[00:00:02]
OKAY, GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE APRIL 5TH, 2023, MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.
[CALL TO ORDER]
PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, LED THIS EVENING BY COMMISSIONER MEENES.ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
OKAY, WOULD THE CLERK PLEASE READ--DO THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE? YES.
OKAY, AND SO ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT.
PLEASE NOTE THAT WITH NONE ABSENT.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
THE NEXT ITEM FOR APPROVAL IS THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 15TH MEETING.PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 15TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING? MR. CHAIR, WE NOTICED AS WE WERE PUBLISHING THESE THAT THE MINUTES REFLECT MARCH 15TH AND THEY SHOULD REFLECT MARCH 1ST AND THE APPROVAL OF THE LAST MINUTES.
OKAY, SO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT CHANGE.
ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER CHANGES? OKAY, ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION AND PLEASE VOTE.
OKAY, THE MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0.
NOW WE'LL GO ON TO THE NOTES FOR THE PROCEDURES, THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
OKAY, SO REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL ITEMS AND REQUESTS TO SPEAK.
FORUMS MUST BE TURNED IN TO THE CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING.
ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES UNLESS THAT TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.
NEXT SLIDE. OKAY, SO THE PROCEDURES ARE AS FOLLOWS.
THEN WE HAVE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC.
THERE'S APPLICANT RESPONSE IF NECESSARY.
THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS CLOSED.
OKAY, SO CERTAIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ARE FINAL BUT MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
AN APPEAL MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AT CITY HALL WITHIN TEN CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DECISION.
THE COST OF FILING AN APPEAL IS $847 FOR ALL MATTERS.
IF ANYONE WISHES TO QUESTION A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION, THEY MAY CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT THE ADDRESS SHOWN BETWEEN 730 AND 530 MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY. THE TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES ALLOWED FOR EACH SPEAKER.
OKAY, SO ACTUALLY SO--THE COMMISSION SETS ASIDE TIME FOR UP TO 15 MINUTES TO ACCEPT COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA THAT ARE WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
[PUBLIC COMMENT]
MADAM CLERK, HAS ANYONE FILED A REQUEST TO SPEAK THIS EVENING? YES, CHAIR, WE HAVE ONE.OKAY, IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS CLEARLY SO THE CLERK CAN ENTER THAT.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE MY COMMENTS.
JUST SO YOU KNOW A LITTLE ABOUT ME, I'M A RETIRED SCHOOL TEACHER.
I LOVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND I LOVE MY HOME.
I EDUCATED MYSELF ON WHAT I OR MY NEIGHBORS WERE PERMITTED OR NOT PERMITTED TO DO.
[00:05:01]
INCOME ALLOWED.I SACRIFICED THE PROXIMITY TO THE BEACH FOR A HOUSE WITH A BACKYARD IN A QUIET R-1 NEIGHBORHOOD AS A HOME BUYER SIGNING ON THE DOTTED LINE FOR A 30-YEAR MORTGAGE.
NEVER WOULD I HAVE ASSUMED THAT I COULD ONE DAY HAVE A 4 TO 6 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING DISGUISED AS ADUS LOOMING OVER EVERY SIDE OF MY SINGLE STORY HOME WITH MY ONCE PRIVATE BACKYARD.
WITH THE RECENT STATE MANDATES, OUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS AS TO HOW AND WHERE WE WANT TO LIVE OUR LIVES HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM ME AND EVERY SINGLE FAMILY-ZONED PROPERTY OWNER.
THE SUGGESTION MADE BY A MEMBER OF THIS COMMISSION WAS FOR CARLSBAD TO STRIVE TO BECOME LIKE THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND TO MAKE IT OUR GOAL TO ACHIEVE SOME SORT OF RECOGNITION.
THIS IS WHAT COULD HAPPEN HERE IF WE FOLLOW THAT SUGGESTION, AND PERHAPS IT'S THE REASON LA JOLLA IS REVIVING THEIR EFFORTS TO SEPARATE FROM THE CITY.
CARLSBAD DESERVES BETTER THAN THIS.
HOWEVER, YOU ARE UNABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE YOUR VOICE HAS BEEN SILENCED AS WELL.
TAKING THIS POWER AWAY FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS ONE WAY OF WIPING OUT DEMOCRACY.
IN THE MEANTIME, PLEASE CONSIDER ADOPTING OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THANK YOU, AND JUST TO NOTE, TOO, SINCE ITEMS BROUGHT UP UNDER PUBLIC COMMENT ARE NOT LISTED ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, THE COMMISSION IS PREVENTED BY LAW FROM DISCUSSING OR TAKING ACTION ON THESE ITEMS. SO I SHOULD MENTION THAT BEFORE, BUT THANK YOU.
OKAY, I'LL NOW OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.
[1. CUP 2018-0022 (PUB17Y-0018) – CITY OF CARLSBAD ORION CENTER]
MR. LARDY, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THE ITEM? YES, CHAIR. THIS ITEM IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROJECT FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.GIVING THE STAFF PRESENTATION IS ISAAC MORALES.
OH, AND BEFORE WE I GUESS BEFORE WE DO, ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY EX PARTE ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? YEAH, I NEED TO RECUSE.
THANK YOU. I VISITED THE SITE.
I VISITED THE SITE RECENTLY AND I'VE BEEN THERE PREVIOUSLY MANY TIMES.
OKAY, YES, I HAVE VISITED THE SITE, PARKED, WALKED AROUND, AND ALSO I HAVE READ AN ARTICLE IN THE SUNDAY SAN DIEGO UNION CONCERNING THE PROJECT.
IT WAS ON B1 OF THE UNION TRIBUNE FOR SUNDAY.
GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR. LARDY, AND GOOD EVENING, CHAIR MERZ AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 2600 ORION WAY EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF FARADAY AVENUE.
THE SITE IS CURRENTLY USED FOR FLEET CITY FLEET MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS.
AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION TO MAKE IS THAT THE PROJECT SITE IS NOT WITHIN THE PRESERVE AREA.
THE PROJECT HAS THREE MAJOR COMPONENTS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS.
[00:10:02]
THE FIRST IS A TWO STORY OPERATIONS BUILDING, WHICH IS 41,900FT².THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES THREE SEPARATE WAREHOUSES THAT WILL TOTAL 25,000FT².
EACH DEPARTMENT MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE WILL HAVE THEIR OWN WAREHOUSE BUILDING.
THE LAST MAJOR COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT IS A FOUR-STORY PARKING STRUCTURE.
THE PARKING STRUCTURE WILL HAVE 225 VEHICLE SPACES AND 16 ELECTRIC VEHICLE STALLS.
THE FIRST FLOOR WILL BE DEDICATED TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FLEET.
SOME OTHER MINOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDE REORIENTING THE VEHICLE WASHING AND REFUELING STATIONS, WHICH ARE LOCATED JUST NORTH OF THE NEW WAREHOUSES.
LASTLY, MINOR REPAVING OF THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA WILL OCCUR ON THE NORTH EASTERN PART OF THE SITE.
THIS SLIDE SHOWS A RENDERING OF THE NEW OPERATIONS BUILDING FACING NORTH OF ORION WAY.
STAFF ANALYZED ALL OF THESE TOPICS FOR CONSISTENCY, INCLUDING THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, AIRPORT LAND USE, COMPATIBILITY PLAN, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND CEQA, AND FOUND IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS, WITH ONE EXCEPTION RELATED TO HEIGHT.
TWO BUILDINGS IN THE PROJECT ARE TALLER THAN 25FT, AND THE OPERATIONS BUILDING AT 33FT AND THE PARKING STRUCTURE AT 55FT. THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT, SUCH AS THE SAFETY TRAINING CENTER, WHICH INCLUDES A TOWER WITH A HEIGHT OF 56FT. FURTHERMORE, DUE TO TOPOGRAPHY, INTERVENING STRUCTURES AND VEGETATION.
THE OPERATIONS BUILDING AND THE PARKING STRUCTURE WILL HAVE LIMITED VISIBILITY FROM FARADAY AVENUE.
STAFF CONDUCTED AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND IDENTIFIED POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, GEOLOGY AND SOILS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS DURING THE REQUISITE 30 DAY PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD.
WITH THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ORION CENTER PROJECT AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING MITIGATION MONITORING, REPORTING PROGRAM BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.
THIS DOCUMENT IS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT AS EXHIBIT ONE AND TWO.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THE APPLICANT, STEPHEN STEWART, IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER STINE.
