIGHT BE FOR DENIAL AND SO MOST LIKELY THEY ARE GOING TO SAY, GO AHEAD AND TAKE AN EXTRA WEEK.
BECAUSE IF YOU'RE PUT UP AGAINST IT AND YOU SAY, WELL, WE EITHER NEED TO GET MORE INFORMATION, WE'RE GOING TO DENY THE PROJECT.
I WOULD SAY MOST OF THE TIME THEY'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND AGREE TO A CONTINUANCE.
[00:50:03]
>> I THINK COMMISSION DID WANT A CONTINUANCE.
HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE PERMANENT STREAMLINING ACT? I GUESS HE'S TRYING TO ELABORATE.
>> WELL, I THINK I MEAN MAYBE IN YOUR SCENARIO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD GO BEYOND THE DEADLINE.
BUT I THINK IN MOST CASES I'VE SEEN APPLICANTS WILLINGLY ACCEPT THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE HOPING THAT YOUR REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL TIME OR INFORMATION AS IT'S GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THEIR REQUEST.
BUT SOMETIMES IF YOU'RE NOT THE FINAL DECISION-MAKER, THEY WANT TO GET TO THE COUNCIL AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
THEY MIGHT JUST TAKE THE DENIAL AND THEN GO FOR AN APPEAL.
>> JUST ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT.
ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE, AS A DEPARTMENT HAVE IS APPLICANTS OFTEN COME IN AND IN A RUSH.
THEY NEED TO GET A DECISION MADE WITHIN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
WE UNDERSTAND THIS AS TIME IS MONEY FOR THEM.
ONE OF THEM WE'RE TRYING TO PUT MEASURES AND STEPS IN PLACE TO TRY TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR APPLICANTS TO GET THROUGH OUR SYSTEM QUICKLY SO THEY CAN GET THEIR PROJECT PRESENTED BEFORE YOU FOR DECISION.
THAT STARS ONE IS, OUR MANTRA IS COME EARLY COME OFTEN, WE REALLY WANT THE APPLICANTS TO COME IN, TALK WITH US, GO THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION WHERE WE CAN IDENTIFY ALL THE DIFFERENT ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS TO THOSE ISSUES FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ONCE THEY FORMALLY SUBMIT.
IF THEY'RE RESPONSIVE TO THAT PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION THEY'RE PROCESS SHOULD TAKE SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME TO READ IT.
>> YOU'RE NOT BILLING THEM, ARE YOU JEFF FOR THOSE MEETINGS?
>> WE CHARGE A FLAT FEE FOR THOSE REVIEWS.
IT DEPENDS ON THE LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY.
I THINK DON MENTIONED 250 IS THE FIRST ONE AND THE OTHER ONE'S A LITTLE OVER A $1000, WHICH IS A LOT MORE ROBUST AND IT INCLUDES OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN THAT REVIEW.
WE HAVE AN INFORMATION BULLETIN ON THAT, SO THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR FOLKS TO REVIEW.
THAT'S STEP 1. STEP 2 IS ONCE THE APPLICATION GETS SUBMITTED.
IN OUR INITIAL REVIEW, AGAIN, WE'LL GET MORE UNDER WHAT WE REFER TO AS THE SHOT CLOCK UNDER THE PERMANENT STREAMLINING ACT, WHERE WE HAVE 30 DAYS TO GET OUR COMMENTS TO THEM.
AGAIN, IT GOES THROUGH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.
WE WORK WITH THOSE DEPARTMENTS AND COMING UP WITH A COMMENT LETTER.
INCLUDED IN THAT COMMENT LETTER IS A SCHEDULE THAT TELLS THE APPLICANT WHEN THEY CAN ANTICIPATE HAVING A DECISION HEARD ON THEIR PROJECT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SCHEDULE, THREE-QUARTERS OF THAT TIME IS IN THE APPLICANT'S HAND.
WE'RE REALLY LIMITED AND OUR TIME IS SHORT ALREADY, SO WE CAN'T REALLY SHORTEN OUR TIME, OR REVIEW TIME TO GET IT DONE SOONER.
AS QUICKLY AS IF THE APPLICANT GET THE STUDIES AND CORRECTIONS MADE QUICKER THEN THEY CAN GET THE DECISION QUICKER.
THE OTHER COMPONENT THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPED AS IN OUR PROCESSING GUIDE, IS WHAT I REFER TO AS THE THREE STRIKE RULE OR THE THREE ITERATION REVIEWS.
ONCE AN APPLICANT HAS A THIRD ITERATION, IF A FOURTH RECENT METAL HAS TO COME IN BECAUSE OF CONTINUED PROBLEMS WITH THEIR PROJECT.
I AM REQUIRING A MEETING WITH ME, AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT, THEIR CONSULTANTS AND STAFF TO WALK THROUGH WHY, WHAT DOES THE ISSUES THAT ARE CAUSING THIS PROJECT TO GO THROUGH A FOURTH ITERATION? IF YOU'VE TALKED TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR YOU CAN SEE SIX, SEVEN, EIGHTH, COMMENT LETTERS WHERE IT'S THIS VOLLEYBALL MATCH BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE DEPARTMENT.
AGAIN, OUR JOB IS TO GET THESE THINGS NAVIGATED THROUGH THE SYSTEM, GET THEM TO THE DECISION-MAKER AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
WE'VE INSTITUTED THIS POLICY TO BASICALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T SIT THERE HAVING APPLICANTS OR EVEN STAFF SPINNING THEIR WHEELS, HITTING THEIR HEAD AGAINST THE HAND BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS NOT BEING RESPONSIVE.
WITH THAT, THAT TRIES TO SHORTEN THE OVERALL REVIEW TIME SO THAT THE PROJECT IS HEARD QUICKER AND THEN YOU AVOID THE SITUATION WHERE IF MORE TIME IS NEEDED TO CONCERNS ABOUT DELAYING THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT'S TAKEN MULTIPLE MONTHS TO GET THROUGH OUR REVIEW.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. DON GO AHEAD AND PROCEED.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'M GOING TO MOVE TO OUR NEXT TOPIC, WHICH WERE STAFF REPORTS.
THERE'S JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANTED TO COVER HERE.
SORRY. JEFF HAD WHISPERED IN MY EAR WHETHER WE SHOULD BRING UP THE NEW HOUSING LAWS AND RELATIONSHIP TO PERMANENT STREAMLINING AND I SAID NO BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO CONFUSE THINGS.
BUT THERE IS ONE THAT I THINK WE'VE TOUCHED UPON BEFORE THAT YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD ABOUT AT SOME OF THE CONFERENCES THAT YOU'VE GONE TO, WHICH IS UNDER THE NEW HOUSING LAWS.
WE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE A TOTAL OF FIVE HEARINGS ON A PROJECT AND THAT'S IT.
ONCE YOU GET PAST FIVE, THEN THEY GET DEEMED APPROVED.
THOSE HEARINGS WOULD COVER ANY HEARING BEFORE YOU, ANY HEARING BEFORE COUNCIL, ANY HEARING THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEFORE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, FOR EXAMPLE.
[00:55:02]
IT'S AN ATTEMPT BY THE STATE TO HURRY PROJECTS ALONG SO A CITY DOESN'T CONTINUE A MATTER TO DELAY IT AND GET THE DECISION MAKERS TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT.JUST WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE, WE'RE LIMITED TO FIVE TOTAL HEARINGS BEFORE WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A FINAL DECISION.
IT DOESN'T REALLY COME INTO PLAY MUCH.
BUT IF YOU REMEMBER THE ROMERIA ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION A FEW YEARS BACK.
THAT ONE WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEN WENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THEN GOT KICKED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HAD THE POTENTIAL TO GO AND IT MAY HAVE GONE BACK TO THE COUNCIL, SO THAT HIT FOUR.
THERE WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN ROOM ON THAT CLOCK FOR ONE MORE.
THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT THAT IS THAT'S THE ONLY TIME THAT'S HAPPENED SINCE THAT LAW IS PASSED, BUT IT IS OUT THERE.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT'S ONLY IF THERE'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCLUDED.
IS THAT CORRECT? FOR REGULAR OR NON-AFFORDABLE PROJECTS, IS THAT TYPICAL ALSO?
>> I BELIEVE THAT IT'S FOR ALL PROJECTS.
>> IF FOR PROJECTS THAT IT'S SP330 AND SO UNDER THAT PROVISION, THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.
WE HAVE AN INFORMATION BULLETIN ON THAT.
THAT'S GOING TO BE A MONETARY. YOU'RE GOING TO PROBABLY HEAR A LOT ABOUT, MOST OF THOSE BILLS.
>> THAT'S NOT AN IMPERIAL BEACH, THAT'S AN IB FOR INFORMATION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YEAH IB FOR INFORMATION AND NOT FROM IMPERIAL BEACH.
BUT WE A LOT OF THESE BILLS COME UP AND THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION.
THEY HAVE PROVISIONS IN THERE THAT SAY IF YOU MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS, YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THESE EXPEDITED REVIEWS AND THESE OTHER PROVISIONS AND SO SP330 IS ONE OF THOSE.
AGAIN, YOU CAN LOOK AT THE INFO BULLETINS ON ALL THREE OF THOSE IF YOU'RE INTERESTED.
>> IF YOU'RE TAKING NOTES FOR FUTURE WORKSHOPS, THERE'S A TOPIC FOR YOU.
>> I SEE NO FURTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS.
DON YOU WANT TO PROCEED, I THINK WITH THE STAFF REPORT PORTION OF THE AGENDA.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. FOR A STAFF REPORT, I JUST WANTED TO COVER A COUPLE OF REAL TOPICAL AREAS.
ONE WAS REALLY JUST THE WAY IN WHICH THEY'RE CURRENTLY ORGANIZED.
WE DO TRY TO PUT IN THE REPORT A NUMBER OF HEADINGS SO THAT YOU CAN SEE FROM MEETING TO MEETING WHERE TO FIND THE TYPES OF INFORMATION YOU MIGHT BE LOOKING FOR.
BUT ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU'LL SEE ON THE FIRST PAGE IS THE RECOMMENDATION.
FROM TIME TO TIME, COMMISSIONERS WILL ASK ARE WE THE FINAL DECISION MAKER ON THIS ITEM ARE WE A RECOMMENDING BODY.
WHEN YOU READ THAT SECTION, YOU'LL SEE, AND WE'VE TRIED TO BOLD AND UNDERLINED IT WHETHER YOU'RE RECOMMENDING OR APPROVING.
IF YOU LOOK FOR THAT WORD, YOU'LL SEE WHERE YOU FALL IN TERMS OF THE DECISION MAKER ON IT.
FURTHER DOWN, WE'LL GET INTO THE ANALYSIS SECTION.
WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO PRECEDING THAT IS LIST FOR YOU ALL THE PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT YOU'RE REVIEWING.
THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH AN ANALYSIS OF HOW IT COMPLIES OR WHERE IT MIGHT FALL SHORT.
THEN TOWARDS THE VERY END, I THINK IT IS THE LAST SECTION, ACTUALLY IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL SECTION, WHERE WE WILL DESCRIBE TO YOU WHAT THE SEQUENCE DOCUMENT IS THAT IS COVERING THE ACTION FOR THE PROJECT.
NOW, THE COMPANION TO THE REPORT, THE RESOLUTIONS, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE DONE TO TRY TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU NOT TO REVIEW OVER AND OVER THE SAME STANDARDIZED WORDING IS, WE DO HAVE A STANDARD FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS LISTS.
THERE'S CONDITIONS THAT YOU'LL SEE ON PRETTY MUCH EVERY PROJECT.
BUT IF THERE IS SOMETHING UNIQUE TO THE PROJECT, SAME WITH THE FINDINGS, THE ACTUAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE FINDING, YOU'LL SEE THAT IN BOLD TYPE.
IF YOU'RE FINDING YOURSELF PRESSED FOR TIME AND YOU WANT TO FOCUS IN ON WHAT IS REALLY UNIQUE TO THIS PROJECT.
YOU WANT TO KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR THE BOLDFACE AREAS OF THE REPORT.
ONE OF THE OTHER AREAS I WANTED TO CALL OUT AND WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT EXHIBITS FOR PROJECTS.
WITH THE PACKET, WE TYPICALLY WOULD GIVE YOU A REDUCED SET OF EXHIBITS THAT ARE ATTACHED, THAT IN APP BY 11 SIZE.
BUT THE ACTUAL FULL-SIZE BLUEPRINTS, WHEN YOU LOOK IN THE RESOLUTION AND IT SAYS THIS IS APPROVING PROJECT TITLE, JOE'S GARAGE EXHIBITS A THROUGH F WITH THIS DATE, WHAT YOU ARE APPROVING IS THAT SET OF PLANS.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE RUN ACROSS AND MORE RECENT
[01:00:02]
YEARS WE'VE HAD A LOT OF APPLICANT TEAMS CREATE THREE-DIMENSIONAL ILLUSTRATIVE PLANS THAT ARE REALLY GOOD TO SHOW WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.WE'VE BEEN USING THOSE IN PRESENTATIONS.
BUT THOSE AREN'T ACTUALLY WHAT YOU'RE APPROVING.
THOSE ARE REALLY JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IF YOU'RE STRUGGLING TO TRANSLATE THIS ONE-DIMENSIONAL DRAWING INTO THREE-DIMENSIONS.
I JUST WANTED TO CALL THAT OUT BECAUSE I KNOW FROM TIME-TO-TIME WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT SOMETHING ON ONE OF THOSE ILLUSTRATIVE DRAWINGS IN A POWERPOINT, MAYBE NOT MATCHING A PLAN.
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT THE PLANNER WILL NORMALLY GET PRETTY LATE IN THE PROCESS AS WE'RE MARCHING TO THE HEARING.
THE BLUEPRINTS, WE'VE ALL BEEN REVIEWED AND BLESSED.
BUT THIS ILLUSTRATIVE THAT WE'RE SHOWING TO GIVE YOU AND THE PUBLIC AN IDEA WHAT THIS MIGHT LOOK LIKE, ESPECIALLY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT MAY NOT BE ACCUSTOMED TO READING BLUEPRINTS.
I THINK IT SERVES A GOOD PURPOSE, BUT I KNOW IT HAS LED TO SOME CONFUSION.
I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP SO THAT IF YOU WANT TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, WE COULD SOLVE THAT.
MR. CHAIR, I THINK I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME INTEREST I THINK IN COMMISSIONERS MAY BE DISCUSSING HOW THEY APPROACH WHEN YOU GET THE PACKET FROM THE CITY.
HOW YOU MIGHT GO ABOUT REVIEWING THE MATERIAL AND WHAT'S A PRODUCTIVE WAY TO GET THROUGH THAT MATERIAL.
>> THANK YOU DON. I MAY HAVE BEEN THE ONE THAT ASKED THAT BE PART OF IT.
YEAH, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL HERE AT THE DIAS TO HAVE A DISCUSSION.
THOSE OF US WHO WANT TO SHARE, WHAT IS YOUR PROTOCOL INDIVIDUALLY AS A COMMISSIONER, WHEN YOU GET THAT STAFF REPORT.
DO YOU HAVE A BASIC STEP-BY-STEP THAT YOU GO THROUGH IN PREPARING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND IF SO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE IT? BECAUSE I SUSPECT THAT EACH OF US PROBABLY DO IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, BUT THIS WOULD BE THE TIME IF ANYBODY WANTS TO STEP FORWARD AND SAY, "THIS IS WHAT I DO FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, AND THEN I'M READY TO GO." ANYBODY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT? BILL GO AHEAD.
>> I'LL REFER TO CAROL. [LAUGHTER].
>> MY OH, MY. I THOUGHT YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM THEIR REPORT CARD DON, SINCE YOU HAVE ONE MORE DAY LEFT. I HAVE TO BE UP HERE WITH HIM FOR THREE MORE YEARS.
>> CONSIDER THAT A COMPLIMENT, CAROLYN.
>> WELL, I THINK DON'S POINT IS WELL-TAKEN AND I THINK THE BEST ANALOGY I CAN USE IS THE STAFF REPORT, THE REPORTING PART IS THE ICING ON THE CAKE, THE GUTS OF THE CAKE AND THE LEGAL STANDING ON THE CAKE, MANY COURT CASES I'VE SAT BEFORE SEQUEL JUDGES IS, DON'T EVEN LOOK AT THE STAFF REPORT.
THIS CITY DOES A REALLY GOOD JOB AND THE FINDINGS AND THE CONCLUSIONS, THAT'S YOU'RE LEGAL MEAT, THAT'S WHAT WINS OR LOSES CASES.
SO DON'S POINT OF GOING TO THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, YOU HAVE STANDARD FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE IF YOU'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PROJECT.
LOOK AT THE HIGHLIGHTED AREAS, THAT IS YOUR POINT OF SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE.
LOOK AT THAT AND FOCUS ON THAT.
THE OTHER THING I'VE OBSERVED IS I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE STAFF REPORTS BEFORE YOU GO TO THE BRIEFINGS BECAUSE A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I'VE OBSERVED YOU ASKING STAFF AND HE'S ASKED ME TO BE CANDID, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ASKING IF YOU READ IT BEFORE YOU WERE BRIEFING, YOUR VERBATIM READING OUT OF THE STAFF REPORT AND ASKING THE QUESTION, AND I'M LIKE, IF YOU WOULD HAVE READ YOUR STAFF, THE ANSWER IS RIGHT THERE.
IT'S RIGHT THERE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME, THE EFFORT OR YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
IF YOU DON'T, THIS JURISDICTION GIVES YOU BRIEFINGS.
OTHER JURISDICTIONS DO NOT AT ALL.
IF YOU'RE NOT READING YOUR STAFF REPORTS, ESPECIALLY JUST GO TO THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, I WOULD SUGGEST, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME, WHICH I THINK WAS WELL BROUGHT UP, THESE PLANNERS SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THE STAFF REPORT AND I DON'T WANT TO MINIMIZE ALL THEIR EFFORT BECAUSE THEY'RE TELLING THE STORY, IS WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
THE COURTS COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THAT STORY.
WHAT THE COURTS CARE ABOUT IS, ARE THE FINDINGS ACCURATE? ARE THE CONDITIONS ACCURATE? BUT FROM A PUBLIC POLICY PERSPECTIVE,
[01:05:02]
IT'S THE STAFF REPORT, THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS.THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND SO YOU'RE HAVING TO BALANCE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, BUT I HAVE OBSERVED A LOT OF QUESTIONS UP HERE SHOULD NEVER EVEN BE POSED AND LIKE I SAID, YOU SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON THE MORE SALIENT POINTS OF THE PROJECT, THE ANSWER IS RIGHT THERE.
YOU SEE STAFF TURNING THE PAGES LOOKING AT THIS TO FIND THE ANSWER, THE ANSWER IS THERE.
IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ON OR YOU HAVE A QUESTION WITH IT AS THAT STAFF REPORT RELATES TO A CONDITION OR A FINDING AND YOU'RE TAKING UMBRAGE WITH IT OR UNIQUE CLARIFICATION, THAT'S TOTALLY INEFFICIENT USE OF TIME TO ASK THAT QUESTION IN THE STAFF REPORT.
BUT MOST OF THE TIME IT'S LIKE, WELL, HOW MANY UNITS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, YOU DIDN'T READ YOUR STAFF, IT'S RIGHT THERE AND SO THE POOR PERSON IS GOING THROUGH IT, THE PUBLIC IS HERE WAITING, WE DON'T LOOK VERY EFFICIENT OR VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE WHEN WE'RE ASKING QUESTIONS THAT ARE IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT A 10TH GRADER, 6TH GRADER COULD COULD FIND OUT.