YES, THE ONLY REAL ISSUE I HAVE ON THIS PROJECT CONCERNS THE PARKING STRUCTURE FOUR STORY PARKING STRUCTURE, AND I'M WONDERING IF WOULD PROJECT STAFF COMMENT ON THE NEED FOR A FOUR STORY PARKING STRUCTURE IN AN OPEN SPACE ZONE? ALL RIGHT, OUR INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE, WE TRIED TO SURFACE [INAUDIBLE]--MR. STEWART, CAN YOU GET CLOSER TO THE MIC, PLEASE? SURE, I'LL TURN IT ON.
COMMISSIONER STINE, IN OUR INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE, WE DID TRY TO SURFACE PARK THE STAFF THAT WOULD BE USING THE OFFICE BUILDING AND THE SITE, BUT THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH ROOM.
IT WAS REALLY FORCED TO GO VERTICAL WITH THE PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING.
[00:15:01]
WITH THE POLICE FLEET OCCUPYING THE ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR OF THE POLICE OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE, WE REALLY HAVE ABOUT TWO AND A HALF LEVELS OF PARKING AS THE FLOOR SPIRAL UPWARD SO THAT THE HIGH POINT IS AT 56FT, BUT THAT WAS HOW WE WERE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ADEQUATE PARKING ON SITE WITH THIS PROJECT.THEN ARE WE REMOVING PARKING AREAS THAT ARE USED RIGHT NOW AND NEED TO REPLACE IT WITH THIS PARKING STRUCTURE? THAT'S CORRECT. THE VISION FOR THE PARKING STRUCTURE IS THAT IT WOULD SIT WHERE THE CURRENT POLICE PARKING LOT CURRENTLY IS, WHICH IS HOW THEY JUSTIFIED PUTTING THE POLICE ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE.
OKAY, SO I'M ENVISIONING THIS WON'T BE FOR PUBLIC PARKING AS MUCH AS IT WILL BE FOR POLICE AND FIRE PERSONNEL, AM I CORRECT? PRIMARILY FOR STAFF PARKING AND POLICE PARKING.
THERE WILL BE PUBLIC PARKING IN FRONT OF THE OFFICE BUILDING AND IN FRONT OF THE PARKING GARAGE.
OKAY, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO PERHAPS UNDERGROUND PARKING? I BELIEVE DUE TO THE COST PROHIBITIVE NATURE OF THAT TYPICALLY ENTAILS.
I AND OUR SITE BORINGS, WE DIDN'T EXPLORE THAT AS A VIABLE OPTION.
SO THAT'S A COST ISSUE THEN, RIGHT? IT IS. THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER MEENES. YES, IN REGARD TO THE PARKING STRUCTURE, OF COURSE, FOUR STORIES, BUT MAYBE YOU CAN EXPAND FOR US JUST A LITTLE BIT IN REGARD TO THE CONDITIONAL PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN REGARD TO THE HEIGHT IT INDICATES IN THE STAFF REPORT ALLOWS WAIVER OF THE HEIGHT STANDARDS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND IT'S A PROCESS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHICH THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERMITS THAT TO OCCUR.
COULD YOU EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT FOR US? COMMISSIONER MEENES, THE OPEN SPACE ZONE IS A UNIQUE ZONE WHERE IT ALLOWS FOR A WAIVER OF THE HEIGHT LIMIT THROUGH A CONDITIONAL ONE OR SORRY, A PROCESS ONE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH IS APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNER.
IN THIS CASE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TWO IS ALREADY REQUIRED, AND SO THAT DECISION ON THE HEIGHT WAIVER RESTS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS THE APPROVING BODY OF THE USE IN THERE, BUT IT IS DIFFERENT THAN A VARIANCE WHERE WE HAVE TO MAKE OTHER SPECIFIC FINDINGS.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. WE'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
MADAM CLERK, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HASN'T FILED A SPEAKER SLIP BUT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM? THERE'S NOT. NO SPEAKERS? OKAY, SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THIS ITEM.
OKAY, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE STAFF? OKAY, SEEING NONE, WE'LL NOW OPEN FOR COMMISSION DISCUSSION.
I'M SORRY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I TOOK A CLOSE LOOK AT THIS SITE BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN AREA THAT IS AN OPEN SPACE ZONING.
THE CITY TAKES RIGHTFUL PRIDE IN THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE WE HAVE HERE IN THE CITY, AND THE USE THAT'S CONTEMPLATED HERE IS NOT SOMETHING TYPICALLY YOU THINK FOR OPEN SPACE.
YOU THINK OF PARKS, YOU THINK A RECREATION FACILITIES.
THIS WOULD BE MORE OF A INDUSTRIAL TYPE USE WHERE IT'S THERE ARE VEHICLE PUMP STATIONS THERE, IT'S FOR PARKING. SO IT'S A BIT UNUSUAL IN MY MIND FOR THIS TYPE OF APPLICATION, I THINK FOR AN OPEN SPACE ZONING. HAVING SAID THAT, MY EXAMINATION OF THE SITE AND LOOKING AT THE RENDERINGS SUGGESTS THAT THIS IS ALREADY A VERY HIGHLY DISTURBED SITE.
IT IS NOT A PRISTINE NATURAL SITE WITH NATIVE VEGETATION AND, YOU KNOW, ANIMALS.
THERE'S A BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY, THERE'S A FUEL PUMP STATION ON THE PROPERTY.
THE GROUND THERE, THERE'S CERTAIN BARREN GROUND, VERY LITTLE VEGETATION.
THERE'S ASPHALT THAT'S KIND OF WORN.
SO THIS IS A PARTICULAR SITE HAS BEEN USED EXTENSIVELY, APPARENTLY FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN THINK OF IT AS A TRADITIONAL OPEN SPACE, A PARK RECREATIONAL AREA.
[00:20:02]
THIS IS NOT THAT TYPE OF SITE, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IT DOES SPECIFICALLY PERMIT PUBLIC USE PUBLIC FACILITIES IN THIS ZONE SUBJECT TO A CUP.SO THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH IT, AND I'M ALTHOUGH TYPICALLY I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS TYPE OF USE AND DEVELOPMENT IN OPEN SPACE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
I'M NOT JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT'S BEEN THERE AND HOW IT'S BEEN USED AND I'M SEEING REALLY NO NET LOSS OF OPEN SPACE TO THE CITY IF WE APPROVE THIS APPLICATION.
SO IN FACT I THINK IT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT ON WHAT'S THERE.
WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW IS NOT TERRIBLY ATTRACTIVE AND KIND OF WORN OUT AND OLD, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE PUTTING NEW FACILITIES THERE THAT I THINK WILL BE AN UPGRADE. SO AND WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH ANY NATIVE VEGETATION.
THERE IS, BUT NOT ON THE PROJECT ITSELF.
SO FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE, I CAN I THINK THIS TYPE OF REALLY UPGRADE FOR WHAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE, IT WOULD BE FINE AND I CAN SUPPORT THAT.
WITH REGARD TO THE PARKING STRUCTURE, AND THE REASON I ASK THE QUESTION, YOU KNOW, WITH OPEN SPACE, WE'RE LOOKING FOR ESTHETICALLY ATTRACTIVE USES AND IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO MAKE A FOUR-STORY PARKING STRUCTURE AN ESTHETICALLY ATTRACTIVE USE.
THEY'LL DO THEIR BEST, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT.
BUT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE AREA THAT IT'S IN, AGAIN, IT'S NOT CLOSE TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THE AREA ITSELF IS BASICALLY INDUSTRIAL.
THIS PARTICULAR PARKING STRUCTURE WOULD BE TOWARD THE REAR OF THE PROJECT.
SO IT'S NOT HIGHLY VISIBLE, AND THE FACT THAT THERE ALREADY IS A TOWER THERE THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT USES FOR TRAINING PURPOSES, THAT'S ROUGHLY THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE HERE.
I'M OKAY WITH IT AND I DON'T SEE ANY SCENIC VIEW OBSTRUCTION, ALTHOUGH IDEALLY YOU DON'T LIKE PARKING STRUCTURES AND OPEN SPACE HERE TO MAKE THIS PROJECT WORK, AND BECAUSE WE'RE ELIMINATING SOME PARKING THAT STAFF USES, I CAN JUSTIFY SUPPORTING A FOUR STORY PARKING STRUCTURE. SO IN TERMS OF EXTERNAL IMPACTS, GENERALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S THE IMPACT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA? WELL SURROUNDING AREA ON THE EAST SIDE AND ON THE NORTH SIDE, THERE'S BASICALLY NOTHING IT'S A STEEP BANK WITH SEEMED TO BE A LOT OF UNDISTURBED VEGETATION IN THERE ON THE WEST SIDE.