IN ADDITION, STAFF TIME, WE'RE WASTING A LOT OF STAFF SALARY BY SITTING HERE HAVING TO ANSWER A QUESTION THAT IS IN THERE BEFORE YOU.
IN ADDITION, THE CONSULTANTS ARE HERE FOR THE PROJECT APPLICANT AND THAT PERSON IS PAYING A LOT OF MONEY FOR FIVE OR SIX CONSULTANTS TO BE SITTING HERE, SO HERE ARE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENTS EFFICIENTLY TRYING TO GET THESE PEOPLE TO US AND THEN WE'RE SITTING HERE ASKING VERY OBVIOUS QUESTIONS.
THE MEAT OF IT IS YOUR FINDINGS, AND YOUR CONCLUSIONS, AND THE STAFF REPORTS IS THE STORYTELLING AND THE RATIONALE AND AGAIN, IT TO GET THERE.
NOW A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS, AS I SAID, DO NOT IN THEIR FINDINGS PUT THE JUSTIFICATION, SO YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE STAFF REPORT, YOU'RE SPOILED UP HERE BECAUSE THESE GUYS AND GIRLS DO THAT FOR YOU.
I WOULD FOCUS IN ON THE CONDITIONS AND ON THE CONCLUSIONS, AND THEN GO INTO THE BODY OF THE STAFF REPORT, LOOK AT WHAT'S SUPPORTING IT AND TRUST ME, YOU'LL BE LIKE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS.
HOW CAN THEY LEAP FROM THIS TO THIS? THAT'S WHAT YOUR BRIEFING SHOULD BE ABOUT.
SPEND TIME ON YOUR BRIEFINGS ON THAT BECAUSE I'VE BRIEFED WITH A LOT OF YOU INSTEAD OF ON SOMETHING THAT REALLY IS CODIFIED, YOU DON'T HAVE A LATITUDE TO CHANGE THIS OR THAT.
THAT'S HOW YOU CAN BE REALLY EFFECTIVE ON A LOT OF THESE PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING THROUGH.
LIKE I SAID, IF YOU'RE TAKING UMBRAGE WITH SOMETHING OR AN ANALYSIS, GO TO THOSE BRIEFINGS, PULL THOSE CONDITIONS, PULL THOSE FINDINGS AND HAVE THAT CRUCIAL CONVERSATION WITH STAFF.
>> I DON'T WANT TO REITERATE EVERYTHING THAT CAROLYN SAID, BUT I KNOW WHAT I DO FIRST IS I DO A REAL QUICK REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, MEANING THE STAFF REPORT AND ONCE I'VE DONE THAT, I'M ACQUAINTED WITH IT AND THEN WHAT I DO IS AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE FINDINGS, TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, CONDITIONS, GO THROUGH THAT AS WELL.
AS I'M DOING ALL THIS, I'M GOING THROUGH AND I'M MAKING NOTES AND I HAVE TWO COLUMNS, ONE BRIEFING ON THE ON THE DIRE, I GUESS YOU'D SAY.
WHAT I DO IS I DECIDE EXACTLY, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF TIME AT THE COMMISSION MEETING AND IT'S REALLY NOT SALIENT SO THEREFORE, THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE ON BRIEFING BECAUSE I STILL HAVE SOME DOUBTS ARE SOME QUESTIONS.
MY LIST ON THE BRIEFING SIDE IS MUCH LONGER THAN THE DIRE SIDE.
THERE MIGHT BE ONLY ONE OR TWO THINGS THAT I REALLY FEEL THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT OR SOMETHING TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT BECAUSE I MIGHT HAVE ONE OR TWO OTHERS THAT MIGHT COME UP WHILE I'M ON THE DIAS THAT MAY BE ASCERTAINED BY HEARING ONE OF OUR OTHER COMMISSIONERS MAKE A COMMENT OR STAFF MADE A COMMENT AND I MIGHT ADD.
BUT OVERALL, AGAIN, MAKE MY COMMENTS AND SO I WILL THEN GO AHEAD AND GO LOOK AT THE FINDINGS AND MAKE MY FINAL DECISION BASED UPON THAT.
I WILL THEN CONDUCT MYSELF ON THE DIAS WITH PROBABLY NOT A LOT OF THINGS THAT I SAY.
>> BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY COVERED THOSE, RIGHT?
>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, ROY, ON THE STAFF REPORT, YOU HAVE TWO COLUMNS, ONE FOR BRIEFING QUESTIONS AND ONE FOR DIAS QUESTIONS.
>> HANDWRITTEN ON THE STAFF REPORT ITSELF.
>> THAT'S YOUR CHEAT SHEET, IF YOU WILL, DURING THE HEARINGS, TO GO THROUGH THAT, THAT'S A TIP CARD.
>> THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT CAROLYN'S COMMENT IS WELL-TAKEN BECAUSE I REMEMBER ONE OF OUR LEAD CONFERENCES, I WAS ASTOUNDED ON HOW MANY CITIES DON'T HAVE BRIEFINGS.
I THINK IT WAS MY VERY FIRST CONFERENCE I WENT TO AND I WENT, OH, MY GOD.
[01:10:02]
THANK GOD WE HAVE BRIEFINGS BECAUSE I'M ABLE TO CONDUCT MYSELF ON THE DIAS MUCH MORE PROFESSIONALLY.>> YOU'RE RIGHT. I WORKED FOR CITY OF OCEANS THAT THERE ARE NO BRIEFINGS THERE.
IT IS A PRIVILEGE AND A SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING BOTH ROY AND CAROLYN SAID, LET ME JUST RUN THROUGH A LITTLE BIT MORE FORMALLY HOW I DO IT.
IT'S SIMILAR, BUT NOT EXACTLY THE SAME.
NUMBER 1, WHEN I GET THE STAFF REPORT, THE FIRST THING I'M LOOKING FOR IS POTENTIAL CONFLICTS.
I DON'T WANT TO SPEND TIME GOING THROUGH THAT, IF I'M GOING TO HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF.
FOR ME, I OWN SOME PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT WITHIN 600 FEET OF SOMETHING I OWN OR HAVE AN INTEREST IN.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE AND I ALSO LOOK TO SEE WHO THE APPLICANT IS BECAUSE I DO HAVE SOME CONTEXTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY THAT IT WOULD CREATE A PROBLEM FOR ME IF THAT PERSON WAS THE PROPONENT OF THE PROJECT.
RIGHT OFF THE BAT, I'M SAYING, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT I CAN WEIGH IN ON AND MAKE A DECISION, AND 95 PERCENT OF THE TIME IT IS.
BUT AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO SPEND TIME ON IT IF IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT.
ONCE I'VE GONE THROUGH THAT REVIEW, THE SECOND THING I LOOK TO IS REAL CAREFULLY IS WHAT ARE THE DISCRETIONARY PERMITS THAT WERE ASKED TO REVIEW HERE? COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, CUP, VARIANCE, WHATEVER IT IS.
TO ME, THE ANALOGY I USE, THESE ARE LIKE THE GUARDRAILS ON THE ROAD.
YOU'RE GOING UP A MOUNTAIN ROAD AND THE GUARDRAILS ON EACH SIDE, YOU HAVE DISCRETION, YOU GOT TO STAY WITHIN THOSE GUARDRAILS OR YOU'RE IN TROUBLE.
I LOOK AT SEE WHAT THE PERMITS ARE AND THEN I GO TO THE RESOLUTION, AND I FOCUS ON THE FINDINGS FOR THOSE PARTICULAR PERMITS TO SAY, THESE ARE THE PERMITS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE USING OUR DISCRETION TO DECIDE UP OR DOWN, AND THESE ARE THE FINDINGS THAT WOULD ALLOW ME IF I SO CHOOSE A DOTH COMMISSION IF WE SO CHOOSE TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT.
FORTUNATELY, THE STAFF IS KIND ENOUGH TO BOLD MOST OF THOSE, THE SPECIAL FINDINGS, SPECIAL EFFECTS, SO I TARGET THOSE.
THEN I HAVE READ THE STAFF REPORT BUT I'LL PERUSE THE STAFF REPORT, I WILL NOT SPEND HOURS AND HOURS ON IT.
I WILL FOCUS ON THE RESOLUTION BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION IS THE MEAT AND POTATOES, THAT'S WHAT THE LEGAL ACT THAT WE HAVE TO DO AND I WANT TO LOOK AT THOSE FINDINGS, I WANT TO LOOK AT THOSE CONDITIONS.
ONCE I'VE DONE THAT, I DON'T ALWAYS SUCCEED TO DO A SITE VISIT.
I REALLY LIKE TO BE OUT THERE NOT JUST TO DRIVE BY BUT TO ACTUALLY GET OUT OF MY CAR AND WALK AROUND.
IT'S AMAZING WHAT I CAN LEARN BY JUST WALKING AROUND THE AREA.
I'LL LOOK FOR THE YELLOW PROJECT SIGNS AS WELL, IS THE CLUE TO WHERE THE PROJECT IS, SO I'LL DO THAT.
I TRIED TO DO THAT BEFORE THE BRIEFING, SOMETIMES I DON'T ABLE TO DO THAT BUT IF I CAN, I'LL DO THAT BETWEEN THE BRIEFING AND THE ACTUAL COMMISSION MEETINGS.
ALL THOSE THINGS TOGETHER HELPED ME TO PREPARE THE BEST I CAN AND THAT'S THE FORMAT THAT I USE.
>> LET ME ADD ONE MORE THING TOO.
I THINK GOING OUT IN THE SITE VISIT, THAT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IS BECAUSE I THINK FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, IF WE HAPPEN TO HAVE NEITHER THE APPLICANT OR NEIGHBORS OR OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE CONCERNS, AT LEAST I FEEL, I NEED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, UNDERSTAND WHAT'S 1000 YARDS AROUND THAT SITE, SO THAT IF SOMEONE COMES UP TO THE PODIUM, I CAN AT LEAST HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA AS TO COMMENTS THEY MAKE AND I CAN PUT IT INTO PROPER PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THE SITE, AND I CAN HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF WHAT'S THE SITE, AS WELL AS, OF COURSE, THE SURROUNDING AREA HAPPENS TO BE.
THEREFORE LOOKING AT THE SITE FROM STANDPOINT OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
>> INTERESTINGLY, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE TALK ABOUT READING PUBLIC COMMENTS YET.
[LAUGHTER] IT'S REALLY INTERESTING IN HEARING HOW ALL OF YOU GO THROUGH THE AGENDA.
I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF AN UNORTHODOX APPROACH BECAUSE I READ THE COMMENTS FIRST.
I DO THIS FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS BUT MOSTLY BECAUSE I REALLY THINK THAT THE PUBLIC IS A VERY GOOD WATCHDOG.
I CAN'T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING IN THE CITY, AND I DO READ THE AGENDA,
[01:15:01]
OF COURSE, TO REACH MY OWN CONCLUSIONS, BUT I READ THE COMMENTS TO GET A FEEL OF WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE THINKING AND WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY SEEN AND CORRESPONDED TO THE CITY STAFF ABOUT, TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT TO FOCUS ON WHEN I READ THE COMMENTS.I DO TRY TO ACTUALLY [LAUGHTER] READ THE STAFF REPORT AND MAKE A SITE VISIT BEFORE THE BRIEFINGS ALTHOUGH I ADMIT THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN.
BUT I GO THROUGH THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, SPEND TIME ON THE RESOLUTION LIKE JOE WAS SAYING.
I TURNED TO THE STAFF REPORT AND READ IT A LOT MORE CLOSELY WHEN I HAVE A QUESTION.
I WAS PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE STAFF REPORTS EXPLANATION OF WHEN TO GRANT A VARIANCE OR NOT.
I THINK THAT WAS A FEW MEETINGS BACK WHERE WE HAD A VARIANCE REQUESTED BECAUSE ALL THE OTHER HOUSES IN THAT COMMUNITY ALSO HAD THE SAME VARIANCE AND YOU WENT THROUGH THE FIVE CRITERIA TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD GRANT A VARIANCE, AND THAT WAS REALLY HELPFUL FOR ME.
THAT'S THE THING I LOOK FOR IN THE STAFF REPORT IS ANSWERING QUESTIONS THAT MIKE, THIS IS A VARIANCE, THIS SIGNALS HIGHER SCRUTINY HERE.
I HAVE TO LOOK VERY CLOSELY AND I FOUND THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THAT'S WHAT I SPEND TIME LOOKING AT.
I DO SPEND TIME LOOKING AT THE ARTWORK BECAUSE IT'S INTERESTING AND IT HELPS ME GET A SENSE OF, WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY APPROVING HERE, BUT I DON'T SPEND A TON OF TIME ON IT BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S JUST AN ARTIST'S RENDERING AND I'M NOT CLEAR ON EXACTLY HOW LEGALLY BINDING IT IS.
THAT'S HOW I GO THROUGH THE STAFF REPORT.
IF NECESSARY AND IT'S USUALLY NOT, I WILL GO THROUGH FIND PRECEDENCE, IF I NEED TO AND LOOK AT OTHER DECISIONS THAT THE COMMISSION OR THAT CITY COUNCIL OR OTHER CITIES HAVE MADE IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS.
I SOMETIMES LOOK AT THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, IF IT'S CITED TO JUSTIFY SOMETHING.
I REMEMBER WE HAD A MEETING ABOUT, THERE WAS A 32.5 FOOT BUILDING WHERE THE HEIGHT LIMIT WAS 30 FEET AND WE HAD THIS BIG LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER IT SHOULD BE APPROVED BECAUSE THE BUILDING PADS PUT IT OVER 30 FEET AND I LOOKED AT THE CARLSBERG MUNICIPAL CODE AND FIGURE IT OUT, IS IT ACTUALLY GOING TO BE MEASURED FROM THE START OF THE FOUNDATION OR THE TOP OF THE BUILDING PADS AND THAT HELPS ME COME TO MY OWN CONCLUSIONS AND EVENTUALLY I AGREED WITH THE STAFF REPORT, BUT I HAD TO READ THE MUNICIPAL CODE MYSELF BECAUSE THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHAT WE'RE TASKED TO UPHOLD.
THAT'S HOW I DEAL WITH IT, A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKWARDS APPROACH.
THEN SOME OTHER PEOPLE I THINK BUT WE ALL DO IT DIFFERENTLY.
I WILL SAY THAT I DO ASK SOME QUESTIONS IN OPEN COMMISSION NOT IN BRIEFING THAT I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO.
I KNOW THAT MAY BOTHER YOUR COMMISSIONER LUNA [LAUGHTER] BUT I DO IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC SOMETIMES, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO KNOW.
BECAUSE A LOT OF THEM FRANKLY, THEY'RE GOING TO COME SPEAK TO US ABOUT IT AND IT'S BETTER THAT THEY HEAR STAFFS REPORTING ON IT BEFORE THEY SPEAK RATHER THAN AFTER.
>> YEAH. THANKS. IT'S REALLY HELPFUL TO HEAR THOSE COMMENTS FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
ONE THING I THINK I'VE LEARNED A LITTLE BIT, THE HARD WAY IS THAT INSTEAD OF STARTING ON THE STAFF REPORT, USUALLY GRAB THE PLANS AND LOOK AT THE PLANS FIRST.
THEN WHEN READING THE STAFF REPORT IT MAKES MORE SENSE BECAUSE JUST THAT SOMETIMES CERTAIN LEARNING.
THE OTHER ONE, I THINK I CAN EMPHASIZE IMPORTANCE ENOUGH IS ACTUALLY WALKING THE SITE.
EVERY TIME YOU'RE ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY ON THE SITE AND WALKING YOU LEARN SOMETHING.
FROM A PERSPECTIVE OR DISTANCE AND ESPECIALLY TOO IN PUBLIC COMMENT OR PEOPLE ARE SAYING CONCERNS ABOUT THINGS, AFTER BEING ON THE SITE YOU CAN SEE IT AND YOU UNDERSTAND THOSE THINGS.
THERE'S JUST NO WAY AROUND THAT.
I THINK THAT'S ALSO VERY IMPORTANT.
>> LET ME JUST ADD ONE OF THE FINAL THING THAT I DO ACTUALLY IS, I MAKE A TENTATIVE DECISION, IF THAT'S IT.
A TENTATIVE DECISION ON HOW I FEEL ABOUT THE PROJECT.
I'LL HAVE THAT DOWN THERE, BUT THEN I DO NOT MAKE A FINAL DECISION UNTIL I'VE HEARD FROM STAFF, HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC, AND ALSO HEARD FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THIS, I LEARN THINGS BY YOUR COMMENTS AND REMARKS THAT MAKE ME SOMETIMES CHANGE MY MIND.
NOTHING'S FINAL TILL I'VE HEARD EVERYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, SPEAK, LOOKED AT MY NOTES AND I SAID, OKAY, AM I STILL GOING WITH WHERE I HEADED OR I'M GOING TO FIND TUTOR OR AM I GOING TO REVERSE IT? BECAUSE I HEARD SOMETHING THAT CHANGE MY MIND.
[01:20:01]
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME THE DELIBERATION DISCUSSION PORTION OF OUR AGENDA ON EACH ITEM IS VERY, VERY CRITICAL.JEFF, I THINK YOU HAD SOME COMMENTS.
>> I JUST WANTED TO ASK AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS.
WHAT DOES THE COMMISSION FEEL ABOUT THE STAFF REPORT IN ITS ORGANIZATION? THE REASON WHY I ASK THIS IS THAT IT IS FILLED WITH A LOT OF INFORMATION.
A LOT OF IT'S LEGALLY REQUIRED.
WE HAVE TO MAKE FINDINGS AND WE HAVE TO SUBSTANTIATE THOSE FINDINGS.
BUT HOW WE ORGANIZE IT, WE DO HAVE SOME ABILITY TO CHANGE IT.
MAYBE THE QUESTION I HAVE TO THE COMMISSION IS, IS THERE A WAY WE CAN AS STAFF, MAYBE CHANGE THE STAFF REPORT, ORGANIZATION, OR STRUCTURE TO MAKE IT A LITTLE EASIER FOR YOU TO NAVIGATE THROUGH ALL OF THAT INFORMATION AND FOCUS YOUR INTENTION ON THE THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO BE FOCUSING ON.
IS THERE A WAY WE CAN CHANGE THAT? MAYBE THAT'S A FUTURE MEETING TO TALK THOSE THROUGH, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO OFFER THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT WOULDN'T BEEN IN PLACE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT THOSE AND SAYING, CAN WE DO IT BETTER, CAN WE CHANGE IT TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU AS THE COMMISSIONERS WHEN STAFF PRESENTS PROJECTS BEFORE YOU?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
MY PROFESSION, WE REDLINE EVERYTHING [LAUGHTER] AND ESPECIALLY DRAWINGS.
ACTUALLY, MY APPROACH IS TO AVOID LOOKING AT THE DRAWINGS FIRST AND READ THE STAFF REPORT BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE FOUND.
THEN I LOOK AT THE DRAWINGS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S THE THING I'M GOING TO GO TO FIRST.
I'M MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENTS VERSUS JUSTIFYING WHY WE CAN'T.
I DO FEEL THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD BE INCREDIBLY HELPFUL, MR. MURPHY IF IT'S A POSSIBILITY AND I KNOW THERE'S SO MANY CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT.
IS THERE A WAY THE STAFF REPORT COULD REFERENCE THE CONDITIONS IN FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT? I KNOW IT MAY NOT APPLY TO EVERY SINGLE THING, BUT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR US AS A BODY TO UNDERSTAND WHY CERTAIN THINGS ARE DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT RESULTS IN A CONDITION.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT IT WOULD BE CHALLENGING TO REFERENCE ALL CONDITIONS.