IT'S PRIMARILY AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.
I DIDN'T SEE ANY RESIDENCES CLOSE BY.
I SAW INDUSTRIAL AREA WIDE STREETS.
IT'S BEEN BASICALLY USED FOR SIMILAR USES.
YES, YOU'RE INTENSIFYING THE USE NOW WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION, AND THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT POINT IN MY CALCULATIONS IS THERE IS NO ONE WHO HAS FILED AN OBJECTION.
SO I WOULD ASSUME FROM THAT WITH THE NOTICE GOING OUT, IF ANY OF THE OWNERS OF THOSE PROPERTIES HAD ANY STRONG OBJECTIONS, THEY WOULDN'T BE SHY ABOUT LETTING US KNOW.
SO ALL IN ALL, ALTHOUGH IT'S A BIT UNUSUAL FOR AN OPEN SPACE TO, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY THIS PARKING STRUCTURE FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE, I THINK IT'S JUSTIFIED.
I THINK IT'S WELL DESIGNED, AND I THINK IT'LL BE AN ASSET FOR THE CITY.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MEENES.
COMMISSIONER SABELLICO. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
WELL, THAT WAS VERY DETAILED FROM COMMISSIONER STINE, SO I WON'T REPEAT EVERYTHING THAT HE SAID, BUT I DO AGREE THAT THE AVERAGE RESIDENT MIGHT, YOU KNOW, WHO LISTENS TO OUR MEETINGS OR WHO MIGHT NOT.
MIGHT QUESTION WHY WE'RE ALLOWING A FOUR STOREY OFFICE BUILDING IN SOMETHING THAT'S ZONED OPEN SPACE, AND I HEAR ALL THE TIME FROM RESIDENTS, PROTECT OUR OPEN SPACE, PROTECT OUR OPEN SPACE.
ONCE WE LOSE OUR OPEN SPACE, IT'S GONE FOREVER.
SO THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT I TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT POINT OF VIEW, ONCE IT'S GONE, IT'S GONE, AND WE SHOULD PROTECT IT WITH EVERY ABILITY THAT WE CAN.
HOWEVER, THE CLEAR INTENT OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE HISTORICAL USE, AS COMMISSIONER STINE WAS MENTIONING, I THINK IT MAKES THIS A PRETTY EASY DECISION, AND I THINK THAT IT CAN BE A POINT OF PRIDE NOT ONLY FOR OUR CITY WORKFORCE THAT'S GOING TO BE HOUSED THERE, BUT FOR THE ENTIRE CITY.
I THINK IT CAN BE MADE INTO...
IT MAKES US INTO A REALLY WORLD CLASS CITY TO HAVE AN OFFICE BUILDING LIKE THAT.
SO I'M PREPARED TO SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE RIBBON CUTTING.
[00:25:10]
IT'S A UNIQUE LOCATION GIVEN THE OPEN SPACE, BUT GIVEN THAT THE ZONING IN THE AREA IS PRETTY MUCH INDUSTRIAL R&D, IT'S UNIQUE IN REGARD TO HAVING OPEN SPACE IN THAT AREA.WE'RE OFTEN YOU'LL SEE R&D AND YOU'LL SEE INDUSTRIAL SPACE BEING KIND OF MORE CLUSTERED, AND I LOOK AT THIS AS BEING A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE TO HAVE THE OPEN SPACE THERE, BUT YET THERE'S MANY OTHER FACILITIES IN THE AREA THAT ARE IDENTICAL FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA AND IT'S ZONED THAT WAY AS WELL.
SO I'M NOT REALLY THAT CONCERNED ABOUT IT, AND I THINK STAFF ANSWERED THE QUESTION IN REGARD TO THE EXCEPTION IN REGARD TO THE OPEN SPACE AND THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS REGARDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
THANK YOU, AND THEN JUST WORKING IN, YOU KNOW, INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE FOR THE PAST 20 PLUS YEARS AND SEEING THE SITE, YOU KNOW, I DEFINITELY SUPPORT IT.
I THINK ONE OF THE BIG BENEFITS, TOO, IS THAT I MEAN, YOU LOOK AT AND THE STAFF REPORT MENTIONED IT, YOU KNOW, THREE SITES WILL BE GIVEN UP AND THEN, YOU KNOW UTILIZE ONE OF THOSE IS ON OAK STREET DOWN IN THE VILLAGE.
SO HAVING THAT MOVED FROM THE VILLAGE OUT TO HERE AND CONSOLIDATING ONE JUST I THINK IT JUST MAKES GOOD SENSE, AND SO, YEAH, IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS, AND ALSO, TOO, I THINK I AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONERS THAT IT'S BASICALLY ALREADY TAKING A DISTURBED SITE AND IMPROVING IT AND AGAIN, TAKING THREE DIFFERENT SITES AND COMBINING THEM INTO ONE.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE DID A GREAT JOB.
RAISED SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAD.
I ALSO AM CONCERNED NOT JUST THE OPEN SPACE, BUT THIS FOUR STORY STRUCTURE, AND SINCE THE AREA ISN'T PRISTINE, PERHAPS WE COULD ALLOW IT, BUT I'LL SUPPORT THIS TODAY, BUT IN THE FUTURE, I THINK THE CITY REALLY NEEDS TO LOOK AT UNDERGROUND PARKING, NOT JUST FOR OUR OWN BUILDINGS, BUT FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
I DON'T WANT THIS WORLD CLASS CITY TO BECOME A TOWER CITY.
UH, THANK YOU. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THE ITEM? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
SO I'VE TALKED TO HER AND SHE'S GOING TO DO THAT WHEN SHE COMES BACK INTO THE ROOM.
YEAH. THANK YOU, COUNSELOR KEMP.
OKAY, SO THE MOTION CARRIES 5 TO 0 WITH A RECUSAL BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] CAN YOU DISCLOSE THE REASON? THE REASON I RECUSED IS BECAUSE I WORK FOR THE ARCHITECT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MR. LARDY, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM? [INAUDIBLE] IF THE MAKER OF THE MOTION COULD CONFIRM THAT RESOLUTION DID INCLUDE THE CHANGES THAT WE PRESENTED.
YES, I DO. I WANT TO INCLUDE THAT, AND SECOND, CONCURS.
ARE WE GOOD? DO WE NEED A REVOTE OR ARE WE GOOD? YEAH, JUST GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
OKAY, COUNSELOR KEMP, FOR THE RECORD, WE NEED TO REVOTE ON THAT.
[00:30:04]
JUST GIVE ME ONE MINUTE. I KNOW.LET'S TRY IT AGAIN. SHOULD BE GOOD.
THE MOTION PASSES 5 TO 0 WITH COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY RECUSING HERSELF.
OKAY, WE'LL NOW CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
OKAY, MR. LARDY, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM?
[2. ZCA 2023-0002/LCPA 2023-0018 (DEV2023-0040) - ALTERNATIVE AND TEMPORARY HOUSING AMENDMENTS 2023]
CAN YOU OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? OH, YES, AND WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO.THANK YOU, MR. LARDY, AND GOOD EVENING.
VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SECOND ITEM IS ANOTHER CITY INITIATED PROPOSAL.
INSTEAD OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
HOWEVER, IT CONSISTS OF CODE CHANGES TO OUR ZONING ORDINANCE AS WELL AS OUR LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND IT REGARDS IMPLEMENTING THROUGH CODE CHANGES TO HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS. SO TO SUPPORT THE PRESENTATION TONIGHT, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME BACKGROUND, SOME FOUNDATION TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHAT THE STATE LAW HAS TO SAY ABOUT THE CODE CHANGES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, AND THAT'LL BE BOTH PART OF THE PROJECT BACKGROUND AS WELL AS A PROJECT DESCRIPTION WHERE WE'LL GET INTO MORE DETAILS ABOUT HOW THE PROPOSED CODE CHANGES AFFECT THE DEFINITIONS SECTION, THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES AND SOME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS WELL.
IN ADDITION TO THAT BREAKDOWN OF THESE HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS AND HOW THEY ARE PROPOSED TO IMPACT THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WE'LL ALSO TAKE A LOOK AT SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WITH REGARDS TO AN EMERGENCY SHELTER IN THE CITY.
AS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ACTION ON THE ZONE, CODE CHANGES.