>> BECAUSE YOU'VE SEEN CONDITIONS THEY CAN GO FOR A WHILE ON SOME OF THESE PROJECTS.
HOWEVER, IF IN THE STAFF REPORT WE IDENTIFY A PROJECT ISSUE AND WHETHER IT'S A COMMUNITY ISSUE, WHETHER IT'S A STAFFING ISSUE, AND WE IDENTIFY A SOLUTION TO THAT AND THAT SOLUTION IS TIED TO A CONDITION, YES, WE COULD EASILY REFER TO THE CONDITION IN THE STAFF REPORT AS THAT THIS IS HOW WE'RE RESOLVING THE PROBLEM, OR WE'RE RESOLVING THE ISSUE.
BUT I WOULD SAY BEYOND THAT, IT WOULD GET REALLY COMPLICATED AND THERE'S SO MANY CONDITIONS IT'D BE REALLY CHALLENGING AND IT WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE YOUR PROJECT OR YOUR STAFF REPORT EVEN GROW LONGER THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY.
>> WELL, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT I'M NOT TRYING TO OVERCOMPLICATE IT.
DOES THE SAME PERSON DEVELOP IT? THE STAFF REPORT AND THE CONDITIONS OR IS IT A TEAM EFFORT? HOW DOES THAT WORK? WHAT ROLE DID THE DRAWINGS PLAY? THAT'S REALLY MY BIG QUESTION.
>> YEAH. I GUESS I WOULD SAY IT'S A TEAM EFFORT.
WHEN YOU SEE THEM UNDER THE DIFFERENT HEADINGS FOR, LET'S SAY ENGINEERING, FIRE BUILDING, THERE'S A STAFF MEMBER IN EACH OF THOSE DIVISIONS OR DEPARTMENTS THAT WOULD DEVELOP IT.
PLANNING CONDITIONS ARE DEVELOPED BY THE PLANNER WHO'S PREPARING THE REPORT.
MAYBE TO ADDRESS THE POINT THAT YOU ARE MAKING, IT'S SOME OF THOSE NON-STANDARD CONDITIONS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO A PROJECT AND ONE OPTION WOULD BE FOR US TO GIVE YOU SOME EXPLANATION OF WHY THAT CONDITION IS THERE AND WHAT IT'S GOING TO ACCOMPLISH.
WHETHER IT'S MITIGATING AN ISSUE OR NEIGHBOR CONCERN OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.
>> I THOUGHT THAT BECAUSE LIKE I SAY, COMMISSIONER LUNA IS VERY ADEPT AT READING ALL OF THESE THINGS AND I FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT.
BUT THEN THE DRAWINGS TO ME START TO CONNECT ALL THE DOTS.
THAT'S WHY I'M CONCERNED WITH THE ROLE OF THE DRAWINGS AS FAR AS HOW THEY BECOME LEGALLY INCORPORATED INTO THIS AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT KEEP GETTING RAISED ARE THE POLICY 35, ENSURING THAT CONSISTENCY FROM WHEN THEY LEAVE THIS BODY TO GET BUILT, WHAT HAPPENS? THAT'S WHY I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE DRAWINGS AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT LEGAL RUBBER-STAMPING WE'RE DOING WITH THAT.
[01:25:03]
>> THE DRAWINGS AND I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL SEEN THIS IN THE RESOLUTION, THERE'S A SECTION USUALLY ON THE FIRST PAGE WHERE IT WILL SAY THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING AND IT'LL REFERENCE THE EXHIBITS WITH A DATE, PROJECT NAME, AND THE LETTER IT EXHIBITS.
IT'S REALLY THEN IS BY REFERENCE AND ATTACHMENT TO THAT RESOLUTION.
THE COMMISSION HAS TAKEN AN ACTION ON THOSE DRAWINGS FOR POLICY 35, THE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION POLICY.
THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY WE HAVE THAT WAS CREATED TO TRY TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU GET TO CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS OR MAYBE SOME AMOUNT OF CHANGES THAT WERE UNFORESEEN AND WHAT IS THE TOLERANCE OR THE LEEWAY THAT STAFF WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS WITHOUT COMING BACK TO AMEND THE PERMIT.
IN THE POLICY, THERE'S A NUMBER OF REFERENCES TO THINGS LIKE 10 PERCENT FOR I THINK LIKE A BUILDING, HEIGHT CHANGE PLUS OR MINUS 10 PERCENT.
IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 30-FOOT BUILDING, THEN YOU HAVE A THREE FEET PLUS OR MINUS THAT, AND THAT'S ASSUMING THAT IT'S STILL WITHIN THE OVERALL ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
IF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ZONE IS 30 FEET, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO UP 10 PERCENT OVER THE 30.
BUT THAT'S REALLY A GUIDELINE FOR US.
IT WAS LIKE SAY IT WAS INTENDED TO BE A WAY TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR AN APPLICANT TO MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS LATER ON AS THEY GET TO THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN PHASE.
ONE LAST THING I SHOULD MENTION, THERE IS A GENERAL FINDING IN THERE THAT SPEAKS TO, ARE WE CHANGING SOMETHING THAT WAS SIGNIFICANT OR IMPORTANT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS OR IT WOULD BE NOTICEABLE OR I FORGET, IT'S SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF NOTICEABLE BY A COMMISSIONER OR SOMETHING.
IN MOST CASES, WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT THE AVERAGE PERSON OR EVEN YOURSELVES WOULDN'T NOTICE.
THAT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE THE CASE.
WE'VE SEEN SOME CASES WHERE WE'VE MADE AN ADJUSTMENT AND OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS SAID, HEY, WE THINK THAT WASN'T SIGNIFICANT, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT.
THERE IS JUDGMENT WITH IT, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY THE CHALLENGING PART OF IT.
>> YOU'VE PIQUED MY INTEREST, MR. MURPHY ON STAFF REPORT FORMATTING, AND I THINK WE PROBABLY HAVE A FULL AGENDA, MR. CHAIR. MY THOUGHT AND I LIKE TO THROW UP BEFORE MY COLLEAGUES MAYBE, YOU'VE WORKED IN A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS.
MAYBE YOU GIVE US A, B, C, D, AND GET IT OUT TO US AND WE TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND YOU MIGHT HAVE AN OVERWHELMINGLY REAL IDEA OR WE DON'T LIKE ANY OF THEM OR A LITTLE BIT OF THIS OR THAT, BUT I THINK IF YOU COULD GIVE US A PALLET BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOUR STAFF, YOU KNOW WHAT THEY CAN WORK WITHIN, AND MAYBE CHAIRMAN STINE, IF WE COULD AGENDIZE IT THEN FOR A MEETING?
>> YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT WE AGENDIZE AN ITEM FOR POSSIBLE REVISIONS TO A STAFF REPORT FORMAT?
>> SURE. YEAH, SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.
>> YEAH. I THINK THAT WOULD BE FINE.
>> HE COMES WITH SOME SAMPLES.
>> WE CAN WORK WITH THE CHAIR AS HEADING UP A SPECIFIC DATE ON THAT BECAUSE WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS I DO HAVE SOME EXAMPLES FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
WE'LL WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO SEE IF WE CAN PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER AND WHAT WORKS FOR CARLSBAD AND THEN PRESENT THEM TO YOU GUYS AND THEN WE CAN POSSIBLY EVEN DO A FRANKENSTEIN VERSION TOO IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
[LAUGHTER] STEAL FROM DIFFERENT ONES AND CREATE OUR OWN.
WE CAN WORK TO GET THERE [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE CAN DO THAT PERHAPS IN NEXT 60, 90 DAYS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WOULD THAT BE DOABLE?
>> SINCE WE WANT A FRANKENSTEIN, HOW ABOUT OCTOBER? [LAUGHTER]
>> I DON'T LIKE THE FRANKENSTEIN METAPHOR. PEOPLE WANT TO TAKE A BREAK?
>>WHY DON'T WE TAKE A 10-MINUTE BREAK AND COME BACK AT 2:45. THANK YOU.
RECONVENE OUR MEETING AND TURN IT BACK TO YOU, DON.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THINK WHERE WE LEFT OFF WAS BRIEFINGS AND I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THESE POINTS ALREADY, SO I'LL JUST HIT THIS BRIEFLY, BUT YES, WE SHOULD BE BRIEF.
BUT JUST TO GET TO THE PURPOSE OF THE PRIMARY REASON WE'RE HOLDING BRIEFINGS IS SO THAT WE CAN GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
IF YOU HAVE A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BE AN OPPORTUNE TIME FOR US TO GET THAT REQUEST SO THAT WE HAVE SOME TIME PRIOR
[01:30:02]
TO THE MEETING TO EITHER GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CONSIDER SOME OTHER ISSUE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE BRIEFING.I THINK THIS PART YOU ALL HAVE TALKED ABOUT IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT THE BRIEFINGS ARE MOST EFFECTIVE IF COMMISSIONERS CAN REVIEW THE PROJECT PLANS AND THE REPORT PRIOR TO THE BRIEFING.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO VISIT THE SITE, IF YOU'RE ABLE TO DO THAT BEFORE THE BRIEFING.
ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT IS ON OCCASION IF SOMEONE HASN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT, THEN DAY OF THE HEARING AS WE'RE GETTING CLOSER TO THE MEETING TIME, YOU MIGHT CALL OR SEND ME EMAILS SAYING I FINALLY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT AND I HAVE THESE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
OFTENTIMES THAT CLOSE TO THE HEARING, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO REALLY RESPOND AND DO WHATEVER IT IS YOU MAY BE LOOKING FOR.
IF YOU'RE ABLE TO BE PREPARED IN ADVANCE, IT SEEMS TO MAKE FOR A BETTER USE OF THE BRIEFING TIME.
ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WITH THE BRIEFINGS THAT I DID WANT TO BRING UP AND IT HAPPENS FROM TIME TO TIME, BUT THE BRIEFINGS REALLY AREN'T THERE FOR US TO DEBATE THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT, OR TO TRY TO CONVINCE YOU IT'S A GOOD PROJECT.
OR IF YOU HAVE OTHER AREAS YOU'D LIKE TO PURSUE THAT MAYBE AREN'T SO RELATED TO THE PROJECT FOR US TO SPEND A LENGTHY AMOUNT OF TIME ON THAT THERE REALLY JUST TO FOCUS ON THE AGENDA ITEMS ON THAT PARTICULAR AGENDA AND THINGS THAT WE COULD CLARIFY FOR YOU.
INFORMATION THAT IF WE'RE MISSING SOMETHING THAT WE COULD PROVIDE YOU THAT TYPE OF APPROACH.
ONE KIND OF A POINTER AND IT DOES COME UP FROM TIME-TO-TIME IS THAT WHEN THERE ARE MULTIPLE ITEMS ON AN AGENDA AND WE'RE DOING THE BRIEFING.
IF YOU COULD BE AWARE OF THE TIME.
MOST OF BRIEFINGS, UNLESS IT'S FOR A VERY COMPLICATED PROJECT, WE'RE STILL ONLY BUDGETING THAT HOUR FOR YOU TO GET THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THE AGENDA.
IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON EVERY ITEM, FOR 40 MINUTES IN AND WE'RE ONLY ON NUMBER ONE AND THERE'S FOUR MORE.
OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE GOING TO BE IN A RUSH TO GET TO THE OTHER.
IF YOU COULD KEEP THAT IN MIND, THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING I DIDN'T DO A PARTICULARLY GOOD JOB AT AND MOVING PEOPLE ALONG WHEN WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.
BUT THE TRADE-OFF WAS WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE COVERED CONCERNS.
WE SOMETIMES WOULD GO LONG AND CAUSE STAFF TO MISS OTHER MEETINGS.
THIS IS A THING FOR I THINK FOR STAFF AND YOURSELVES TO BE AWARE OF AND HOW THAT COULD WORK A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
I KNOW WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS, MR. CHAIR, BUT IF YOU, AS A COMMISSION, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, I'D TURN IT BACK TO YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO WANT TO DISCUSS BRIEFINGS, DO'S AND DON'TS, LIKES, DISLIKES. PETER.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE JUST FOUND VERY HELPFUL IS IN THE DIFFERENT BRIEFINGS IS WHEN WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY IN PERSON TO BREATHE WITH A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS, SAY, LEARN THEIR PERSPECTIVES AND THEIR THINGS AND THAT OBVIOUSLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEANS THEMSELVES ARE VERY FORMAL SETTINGS BRIEFINGS.
I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEF WITH DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO MIX THAT UP A LITTLE BIT AND HAVE THAT VARIETY AND LEARN DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ABOUT THINGS.
>> YEAH, I THINK THOSE ARE GOOD COMMENTS, PETER.
I THINK I BRIEF NOW WITH THREE DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS.
YES, IT'S USEFUL BECAUSE I LEARNED DIFFERENT THINGS AND EVERYBODY HAS A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
DON, IN TERMS OF STAFF, I KNOW YOUR TIME IS LIMITED HERE WITH THE CITY, BUT WHAT FEEDBACK DO YOU GET WITH YOUR STAFF IN TERMS OF CONTINUE WITH ZOOM BRIEFINGS VERSUS GOING TO THE OLD TIME WHERE WE USED TO MEET TOGETHER AT FARADAY.
>> SURE. AT THIS POINT, THE CITY IS STILL UTILIZING A HYBRID SCHEDULE.
ON ANY GIVEN DAY, STAFF MEMBERS MAY NOT BE IN THE OFFICE.
HAVING SAID THAT, IF THE COMMISSION WOULD RATHER BRIEF IN-PERSON, STAFF WOULD JUST MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR THAT PARTICULAR WEEK IF THEY HAD AN AGENDA ITEM AND BE IN THE OFFICE FOR IN-PERSON BRIEFINGS.
BUT AT THIS POINT, WE WERE TRYING TO CONTINUE THE ZOOM BRIEFINGS THINKING IT'S SAVED YOU FROM HAVING TO DRIVE OVER TO THE OFFICE.
BUT I THINK WE'RE OPEN TO WHICHEVER BETTER MEETS YOUR NEEDS.
>> FOR ME, MY OFFICE IS VERY CLOSE TO THE FARADAY BILL AND I ENJOYED COMING IN PERSON VERSUS ZOOM.
I FIND ZOOM VERY TIRING AND IN TERMS OF OPPORTUNITIES TO FACETIME WITH PEOPLE, I JUST I ENJOY THAT.
THAT'S MY OWN PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW ON THAT,
[01:35:02]
BUT IF IT DIDN'T BURDEN STAFF TOO MUCH IN THEIR OFFICE, I'D GO RATHER BRIEF IN-PERSON.>> ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT IN-PERSON VERSUS ZOOM? BILL.
>> LIKE IT OR NOT, ZOOM IS THE FUTURE.
I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE WITH THAT WAY.
>> SAME? OKAY. PERSONALLY, I'M FINE WITH THE ZOOM.
NOW, IF WE HAVE A PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT PROJECT, PERHAPS A HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL LARGE PROJECT, MAYBE WE COULD MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR IN-PERSON THEN.
BUT I THINK FOR THE MOST PART, ZOOM WORKS FINE.
I THINK IT'S MORE EFFICIENT, WE DON'T HAVE TO DRIVE ANYWHERE.
PERSONALLY, I WOULD PREFER TO CONTINUE WITH ZOOM BRIEFINGS EXCEPT FOR AN EXCEPTIONAL ONE WHERE WE MIGHT NEED TO MEET IN PERSON.
>> I THINK FOR THE TIME BEING, AT LEAST IN THE CITY RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF COVID, WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS THAT IF WE CAN DO ZOOM TEAM MEETINGS, WE SHOULD BE DOING THEM AND KEEPING IN-PERSON MEETINGS TO A MINIMUM.
I DON'T KNOW. THAT MESSAGE IS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT, BUT I KNOW WE'VE HEARD THAT.
>> JUST ONE OTHER QUICK COMMENT ON BRIEFINGS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I LIKE TO DO, IT'S JUST A PERSONAL PREFERENCE OF MINE.
I LIKE TO FIND OUT FROM STAFF IF THERE IS ANY OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT AND WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE OPPOSITION.
NOW, SOMETIMES THAT'S GOING TO BE OBVIOUS BECAUSE WE HAVE EMAILS OR LETTERS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT THAT TELL US THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE OPPOSE THE PROJECT FOR THESE REASONS.
BUT I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT GIVES ME A LOT OF INSIGHT TO FOCUS ON ISSUES THAT MAYBE I DIDN'T FULLY PICK UP PREVIOUSLY OR DIDN'T KNOW AT ALL AND STAFF, THE PROJECT PLANNERS WHO HAS CHARGED US PRETTY WELL ATTUNED TO WHAT TYPE OF OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT THAT WE MIGHT HAVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THAT.
THAT'S A KEY THING THAT I GET OUT OF THE BRIEFINGS.
THE OTHER ONE IS I THINK SOME OF MY COMMISSION COLLEAGUES HAVE MENTIONED THIS.
I DON'T WANT TO USE THE COMMISSION MEETINGS FOR LONG EXPLANATION ON THINGS THAT I MIGHT HAVE A PERSONAL INTEREST ON, BUT IT IS ONLY LITTLE RELEVANT TO THE PARTICULAR PROJECTS.
IF I'VE GOT SOMETHING I NEED SOME BACKGROUND ON, THAT'S WHEN I WILL MENTION THAT DURING THE BRIEFINGS AND IF STAFF CAN GIVE IT TO ME THEN FINE.
IF NOT, PERHAPS THEY CAN GIVE IT TO ME OFF THE SIDE OR ON OCCASION, BE PREPARED AT THE COMMISSION MEETINGS TO TWO MINUTES, SHARE THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE ON THAT ISSUE.
THAT'S ONE OF THE WAYS THAT I LIKE TO USE THE BRIEFINGS FOR ISSUES THAT ARE PARTICULARLY SIGNIFICANT TO ME AND SEE NO.
I'VE SEEN NO FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
LET'S GO AHEAD TO STAFF PRESENTATIONS.
>> THANK YOU. FOR STAFF PRESENTATIONS, I WANT TO TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF THINGS.
AS YOU'RE PROBABLY AWARE, THEY'RE NOT INTENDED TO REPEAT ALL THE CONTENT IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE RESOLUTION.
THEY'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT, THINGS THAT ARE APPLICABLE IN TERMS OF PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS.
TYPICALLY, IF THERE ARE OUTSTANDING ISSUES, OR AREAS OF CONTROVERSY.
AS COMMISSIONER CHAIRPERSON STEIN WAS MENTIONING, THE STAFF MEMBER WILL HIGHLIGHT THOSE PARTICULAR POINTS AND MAYBE SOME OF THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE MADE TO TRY TO MITIGATE OR COMPENSATE FOR THOSE AREAS.
THEN I KNOW I DID MENTION THIS PREVIOUSLY, BUT IN THAT POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, WE ARE USING THESE APPLICANT THREE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATIONS TO HELP VISUALIZE THE PROJECT.
BUT I WANTED TO REITERATE THAT THE PLAN YOU ARE PROVING IS THE BLUEPRINTS SET.
THAT'S THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT THAT'S REFERENCED IN THE RESOLUTION.
THEN WE WILL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION ON EACH ITEM.
ONE OF THE THINGS IN TERMS OF THE BRIEFINGS, I KNOW FROM TIME-TO-TIME IN THE BRIEFINGS THAT COMMISSIONER MIGHT SAY, HEY, IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU WOULD INCLUDE THIS OR THIS IN THE PRESENTATION.
IT'S HELPFUL, BUT USUALLY AT THAT POINT THE PLANNERS ALREADY PREPARED A PRESENTATION.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS NEEDED.
SOMETIMES IT CONFUSES THE STAFF MEMBER LIKE I GOT TO GO BACK AND REVISE MY PRESENTATION BECAUSE I HAD A PLANNING COMMISSIONER MAKE A SUGGESTION.
WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT OFTENTIMES YOU'RE THINKING AHEAD TOO, HOW THE HEARING MIGHT TAKE PLACE AND THE ISSUES BROUGHT UP AND LOOKING TO PROVIDE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP THE PROCESS MOVE MORE SMOOTHLY.
I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT, THAT IT DOES CAUSE THE PLANNERS A BIT OF STRESS AND HAVING TO RUN BACK AND TRY
[01:40:05]
TO CHANGE YOUR PRESENTATION THAT THEY MAY HAVE ALREADY FINISHED OR TRYING TO FINALIZE.I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAD ON PRESENTATIONS UNLESS THERE'S ANY COMMISSION COMMENTS.
>> ERIC, THANK YOU FOR YOUR LAST PRESENTATION.
SOMETHING THAT HE DID THAT I KNOW WE ALL LIKE WAS FOR EXAMPLE, WE WOULD BE DISCUSSING A TOPIC AND YOU WOULD GO INTO YOUR POWERPOINT AND PULL UP THAT APPROPRIATE SLIDE.
IT MADE IT SO HELPFUL, I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU BECAUSE I KNOW SOMETIMES IN THE PAST, THE PLANNERS FOCUSING ON A BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS, BUT YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE REALLY GOOD COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THIS BOARD UP HERE AND IT WAS VERY HELPFUL AND I THINK IT MADE OUR FOCUS WAY MORE SUCCINCT.
I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF THE PLANNERS COULD DO THAT.
>> THANK YOU AND THAT'S ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING WE CAN START TRAINING ALL THE PLANNERS ON HOW TO DO.
>> ESPECIALLY, I KNOW WE WEREN'T GIS UP, BUT WHEN A PROPERTY OWNER COMES UP OR A PERSON OF INTEREST, I'VE BEEN WATCHING TOO MANY CRIME THINGS, PERSON OF INTEREST.
[LAUGHTER] A CONCERNED CITIZEN.
THANK YOU. I GOT TO QUIT WATCHING THOSE DATELINE THINGS.
COMES UP AND WHAT'S REALLY NICE IS YOU HAVE THE MAP OF THE AREA AND THEN YOU COULD PUT THAT UP AND SOMETIMES THEY CAN POINT AS TO WHERE THEY LIVE AND ESPECIALLY IF YOU'VE DONE A LITTLE WALKABOUT, YOU GET A REALLY GOOD PERSPECTIVE OF WAR THERE.
BECAUSE THEN THEY'LL GO, I LIVE AT BLAH, BLAH AND I'M LIKE THAT MEANS NOTHING TO ME.
I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ARE YOU CROSS THE STREET? IS YOUR IMPACT GOING TO BE THERE? IT HELPS ME EVALUATE IT MORE.
BUT I DO WANT TO COMMEND YOU ON YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT CATEGORY, WHICH WERE THE HEARINGS THEMSELVES.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS TO CONSIDER IN TERMS OF HEARINGS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WERE WITH QUESTIONS BOTH THE STAFF AND APPLICANTS.
I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS.
THEY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO ISSUES THAT ARE WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW AS A PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF THEY'RE THINGS THAT MAYBE ARE AN INTERESTING COMPONENT OF A PROJECT OR SOMETHING, BUT THEY'RE NOT SOMETHING YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INFLUENCE, IT'S REALLY NOT MAYBE THE BEST USE OF TIME FOR YOU DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ONE THING, AND I THINK THIS COMMISSION'S BEEN PARTICULARLY GOOD AT THIS IS BEING RESPECTFUL, HAVING CONSIDERING PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
IN FACT I THINK ALL THE COMMISSIONS I'VE WORKED WITH HAVE BEEN THAT WAY.
I'VE NEVER EXPERIENCED ONE THAT WAS NOT WANTING TO HEAR PUBLIC TESTIMONY OR CONSIDER IT AND GIVE IT A LOT OF WEIGHT.
THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN A VERY POSITIVE THING.
BUT HAVING SAID THAT, AND I KNOW MR. KEMP TALKED ABOUT THIS AT ONE OF THE MORE RECENT HEARINGS.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND EXPERT TESTIMONY, AND I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF FINDINGS.
ONE OF THE BITS OF INFORMATION I FOUND IN SOME OF THE RESEARCH WE'RE DOING AS WE WERE WORKING ON THE PRESENTATION, IT TALKED ABOUT EXPERT TESTIMONY IS TESTIMONY ABOUT A SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL, OR A PROFESSIONAL ISSUE THAT'S GIVEN BY A PERSON QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY BECAUSE OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE SUBJECT OR SPECIAL TRAINING IN THE FIELD.
THAT I THINK IS JUST SOMETHING FOR YOU TO BEAR IN MIND WHEN YOU HEAR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
SOMETIMES YOU'LL GET SOMEONE MAKING REMARKS THAT ARE OPPOSED TO SOMETHING THAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED FOR YOU TO DO, AND JUST BECAUSE THAT MAY BE THEIR OPINION, YOU NEED TO DIFFERENTIATE THAT FROM EXPERT TESTIMONY.
IF SOMEONE IS MORE OF A QUALIFIED EXPERT AND IT'S TELLING YOU SOMETHING ELSE.
I KNOW RON AND COMMISSIONER SAVOLACO, HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW DO I TAKE THIS INFORMATION? WHAT DO I DO WITH IT? THAT WAS JUST PART OF THIS.
I THINK RON DID HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS HE WANTED TO COVER AS RELATED TO HEARINGS, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO HIM.
>> REALLY JUST ONE THING WHICH WAS JUST TO TALK ABOUT EX PARTE DISCLOSURES ONE MORE TIME.
[01:45:05]
WE'VE BEEN DOING THEM NOW FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND THIS IS ONE INSTANCE WHERE I THINK COUNSEL FOLLOWED YOUR LEAD.COUNCIL ADOPTED IN THE LAST YEAR MAYBE A POLICY ON EX PARTE DISCLOSURES, SO THEY ARE NOW DOING IT AS WELL.
I'M PURPOSELY USING THE WORD DISCLOSURES BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST EX PARTE CONTEXT.
IT'S ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET OUTSIDE OF THE HEARING.
JUST TO REHASH IT A LITTLE BIT, THE REASON WHY WE DO THAT IS THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO KNOW WHAT INFORMATION IT IS THAT YOU RELIED ON IN MAKING YOUR DECISION.
IF YOU GET CONTACT OUTSIDE OF THE HEARING EX PARTE, AND YOU GET INFORMATION THEN IT'S INCUMBENT UPON YOU TO DISCLOSE THAT AT THE HEARING.
THE MOST COMMON THING HERE IS TO GO OUT AND VISIT THE SITE, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE, THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHERE YOU MAY BE CONTACTED BY A PROJECT PROPONENT OR OPPONENT TO MAYBE TRY TO MAKE THEIR CASE TO YOU BEFORE AN ITEM THAT YOU HEAR.
THERE'S ALSO ITEMS THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE BEFORE YOU, BUT SOMEBODY GUESSES THAT IT MIGHT BE COMING BEFORE YOU SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT WANT TO DISCUSS WITH YOU.
BUT THE COUNCIL POLICY IS SOMEWHAT MORE STRICT THAN YOU WOULD THINK.
IT DISCOURAGES ALL EX PARTE CONTEXT IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING, AND I WENT BACK AND I SAW THE DRAFT AND I SAID, YOU DON'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM VISITING THE SITE.
THEY CHANGED THE POLICY IN ADDED AND THIS WAS WHEN IT WAS IN DRAFT FORM, IT WASN'T THE OFFICIAL POLICY THEY HAD TO CHANGE TO ENCOURAGE SITE VISITS BECAUSE I KNOW NOBODY ASKED ME HOW I REVIEW A REPORT, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS [LAUGHTER] THAT I DO.
WELL I'M ONLY GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU WHAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT.
I WILL GET ON GOOGLE MAPS AND I'LL LOOK AT A STREET VIEW AND I'LL LOOK AT THE OVERHEAD VIEW JUST TO SEE WHAT THE SURROUNDING IS, WHICH IS PROBABLY A POOR SUBSTITUTE FOR ACTUALLY GOING TO THE SITE, BUT I DON'T LIVE IN CARLSBAD.
I LIVE JUST ACROSS THE BORDER.
IT'S MUCH EASIER FOR ME TO JUST GET ON GOOGLE MAPS.
[BACKGROUND] YEAH, NO, I'LL LOOK AT THE NEWS TOO TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING ABOUT A PROJECT.
IF YOU REALLY WANT ME TO GET INTO IT I DO WANT TO REVIEW.
DO DISCLOSE ANY INFORMATION ESSENTIALLY THAT YOU GET OUTSIDE OF THE HEARING, SO IT COULD BE A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, IT COULD BE GOOGLE MAPS, IT COULD BE A SITE VISIT.
IT COULD BE SOMEBODY WHO SAW YOU AT THE SITE VISIT.
I REMEMBER A COMMISSIONER WHO WILL LEAVE UNNAMED, WHO SEEM TO ENGAGE IN CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE ON SITE.
ANYWAY, I GUESS THAT'S ALL I REALLY WANT TO SEE ABOUT AN EX PARTE CONTACTS.
>> I GUESS THE BEST WAY I CAN FRAME IT IS RON WHEN THEY DO COME WITH THEIR EX PARTE AND IT IS A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, WE'RE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR INFORMATION.
YOU HAVE EXTRA INFORMATION THAT WE DON'T HAVE IN OUR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, AND THESE WALLS HERE, THIS IS OUR WORLD.
ANYTHING FROM OUTSIDE THAT YOU'VE GATHERED THAT HAS COME IN HERE, WE NEED TO KNOW OTHER COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE THAT'S AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE THAT WE DON'T GET TO SHARE WITH YOU.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW THE CONTEXT OF IF YOU ARE HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH SOMEBODY, WHAT DID YOU SAY? WHAT DID THEY SAY? BECAUSE YOUR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS HAS MORE INFORMATION THAN I HAVE AND WE'RE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT THIS FAIRLY AND EQUALLY, AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO THAT EXPERT TESTIMONY, YOU'LL HAVE FOLKS COME UP AND TESTIFY AND SAY, WELL, AND THEY'LL CITE EXPERTS.
WELL, THIS JOURNAL HAD THIS AND THIS JOURNAL HAD THIS, AND THIS JOURNAL HAD THIS.
WELL, AND THIS IS KEVIN, WHERE YOU LOOK AT IT INDIVIDUALLY.
WELL, AND IT'S YOUR OWN JUDGMENT.
WELL, PERSONALLY, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH PEOPLE PICKING AND CHOOSING AND PRESENTING IT UNLESS I HAVE THAT PERSON THERE, THAT EXPERT THERE, THAT I CAN ASK QUESTIONS BACK AND FORTH.
[01:50:01]
BUT YET SOME OTHER PEOPLE ARE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AS FAR AS EVALUATING IT FOR YOUR DECISION.THERE'S NO RIGHT AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S NO WRONG.
IT'S JUST TO MUDDY THE WATERS EVEN MORE.
>> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO HEARINGS? LET ME CHIME IN A LITTLE BIT, I'LL SHARE WITH YOU A COUPLE OF THINGS.
WHAT I DO AS CHAIR, YOU GOT A TWOFOLD RESPONSIBILITY.
YOU HAVE TO RUN THE MEETING AND THEN YOU'RE ONE OF SEVEN COMMISSIONERS THAT'S BEEN A DELIBERATE AND VOTE ON THE ISSUES.
THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE FUNCTIONS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW CAROLYN DID OR ROY DID WHEN THEY WERE CHAIR BUT WHAT I FIND FOR ME IS I'M FOCUSED ON FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS GIVING EVERYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC, THE APPLICANT A FAIR SHOT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO LEAVE THAT MEETING TO SAY, GEE, THE CHAIRPERSON SHUT ME DOWN AND DIDN'T ALLOW ME TO SPEAK.
NOW, OCCASIONALLY, IF WE HAVE A CONTROVERSIAL PROJECT, YOU HAVE TO PUT SOME REASONABLE LIMITS ON THAT.
BUT I'M ALSO ALWAYS IN THE BACK OF MY MIND SAYING, OKAY, I'VE GIVEN EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO SPEAK AND NOBODY FEELS SHUT DOWN WHETHER I AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT, I WANT TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
BACK ON MIND I ALWAYS THINKING FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS.
BECAUSE AGAIN, TO ME AS A COMMISSIONER WERE JUDGES WITHOUT ROBES.
WERE MAKING A DECISION BASED UPON EVIDENCES IN FRONT OF US, PLUS ANY EX-PARTY DISCLOSURES THAT WE HAVE.
I WANT EVERYBODY TO FEEL THAT THEY'VE BEEN HEARD AND THE SAME THING FOR MY COMMISSION COLLEAGUES.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I DIDN'T IGNORE ANYONE OCCASIONALLY AND I'M NOT GOING TO POINT ANY FINGERS AND IT RARELY HAPPENS THAT I FEEL THE DISCUSSION GETS A LITTLE BIT DISJOINTED AND I MIGHT SAY SOMETHING POLITELY, CAN WE MOVE THIS ALONG OR SOMETHING, BUT WANTING EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO BE ABLE TO SAY THEIR PIECE FULLY.
BUT THE TRADE-OFF IS KEEPING THE HEARINGS GOING AND MOVING SO WE DON'T GET TOO BOGGED DOWN.
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF ATTENTION THERE.
YOU GUYS ARE EXCELLENT ABOUT RESPECTING OTHER PEOPLE'S TIME AND GOING FORWARD.
I WILL MENTION ONE OTHER THING.
WHEN I WAS ELECTED CHAIR AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT RUNNING THE MEETINGS, I HAVE WATCHED ON TELEVISION AND BEEN TO A FEW OF THE COUNCIL MEETINGS.
ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE PICKED UP ON WITH THE MAYOR AS THE CHAIR OF THE MEETINGS, HE INVARIABLY ALLOWS OTHER PEOPLE TO SPEAK FIRST, ALL THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO.
I SAID THAT'S A GOOD PRACTICE.
WHAT I DO SO THAT YOU'LL KNOW IS I WANT EVERYBODY TO HAVE A CHANCE TO CHIME IN, SAY THEIR PIECE BEFORE I SPEAK ON THE ISSUE AT ALL.
SOMETIMES THERE'S DEAD SILENCE AND I'LL SPEAK UP JUST TO GET THINGS GOING BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD PRACTICE TO ALLOW EVERYBODY ELSE TO WEIGH IN AND THEN I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID.
I MIGHT JUST SAY KUDOS TO COMMISSIONER SO AND SO, I AGREE TOTALLY, AND MAYBE ONE OR TWO 30 SECONDS POINTS AND LET IT GO AT THAT.
BUT THAT'S HOW I'M ORGANIZING MYSELF WHEN I'M CHAIRING THE MEETINGS.
I ALSO HAVE A SPECIAL CHECKLIST THAT I'VE DEVELOPED IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS WHERE IT'S A TEMPLATE THAT I USE AND I PLUG IN THE VARIOUS ITEMS THAT WE HAVE BECAUSE I FIND IT UNWIELDY TO USE THE AGENDA AND KEEP MY PACE ON WHERE I'M SUPPOSED TO BE.
I USE THAT CHECKLIST TO ASSIST ME AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
BUT OVERALL, MY PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE IS WENT WELL AND I THINK WE'VE GOT GOOD COOPERATION AND A GOOD REPORT HERE AT THE DYESS.
>> YEAH. I THINK WHEN I WAS A CHAIR I PRETTY MUCH HANDLED THE SAME WAY.
I THINK THE CHAIR'S RESPONSIBILITY IS ONE OF LETTING OTHER COMMISSIONERS MAKE THEIR STANCE AND WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY AND THEIR POSITIONS, ETC.
IF IT'S NECESSARY, THEN I MIGHT END UP MAYBE MAKING A COMMENT OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US TO THINK ABOUT IS THAT IF WE'VE HAD OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON THE DYESS MAKE A COMMENT OR GET INTO THEIR POSITION, ETC, YOU MIGHT OR I MIGHT FEEL SOMEWHAT OF THE SAME WAY OR HAVE SOMEWHAT OF THE SAME OPINIONS RATHER THAN REITERATING AND TAKING TIME FROM THE MEETING TO SAY THE SAME THING THAT CAROLYN SAID IS A WASTE OF MY TIME.
[01:55:04]
SOMETHING THAT I KNOW I'M TRYING TO BE MINDFUL OF AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IS THAT THERE'S NO REASON TO REITERATE THE SAME THING.YOU MIGHT WANT TO JUST ADD A COUPLE MORE COMMENTS TO IT OR HIGHLIGHT IT OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE BUT I THINK OUR COMMISSION HERE IS VERY GOOD IN NOT DOING THAT BUT THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE MINDFUL OF.
>> WELL-STATED. I'LL SAY ONE OTHER LITTLE TECHNICAL THING, ORGANIZATIONAL THING.
IT REALLY HELPS ME WHEN YOU LOG ON ON YOUR REQUESTS TO SPEAK ELECTRONICALLY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY IS SEEN HERE.
I HAVE A BOARD THAT SHOWS ME EACH AND EVERY PERSON IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY LOGGED IN.
I'LL BE ABLE TO CALL IN THE ORDER THAT THEY LOGGED IN SO NOBODY FEELS SHORTSIGHTED.
>> YOU'RE FIRST, KEVIN SECOND, ALICIA IS THIRD AND PETER'S FOURTH.
>> YES, I CLEARED IT AT THE END.
I'M STILL GLANCING DOWN THE DYESS HERE TO SEE IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK THAT HAVEN'T LOGGED IN.
BUT IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, GET COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE BECAUSE IT MAKES MY LIFE EASIER.
I KNOW THAT I'M NOT MAKING SOMEBODY WAIT THAT SHOULD BE AT THE FRONT OF THE LINE TO SPEAK.
ANYTHING ELSE ON HEARINGS? ANY SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT WE CAN DO BETTER, EVERYBODY PRETTY WELL LIKE THE WAY THAT THE HEARINGS ARE BEING CONDUCTED SO FAR? DON.
>> THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT PART OF THE AGENDA, THE BASIS FOR DECISIONS.
AS YOU'RE AWARE AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS TODAY, THE APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF A PERMIT MUST BE SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS.
EACH PERMIT HAS A SET OF FINDINGS THAT MUST BE MADE TO APPROVE OR DENY THE PROJECT, AND THEY'RE LAID OUT IN THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.
AS WE'VE TOUCHED ON EARLIER, THE FINDINGS ARE PREPARED BY STAFF AND THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTION.
THE JUSTIFICATION PART BEING IN BOLDFACE TYPE.
ONE THING I DID WANT TO ADD THAT'S MAYBE NEW INFORMATION AT LEAST TO THE DISCUSSION TODAY IS THAT IF YOU AS A COMMISSIONER FIND THAT YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DRAFTED BY STAFF, WHAT WE WOULD NEED FROM YOU IS FOR YOU TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR SOME ALTERNATE FINDINGS FOR THE RECORD.
YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND GIVE US JUSTIFICATION FOR ALL OF THEM BUT AT LEAST GIVE US AN IDEA ABOUT WHAT IT IS YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE MAKING AS A FINDING AND WHY.
THAT IF A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WERE IN AGREEMENT, THEN YOUR ACTION WOULD BE TO SEND IT BACK TO STAFF TO ACTUALLY PREPARE THAT NEW SET OF FINDINGS THAT REFLECTED THE MAJORITY DESIRE.