THIS IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE CITY'S HOUSING PLAN.
THE HOUSING PLAN WAS ADOPTED ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO TO THE DAY, AS A MATTER OF FACT, ON APRIL 6TH BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THREE MONTHS AFTER THAT, WE RECEIVED CERTIFICATION FROM THE STATE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT, AND THAT'S A MAJOR MILESTONE BECAUSE CERTIFICATION FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA INDICATES THAT YOUR ELEMENT IS NOT ONLY SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW, BUT ALSO ENABLES CITIES, THE CITY TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR A VARIETY OF STATE GRANTS AND OTHER BENEFITS THAT WE GET FROM HAVING A CERTIFIED ELEMENT.
THE HOUSING ELEMENT ESTABLISHES A STRATEGY, AND THAT STRATEGY IS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH POLICIES AS WELL AS PROGRAMS, AND THE HOUSING ELEMENT CONTAINS NEARLY 40 PROGRAMS THAT REQUIRE US TO IMPLEMENT THROUGH THE HOUSING CYCLE, WHICH RUNS FROM 2021 ALL THE WAY THROUGH 2029.
A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES.
SOME OF THOSE OBJECTIVES ARE ABOUT 160 IN ALL, REQUIRE US TO DO THINGS ON AN ONGOING BASIS THROUGHOUT THAT SEVERAL YEAR HOUSING CYCLE, BUT ALSO ASK US TO MAKE CHANGES SUCH AS THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS BY SPECIFIC DATES TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
GENERALLY, THE HOUSING ELEMENT IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT IN THE STATE'S EYES THAT, AS I MENTIONED, IT REQUIRES STATE REVIEW AND APPROVAL, BUT ALSO ANNUAL MONITORING BY THE STATE TO ENSURE THE CITY IS INDEED IMPLEMENTING THE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS AND OBJECTIVES.
SO THE TWO PROGRAMS FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT ARE ON DIFFERENT SUBJECTS.
THE OTHER PROGRAM, 2.13 H FOCUSES MORE ON HOUSING FOR HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS AND LOOKS SPECIFICALLY AT THE DEFINITION OF EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND A NEW USE KNOWN AS LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS.
FOCUSING MORE ON PROGRAM 1.3 G IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AS MENTIONED IN THE SPECIFICS OF THE PROGRAM, THE CITY IS AS PART OF THIS CODE AMENDMENT, REVIEWING ITS STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE USES THAT YOU SEE HERE, AND THE PROGRAM SAYS FOR THE CITY TO DO JUST THAT, REVIEW THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY FOR EXAMPLE, CONSIDER ANY STANDARDS WE HAVE REGARDING EMPLOYEE HOUSING AND AMEND OUR STANDARDS OR IN THIS CASE, OUR ZONING ORDINANCE AS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
[00:35:02]
HOUSING AS A PERMITTED USE.SO A PORTION OF THIS PROGRAM, 1.3 G HAS ALREADY BEEN SATISFIED, AND THOSE CHANGES THAT WERE REVIEWED BY YOU AND ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR ARE NOW BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION.
PROGRAM 1.3 ALSO CONTAINS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT REQUIRES US TO REVISE OUR REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW AN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES GROUP HOMES AND RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES SERVING SEVEN OR MORE PERSONS.
THE OTHER THING I SHOULD MENTION IS THAT RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES ARE A TYPE OF GROUP HOME.
IN ADDITION, FOCUSING ON THE NEXT PROGRAM, 2.13.
AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE IN THIS PROGRAM ASKS US TO LOOK AT OUR CITY STANDARDS AND AMEND AS NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE THEY ADDRESS LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS, ANY CHANGES REQUIRED TO EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
AGAIN, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE RECEIVE FROM YOU, IF APPROVAL WOULD BE SENT ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND BEFORE ANY CHANGES TO THE CODE ARE EFFECTIVE IN THE COASTAL ZONE, THEY WILL NEED TO BE ACTED ON BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION.
THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE CITY'S CERTIFICATION LETTER FROM THE STATE GIVING US THE GOOD NEWS THAT INDEED OUR HOUSING ELEMENT IS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, BUT WHAT'S INTERESTING IN THIS LETTER IS THAT THE STATE SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT CERTAIN SUBJECTS AND IN THIS CASE, THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM, TO EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING SURE WE AMEND OUR STANDARDS TO ADDRESS GROUP HOMES.
AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES.
FURTHERMORE, THE STATE HAS ALSO PUT OUT A TECHNICAL ADVISORY, BOTH THE LETTER THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, AS WELL AS THIS TECHNICAL ADVISORY, ARE ATTACHMENTS TO THE STAFF REPORT. THIS TECHNICAL ADVISORY HAS BEEN ESPECIALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE IT GIVES US DIRECTION FROM THE STATE ON THINGS SUCH AS THE DEFINITION OF GROUP HOMES, CLARIFYING THE LICENSE REQUIREMENTS.
NOT ALL GROUP HOMES NEED A LICENSE, FOR EXAMPLE, AND CLARIFYING THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS WHERE CERTAIN TYPES OF GROUP HOMES CAN BE PERMITTED OR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A GROUP HOMES THAT DON'T REQUIRE A STATE LICENSE ARE THOSE THAT PROVIDE LIMITED SERVICES.
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ARE TWO TYPES OF HOUSING THAT ARE MEANT TO MOVE PEOPLE OFF THE STREET INTO ULTIMATELY PERMANENT HOUSING, AND AGAIN, THE SOBER LIVING HOMES AND RECOVERY HOMES ARE MEANT TO PROVIDE TYPICALLY RECOVERING DRUG ADDICTS AND ALCOHOLICS TO HELP THEM BEAT THAT ADDICTION THROUGH PEER SUPPORT, BUT THERE ARE ALSO GROUP HOMES THAT REQUIRE A STATE LICENSE, AND THESE ARE USES THAT TYPICALLY REQUIRE NON-MEDICAL BUT ESSENTIAL CARE AND SUPERVISION SUCH THAT PEOPLE NEED THAT ASSISTANCE FOR THEIR DAILY LIVING ACTIVITIES, AND THIS MIGHT INCLUDE A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY, FOR EXAMPLE, AN ELDERLY CARE FACILITY THAT TREATS PATIENTS WITH ALZHEIMER'S OR AN ALCOHOLIC AND DRUG ADDICTION FACILITY WHERE 24 HOUR SUPERVISION IS NECESSARY.
SO LOOKING AT GROUP HOMES, FIRST OF ALL, THIS TABLE PROVIDES THE INFORMATION TO EXPLAIN WHERE OUR CODE CURRENTLY STANDS AND WHAT'S NECESSARY TO CHANGE IN THE CODE OR THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
SO WE'VE GOT THE TABLE BROKEN DOWN HERE BASED ON BOTH WHAT THE EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWS OR DOESN'T ALLOW AND WHAT'S REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, AND YOU CAN SEE FOR GROUP HOMES, THEY'RE BROKEN DOWN BY EITHER LICENSED OR UNLICENSED FACILITIES AND THEY'RE BROKEN DOWN BY NUMBER OF PERSONS SERVED EITHER A MAXIMUM OF SIX PERSONS
[00:40:03]
OR SEVEN OR MORE AND FOR GROUP HOMES IN PARTICULAR, YOU CAN SEE THE CODE IS SILENT.THERE IS NO MENTION OF THAT PARTICULAR TERM.
THERE IS NO LISTING OF GROUP HOMES IN ANY OF OUR PERMITTED USES TABLES.
NOW WE ALREADY DO ALLOW GROUP HOMES BY VIRTUE OF STATE LAW.
THE STATE HAS ASKED US THAT TO COMPLY WITH STATE HOUSING LAW, WE MUST SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY GROUP HOMES IN ADDITION TO THOSE OTHER USES THAT WE'VE ALREADY CALLED OUT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
WHAT IS PROPOSED, HOWEVER, TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW IS IN THE RED LETTERS THAT ARE THERE THAT YOU SEE IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, WE MUST PERMIT ALL LICENSED GROUP HOMES REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF PERSONS SERVED THAT'S INCLUDED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AS WELL AS OUR THREE COMMERCIAL ZONES THAT PERMIT RESIDENTIAL USES.
AGAIN, IN ALL OF THOSE SAME ZONES.
HOWEVER, FOR LICENSED FACILITIES THAT SERVE SEVEN OR MORE PERSONS, THOSE CAN BE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED, MEANING THAT BEFORE THEY OPERATE, THEY WILL REQUIRE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, ALSO KNOWN AS A LEVEL TWO CUP.