BUT REALLY WHAT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN IS THAT A COMMISSIONER WOULD SAY, WELL, I JUST DON'T LIKE THE PROJECT.
WHAT YOU WOULD NEED TO DO IS HAVE SOMETHING THAT RELATED TO A SPECIFIC FINDING FOR A PERMIT OR ONE OR MORE OF THE PERMITS, THAT WAS YOUR BASIS FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO SUPPORT IT.
IN REGARD TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THOSE AND HOW THEY'RE IN THE RESOLUTION, ALSO WITH THE BOLD TYPE BEING THE NONSTANDARD CONDITIONS.
FROM TIME TO TIME, QUESTIONS COME UP ABOUT, CAN WE JUST ADD A CONDITION BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE A GOOD THING TO DO? REALLY, THE CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO RELATE TO THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO THAT IMPACT THAT THE PROJECT CREATES AND AS A WAY TO HELP MITIGATE ITS IMPACT.
OFTENTIMES STAFF MIGHT SHARE YOUR CONCERN THAT IT'D BE NICE.
ONE EXAMPLE, I THINK THAT'S COME UP A NUMBER OF TIMES IT'S BEEN UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD UTILITIES AND I THINK PROBABLY EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE IT'D BE NICE IF ALL UTILITIES WERE UNDERGROUND BUT WE HAVE SOME CODE PROVISIONS THAT SAY, HERE'S THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH WE CAN REQUIRE THEM TO GO UNDERGROUND.
IT'S THINGS LIKE THAT THAT PLACE LIMITS ON WHAT STAFF AND THE COMMISSION IS ABLE TO DO.
I WANT TO TURN SOME TIME OVER TO RON BECAUSE I THINK HE HAD SOME AREAS IN THIS TOPIC THAT HE WANTED TO COVER.
>> MAYBE SOME OF THIS IS ELEMENTARY, BUT I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO GO OVER THIS A LITTLE BIT.
NOW, WHAT IS THE FINDING? WHEN YOU SAY WE NEED TO MAKE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS.
I'M GOING TO READ TO YOU SOMETHING THAT I THINK EXPLAINS IT PRETTY SIMPLY AND UNDERSTANDABLE.
FINDINGS ARE WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF WHY LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY YOU MAKE A PARTICULAR DECISION.
YOUR JOB IS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROJECTS, LOOK AT OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS, SEE IF YOU CAN APPROVE THE PROJECT BASED ON THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS,
[02:00:03]
AND THEN CONDITION THE PROJECT.IT GOES BACK TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LEGISLATIVE AND A QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISION.
A LEGISLATIVE DECISION IS GOING TO BE WHEN YOU'RE MAKING A RULE OR A PLAN OR SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT A BROAD MAJORITY OF PEOPLE.
IT'S NOT JUST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, IT'S A GENERAL PLAN.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT EVERYBODY EQUALLY, MORE OR LESS.
A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING IS THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
IT'S THE ONE PROJECT THAT'S BEFORE YOU AT THAT TIME AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO APPLY THE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
WHEN YOU MAKE A FINDING, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EXPLAINING WHAT RULES YOU ARE APPLYING AND THEN WHAT FACTS YOU ARE FINDING TO SUPPORT YOUR APPROVAL FOR THAT OR DISAPPROVAL FOR THAT MATTER.
SOMETIMES THE COMMISSIONER WILL VOTE NO ON A PROJECT RIGHT AT THE END AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE NO VOTE WAS COMING AND THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY SAY WHAT FINDING OR FACT AND I THINK DON JUST TOUCHED ON THAT A LITTLE EARLIER, THAT THEY'RE VOTING NO ON THE PROJECT, SO WE HAVE A NO VOTE ON THE BOARD, BUT WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY FOUND OR WHAT THEY COULDN'T FIND TO DISAPPROVE THAT PROJECT.
I GUESS IN MY PERFECT LITTLE WORLD, WHICH ISN'T MAYBE YOURS, IT WOULD BE IF YOU WERE GOING TO VOTE ON A PROJECT, WHETHER IT'S YAY OR NAY, THAT YOU HAVE A FINDING IN MIND AND FACTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT THAT FINDING THAT YOU WOULD BE MAKING.
BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, THIS PROJECT COULD END UP IN A COURT, AND IN THE COURT, THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO KNOW WHAT OUR FINDINGS ARE AND WHAT FACTS IN THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE THAT WE RELIED ON TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
IN ORDER FOR OUR OFFICE TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND THE DECISIONS THAT YOU MAKE, WHETHER IT'S YAY OR NAY, WE HAVE TO HAVE A GOOD RECORD OF FACTS AND FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THAT.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE FOR HEARINGS.
I KNOW JOE WANTS ME TO TALK ABOUT MANDAMUS, BUT I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DOWN THE LINE.
DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON FACTS AND FINDINGS?
>> IF AN INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER OR TWO DOESN'T FILL, THERE'S EVIDENCE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE FINDING THEY WOULD CITE THAT.
HOWEVER, LET'S SAY A PROJECT IS COMING TO US WITH AN APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION, AND NOT A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION IS IN AGREEMENT WITH MAYBE THE ONE OR TWO OR EVEN THREE COMMISSIONERS WHO FEEL THEY CAN'T SUPPORT THE FINDINGS.
THEREFORE, THE CONDITIONS IN 1-8 IN OUR RECOMMENDATION, THOSE THREE COMMISSIONERS CAN STILL ARTICULATE THAT, BUT THE MAJORITY STILL PREVAILS, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. I'M JUST SAYING IT WOULD BE A GOOD PRACTICE IF YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST A PROJECT BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW AT THE TIME THAT YOU VOTE, THAT THE VOTE IS GOING TO GO A PARTICULAR WAY NECESSARILY.
YOU MAY KNOW, MAYBE I'M OVERSEEING THAT.
>> THEN IF IT GOES TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THOSE THREE COMMISSIONERS TO ONE, EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED, IT'S PART OF THE RECORD.
>> THEY'LL KNOW WHAT THE CONCERN WAS AND WHAT THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THAT CONCERN WOULD BE.
>> I MEAN, SO IN ORDER TO LODGE OUR OBJECTIONS TO THE FINDINGS OF CONDITIONS AND THE STAFF REPORT.
IF WE WANTED TO VOTE AGAINST AN APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION, WE'D REALLY HAVE TO STATE THAT DURING THE COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION PORTION OF THE MEETING?
>> I'M SAYING IT'S GOOD PRACTICE TO DO THAT.
BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IF A DENIAL CARRIED THE DAY, WE DON'T PREPARE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL.
[LAUGHTER] WE PREPARE FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL.
THERE COULD BE A TIME WHEN WE DO I MEAN, VERY RARELY WE BROUGHT PROJECTS FORWARD FOR DENIAL.
MOST APPLICANTS [LAUGHTER] DON'T WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH A STAFF FINDING FOR DENIAL, BUT THEY MAY THINK THAT THEY CAN CONVINCE THE COMMISSION OTHERWISE, OR THEY MAY THINK THEY WANT TO SUE AND MOVE ON.
ANYWAY, IF THE PROJECT IS DENIED, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO PREPARE FINDINGS FOR YOU TO COME BACK AND APPROVE FOR THE PROJECT.
STAFF HAS BEEN RECOMMENDING APPROVALS SO IF YOU DECIDE THAT YOU WANTED TO DENY THE PROJECT, IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT UPON THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION WHO VOTED TO DENY IT, TO TELL STAFF WHAT THEY WOULD WANT THOSE FINDINGS TO BE AND WHAT THEIR BASIS WOULD
[02:05:04]
BE AND THEN WE COULD PREPARE THAT AND COME BACK AND YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT'S BEEN PREPARED AND SAY, YEAH, YOU'VE GOT IT OR NO, YOU DON'T.BUT MOST LIKELY IF YOU VOTE OTHER THAN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK, PREPARE THE FINDINGS, AND BRING THEM BACK FOR YOUR APPROVAL.
>> THAT'S ANOTHER IMMEDIATE, RIGHT?
>> I MEAN, WE'RE NOT LIKE JUDGES.
WE CAN'T WRITE ALONG DISSENTING OPINION UNLIKE HERE.
[LAUGHTER] WE CAN'T HEAR THE APPLICANT, LIKE GO MEET IN OUR SECRET ROOM AND ASSIGN THE OPINION.
WE HAVE TO STATE THEM DURING THE HEARING AND GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO WORK WITH.
>> RIGHT. ON VERY RARE OCCASIONS TOO, COMMISSION CAN ASK TO CONTINUE SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION.
I THINK THE PACIFIC RIDGE LIGHTS IS STILL PENDING.
>> ONE LACOSTE, IT WAS CONTINUED THREE TIMES, IF YOU REMEMBER FOUR YEARS AGO.
BECAUSE THEY WERE COMING BACK WITH THE INFORMATION REQUESTED.
THE STAFF HAVE A PREFERRED PHRASEOLOGY OR TERMS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE US TO USE WHEN WE MOVE TO SUPPORT A PROJECT.
DO YOU REALLY CARE IF I SAY MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? IS THAT FINE? WOULD YOU PREFER TO SAY MOVE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION [INAUDIBLE]? DO YOU CARE HOW WE PHRASE OUR MOTION TO APPROVE OR SECOND?
>> NO, I KNOW WE WENT THROUGH A PERIOD WHERE THE PREFERENCE WAS TO HAVE SOMEONE ACTUALLY READ THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE REPORT.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY IF YOU WERE TO SAY AS YOUR EXAMPLE, MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WHICH IS RIGHT THERE IN WRITING.
>> CAUSE THAT INCORPORATES THE RESOLUTION.
WE HAVE A CLEAN RECORD THAT WAY, RIGHT?
>> WELL, AND IT'S LESS CONFUSION BACK IN THE DAY THEY WERE DYSLEXIC AND SAID CUP TO BLAH, BLAH AND THEN POOR RON WOULD HAVE TO STOP AND WE'D HAVE TO START ALL OVER AGAIN AND SO I THINK IT'S MORE EFFICIENT.
[LAUGHTER] MAKES US LOOK BETTER. [LAUGHTER]
>> GOOD. MAKE IT SIMPLE. DON, NEXT ITEM.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. OUR NEXT ITEM AND IT'S THE LAST PART OF THIS VERY LONG AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1 IS THE POST-APPROVAL PLAN CHECK.
YOU SEE UP ON THE SCREEN WE HAVE NUMBER OF DEPARTMENTS THAT REVIEW PLANS AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL AND IN A FEW MINUTES HERE, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO TWO OF OUR ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS.
BUT AFTER THE PROJECT RECEIVES AN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR EVEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL BY STAFF, IT WILL TYPICALLY GO THROUGH A CONSTRUCTION PLAN CHECK PROCESS.
WE WANT TO SPEND JUST A FEW MINUTES COVERING THAT JUST TO CLARIFY FOR YOU THAT THE LAST SET OF PLANS THAT YOU SEE ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE ONES USED TO CONSTRUCT A PROJECT.
IT'S REALLY A VERY DETAILED CONCEPT PLAN AND A SENSE THAT YOU'RE PROVING AND THAT THE PLANS DO GO THROUGH A REVIEW BY STAFF MEMBERS, NOT ONLY IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUT OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
IN SOME CASES BY CONTRACT PLAN CHECK STAFF, AND THEIR CHECK FOR CONFORMANCE WITH A VARIETY OF CODES, AS WELL AS THE PROJECT APPROVAL THAT YOU'VE MADE.
THIS AFTERNOON HERE I'LL TURN IT OVER TO JASON GELDNER OUR ENGINEERING MANAGER AND JASON PURSUIT OR BUILDING OFFICIAL.
THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE PLANNING CHECKS THAT THEIR GROUP DOES.
LET ME GET OUT OF OUR PRESENTATION.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN [LAUGHTER]. I ALMOST DID.
OKAY SO THE AFTERMATH OF THE DECISION [LAUGHTER] DURING THE WHAT YOU SEE, THE PLAN THAT YOU GET, TYPICALLY IT'S A SITE PLAN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND IT HAS INFORMATION ON IT.
SOMETIMES WE ON THAT SITE PLAN ON THE DISC, WE'LL CALL THE DISCRETIONARY PLAN.
IT MAY CONTAIN A LOT OF DETAIL.
IT MAY NOT DEPENDING ON WHAT WE'RE ASKING.
WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT AS FAR AS ENGINEERING, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT PLAN, WE'RE JUST SEEING IF IT'S FEASIBLE AND IF SOMETHING AND IF THEY HAVEN'T ADDRESSED SOMETHING OR IF THERE'S SOME QUESTION WHETHER IT WILL AFFECT THE CHANGE TO THE SITE PLAN, THUS HAVING TO COME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND HAVE IT REVIEWED AGAIN.
IF IT'S A MAJOR CHANGE, WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.
[02:10:02]
WE'LL GET IT TO A POINT WHERE WE'RE CLOSE ENOUGH OR GOOD ENOUGH, BUT THERE'S NOT, THEY'LL PROBABLY BE A LOT OF DETAILS MISSING AS FAR AS ENGINEERING IS CONCERNED.A LITTLE DIFFERENTIATIONS WE'RE PLANNING, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT SET THE RULES ON WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO ON YOUR PROPERTY, AND THEN WE JUST CHECK TO SEE IF YOU'RE DOING IT RIGHT.
A 10 FOOT WALL, IF YOU WANT TO BUILD A 10 FOOT WALL, ENGINEERING'S LIKE, HEY GREAT, JUST LONG AS YOU ENGINEER IT, RIGHT? BUT PLANNING IS LIKE, "NO, I CAN'T DO THAT AND THAT'S AGAINST OUR CODE." THE EXCEPTION OF THAT IS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING DOES DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS OUT THERE AND WHAT CAN BE BUILT OR NOT BUILT AND ENCROACHMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AFTER DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL, THE APPLICANT, DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO, THEY'LL HAVE SOME POST APPROVAL PROCESSES.
I CAN JUST CLICK. THE ENGINEERING PROCESSES THERE IS A QUITE EXTENSIVE LIST, BUT THIS IS SOME OF THE MORE COMMON ONES.
THE MOST COMMON IS A GRADING PERMIT.
MOST OF THESE PROJECTS TRIGGER A GRADING PERMIT.
THEN THERE'S SOMETIMES IT'LL HAVE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I HAVE TO DO A PLAN FOR THAT AND THEN APPLY FOR A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY IS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EARLIER, A LOT OF THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE ACTUALLY CODE DRIVEN, THEY'RE NOT REALLY UNIQUE.
WHAT THEY ARE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE PUT THEM INTO CONDITIONS OF PROJECT, WOULD STILL HAVE TO DO MOST OF THOSE.
WE'VE DEBATED THIS ON THE CONDITIONS, BUT IT'S GOOD TO HAVE IT IN THERE BECAUSE OF THE APPLICANTS AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT.
IT LAYS OUT AND THEN YOU'RE AWARE TOO, YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET A GRADING PERMIT.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO A WATER QUALITY.
>> BUT JASON CAN EXPLAIN TO THEM IF IT'S NOT A CONDITION THAT'S IN THERE, WHY THEY STILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH IT.
>> YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO TRUST ME, BUT THEY DON'T KNOW WHY.
>> YEAH. I'LL HIT MY NEXT SLIDE ON THAT [LAUGHTER] THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
A LOT OF THESE ARE REQUIRED EASEMENTS.
IF THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING AND THEY WANT TO RUN SOME DRAINAGE THROUGH SOME OTHER PROPERTY, THEN WE WILL WORK HARD TO GET AN EASEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO CONVEY THAT.
THESE ARE ALL THINGS AND THEN GO AHEAD AND INTERRUPT ME AT ANYTIME TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THESE ITEMS. I DIDN'T INCLUDE.
WE HAVE FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO BUT THESE ARE TYPICALLY THE THINGS WE DO.
THE GRADING PERMITS ARE MOST COMMON.
AN EXAMPLE OF A GRADING PERMIT, IS THAT WE REVIEW THE PLANS, REVIEW THE SOLDIER REPORT, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT SECURITIES AND AGREEMENTS, AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENTS.
WE HAVE A WHOLE MYRIAD OF THINGS THAT WE DO REVIEW.
I THINK THE QUESTION CAME UP, COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] WAS ASKING ABOUT TIMELINES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
TYPICALLY, AVERAGE GRADING PERMITS ABOUT SIX MONTHS.
THE BIGGER PROJECTS WILL GO A YEAR [NOISE] THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE PROCESS BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED.
IT'S NOT JUST THE PLAN AND WHETHER OR NOT THE DRAIN WENT OUT TO THE STREET.
THERE'S SO MANY THINGS AROUND IT AND LEGAL ISSUES AND THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CHECK OUT.
MOVING ON, WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING TO.
WHEN WE DO DO THESE THINGS, WE HAVE THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.
YOU'RE ALLUDING TO A LOT OF THIS STUFF COMES FROM THE CODE.
THEY HAVE TO DO THINGS BECAUSE OF THE CODE.
THE GRADING CODE SPELLS OUT WHEN YOU NEED ONE.
WHEN YOU NEED A GRADING PERMIT.
RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THERE IS A CODE FOR HOW SIDEWALKS OR CURB SEPARATED SIDEWALKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THEN WE ALSO HAVE OUR ENGINEERING STANDARDS.
THE CITY HAS STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE TO MEET ON THE DESIGN OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS OR WHATEVER THEY'RE PUTTING IN, LONG AS IT MEETS OUR STANDARDS.
I DIDN'T PUT IT IN HERE, BUT ONE OF THE BIGGER THINGS AS A GENERAL PLAN POLICIES.
STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS.
WE HAVE THOSE THAT CONSIDER ONE OF THE MOST COMMON IS THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AND OUR NPDES PERMIT.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE FOLLOWING THAT.
THERE'S REGIONAL STANDARDS ARE ANOTHER SET OF DRAWINGS THAT WE REFERENCED THAT ARE IN THE REGION.
WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP REPEATING THOSE.
SO WE HAVE OUR OWN STANDARDS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO CARLSBAD.
THEN WE HAVE THE REGIONAL STANDARDS THOUGH, WE ALSO FOLLOW.
THEN BASIC INDUSTRY STANDARDS THAT YOU FOLLOW AS ENGINEERS.
GRAVITY. YOU CAN'T BUCK GRAVITY ON YOUR DRAINS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
[02:15:01]
EVERYTHING FLOWS DOWNHILL AND STUFF.THOSE INDUSTRY STANDARDS THAT WE ALSO FOLLOW.
[LAUGHTER] AS ANY QUESTION [BACKGROUND].
>> I GUESS I'VE SEEN SOME CONSTERNATION BECAUSE YOU'LL HAVE A CONDITION BUT YOU HAVE A CONDITION THAT'S A CATCHALL THAT BASICALLY SAYS THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
BUT THEN I THINK YOU DRILL DOWN TO SOME LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY AND I THINK THE REASON TO TRUST YOU AS YOU HAVE THAT CONDITIONING THERE AND IT HAS TO FALL, AS HE SAYS, THINGS COME DOWN.
YOU HAVE YOUR FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL, REGIONAL, IT ALL COMES DOWN AND HOPEFULLY IT'S ALL WITHIN OUR CMC.
IF BY CHANCE IT'S NOT, THEY STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IT.
>> YES. IF WE DIDN'T MENTION IT AND IT IS A CODE OR A STANDARD AND IT'S PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
THE PERMITTING PROCESS ALSO FOR GRADING PERMIT HAS REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE CODE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO MEET THESE STANDARDS.