WITH REGARDS TO RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES.
AGAIN, A TYPE OF GROUP HOME THAT REQUIRES LICENSING FROM THE STATE.
THERE IS NOT SIGNIFICANT CHANGE NECESSARY WITH REGARDS TO THEM.
THERE IS NO NEED TO ADD A DEFINITION.
THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THE EXISTING DEFINITION, BUT TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW, WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES SERVING SEVEN OR MORE PERSONS MUST BE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED, AGAIN REQUIRING A CUP FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE PARKING STANDARDS WILL REFLECT THAT FOR GROUP HOMES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A LICENSE, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME PARKING STANDARDS AS A RESIDENTIAL USE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR GROUP HOMES THAT REQUIRE A LICENSE AND SERVE SEVEN OR MORE PERSONS.
THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME AS PROPOSED THE SAME PARKING STANDARDS THAT CURRENTLY APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, AND FINALLY, WE NEED TO MAKE A DISTINCTION IN OUR RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY PARKING STANDARDS TO CLARIFY THOSE STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO FACILITIES SERVING SIX OR FEWER PEOPLE AND THOSE THAT WOULD SERVE SEVEN OR MORE.
THE OTHER SIGNIFICANT CHANGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ZONE CODE CHANGE REGARDS THE PROGRAM 2.13, WHICH FOCUSES NOT ON GROUP HOMES BUT HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS, AND THAT IS THE LISTING OF A NEW USE LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTER.
A LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTER IS DIFFERENT FROM AN EMERGENCY SHELTER IN THAT ITS FOCUS REALLY IS TO MOVE PEOPLE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE FROM A SHELTER TYPE OR A TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT INTO PERMANENT HOUSING, AND TO DO THAT, THE STATE RECOGNIZES THAT INCREASED STAFFING AND SERVICES ARE NECESSARY COMPARED TO AN EMERGENCY SHELTER.
AN EMERGENCY SHELTER IS TO DO JUST WHAT ITS NAME IMPLIES, PROVIDE EMERGENCY SHELTER.
A LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTER, ON THE OTHER HAND, CAN BE COMBINED WITH AN EMERGENCY SHELTER, BUT IS REALLY MEANT TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF THAT SHELTER AND INTO A PERMANENT LIVING ARRANGEMENT. AGAIN IN TERMS OF THE CODE CHANGES, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A USE THAT'S PRESENTLY IDENTIFIED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
EVERYTHING THAT'S PROPOSED IS SIMPLY A NEW ADDITION TO WHETHER THAT'S A DEFINITION OF LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTER OR IDENTIFYING IT AS A PERMITTED USE IN OUR DIFFERENT ZONES, AND YOU CAN SEE, ACCORDING TO STATE LAW, WE NEED TO PERMIT THESE ZONES IN ALL OF OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AS WELL AS OUR COMMERCIAL ZONES, PERMITTING RESIDENTIAL AND IN OUR INDUSTRIAL ZONES AS WELL, AND THE REASON I MENTION INDUSTRIAL ZONES IS BECAUSE THAT'S THE LOCATION OF WHERE EMERGENCY SHELTERS ARE CURRENTLY PERMITTED AND STATE LAW CLEARLY SAYS WHERE AN EMERGENCY SHELTER IS PERMITTED, SO SHALL LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS BE ALLOWED AS WELL.
ADDITIONAL TOPICS TO KIND OF WRAP UP THIS SUBJECT THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO YOUR DELIBERATIONS.
TONIGHT IS A MAY 2020 CITY COUNCIL ACTION AND DISCUSSION ON SOBER LIVING HOMES.
SOBER LIVING HOMES ARE A TYPE OF GROUP HOME.
[00:45:10]
NEED A PERMIT FROM THE CITY.THE OTHER WAS TO ADOPT A LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM TO ENCOURAGE FOLKS SUCH AS THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES OR OUR LOBBYISTS TO ADVOCATE FOR CHANGES THAT CERTAINLY PROTECT CITY INTERESTS AND CITIZENRY CONCERNS REGARDING SOBER LIVING HOMES AND GROUP HOMES IN GENERAL.
THE OTHER ASPECT OF THIS WAS TO SIMPLY MONITOR RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES FOR I'M SORRY, MONITOR GROUP HOMES FOR ANYTHING AS WE WOULD NORMALLY MONITOR A TYPICAL RESIDENCE, UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES, FOR EXAMPLE, PUBLIC NUISANCES SUCH AS NOISE ITEMS LIKE THAT, IN OTHER WORDS.
BUT WITHIN THE REALM OF WHAT WE CAN.
THE CITY IS CERTAINLY ADVOCATING FOR THAT, AND EVEN THOUGH THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION TO INCLUDE GROUP HOMES IN ITS LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AS OF 2020, I DID CHECK AND IT REMAINS AS PART OF OUR CURRENT LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM.
I ALSO WANTED TO TOUCH ON LA POSADA DE GUADALUPE, WHICH IS THE CITY'S ONLY EMERGENCY SHELTER.
THE CITY HAS BEEN AN ADVOCATE AND SUPPORTER FOR CATHOLIC CHARITIES AND THE SHELTER IN PARTICULAR.
IN 2013, WE APPROVED A GRANT OF $2 MILLION TO HELP THEM BUILD THE CURRENT STRUCTURE THAT THEY HAVE, AND MOST RECENTLY IN MAY OF THIS PAST YEAR, WE DID PROVIDE FUNDING TO HELP THEM HIRE ADDITIONAL STAFF TO BECOME A LOW BARRIER CENTER.
THAT'S TECHNICALLY DIFFERENT THAN A LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTER, BUT IT'S IN THE DIRECTION OF FULFILLING THEIR ULTIMATE PLAN TO BE THAT NAVIGATION CENTER, AND INDEED, IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, THE CITY WAS ABLE TO SECURE A GRANT OF $2 MILLION FROM THE COUNTY TO ENABLE LA POSADA DE GUADALUPE TO EXPAND INTO A LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTER.
ULTIMATELY, THAT IS CERTAINLY THE DESIRE OF CATHOLIC CHARITIES TO NOT ONLY BE THAT, BUT ALSO TO SERVE FOR THE FIRST TIME BOTH WOMEN AND FAMILIES AT THE LA POSADA DE GUADALUPE , AND FINALLY, WITH REGARDS TO TRANSITIONAL AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, THIS AGAIN IS A TYPE OF SHELTER FOR OR A TYPE OF HOUSING FOR PRIMARILY HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY CAN PROVIDE NUMBERS ON IN TERMS OF HOW MANY TRANSITIONAL OR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING UNITS THERE MAY BE IN THE CITY, AND THAT'S SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE TREATED AS A FAMILY, AS ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL USE.
WHAT I CAN SAY, THOUGH, IS THAT WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN THE CITY.
WHEN ASSISTANCE IS SOUGHT FROM US, AND THE PERFECT CASE IN POINT WOULD BE THE RECENTLY COMPLETED WINDSOR POINTE PROJECT, WHICH DID RECEIVE OVER $8 MILLION IN FUNDING AND THAT PROJECT 50 UNITS FOR LOWER INCOME HOUSING, I THINK PRIMARILY DIRECTED AT VETERANS, DOES INCLUDE A NUMBER OF UNITS THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
AS FAR AS NEXT STEPS WITH THE RECOMMENDATION WE RECEIVE FROM YOU FROM PLANNING COMMISSION WE'LL GO AHEAD AND FORWARD THIS ITEM FOR CITY COUNCIL HEARING, AND THAT'S SCHEDULED FOR MAY 9TH. IF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS THE ORDINANCE, IT WILL THEN GO ON TO COASTAL COMMISSION FOR THEIR APPROVAL OF OUR APPLICATION FOR A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT.
THE DATE FOR THAT IS STILL TO BE DETERMINED, OF COURSE, AND FINALLY, I'LL CONCLUDE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION, AND THAT IS THAT YOU ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT AND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? LET'S SEE. COMMISSIONER MEENES.
COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE? IT WAS GROUP HOMES.
REAL QUICK, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
SO WHEN WE'RE SPEAKING OF IN THE ZONES WHERE IT SAYS NONE, IS THAT BECAUSE IT'S SILENT IN THAT REGARD? AND SO THEREFORE, THE STATE IS REQUIRING THAT WE ADDRESS THAT AND ADDRESSING IT WE'RE SEEING THAT IS PERMITTED, AM I CORRECT TO ASSUME THAT? CORRECT, COMMISSIONER MEENES.