IF WE DON'T LIST THEM ALL OUT DOESN'T MEAN, WE'RE IGNORING IT, IT'S STILL GOING TO GET REVIEWED.
ONE THING THAT WE DO WE LOOK AT MEANS AND METHODS ALSO, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT HOW THE PROJECTS, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT, AND IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE NEIGHBOR OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE A CONSTRUCTION PLAN THAT WE REQUIRE ON IT DEPENDING ON THE PROJECT, BUT MOSTLY IN THE VILLAGE.
YOU WILL SEE THIS AS A CONDITION.
WE'LL ON SOME BIGGER PROJECTS ARE WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO DISTURB THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE'LL ASK FOR A CONSTRUCTION PLAN, WHICH MEANS THAT WE WANT TO KNOW WHERE ARE THE WORKERS ARE GOING TO PARK, WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO STAGE THEIR EQUIPMENT, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAUL THEIR MATERIALS, ALL OF THAT STUFF.
WE'RE NOT AFFECTING THE NEIGHBORS THAT YOU'LL SEE THAT CONDITION IN THERE, BUT SOMETIMES THAT POPS UP, BUT THAT'S THINGS AGAIN THAT YOU PROBABLY DON'T SEE THAT WE'RE DOING AFTER THE DISCRETIONARY ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING ENGINEERING REVIEW?
>> I THINK SOMETHING TOO WHY IT TAKES A LONG TIME, KEVIN, IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO POST ENORMOUS BONDS [LAUGHTER] AS THEY'RE MOVING SOIL.
THINK OF IT THAT ALL THAT SOIL, THOSE GRAINS OF SOIL, IT'S GOT A DOLLAR SIGN ON IT.
EVERY TIME THEY TOUCH IT AND MOVE IT FROM POINT A TO POINT B, THERE'S A COST AND THEY HAVE TO MOVE IT INTO THE RIGHT PLACE AND IF THEY DON'T, THEN JASON SAYS, GUESS WHAT? WE'RE GOING TO HIRE THIS GENTLEMAN'S COMPANY TO PUT IT IN THE RIGHT PLACE. BYE BYE.
THERE IS A HUGE FINANCIAL INVESTMENT AND THEY HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL OVER THAT.
>> SOME OF THOSE DELAYS ARE WHEN THEY DON'T DO SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE SITE PLAN.
THEN WE HAVE TO SAY, WELL, HOW DIFFERENT IS IT? THEN A RECENT ONE, I SAID, WELL, THAT'S QUITE A BIT OF A CHANGE.
LET'S GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN THEY FIGURED OUT A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK THAT WAY.
[LAUGHTER] BUT EACH TIME A PLAN CHECK COMES IN, IF THEY DON'T GET IT RIGHT OR THEY IGNORE OUR COMMENTS, IT'S 30 DAYS FOR OUR SIDE TO CHECK IT OUT AND THEN IT'S HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES ON THEIR SIDE.
TWO PLAN CHECKS IF IT'S 30 DAYS IN OUR OFFICE AND THAT SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME, BUT IT'S NOT AND THAT CAN BE ANY SIZE GRADING PLAN OR ANY PLAN THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
BUT YOU DO TWO CYCLES, THAT'S 30 DAYS AND USUALLY WE'RE BEFORE THAT ANYWAYS, BUT LET'S SAY THAT'S 30 DAYS ON OUR SIDE.
THEN IF THEY TAKE A MONTH-AND-A-HALF ON THEIR SIDE, THAT'S ALREADY FOUR AND HALF MONTHS AND WE STILL HAVEN'T GOT THOSE SECURITIES OR ANYTHING.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT TIME FLIES BY.
>> YES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. NOW WE WANT TO HAVE OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL.
ONE OF THE OTHER JASON'S, JASON PASIUT, COME UP AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BUILDING PLAN CHECK PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU AND GOOD AFTERNOON.
>> WELCOME. I THINK IT'S FIRST TIME WE'VE SEEN YOU BEFORE OUR COMMISSION.
>> IT IS. THIS IS MY THIRD YEAR WITH THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
NICE TO SEE YOU ALL AND MEET YOU ALL IN PERSON FINALLY. [LAUGHTER]
>> HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME? WAS IT PURSUANT?
>> BY THE TIME I GET MY DOCUMENTS AND PLANS AND APPLICATIONS AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR OUR PART OF THE REVIEW, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE DISCRETIONARY PROCESS.
WE'VE GOT THE GRADING PLANS ALL APPROVED AND WE'RE READY FOR THE DISCRETIONARY BUILDING PLAN REVIEW.
[02:20:02]
TODAY'S PRESENTATION, I'LL JUST GO THROUGH QUICKLY OUR APPLICATION PHASE, OUR PLAN REVIEW PHASE, THE APPROVAL PHASE, THEN THE PERMIT ISSUANCE PHASE, WHICH YOU'RE PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH BY [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] [BACKGROUND] LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WE'RE AT THE MINISTERIAL PROCESS OF PLAN REVIEW AT THE APPLICATION PHASE.THIS IS WHERE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ACCEPTS THE APPLICATION DOCUMENTS THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE FOR OUR PROJECTS, THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF PLANS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR OUR PROJECTS.
WE'RE IN A HYBRID MODEL RIGHT NOW WHERE WE'RE ACCEPTING DIGITAL PLANS FOR CERTAIN SIZE PROJECTS AND PAPER PLANS FOR OTHER LARGER PROJECTS.
WORKING OUR WAY TOWARDS A FULLY DIGITAL PLAN REVIEW PROCESS.
FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S TAKE AN ADU AS AN EXAMPLE PROJECT.
WE TAKE OUR B-1 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION AND WE TAKE OUR WASTE MANAGEMENT FORMS IN FOR CONSTRUCTION RECYCLING.
WE TAKE THE B-50 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPLICATION IN.
IN THIS CASE, A NEW ADU WOULD BE SUBJECT TO SECTIONS 2A, 3A AND 4A OF OUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.
WE WOULD TAKE IN OUR REQUEST FOR ADDRESSING BECAUSE EACH DETACHED ADU RECEIVES ITS OWN ADDRESS.
ALSO THE E-32 SWPPP TIER LEVEL ASSESSMENT.
IN A CASE, LIKE IN ADU, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECT WHEN IT'S AT ONE ACRE OR LESS.
THIS IS WHERE WE ESTABLISH WHAT TIER LEVEL THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES WOULD BE REQUIRED.
FOR AN ADU, WE WOULD ACCEPT FOUR SETS OF PHYSICAL PLANS, STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS, ROOF TRUSS CALCULATIONS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS.
MOVING OVER TO THE PLAN REVIEW PHASE, CITY OF CARLSBAD USES A THIRD PARTY PLANNING REVIEW CONSULTANT, THE COMPANY'S NAME IS TRUENORTH COMPLIANCE SERVICES.
THE CITY WAS WITH A COMPANY NAMED [INAUDIBLE] FOR MANY YEARS PRIOR.
WE JUST SWITCHED OVER ABOUT A MONTH AGO WITH TRUENORTH.
THERE ARE ANOTHER LOCAL THIRD-PARTY PLAN REVIEW CONSULTING FIRM.
THEY HAVE A COURIER THAT SHOWS UP THREE DAYS A WEEK, MONDAY, WEDNESDAY, FRIDAY, PICKS UP THE PHYSICAL PLANS AND DROPS OFF PLANS THAT WERE PLAN REVIEWED BY THE CONSULTANTS.
THE PLANS COME TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT COUNTER AND THEN OUR COUNTER TECHNICIANS ROUTE PLANS TO PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND FIRE, AND ALSO TO BUILDING.
PLANS GO THROUGH THEIR ITERATIONS DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF PLAN REVIEWS.
AS MR. MURPHY MENTIONED EARLIER, IF IT GETS TO THE THIRD PLAN REVIEW, WE HAVE A GUARANTEED SECOND OPINION PROCESS WHERE I WOULD GET INVOLVED FIRST TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT, FIGURE OUT WHAT THE ISSUES ARE, TRY TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THE PROJECT APPROVED BEFORE IT WOULD GO TO THE FOURTH ITERATION.
THEN THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS GOES UNTIL THE PLANS ARE APPROVED.
I THINK MY NEXT SLIDE HAS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT AN APPROVAL LOOKS LIKE IN OUR ENERGOV SOFTWARE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THIS CASE, LDE HAD A REVIEW, BUILDING HAD A REVIEW AND THEN THE THIRD REVIEW THAT YOU SEE THERE IS THE IN-HOUSE PLAN CHECK.
THAT'S WHERE OUR BUILDING COUNTER TECHNICIANS DO A FINAL REVIEW OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS, MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE CITY SET OF PLANS AND THE OWNER SET OF PLANS STAMPED APPROVED, TWO SETS OF CALCULATIONS, THEY MAKE SURE THAT THE FEES ARE ALL PAID.
ONCE THE PROJECT IS READY TO HAVE THE PERMIT ISSUED, WE DO THE IN-HOUSE APPROVAL.
AGAIN, AT THE APPROVAL PHASE, WE HAVE THREE FULL-TIME BUILDING TECHNICIANS BY THE WAY, AND WE HAVE ONE PART-TIME ADMIN THAT WORK AT OUR BUILDING COUNTER.
LAST YEAR WE PROCESSED ALMOST 5,000 PERMITS WITH THREE FULL-TIME STAFF.
LITTLE SIDE NOTE [LAUGHTER] ON MY TEAM AT HOW HARD WE'RE WORKING.
AT THE APPROVAL PHASE, LIKE I SAID, WE CHECK THE FEES, WE COLLECT OUTSTANDING INFORMATION THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MISSING ALONG THE WAY.
WE'VE AUTOMATED SEVERAL PARTS OF OUR PROCESS.
AT THIS POINT, WHEN A PROJECT IS READY TO HAVE THE PERMIT ISSUED, AN AUTOMATED EMAIL GOES OUT WITH AN ONLINE PAYMENT OPTION.
ONCE THE PERMIT IS PAID FOR, ANOTHER AUTOMATED EMAIL GOES OUT WITH THE PERMIT RECORD AND THE INSPECTION RECORD CARD.
IT'S ALL FULLY AUTOMATED AT THIS POINT, SAVING US A LOT OF TIME, AND THEN THE PERMIT GETS ISSUED.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT A PERMIT RECORD CARD LOOKS LIKE UP AT THE TOP.
[02:25:04]
THIS SHOWS UP AS A PDF DOCUMENT ALONG WITH THE INSPECTION RECORD CARD THAT HAS ALL OF OUR INSPECTIONS LISTED ON THE FORM WHICH THE INSPECTOR SIGNS WHEN THEY GET TO THE FIELD TO DO THE INSPECTIONS.WHO IS ALLOWED TO GET THE PERMIT?
>> PROPERTY OWNER OR THEIR AUTHORIZED AGENT.
MOST OF THE TIME IT'S THE CONTRACTOR THAT WE WOULD SUGGEST OR RECOMMEND.
>> CAN YOU TALK VERY BRIEFLY ABOUT AFTER YOU'VE ISSUED THE PERMIT, YOU DO A FINAL INSPECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S BEEN BUILT CONSISTENT WITH THE PERMIT, CORRECT?
>> TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW YOU DO THAT.
>> SURE. I HAVE A SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR WHO I'VE WORKED WITH AND WHO I HAVE HELPED TO CREATE A FINAL INSPECTION PROCESS.
AT THE DRYWALL INSPECTION, THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE FOR THE INSPECTOR AND THE CONTRACTOR TO TALK THROUGH WHAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED AT THE FINAL.
AT THE FINAL WALK-THROUGH, WE ACCEPT ALL FINAL DOCUMENTATION, WHETHER IT'D BE SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORTS, STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORTS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED, ENERGY DOCUMENTATION.
WE MAKE SURE THAT ANY REVISIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED ALONG THE WAY WITH THE PROJECT ARE APPROVED AND FEES PAID.
THE INSPECTORS GO THROUGH OUR ENTER GABE'S SYSTEM AND MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE INSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN LOGGED IN THE SYSTEM.
THE INSPECTOR WALKS THE PROJECT RIGHT FROM THE CURVE, WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE PROJECT ADDRESS, LOOKING FOR THE LIGHT AT THE FRONT DOOR, WE'RE LOOKING FOR ANYTHING RELATED TO THE SCOPE OF WORK.
FOR EXAMPLE, FOR A DETACHED ADU, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE THING.
YOU'RE CHECKING THE EXTERIOR ENVELOPE, YOU'RE GOING IN AND MAKING SURE THAT THE SMOKE DETECTORS AND POTENTIALLY CO_2 MONITORS ARE INSTALLED AND WORKING.
YOU'RE CHECKING THE DOOR SWINGS IN CERTAIN CASES, YOU'RE MAKING SURE THEY HEAT THE FRONT DOOR, THE EGRESS DOOR IS THE RIGHT WIDTH OF 32-NECK CLEAR OPENING.
IT'S A WALK-THROUGH OF EVERYTHING TO CHECK FOR FINAL OCCUPANCY, NON-SLIP SURFACES AT THE AREAS WITH SINKS.
WE'RE CHECKING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S HOT AND COLD RUNNING WATER.
BY THAT POINT, THE HAVC SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE HAD A DUCT LEAKAGE TEST FOR THE ENERGY CODE.
WE KNOW THE INSPECTOR SHOULD BE COMFORTABLE THAT THERE IS A SOURCE OF HEAT, THERE'S HOT AND COLD RUNNING WATER, AND THAT IT'S A SAFE AND HABITABLE STRUCTURE.
>> IF IT PASSES THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AT THAT POINT?
>> DO YOU ISSUE THAT RIGHT ON THE SPOT OR DOES IT TAKE A DAY OR TWO. WHAT DO YOU DO?
WE HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE WHERE I HAVE A FULL-TIME SENIOR OFFICE SPECIALIST WHO DOES A FINAL CLOSEOUT REVIEW OF THE PERMIT AFTER THE INSPECTOR FINALS IT.
SHE GOES THROUGH AND CLOSES THE PERMIT OUT IN OUR INNER GOV SOFTWARE, AND SENDS AN E-MAIL WITH A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, PDF DOCUMENT.
>> THEN EVERYTHING IS DONE. THAT STANDARD LINE.
>> JASON, WHERE DO THE STANDARDS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT COME FROM?
>> HOW MANY DIFFERENT CODES DO YOU HAVE.
YOU HAVE A UNIVERSAL STANDARD.
IN THE STATE, EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME STANDARD BECAUSE THEY'RE UNIVERSAL CODES THAT WE'RE ALL REQUIRED TO ADOPT.
>> SURE. IT'S TITLE 24 IN THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, IT IS A 13 PART.
THEY'RE ALL 13 PARTS OF THE CODE.
TYPICALLY YOU HEAR SOMEONE SAY TITLE 24 AND THEY ARE ONLY TALKING MAYBE THE ENERGY CODE.
THE TITLE 24 IS ALL 13 PARTS OF THE CODE.
THE RESIDENTIAL CODE, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL CODE, THE GREEN BUILDING CODE, THE ENERGY CODE, EXISTING BUILDING CODE, HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE. IT'S ALL OF IT.
>> I WANTED TO GO BACK AND I KNOW PETER, YOU'VE JUST BUILT AN ADU AND SO I'M LOOKING AT AN ARCHITECT.
WITH RESPECT TO PULLING THE PERMIT, YOU ONLY ALLOW THE CONTRACTOR OR THE OWNER BUT NOT THE ARCHITECT?
>> THE ARCHITECT CAN PULL THE PERMIT AS LONG AS WE GET THE RIGHT AUTHORIZED AGENT DOCUMENTS AT THE APPLICATION PHASE.
>> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? HELP ME HERE.
>> THEY CAN PULL THE PERMIT AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
>> OKAY. YOU GIVE YOUR PERMISSION THAT THEY REPRESENT YOU SO THE ARCHITECT CAN PULL BECAUSE THE ARCHITECTS DO SO MUCH.
[02:30:04]
>> I MEAN, NO OFFENSE BUT I SEE SOME OF THE CONTRACTOR AND I'M LIKE, OKAY, I'LL PASS.
I DON'T KNOW IF PETER WILL TALK OFFLINE.
>> ACTUALLY, WE WERE DOWN THE CITY WHEN WE GOT THE PERMIT BUT JUST RECENTLY PULLED IT FROM THERE, IT ACTUALLY WENT DOWN THERE.
JASON WAS TO COMMUNICATE BACK AND FORTH DURING THE PROCESS.
IT'S A VERY EYE-OPENING PROCESS TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE GOING THROUGH IT.
WE'RE ACTUALLY THINKING OF HAVING A LITTLE SHOW AND TELL ME.
WE PULLED THE PERMITS, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BREAK GROUND ON MONDAY ACTUALLY.
THEN IT'S ACTUALLY PUT A LITTLE SHOW AND TELL FROM WHAT'S LIKE ON THE OTHER SIDE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SEEK COUNSEL AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT IT'S LIKE TO ACTUALLY BUILD ONE OF THESE THINGS.
THERE'S SOME EXPERIENCES AND JASON IS VERY RESPONSIVE TO THE PROCESS.
>> I'M DEFINITELY INTERESTED IN LEARNING ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO OFFER.
>> I THINK THE IDEA WAS MORE OF LIKE, HEY, THESE WERE OUR EXPERIENCES FROM BEING A HOMEOWNER OR THE CONTRACTORS, HERE ARE THINGS THAT WE SAW AND THEN HAPPENED, AND JUST THAT TYPE OF THING.
JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE INFORMATION ON THE OTHER SIDE TO DO THAT THOUGHT WE HAD, IT WOULD BE A FUN THING TO DO.
>> I'M LOOKING AT IT JAD SO HE COULD DO THE DETACHED ADU AND I COULD DO THE JAD.
IT IS INTERESTING THAT THERE'S TIME.
I MEAN, EVERYTHING TAKES LONGER THAN YOU EXPECT.
>> BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO EXPEDITE THESE ADUS AND SO I JUST WASN'T SURE WHO COULD START WITH THE PERMIT. THANK YOU.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF A BUILDING OFFICIAL. IF NOT, THANK YOU.
>> MR. CHAIR, JUST BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS ITEM, I DID WANT TO JUST MENTION TO YOU THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ALSO DO DURING THIS PHASE IS CHECK THE PROJECT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MAKE SURE THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE IMPLEMENTED.
FOR PLANNING AN OCCASION, WE WILL HAVE A MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT.
IT MIGHT HAVE CERTAIN SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT THE PLANNER THEN IS MAKING SURE ARE COMPLETED IF APPLICABLE, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE PERMITS SOME WAY UP PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY, BUT YOU'LL SEE THOSE IN THE WAY THE CONDITION IS DRAFTED.
>> THAT'S WHY DON WHEN WE SEE A PROJECT IN AND WE HAVE HAD HIM COME BEFORE AND I KNOW WE'VE STARTED BEEN A LITTLE PERPLEXED AND YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB ON DESEGREGATING IT OUT.
BASICALLY, IT'S JUST BEING PUT ON THE SIDE PLAN JUST TO FILL THAT SPOT BUT REALLY, WITH RESPECT TO WHAT WE WERE APPROVING OR CONSIDERING, THAT IS NOT PART OF IT.
YEAH, I THINK YOU'VE MADE THAT CLEAR.
>> THIS GOES THROUGH ITS OWN LITTLE PROCESS.
WE'LL SEE ADUS ON PROJECTS THAT WILL COME TO US BUT WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION THAT SLIPS OVER TO THIS PROCESS.