SO IT'S CLEAR TO EVERYONE THAT GROUP HOMES ARE PERMITTED.
THE FACT THAT THE CURRENT CODE IS SILENT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT ALLOWED.
IT'S JUST A USE THAT SIMPLY HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED YET, BUT NOW IS PROPOSED TO BE SO.
[00:50:10]
LEGISLATION? I THINK THE BACKGROUND IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF HOUSING ELEMENTS AND STATE HOUSING LAWS TO MAKE SURE EVERY CALIFORNIAN HAS DECENT HOUSING, AND SO THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT CITIES ARE AWARE, RESIDENTS ARE AWARE THAT COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE IS AWARE OF THIS TYPE OF HOME BEING ALLOWED, CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED OR PERMITTED AS ANOTHER MEANS TO PROVIDE HOUSING EITHER FOR HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS OR PEOPLE RECOVERING FROM PERHAPS SOME KIND OF ADDICTION.OKAY, OTHER QUESTION FOR YOU AS WELL.
IN THE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES.
SIX OR FEWER INDIVIDUALS TREATED AS A RESIDENTIAL USE BY RIGHT, AND SO THEREFORE, THERE'S NO CUP.
ARE WE ASSUMING THAT OVERSIGHT? I GUESS YOU COULD SAY WOULD BE COUNTY, SOME OTHER TYPES OF HEALTH FACILITIES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE REGARDING HOW THAT PARTICULAR HOUSEHOLD WITH SIX INDIVIDUALS IN THERE WOULD BE, I GUESS, SOME TYPE OF OVERSIGHT, GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT OR WHAT.
MAYBE YOU CAN CLARIFY FOR ME IN THAT REGARD.
SO THE STATE WOULD PROVIDE THAT OVERSIGHT.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE.
COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS TABLE WITH REGARD TO GROUP HOMES, PLEASE, AGAIN? YEAH, I'M A LITTLE TROUBLED AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE HERE WHERE A LICENSED FACILITY OF SEVEN OR MORE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A CUP, YET AN UNLICENSED FACILITY OF SEVEN OR MORE WOULD BE PERMITTED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.
I KNOW IT'S STATE LAW, BUT CAN YOU GIVE ME ANY SENSE ON THE RATIONALE FOR MAKING THAT DISTINCTION? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT MAY LIE IN THE DISTINCTION THAT IF IT'S UNLICENSED.
THE PEOPLE OF THAT GROUP HOME ARE THERE FUNCTIONING AS A FAMILY.
IT'S PROBABLY FAIRLY RARE THAT GROUP HOMES OF A LARGE SIZE 20 OR 30 RESIDENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE COMMON, BUT I THINK THE STATE IS TRYING TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WE RECOGNIZE THAT IN SOME CASES THERE MAY BE LARGER GROUP HOMES, BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DEPENDENT ON STATE SERVICES, THEY DON'T NEED PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE.
SO THE STATE LAW IS MAKING THAT DISTINCTION.
WE'RE NOT MAKING THAT DISTINCTION.
WE'RE COMPLYING WITH STATE LAW? CORRECT, WE ARE APPLYING THE STATE LAW, AND I WOULD REFER YOU TO BOTH THE STATE CERTIFICATION LETTER.
THAT'S AN EXHIBIT IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, AS WELL AS THAT TECHNICAL BULLETIN.
OKAY, BECAUSE IT'S JUST THE LOGIC ESCAPES ME FROM THE STATE, BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S ALMOST AN INCENTIVE NOT TO GET A LICENSE TO HAVE AN UNLICENSED FACILITY.
SO IF YOU HAD AN UNLICENSED FACILITY, SAY YOU HAD 25 PEOPLE, THAT'S PERMITTED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, BUT THE SAME FACILITY, IF IT HAD THAT NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND IT'S A LICENSED FACILITY, COMES TO US FOR A CUP.
WELL, JUST ONE POINT TO MAKE ON THAT BECAUSE WE HAD THAT SAME THOUGHT WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT, THE STATE MEMO REALLY WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THESE COULD NOT BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER THING THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONES OR THESE RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
THAT BEING SAID, THE HE BUILDING HEIGHT, THE SETBACK, ALL OF THOSE THINGS WILL STILL APPLY , AND IF AND WE DO THINK THERE WILL BE SOME SORT OF NATURAL PREVENTION OF THEM GETTING TO THAT SIZE AND A LOT OF THE ZONES BUT THAT WAS REALLY IT IS THE STATE MEMO ITSELF WAS CLEAR THAT THEY SAW ANY SORT OF REGULATION ON THESE TYPE OF UNLICENSED FACILITIES AS PUTTING IN PLACE A BARRIER TO HOUSING.
THANK YOU, AND IF WE COULD TURN TO THE SLIDE YOU HAVE ON THE LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS.
I BELIEVE YOU HAD SOMETHING ON THAT, DIDN'T YOU? YEAH. YEAH. OKAY, AGAIN, WELL, IN THAT CASE, ALL OF THESE ARE PERMITTED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT,
[00:55:04]
UNDER STATE LAW. THERE'S NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT CAN BE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED AND WHAT IS JUST PERMITTED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.OKAY, AND WHEN IT SAYS ON YOUR TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONES, YOU SAY STATE LAW, NO CHANGE, MEANING THAT THESE ARE ALREADY PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. WELL, WHAT IT MEANS IS ACTUALLY BY STATE LAW, WE MUST PERMIT LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS IN WHAT I'M TERMING OUR MULTIFAMILY ZONES.
SO THAT EXCLUDES OUR SINGLE FAMILY ZONES R-A, R-E, R-1, BUT ONCE WE GET INTO THE ZONES THAT PERMIT DUPLEXES OR HIGHER, THAT'S WHAT'S CONSIDERED A MULTIFAMILY ZONE, AND THAT'S WHERE THE STATE SAYS, YES, YOU MUST PERMIT THESE BY RIGHT.
OKAY, SO THESE WOULD NOT BE COMING TO US AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.
THEY WOULD BE REVIEWED BY STAFF AND JUST BASICALLY BUILDING CODE HEALTH SAFETY REVIEWS.
THEY MAKE SURE THE FACILITY IS SAFE AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BURN DOWN AND THAT KIND OF THING? I THINK IT WOULD BE, AS WITH ANY USE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, YOU'RE CORRECT.
IT WOULD BE REVIEWED FOR SETBACKS, BUILDING HEIGHT, OCCUPANCY STANDARDS, BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS.
OH, I HAD THE SAME QUESTION AS COMMISSIONER STINE, SO THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OH, YES, COMMISSIONER MEENES.
YEAH, IN THE STAFF REPORT--SCOTT, MAYBE YOU CAN CLARIFY FOR ME AS WELL--IT INDICATES HERE THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL ADDRESS THE HOUSING COMPLIANCE LETTER BY ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES SERVING SEVEN OR MORE PERSONS TO BE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
CURRENTLY, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES SERVICING SEVEN OR MORE ARE ONLY CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED IN THREE RESIDENTIAL ZONES R-3, R-P AND RD-M.
SO, CAN WE ASSUME THAT ALL ZONES, RESIDENTIAL ZONES, WOULD BE PERMITTED NOW UNDER THE STATE MANDATE WHERE BEFORE IT WASN'T? THAT'S CORRECT. MM.
I THINK. COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN DO YOU HAVE? MR. DONNELL, THANK YOU.
I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY COHERENT, VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND EXCELLENT JOB.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY THANK YOU, AND I AGREE.
THANK YOU FOR THIS REALLY THOROUGH PRESENTATION AND I KNOW WE'RE IN A DIFFICULT SITUATION.
I DID ATTEND THE SOBER LIVING TASK FORCE MEETING ON THE 1ST OF JANUARY IN 2020, WHICH RESULTED IN THE MAY 2020 TASK FORCE RESULTS, AND I THINK WHAT'S POIGNANT ABOUT THIS IS OBVIOUSLY OUR CITIZENS ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS COMING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, AND NOW THAT IT'S EXPANDING, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S STILL A CONCERN, AND THE TASK FORCE RESULTED IN THE THREE LEGISLATIVE AND YOU KNOW, MORE ENFORCEMENT TYPE OF CONCERNS, BUT MY CONCERN IS THE TASK FORCE WAS KIND OF A ONE AND DONE.