>> BEFORE WE LEAVE ITEM 1, I THINK RON, YOU WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT APPEALS AND COURT CHALLENGES.
>> WELL, I THINK YOU WANT ME TO.
>> I'M REQUESTING YOU TO DO SO, PLEASE.
>> YES. COMMISSIONER STINE HAS ASKED JUST TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON WHERE YOUR DECISIONS COULD GO FROM HERE, I THINK IS WHAT HE WAS LOOKING AT.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY, AND I'M READING HIS MIND RIGHT NOW, THAT HE WANTED TO GO OVER THAT IS, IT WOULD HELP YOU IN MAKING YOUR DECISIONS AND YOUR FINDINGS AND YOUR CONDITIONS MORE DEFENSIBLE.
>> THAT'S A CORRECT MIND READ.
>> THERE ARE LEVELS IN THE CODE OF DECISION-MAKERS IN THE CITY DEPENDING ON THE COMPLEXITY OF THE DECISION.
SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT ARE DELEGATED TO THE CITY PLANNER, SOME OF THEM ARE DELEGATED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND SOME OF THEM GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
AT EACH LEVEL, THERE IS AN APPEAL OF THOSE DECISIONS.
ANY DECISION THE CITY PLANNER MAKES CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS A FINAL APPROVAL CAN BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY COUNCIL DECISIONS CAN BE APPEALED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT.
THERE'S A DOCTRINE THAT ATTORNEYS ARE FAMILIAR WITH, WHICH IS CALLED EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.
WHICH MEANS YOU CAN'T JUST JUMP INTO COURT AND SAY, CHALLENGE A DECISION MADE BY THE CITY PLANNER WITHOUT FOLLOWING YOUR LOCAL RULES AND TAKING IT UP THE CHAIN.
BEFORE A DECISION GETS TO THE SUPERIOR COURT, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE GONE THROUGH AND UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
ONCE IT GETS TO THE SUPERIOR COURT, THE REMEDY IS USUALLY GOING TO BE SOME MANDAMUS,
[02:35:05]
WHICH IS A LATIN PHRASE THAT MAYBE ONE OF MY LAWYERS UP HERE IF THEY WOULD CARE TO SAY WHAT MANDAMUS MEANS LITERALLY, BUT THERE'S TWO KINDS OF MANDAMUS.THERE'S WHAT WE CALL TRADITIONAL MANDAMUS, AND THEN THERE'S THE ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS.
THE TRADITIONAL MANDAMUS ARE CHALLENGES THAT ARE FOR MINISTERIAL OR QUASI-LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS IS FOR THE QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS.
JUST AS A LITTLE BIT OF AN ASIDE, AND YOU'VE PROBABLY NOTICED THIS IF YOU'VE BEEN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME, BECAUSE OF THE HOUSING CRISIS THIS STATE LEGISLATURE IS CONTINUING TO TAKE AWAY DISCRETION FROM THE LOCAL DECISION-MAKING BODIES ON PROJECTS.
ONE OF THE ONES THAT WE KEEP HAMMERING YOU WITH IS THE NEED TO HAVE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY IS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE COMMISSION ON OUR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS COMMITTEE, BECAUSE THE STATE DOESN'T WANT US TO NOT APPROVED PROJECTS ON STANDARDS THAT ARE SUBJECTIVE.
EVERY JURISDICTION IS TO COME UP WITH OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE REASON BEING IS THAT STARTS TO TAKE YOUR DECISIONS OUT OF THE DISCRETIONARY MODE AND MORE INTO THE MINISTERIAL.
IT EITHER MEETS THE STANDARD OR IT DOESN'T.
JUST AS AN ASIDE, ANOTHER REASON WHY THE STATE IS TRYING TO GET THE DECISIONS TO BE MORE MINISTERIAL CIRCLES BACK TO SEQUEL.
IF YOU REMEMBER WITH SEQUEL, THE PROJECTS THAT GET SEQUEL REVIEW ARE DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS, IF IT'S A MINISTERIAL PROJECT, IT DOESN'T GET A SEQUEL REVIEW.
SEQUEL REFORM IS NEEDED, NOBODY WANTS TO DO IT.
RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS MORE AND MORE PUSHING [NOISE] AT THE USE OF EXEMPTIONS, BECAUSE THAT HAS PROJECTS BECOME MINISTERIAL TO THAT EXTENT.
JUST AS ASIDE TO AN ASIDE, SEQUEL HAS BEEN USED BY MANY BODIES IN THE STATE TO STALL AND SLOW DOWN HOUSING PROJECTS.
WHETHER IT BE PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO PROJECT NEXT DOOR TO THEM, OR WHETHER IT BE A UNION WHO WANTS TO HAVE A LABOR AGREEMENT.
THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET MORE HOUSING DONE AND SEQUEL NOT BE AS MUCH AS A WEAPON.
ASIDE TO AN ASIDE TO AN ASIDE, IF YOU REMEMBER THE CARUSO PROJECT, THAT WAS A BALLOT MEASURE.
THE REASON WHY IT WAS A BALLOT MEASURE IS RICK CARUSO WAS BEING CHALLENGED BY WESTFIELD ON EVERY MALL DEVELOPMENT THAT HE WAS DOING UNDER A SEQUEL BASIS.
IT WAS GREATLY ADDING TO THE EXPENSE OF HIS PROJECTS AND SOMETIMES GETTING THEM STOPPED.
UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, A BALLOT MEASURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AS A SUBJECT TO SEQUEL.
THAT WAS REALLY THE PURPOSE FOR HIM TO GO TO THE PEOPLE ON THAT ONE.
CIRCLING BACK TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS.
ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS IS THE CHALLENGE TO A DISCRETIONARY ACTION, A QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTION.
WHAT THE JUDGE IS GOING TO LOOK AT IS THREE THINGS.
HE WANTS TO KNOW, SHE WANTS TO KNOW, WHETHER THE CITY PROCEEDED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION.
WAS THE CITY TRYING TO LOOK AT AN ITEM THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN WITHIN ITS CONTROL.
NUMBER 2, WHETHER THERE WAS A FAIR HEARING.
COMMISSIONER STINE, PROBABLY WITTINGLY AS OPPOSED TO UNWITTINGLY WAS TOUCHING ON THE FAIRNESS OF THE HEARING WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
WE'RE TALKING DUE PROCESS THERE BASICALLY FOR THE PROPONENT OF THE PROJECT AND THE OPPONENT OF THE PROJECT.
MAKING SURE THAT THEY'VE GOT THEIR CHANCE TO BE HEARD BY YOU BEFORE THE PROJECT GETS DECIDED ON.
EVERYBODY GETS A CHANCE TO GET THEIR INPUT WITHIN THE LIMITS FOR THE HEARING, WHICH USUALLY, THE MAIN LIMIT IS A TIME CONSTRAINT.
THAT'S NUMBER 2. THEN NUMBER 3 IS WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A PREJUDICIAL ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
WHETHER THE BODY THAT APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED THE PROJECT ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION.
WHAT THE COURT IS GOING TO LOOK AT IS, DID THE AGENCY PROCEED IN THE MATTER AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW? DID IT FOLLOW ALL OF ITS OWN LOCAL RULES AND STATE LAW?
[02:40:03]
THEN THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK, AND THIS IS THE ONE WE'VE BEEN HOPING ON FOR A LARGE PART OF TODAY IS, IS THE DECISION SUPPORTED BY THE FINDINGS? THE PHRASE THAT ANY ONE OF YOU HAVE HEARD IF YOU'VE GONE TO A PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING IS, DID WE BRIDGE THE ANALYTICAL GAP? WHICH IS THE PHRASE THAT CAME UP WITH THE SEMINAL CASE IN THIS, TOPANGA CASE.WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE WHEN WE SAY BRIDGE THE ANALYTICAL GAP, HERE'S OUR DECISION, WHERE DO WE GO? HOW DID WE GET ACROSS THE BRIDGE THERE? DID WE BUILD A GOOD BRIDGE AND HAVE FINDINGS? REMEMBER, WHAT WE SAID EARLIER, FINDINGS ARE COMBINATION OF LAW.
IN FACT, THAT WE ARE WANTING YOU TO DECIDE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
THE THIRD AND LAST THING THAT THE COURT'S GOING TO LOOK AT FOR THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IS, ARE THE FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE? HAS THERE BEEN TESTIMONY? HAS THERE BEEN EVIDENCE [NOISE] PUT INTO THE RECORD THAT SUPPORT THE FINDINGS THAT YOU'RE MAKING? THAT WAS AN ISSUE WITH VETERANS PARK THE OTHER DAY WAS, DID WE HAVE BACKUP FOR THAT? ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SEE QUITE OFTEN IS PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT TRAFFIC.
EVERY DEVELOPER WHO'S GOING TO COME FORWARD HAS THE TRAFFIC EXPERT.
WE HAVE STAFF WHO HAS TRAFFIC EXPERTISE, AND SO THEY'RE PRESENTING TO YOU THAT STORY.
QUITE OFTEN, WE'LL HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN AND COMPLAINING ABOUT TRAFFIC THAT MIGHT BE BASED MORE ON ANECDOTAL TESTIMONY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WHEN YOU WEIGH WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO, YOU SHOULD LOOK AT WHAT IS THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THAT FINDING THAT YOU'D BE MAKING.
WHAT THE COURT IS GOING TO BE LOOKING AT IS A SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TEST, WHICH IS WHERE KEVIN AND I WERE CHATTING COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE].
HE AND I WERE CHATTING WITH EARLIER.
IN THIS INSTANCE, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THERE COULD BE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN, BUT THE COURT IS GOING TO DEFER TO THE DECISION MAKER.
IF THE DECISION-MAKER CAN SUPPORT THEIR DECISION WITH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT DECISION.
IF THE DECISION IS SUPPORTED BY THE FINDINGS AND THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE, THEN THE COURTS CAN PULL THAT DECISION THAT WAS MADE.
THAT IS WHAT I HAD FOR YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE.
>> CAN YOU VERY BRIEFLY, I'M LOOKING AT THE CLOCK HERE TOO, TALK A LITTLE ABOUT ABOUT APPEALS TO COUNCIL.
THE TEST USED, WHETHER THE COUNCIL HAS OUR ENTIRE STAFF REPORT? DO THEY REVIEW THE VIDEO FROM THE HEARING? GIVE US A LITTLE SENSE ON WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE COUNCIL, WHEN A PROJECT THAT WE VOTED UP OR DOWN GOES TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL DECISION.
>> WELL, THOSE THINGS ARE ALL AVAILABLE TO THE COUNCIL.
IF YOU WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT OUR CODE SAYS AND THE LEGAL STANDARD IS, IT SOUNDS A LITTLE BIT CONTRADICTORY ON ITS FACE.
IT SAYS IT'S A DE NOVO HEARING, AND DE NOVO MEANS IT'S AS IF YOU'RE HEARING IT FOR THE FIRST TIME.
BUT THEY'RE LIMITED TO TWO THINGS, REALLY.
ONE, WHAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL? WE SCRUTINIZE THOSE APPEAL FORMS VERY CLOSELY, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THE HEARING COMES, LET'S JUST SAY YOU HAD A PROJECT APPROVED AND SOMEBODY WANTED TO APPEAL YOUR DECISION ON APPROVING THE PROJECT, AND IT HAD MULTIPLE ITEMS LIKE PROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND THE SEQUEL.
IF THEY DON'T APPEAL SEQUEL, THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
THEY CAN'T BACKDOOR IT IN IF THEY DIDN'T PUT IT ON THE APPEAL FORM.
THE OTHER THING THAT ANYBODY WHO APPEALS SOMETHING IS LIMITED ON IS TO THE RECORD THAT WAS MADE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, BECAUSE THEY'RE APPEALING YOUR DECISION.
THEY CAN ONLY GO BY WHAT WAS BEFORE YOU, NOT SOMETHING NEW THAT WASN'T IN BEFORE.
IF YOU'RE [INAUDIBLE] GETS APPEALED, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT'S ON THE APPEAL FORM, AND THEY WILL BE LIMITED BY WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE HEARING.
THEY CAN'T BRING IN NEW EVIDENCE THAT WASN'T PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSIONER.
>> WHEN WE DID THE ROMERIA STREET APARTMENTS, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THAT APPEAL WAS BASED ON?
>> HE DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT.
[02:45:03]
>> I WANT TO CHOOSE MY WORDS CAREFULLY.
IF YOU REMEMBER, THE ROMERIA PROJECT WAS AN EXEMPTION.
SQL WAS NOT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE FIRST TIME IT WAS HEARD, JUST THE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT.
THE APPEAL THAT CAME IN, APPEALED SQL, AND IT APPEALED THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION.
AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, I BELIEVE DON AND I AND WE DISCUSSED THIS WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL, DIDN'T FEEL THAT WE HAD NOTICED THE SQL WELL ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THEY HAD NOT EXHAUSTED THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND WE'VE TIGHTENED UP THAT PROCEDURE NOW.
WE WOULDN'T BE MAKING THAT SAME ARGUMENT.
WHAT WAS BEFORE THE COUNCIL WAS SQL AND THE PROJECT APPROVAL.
MY MEMORY IS THE PROJECT WAS SENT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO LOOK AT THAT EXEMPTION.
BUT YOU ARE GIVEN DIRECTION TO DO A FOCUSED EIR, WHICH ULTIMATELY DID NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER CAME IN AND MADE IT AN ARGUMENT ON A DIFFERENT WAY, WHICH WASN'T WHAT THE COUNCIL DIRECTION WAS.
BUT WE FELT THAT IT WAS WORTH BRINGING BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A RE-LOOK.
>> BECAUSE WE APPROVED THAT THE SECOND TIME TOO.
I REMEMBER THEY CAME BACK AND WE'VE GOT THE SECOND TIME.
I SHOULD KNOW WHAT'S THE END RESULT ON THAT.
IT GOT APPROVED THE SECOND TIME BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
HOW DID THAT PLAY OUT IN THE END?
>> I THINK THEY HAVE SUBMITTED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
IT WAS APPROVED IN THE SECOND GO ROUND AND WAS NOT CHALLENGED.
>> FURTHER HANDS, WHY DON'T WE TAKE A VERY BRIEF BREAK HERE AND THEN WE'LL FINISH UP OUR LAST PORTION OF OUR WORKSHOP.
CAN WE RECONVENE AT 4:15 PLEASE, AND THEN WE'LL PILE ON THROUGH IN THE REST OF THE WORKSHOP? [NOISE] RECONVENE IN OUR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
DON, WOULD YOU GO ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE OUTLINE, PLEASE?.
[2. Plan and Code Adoption or Amendments (Action Type: Legislative)]
>> YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WE IN AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2 AND JUST EASIER CONSCIENCE.
THE NEXT THREE, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF MATERIAL TO GO OVER ON THESE.
BUT FOR NUMBER 2, ALL WE WERE TRYING TO DO ON THIS ITEM WAS TO CONTRAST FOR YOU HOW A LEGISLATIVE OR AN ACTION THAT'S AN AMENDMENT TO A PLAN IS DIFFERENT FROM YOUR DISCRETION WITH DEVELOPMENT PERMITS.
THE ADOPTION OF A NEW CODE OR A PLAN OR THE AMENDMENT OF AN EXISTING PLANNER CODE IS A LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
AN EXAMPLE FOR YOU MIGHT BE THE ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN, A ZONING ORDINANCE OR AN AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
FOR OUR LEGISLATIVE ACTION, THE COMMISSION IS TYPICALLY IN THE ROLE OF MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
YOU WILL NOT BE THE FINAL DECISION-MAKER.
BUT IN YOUR ROLE AS A RECOMMENDING BODY, YOU DO HAVE MORE DISCRETION ON THIS TYPE OF ACTION AS COMPARED TO THE QUASI- JUDICIAL ACTION WHERE YOU'RE APPLYING ADOPTED STANDARDS.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU'RE GETTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN AND HELP SHAPE THE NEW CODE OR REQUIREMENT, THE PLAN.
IN THAT SENSE, WHILE YOU'RE NOT THE FINAL DECISION-MAKER, YOU DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE RANGE, LATITUDE.
KEEP IN MIND TOO, AND I THINK RON MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS EARLIER THAT LEGISLATIVE DECISION IS REALLY A POLICY CHOICE THAT'S GOING TO APPLY TO A BROAD CLASS OF LANDOWNERS.
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A PARTICULAR PERMIT BEFORE YOU, BUT HERE'S THE STANDARDS AND THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO PLAN THAT ARE GOING TO APPLY TO EVERYBODY IN THIS PARTICULAR PLAN AREA.
THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF THE INFORMATION ON THAT.
I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU, MR. CHAIR, IF THERE'S ANY COMMISSION DISCUSSION ABOUT LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS.
>> ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION? ON THAT, JUST MAKE A COMMENT.
I WAS CONSIDERED WHEN WE WERE ON THE LEGISLATIVE THAT I'VE TAKEN OFF MY JUDICIAL ROBE AND A LITTLE BIT MORE FREE REIGN IN TERMS OF WHAT I BELIEVE IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, THE AREA THEN THE GENERAL PLAN, KNOWING THAT FINALLY, IT'S THE COUNCIL DECISION.
LIKE YOU INDICATED, I CONSIDER WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE FREE REIGN.
[02:50:02]
WE'RE NOT AS CONSTRAINED AS WE ARE WHEN WE'RE DOING THE TYPICAL PROJECT WITH THE QUASI- JUDICIAL. ALICIA?I THINK WHAT I'M MOST CONCERNED WITH, AND MAYBE IT'S NOT JUST MY CONCERN IS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES ESPECIALLY WITH VARIANCES.
ONE PROJECT THAT WE DISCUSSED EARLIER WITH THE SETBACK VARIANCE, WHAT IS CONSIDERED A HARDSHIP? BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS NOT TIED TO MONEY.
HOW DO YOU DETERMINE A HARDSHIP WHEN IT COMES TO A VARIANCE?
>> IS THAT QUANTIFIABLE IN A CODE OR IS IT THE PLANNERS' DECISION?
>> I THINK I WOULD SAY THAT FOR THE MOST PART IT WOULD RELATE BACK TO THE FINDINGS.
REALLY THE CLASSIC VARIANCE WOULD BE THERE'S SOME PHYSICAL CONSTRAINT THAT MAKES COMPLIANT WITH THE STANDARD IMPOSSIBLE OR DIFFICULT COMPARED TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
A COUPLE OF THE EXAMPLES I THINK THE COMMISSION HAS SEEN HAVE BEEN ON, LET'S SAY, A SUBSTANDARD LOT.
I THINK IN ONE OF OUR MORE RECENT ONES, THE LOT WAS 3,000 SOME ODD SQUARE FEET WHEN THE ZONE REQUIRES 7,500 SQUARE FEET, AND MANY OF THE LOTS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE THE SAME SIZE OR SMALLER AND ARE ALREADY DEVELOPED TO THAT EXTENT.
IN THE CASE OF THE VARIANCE, ONE OF THE FINDINGS TALKS ABOUT BEING DEPRIVED OF A RIGHT ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY.
IN THAT CASE, I GUESS YOU COULD DEBATE, IS THE HOUSE LARGER THAN IT SHOULD BE OR NEEDS TO BE? BUT WE HAVE OFTEN LOOKED TO WHAT'S THE PREDOMINANT TYPE OF STRUCTURE AND SIZE OF STRUCTURE IN THE AREA? MANY OF THE OTHER VARIANCES I CAN THINK OF, HAVE BEEN THINGS, MAYBE THAT DEALT WITH A LOT THAT MAY BE MET THE STANDARD, BUT A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF IT WAS USABLE BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE DONE A WHOLE LOT OF VARIANCES OVER TIME.