IS THERE SOMETHING THAT OUR COMMUNITY SHOULD BE CONTINUING TO DO WITH THE APPROVAL OF THESE MAYBE BRINGING BACK THE TASK FORCE OR BRINGING SOME KIND OF MEETING, YOU KNOW, TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW THESE CONVERSATIONS TO CONTINUE TO HAPPEN? BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED WITH IS, YES, THE STATE IS REQUESTING US TO HAVE ALL OF THIS IMPLEMENTED, BUT WE ALSO AS A COMMUNITY WANT TO HAVE SOME KIND OF ENGAGEMENT WITH THAT, I THINK, AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT METHOD THAT IS, BUT IF IT'S A CONTINUATION OF THAT MAYBE SOBER LIVING TASK FORCE OR SOMETHING WHERE WE ARE, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE HOMELESS OUTREACH, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A CROSSOVER WITH THAT AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S ALSO THE YOUTH STUDENT SERVICES THAT ALSO IS A SORT OF CONNECTION BETWEEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT ARE TRYING TO FIND YOUTH SERVICES AND PROGRAMS THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR CHILDREN NEED, BUT MAYBE IT GOES ON A BIGGER LEVEL
[01:00:10]
SOMEHOW. SO I DON'T KNOW.I KNOW THAT WE NEED TO APPROVE THESE TODAY, BUT I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT.
IF WE DROP IT, MAYBE THERE'S NOT REALLY A RECOURSE TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION, BECAUSE I THINK THAT OBVIOUSLY OUR COMMUNITY BEING THE ONE HAVING THE ONE AND ONLY IN NORTH COUNTY HOMELESS SHELTER IN THE LA POSADA DE GUADALUPE AND HAVING IT EXPAND TO FAMILIES, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE, IT WAS OBVIOUSLY OPENED FOR MIGRANT HOUSING.
SO I KNOW THAT THE STATE IS BINDING US WITH SOME OF THESE MANDATES, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR COMMUNITY GETS HEARD. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
COMMISSIONER MEENES. OH, I'M SORRY I MISSED THAT ONE.
OKAY, GOOD. OKAY, WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HASN'T FILLED OUT A SPEAKER SLIP WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? OKAY, WE HAVE NONE. OKAY, SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THIS ITEM.
OKAY, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT OR STAFF? YES, COMMISSIONER MEENES.
SCOTT, ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IN REGARD TO BRINGING THIS ITEM TO US.
WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT, ARE WE TO ANTICIPATE THAT THIS IS JUST ONE OF MANY THAT WE MIGHT END UP RECEIVING WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR? THIS BEING, YOU KNOW, GROUP HOMES, ETCETERA? CAN WE ANTICIPATE OTHER ELEMENTS BEING BROUGHT TO US AT A FUTURE DATE IN THE NEAR FUTURE? YES. COMMISSIONER MEENES, THAT'S CORRECT.
THERE ARE STILL A NUMBER OF PROGRAMS OR PROGRAM OBJECTIVES WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT.
SOME DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THEY MIGHT BE ONLY CITY COUNCIL MATTERS OR PERHAPS MATTERS THAT THE HOUSING COMMISSION NEEDS TO REVIEW, BUT AS AN EXAMPLE, OTHER THINGS WILL COME TO YOU, INCLUDING AN ITEM IN TWO WEEKS ON APRIL 19TH WHERE WE WILL BE BRINGING TO YOU IN COMPLIANCE WITH SEVERAL PROGRAMS AN EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT TOPICS, OUR DEFINITION OF DENSITY, FOR EXAMPLE, LOOKING AT LIVE WORK UNITS.
SO THAT'S ONE ITEM, BUT PERHAPS THE ONE THAT'S MOST SIGNIFICANT WILL BE THE REZONING PROGRAM THAT IMPLEMENTS PROGRAM 1.1 OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER PROGRAMS AND WE ANTICIPATE THAT WILL COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE FALL OF THIS YEAR, AND THAT WILL BE A STAFF PROPOSAL BASED ON CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION TO REZONE SEVERAL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY IN ORDER TO MEET WHAT'S KNOWN AS OUR REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT, WHERE WE HAVE TO PROVIDE CERTAIN NUMBERS OF HOUSING FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS BASED ON SPECIFIC DENSITIES, AND THEN THAT I WOULD ASSUME THAT REZONING IS PART OF WHAT THE HOUSING ELEMENT COMMITTEE HAD SPENT WELL OVER ALMOST A YEAR IDENTIFYING SITES THAT WE HAD A CONSULTANT THAT ASSISTED IN THAT AREA AS WELL IN IDENTIFYING THOSE SITES, AND SO WITH THAT ACTION, WILL THAT BE ADDRESSING ISSUES REGARDING ALL OF THOSE SITES THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE? THE MAJORITY OF THE SITES THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED ARE STILL ON TO BE REZONED.
PROPERTY OWNER INTEREST MAYBE ISN'T THERE TO SUPPORT THE REZONING FOR EXAMPLE, OTHER SITES THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ADDED, BUT YES, THE SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT AS PART OF THAT COMMITTEE'S WORK BY AND LARGE, WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR REZONING BY BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL, AND WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT TO OCCUR AND COME BACK TO US.
WHEN DID YOU SAY? IN THE FALL OF THIS YEAR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
YEAH, YOU DID ACTUALLY FORWARD THE TWO ORDINANCES, THE CS 149, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS THE 249 AND THEN 199 FROM 2012 AND 2014 REGARDING THE THIS ISSUE.
SO THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN ONGOING FOR QUITE SOME TIME, CORRECT? THESE KINDS OF DEFINITIONS, REDEFINITIONS AND UNDERSTANDING HOW TO NAVIGATE THESE.
[01:05:02]
CAN YOU DESCRIBE THOSE TWO ORDINANCES JUST BRIEFLY, JUST SO THAT WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING? CORRECT. THANK YOU.IN 2012, AS PART OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT THAT WAS IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME, WE NEEDED TO MAKE CHANGES TO OUR STANDARDS, TO, I BELIEVE, ADDRESS TWO USES, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING.
SO THE FIRST ORDINANCE YOU YOU REFERENCED THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2012 ADDED THOSE TWO USES TO OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, AND AS PART OF THAT WORK, IN ADDITION TO DEFINING THE TERMS AND LISTING THEM AS PERMITTED USES, IT ALSO ESTABLISHED A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
THE CODE AMENDMENT THEN WAS TO LIMIT SUPPORTIVE AND TRANSITIONAL TO NO MORE THAN SIX PERSONS.
SO WE CAME BACK THEN IN 2014 TO KEEP THE USES, BUT REMOVE THE NUMBER OF PERSONS SERVED LIMITATION.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
YEAH, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS ISN'T SOMETHING NEW, RIGHT? BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT KEEPS EVOLVING.
SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY MY BIGGEST HOPE, IS THAT WE CONTINUE TO KEEP EVOLVING AND, YOU KNOW, BUT ALSO TRY TO MAKE IT AS PALATABLE OR I DON'T KNW WHAT THE BETTER WORD WOULD BE.
JUST HELPFUL TO THE COMMUNITIES BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY OUR COMMUNITY'S ENGAGED IN THIS.
LIKE I SAY, WE HAVE THIS GREAT FACILITY.
WE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE THEM LICENSED, OBVIOUSLY, BUT IF WE CAN'T HAVE THEM LICENSED, WE SHOULD MAYBE TRY TO FIGURE OUT AN AVENUE TO ENGAGE AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL HELP OUR THE REST OF OUR RESIDENTS HAVE A CONVERSATION AS OPPOSED TO THE ENFORCEMENT.
THAT SEEMS TO BE MORE OF THE RESULT OF THESE TYPES OF WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING THAT GOES WRONG.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE HELPED.
WOULD ANY COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO DISCUSS THE ITEM? YES, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.
WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT EXCELLENT PRESENTATION.
I KNOW THAT OUR HOUSING ELEMENT CERTIFICATION IS A POINT OF PRIDE, AND I KNOW THAT WE WANT TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAINTAIN THAT CERTIFICATION AND NOT CAUSE IT TO BE JEOPARDIZED. SO I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT YOU PROVIDED.
MR. DONNELL AND I LOOK FORWARD TO MORE DISCUSSIONS IN THE FUTURE.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF IT'S POSSIBLE.