ONE OF THE MAIN AREAS HAS BEEN THE BEACH AREA, AND I THINK THAT'S MAINLY BECAUSE OF WHEN THE LOTS WERE CREATED AND HOW SO MANY OF THEM ARE SMALLER? BETWEEN THE BEACH AREA AND MAYBE SOME OF THE VILLAGE, I THINK IF WE WERE TO LOOK AND SAY WHERE ARE THEY CONCENTRATED, IT'S PROBABLY THOSE AREAS.
THE MORE NEWLY DEVELOPED AREAS OF THE CITY THAT LOTS WERE CREATED THAT MET TYPICAL OR MINIMUM STANDARDS.
WE REALLY HAVEN'T HAD THAT SAME TYPE OF ISSUE.
>> I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU RECOMMEND THE WHOLE PROJECT FOR APPROVAL, BUT VARIANCES ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THE OTHER TYPES OF PERMITTING.
THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO GET A LITTLE MORE CLARIFICATION ON THE HARDSHIP.
I'M A LITTLE STRUGGLING WITH THE HARDSHIP OF IT.
THESE PEOPLE ARE COMING IN WITH MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR PROJECTS, AND SO WHERE'S THE HARDSHIP? THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
I GUESS THE HARDSHIP WOULD BE IF THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THE VARIANCE OR LET'S SAY THE VARIANCE ITEM WAS A BUILDING SETBACK.
THAT THEN THE BUILDABLE AREA WAS MUCH SMALLER, AND IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD 2,500 SQUARE FOOT HOMES AND THEY WERE ONLY ABLE TO BUILD A 500 SQUARE FOOT HOME.
I THINK, AT LEAST ON THE STAFF SIDE, WE'D SAY, WELL, THAT'S A HARDSHIP THAT THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO GET A COMPARABLE SIZE OR AT LEAST A CLOSER TO AVERAGE SIZE DWELLING UNIT ON THERE.
I SUPPOSE YOU COULD ALWAYS ARGUE WHILE YOU ARE ABLE TO FIT SOMETHING ON THERE, SO WHAT'S THE HARDSHIP? BUT I WOULD SAY TO YOU I GUESS OUR TYPICAL VIEW OF THE VARIANCES IS LOOKING AT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OVERALL AREA OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. ALICIA, WHEN I SEE VARIANCES, I'M LOOKING TO THE ONE EXCEPTION TO THE RULES.
THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE NORMAL RULES SHOULD NOT APPLY AND THEN I'M LOOKING FOR JUSTIFICATION WHY THE RULE SHOULD NOT APPLY.
OR MAYBE THAT THEY'RE APPLYING TO EVERYBODY ELSE THEY CUT ACROSS THE BOARD SO THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE GOOD REASON, SUCH AS THE SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT IN MY MIND,
[02:55:02]
JUSTIFY GIVING THEM AN EXCEPTION.ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE WE GO ON TO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS? JOHN, WOULD YOU GO TO ITEM 3, PLEASE?
[3. Commission Role]
>> THANK YOU. ITEM 3, I THINK WE'VE COVERED IN PART OF SOME OF THE POINTS UNDER THIS ITEM, BUT I DO WANT TO TOUCH ON A FEW OF THEM.
THE MUNICIPAL CODE DOES IDENTIFY WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS THE FINAL DECISION-MAKER SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND YOU HEARD RON TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE APPEAL PROCESS.
IT ALSO LISTS WHEN YOU'RE THE ADVISORY BODY, ADVISORY ROLE, AND YOU'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION AND THEN AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, IF IT'S A LEGISLATIVE MATTER, YOU WILL ALWAYS BE IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY.
ALSO FOR SOME QUASI JUDICIAL PERMITS, THERE ARE PERMITS THE WAY THE CODE IS STRUCTURED THAT IF A PERMIT IS SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE LEGISLATIVE ACTION OR A PARTICULAR PERMIT REQUIRES COUNCIL APPROVAL, THEN THE WHOLE BATCH OF ITEMS RELATED TO THAT PROJECT GO UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
IF AN APPLICANT OR COMMUNITY MEMBERS APPEALED AN ACTION TO THE COUNCIL AND THEY'RE NOT SATISFIED, YOU HEAR RON TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS BY WHICH THEY CAN THEN TAKE THAT TO THE COURTS FOR REVIEW.
THEN AT THAT POINT THAT THE COURT'S GOING TO LOOK AT, WAS THERE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE DECISION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
THAT'S WHERE WE COME FULL CIRCLE TO THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD ABOUT FINDINGS AND HOW IMPORTANT THEY ARE.
I THINK THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF THE COMMENTS THERE.
I KNOW RON MAY HAVE SOME THINGS TO ADD.
>> I THINK WE WE JUMPED AROUND A LITTLE BIT SO I THINK WE DID COVER IT.
>> ANY COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON THOSE ITEMS BEFORE WE TURN TO THE FINAL ITEM? SEEING NOBODY CHIME IN. GO AHEAD.
DON, PLEASE PROCEED WITH THE I GUESS WE'RE
[4. Planning Commission Performance]
ON ITEM NUMBER 4, PLANNING COMMISSION PERFORMANCE.>> YES. THANK YOU. WE ARE AT NUMBER 4.
THIS WAS OUR LAST ITEM ON THE WORKSHOP AGENDA AND WE HAD DISCUSSED, BASICALLY GOING OVER WHAT SOME OF THE THINGS WERE THAT THEY WERE WORKING WELL FOR THE COMMISSION.IT'S WORK AREAS THAT MAYBE COULD BE IMPROVED UPON.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WERE SOME TIME FOR DISCUSSION.
MR. CHAIR, IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN GO AHEAD AND COVER, I THINK FOUR ITEMS MAYBE IN EACH CATEGORY IF THAT'D BE APPROPRIATE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
>> YOU MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE. LET'S SEE.
I THINK WHAT I WOULD IDENTIFY AS THINGS WORKING WELL, I THINK YOU ALL DO A PRETTY GREAT JOB IN COMING PREPARED FOR HEARINGS.
THAT PART, I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER DOUBTED THAT.
BY THE TIME WE GET TO THE HEARING, YOU'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THE MATERIAL, YOU'VE VISITED THE SITE.
WE HEAR YOU IN YOUR DISCLOSURES EVERY WEEK, SO WE DO APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE PUTTING THE EFFORT INTO THAT.
I THINK AS I STATED EARLIER, I THINK THAT THE COMMISSION TAKES PUBLIC COMMENT VERY SERIOUSLY AND CONSIDER THOSE ISSUES AND I HOPE THAT EVEN IF SOMEONE IN THE PUBLIC RAISES AN ISSUE AND YOU DIDN'T EXACTLY DO WHAT THEY WANTED, THAT THEY AT LEAST APPRECIATED THAT YOU GAVE IT A LOT OF CONSIDERATION AND TRIED TO MEET HIM AT LEAST HALFWAY.
I THINK THIS COMMISSION AND SOMETIMES WE'VE HAD ISSUES, ALTHOUGH I WILL SAY VERY SELDOM, BUT I THINK THIS COMMISSION DOES A GOOD JOB IN WORKING TOGETHER AND TREATING EACH OTHER AND STAFF RESPECTFULLY.
WE HAVEN'T HAD ISSUES WHERE COMMISSIONERS ARE PARTICULARLY HARD ON A STAFF PERSON OR DISAGREEABLE.
IT'S BASICALLY BEEN A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP.
THEN WE HAVE APPRECIATED, AND PARTICULARLY I'VE APPRECIATED YOUR WILLINGNESS TO COMMUNICATE WHEN YOU HAVE INFORMATION NEEDS OR YOU GOT SCHEDULING CONFLICTS, JUST THE ABILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STAYING CURRENT.
FOR IMPROVEMENT AREAS, AND I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS, I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHERE WE RECOGNIZE YOU HAVE A LOT GOING ON THAT SOMETIMES MAYBE A COMMISSIONER HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE REPORTS AND PLANS AND THIS IS THE SITE BEFORE THE BRIEFING, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT CREATES WHEN WHEN YOU ARE DOING THAT CLOSER TO THE TIME OF THE MEETING.
THEN IN SOME OF THE BRIEFINGS, WE HAVE HAD CHALLENGES WITH THE THE MULTIPLE AGENDA ITEM WHERE MAYBE A LOT OF TIME IS SPENT ON AN ITEM TO THE POINT WHERE THEN WE'RE REALLY SHORTCHANGING THE OTHER ITEM.
[03:00:04]
THAT'S REALLY A TIME-MANAGEMENT OF THE BRIEFING.THEN FOR HEARINGS AND BRIEFINGS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DOES HAPPEN ON OCCASION IS REALLY GETTING OFF THE TOPIC OF WHAT THOSE AGENDA ITEMS ARE.
THERE MIGHT BE A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S MAYBE A TANGENT FROM THE ITEM.
MAYBE AN IMPORTANT OR INTERESTING TOPIC, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT AN AGENDA ITEM.
I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
IF THERE IS AN ITEM THAT YOU'D LIKE ON THE AGENDA THAT THE PROCESS IS FOR IT TO BE RAISED DURING THE HEARING, YOU WOULD ALL VOTE AND DECIDE WHETHER THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT PUT ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION.
I WOULD JUST REMIND YOU THAT THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL GOING FORWARD, THAT MAYBE IT GETS RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF IT AND AGENDA ITEM ONE TIME, BUT THEN REALLY IT SHOULD BE TAKEN OFF ON ITS OWN AND EITHER DEALT WITH OR NOT.
THEN LASTLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS YET TODAY, BUT, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE IS NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU JUSTIFY YOUR VOTE UNLESS YOU'RE VOTING CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATION, SO IT'S NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RON'S GOING TO TELL ME OTHERWISE [LAUGHTER] IF YOU'RE TAKING AN ACTION ON AN ITEM THAT YOU EACH GO DOWN THE ROW AND SAY, I'M SUPPORTING IT BECAUSE OF THIS OR IT'S REALLY IF YOU'RE GOING CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATION, THAT'S WHEN WE WANT TO HEAR YOUR RATIONALE IN CASE WE NEED TO ADJUST FINDINGS.
THOSE ARE MY OBSERVATIONS AND BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS THOSE OR HEAR ANY OF YOUR THOUGHTS.
>> THE REASON WHY I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID IS BECAUSE THE FINDINGS THAT ARE PRESENTED, THEY'RE ARE ADOPTING.
THE REASONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATED THERE.
THEN IF YOU'RE VOTING AGAINST THE PROJECT, THOSE FINDINGS ARE NOT THERE SO THAT'S WHY WE'D NEED TO HEAR IT.
I THINK THAT'S THE RATIONALE BEHIND YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING.
>> IT'S ALREADY IN THE STAFF REPORT.
IF WE JUST SAY MOVE STAFF FOR RECOMMENDATION, THAT'S FINE.
>> NOT THE STAFF REPORT, THE RESOLUTION, WHICH IS THE DOCUMENT YOU ARE ADOPTING, IT SPEAKS FOR YOU.
>> RIGHT. WHICH THE RESOLUTION IS PART OF THE RESOLUTION, CORRECT?
>> YES. MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK WE RECOGNIZE TOO, THAT OFTENTIMES IF YOU HAVE A GROUP THAT'S ATTENDING THEIR HEARING AND MAYBE THEY DIDN'T READ THE MATERIAL AND THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED AS TO WHY GENERALLY THE COMMISSION'S TAKING WHATEVER ACTION YOU'RE TAKING, I GUESS MY POINT IS I JUST DON'T THINK THAT YOU EACH NEED TO FEEL OBLIGATED TO EXPRESS YOUR PARTICULAR REASONS IF YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION.
>> KEVIN, YOU HAVE SOME THOUGHTS?
>> YEAH. IF A GROUP IS COMING UP AND RAISING WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE FAIR ARGUMENTS AND THE REASONS WHY THEY THINK THAT WE SHOULD VOTE A CERTAIN WAY AND WE VOTE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF, WHICH IS NOT HOW THEY WANT US TO VOTE, I THINK IN THOSE SCENARIOS, IT'S IMPORTANT TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUES THAT THEY'VE RAISED JUST LIKE YOU SAID EARLIER, [INAUDIBLE] KNEW THAT WE'RE TAKING THEM SERIOUSLY, THAT WE'RE HEARING THEM OUT AND TRYING TO MEET THEM HALFWAY.
I THINK THAT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A BALANCING ACT BETWEEN NOT BEING SO VERBOSE AND ALSO [LAUGHTER] RESPECTING THE PUBLIC.
>> I WANT TO COMPLEMENT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
ONE THING THAT I'VE ALWAYS FELT GOOD ABOUT AND RESPECTED EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU, IS THAT I'VE SEEN OTHER COMMISSIONS IN OTHER CITIES TO WHERE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF TENSION ON THE DAIS THAT MIGHT OCCUR.
I WILL HAVE TO SAY THAT I COMMEND OUR COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONERS THAT WERE PROFESSIONAL.
WHAT'S WORKING WELL IS THAT THERE ISN'T DEBATE OR NEGATIVE STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS TO ONE ANOTHER ON THE DAIS, WHICH IS EXCELLENT.
WE'RE PROFESSIONAL. IT'S ONE OF THE BETTER COMMISSIONS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WHAT I'VE SEEN IN THE PAST WITH SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES IN THE CALIFORNIA AREA THAT I'VE SEEN.
[03:05:05]
FROM A WORKING WELL STANDPOINT, WE ALL DO OUR HOMEWORK AND WE COME IN HERE PREPARED, WHICH IS EXCELLENT.FROM AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT, WE REALLY CAN, YOU COULD SAY IF IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN STAY WITHIN OUR LANE OF RESPONSIBILITIES.
TODAY, THE STAFF HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB IN BEING ABLE TO PREPARE US, AS WELL AS WE MOST OFTEN KNOW BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION LONG ENOUGH NOW, WHAT OUR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE, LOOKING IN FACTS AND FINDINGS.
BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, STAYING WITHIN OUR LANE.
SOMETIMES WE HAVE A TENDENCY TO GO OFF AT AND BE A LITTLE BIT MORE VERBOSE.
BUT YET, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AREAS IN WHICH IT'S NOT A PART OF THE AGENDA ITEM THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IN DOING SO, ONE, WE'RE WASTING TIME FOR THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS OF COURSE OURSELVES.
ALL WE CAN DO IS STAY WITHIN OUR BOUNDARIES, SOMETIMES WHERE YOU MIGHT NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE.
WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT BECAUSE WE ARE COMMISSIONERS TO GET OFF INTO THAT OTHER AREA.
BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION.
WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT.
>> I JUST WANT TO ECHO THOSE THOUGHTS.
FINALLY, SOMETHING YOU MENTIONED ROY, ABOUT US BEING ABLE TO WORK CONSTRUCTIVELY AND GETTING ALONG.
I DON'T TAKE THAT FOR GRANTED BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN AND BEEN INVOLVED IN ONE CASE OF OTHER BODIES WHERE IT BECOMES VERY PERSONAL.
ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD DISAGREE, IT BECOMES A PERSONAL AFFRONT TO A FELLOW TRUSTEE, BOARD MEMBER, COMMISSIONER, OR WHATEVER, AND THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THOROUGHLY ENJOY ABOUT THIS COMMISSION DURING THE 3.5 YEARS I'VE BEEN ABOARD, IS THAT WE ALL TREAT EACH OTHER WITH COURTESY AND RESPECT.
I'VE NEVER FELT PUT DOWN WHEN I HAD A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE FROM ANOTHER COMMISSIONER.
WE DON'T PERSONALIZE IT, THAT WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE SOMETIMES, AND THAT'S FINE, AND THAT'S HEALTHY.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I ENJOY THIS WORK SO MUCH, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO COMING TO EACH OF THE COMMISSION MEETINGS.
WHEN YOU HAVE BODIES THAT YOU KNOW THERE IS PERSONAL FRICTION AND ANIMOSITY, AND YOU KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A DEBATE, OR WORSE, A PERSONALIZED BITING DEBATE.
THAT'S NO FUN. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE.
IT'S ATTRIBUTED TO EACH OF OUR MEMBERS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT AND WE DISAGREE WHEN WE NEED TO, AND WE DO IT IN A RESPECTFUL MANNER AND NOT A PERSONAL MANNER.
AGAIN, I DON'T TAKE THAT FOR GRANTED BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THAT ON THE OTHER END.
ANYTHING MORE? BILL, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING?
>> YES. ERIC, I'M GLAD YOU'RE HERE BECAUSE THESE COMMENTS ARE WHAT I HOPE YOU MAY BE IMPLEMENTING. I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT TIMING.
DON, YOU AND I'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS PRIVATELY.
LET ME SPEAK PERSONALLY, THE MORE TIME I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT A TOPIC, AN AGENDA ITEM, THE MORE I'M ABLE TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS IT.
ALL TOO OFTEN, WE GET OUR PACK AT THURSDAY.
WHICH MEANS THAT IF WE'RE CONSCIENTIOUS, WE'RE GOING BE SPENDING PART OF FRIDAY IF THE TIME IS AVAILABLE OR THE WEEKEND.
AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, I'D LIKE TO SEE GETTING THE AGENDA ITEMS, THE PACKET EARLIER.
NOW, I KNOW YOU GO THROUGH DRAFT PACKETS, DRAFT RESOLUTIONS, ETC.
THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO SOLVE, BUT IT NEEDS WORKING ON.
ALSO, I HOPE THAT WHEN WE HAVE A MEETING SET, THERE'S A BALANCE OF HOW MANY AGENDA ITEMS WE DO FOR EACH HEARING DATE.
SOMETIMES THERE'S ONLY ONE, SOMETIMES THERE'S BEEN FOUR OR FIVE.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE'S THE TIMING ISSUE WHERE WE'RE UNDER A GUN TO GET SOMETHING TO HAPPEN.
BUT THE MORE YOU CAN BALANCE IT AND THE SOONER WE CAN GET THE INFORMATION, THAT WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR ALL OF US.
BECAUSE FRANKLY, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO WORK ONE OR TWO DAYS ON MY WEEKEND JUST TO GET READY FOR SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE COMING UP IN 72 HOURS.
[03:10:06]
>> THANK YOU FOR THOSE THOUGHTS. ANYBODY ELSE?
>> I'D LIKE TO SEE ROY, IF YOU CAN REVISIT CONSENT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES.
WHO CAN ASK FOR AND RECOMMEND AGENDA ITEMS?
>> ANY COMMISSIONER COULD REQUEST ONE.
THE PROCESS WE'VE TRIED TO FOLLOW IS THAT IT WOULD BE RAISED IN A HEARING, AND THAT WE WOULD NEED A MAJORITY TO SUPPORT IT IN ORDER TO PUT IT ON AGENDA IN THE FUTURE.
>> I WANT TO END ON A HIGH NOTE AND I WANT TO THANK STEPH, DON, ROY, THE TWO JASON'S, EVERYBODY, THAT YOU REALLY PUT A LOT OF TIME, THOUGHT AND EFFORT INTO IT, AND I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT.
[APPLAUSE] LET'S GIVE THEM APPLAUSE. EXCELLENT JOB.
>> MR. CHAIR AND WE'D BE REMISS IF WE DIDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE MICHELLE HARDY FOR ALL HER WORK ON SETTING UP THAT.
>> ALL OF THEM. YES. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THIS IS THE FIRST WORKSHOP I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN, IN MY 3.5 YEARS AND IT WAS VERY PRODUCTIVE AND IN LARGE PART TO THE WORK THAT THE ENTIRE STAFF HAS DONE.
WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I THINK WE ARE ADJOURNED.
[NOISE] THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.