I KNOW IT'S ALL ONE RESOLUTION FOR THIS ITEM, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION BECAUSE I HAVE NO ISSUES AT ALL WITH PROGRAM 2.13 H REGARDING THE LOW BARRIER SHELTERS, BUT I DO HAVE I MEAN, I THINK THAT A LOT OF US HERE ON THE DAIS HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THE PROGRAM 1.3 G, AND SO I WAS HOPING IF WE CAN GET AN OPINION FROM COUNSELOR KEMP ON WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN JUST DIVIDE THE QUESTION AND CONSIDER EACH OF THOSE SEPARATELY TONIGHT.
YOU CAN ALWAYS DIVIDE IT IF YOU'D LIKE.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SENDING UP A SPLIT RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL? WELL, I THINK THE RESOLUTION ISN'T NECESSARILY PREPARED TO HAVE JUST PART OF THE ORDINANCE PASSED AND PART NOT.
RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT I'M SORT OF ASKING.
OKAY, WELL, I'D STILL LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THEM SEPARATELY.
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK ANYONE UP HERE HAS PROBLEMS WITH 2.13 H.
IT JUST SEEMS VERY BACKWARDS TO ME AND THE ISSUE THAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE WITH THESE SOBER LIVING HOMES, AS MUCH AS I CAN REMEMBER FROM HEARING ABOUT THEM FOR YEARS, IS THAT THEY ARE UNLICENSED AND A LOT OF THEM. I MEAN, SOME OF THEM DO VERY WELL AND DO A GOOD JOB, BUT A LOT OF THEM ARE BASICALLY GLORIFIED SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS FOR PEOPLE, AND THE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM,
[01:10:01]
I BELIEVE, DOES NOT QUITE SAY THAT THE CITY SUPPORTS LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, BASED ON YOUR PRESENTATION, MR. DONNELL, AND FROM WHAT I'VE READ ABOUT IT, I THINK THE COUNCIL WOULD PROBABLY SUPPORT SOME KIND OF LICENSING REQUIREMENTS IF THE STATE WERE TO TAKE IT UP.I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A BILL AB 1779 IN 2021-2022 LEGISLATIVE SESSION WHICH ATTEMPTED TO DO JUST THAT AND IT DID NOT PASS, AND THERE'S NOT MUCH WE CAN DO ABOUT IT UNTIL THE STATE ALLOWS FOR THAT, BUT UNTIL IT DOES, I WANT US TO FOCUS ON WHAT WE CAN DO AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
SO PEOPLE IN R-1 ZONES DON'T HAVE GROUP HOMES ON BOTH SIDES OF THEM.
SO PEOPLE WANT THEIR NEIGHBORS TO BE NEIGHBORS.
THEY DON'T WANT THEM TO BE SHORT TERM TENANTS.
WE WANT OUR LIMITED HOUSING STOCK TO BE AVAILABLE FOR LONGER TERM RESIDENTS.
THAT'S A KEY GOAL OF OUR HOUSING ELEMENT.
SO I THINK IF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITY OF ENCINITAS CAN IMPLEMENT SIMILAR CAPS TO WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT FOR SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS, I THINK THAT WE CAN LEGITIMATELY AND LEGALLY IMPOSE SIMILAR CAPS ON GROUP HOMES AND NOT JEOPARDIZE OUR HOUSING ELEMENT CERTIFICATION.
SO I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND SEE WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THAT.
I DO WANT TO TELL YOU ONE THING I DO KNOW OR TWO THINGS I DO KNOW ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
ONE, THERE IS A DISTINGUISHING FACTOR BETWEEN VRBO AND THIS KIND OF ITEM, BUT THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HAS A REAL PROBLEM THAT HAS DEVELOPED OVER THE YEARS WITH THESE TYPE OF HOMES, AND THEY HAVE BEEN IN LITIGATION WITH THE GROUP HOMES FOR QUITE A WHILE, AND THEIR LATEST ATTEMPT WAS TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, WHICH WAS TO LIMIT THE NUMBER AND DENSITY OF THE HOMES, AND THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL AT A SUPERIOR COURT LEVEL.
THEY'VE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL AT THE APPELLATE COURT LEVEL, AND YOUR GUIDANCE HERE FROM HCD SAYS SPECIFICALLY BE WARY OF THE DENSITY ORDINANCE.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I BELIEVE THE COSTA MESA ORDINANCE WAS ABLE TO BE PASSED WAS BECAUSE THEY HAD A SPECIFIC PROBLEM WHERE THEY HAD THREE PAGES OF FINDINGS IDENTIFYING THE ISSUE.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT FACT PATTERN HERE IN CARLSBAD TO SUPPORT THOSE KIND OF FINDINGS THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE IT PASSED.
SO I GUESS I WOULD CAUTION THE COMMISSION TO BE SOMEWHAT WARY OF TRYING TO REGULATE DENSITY AT THIS TIME BECAUSE THE.
IT WOULD MOST LIKELY NOT SURVIVE A CHALLENGE.
IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THIS AREA OF LAW IS EVOLVING? DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY EVOLVE.
I WOULD TELL YOU THAT CITIES HAVE BEEN, WELL, AT LEAST THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, BECAUSE THE REST OF THE CITIES HAVE BEEN STANDING BY SAYING, YOU GO AHEAD AND CARRY THE WATER BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A FACT PATTERN THAT WOULD SUPPORT IT.
NOW, IF THE LEGISLATURE WANTS TO STEP IN.
I GUESS, YOU KNOW, ONE THING, I'VE BEEN WONDERING IF I WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY IT.
I GUESS I'LL GO AHEAD AND SAY THIS NOW.
UNDERLYING ALL OF THIS HERE IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE WHAT'S CALLED A PERMISSIVE ZONING CODE AND SO WE WE FOLLOW THE GENERAL RULE THAT IF WE DON'T STATE THAT SOMETHING IS ALLOWED, THEN WE CAN ASSUME THAT IT'S NOT STATE LAW FOR THE MOST PART, ON SOME OF THESE DEFINITIONS HAS SAID THAT WE HAVE TO TREAT THESE HOMES AS RESIDENTIAL, AND SO WE HAVE NOT CHANGED OUR CODE TO FIT STATE LAW BECAUSE STATE LAW SAYS THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL USE AND THEREFORE WE DIDN'T NEED TO MAKE IT EXPLICIT IN THE CODE THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED UNDER OUR OFFICE'S OPINION, BECAUSE STATE LAW SAYS THE RESIDENTIAL.
HCD HAS GONE THE EXTRA MILE AND SEEING THAT WE DON'T EXPLICITLY ALLOW THEM IN THE CODE.
SO ONE OF THE POINTS OF THEIR LETTER IN THEIR DIRECTION TO US IS WE WANT YOU TO EXPLICITLY ALLOW IT.
SO IT'S NOT THAT SOME OF THESE USES HAVEN'T ALREADY BEEN HAPPENING AND TAKING PLACE LEGALLY.
[01:15:01]
THEY ARE TAKING PLACE LEGALLY BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THE DICTATES OF THE STATE CODE, WHICH SAYS YOU NEED TO TREAT THESE AS RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND YOU CAN'T TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY THAN ANYBODY ELSE, BUT THE HCD, I GUESS, WANTS THAT EXTRA SECURITY FOR US TO EXPLICITLY SAY IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THIS IS ALLOWED, EVEN THOUGH IT ALREADY IS.AS PART OF THE CERTIFICATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO MAKE IT CLEAR.
BUT YOU KNOW, OUR OFFICE IS ABIDING STATE LAW SAYS UNDER THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, THESE HOMES, SOBER LIVING HOMES AND THE LIKE, ARE TO BE TREATED AS RESIDENTIAL USES AND THEREFORE, WE ONLY REGULATE THEM AS A RESIDENTIAL USE.
SO IT MAY LOOK IN SOME WAYS LIKE WE'RE DOING SOMETHING RADICAL HERE, BUT WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO MAKE IT MORE OBVIOUS BECAUSE HCD IS TELLING US THEY WANT US TO MAKE IT MORE OBVIOUS THAT THESE ARE USES THAT ARE ALREADY ALLOWED.
IT IS DISCUSSED IN THE GROUP HOME TECHNICAL ADVISORY THAT GROUP HOMES.
THE INTENT OF GROUP HOMES IS TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BY SUPPORTING THE RESIDENTS INCENTIVIZING NEEDS WHILE PROVIDING FLEXIBLE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS.
SO AGAIN, IT GOES BACK INTO WHY THESE ARE CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL USES.
THEY HELP PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES LIVE IN THESE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, AND AGAIN, WE ARE DEFINING GROUP HOMES IN OUR CODE, AND SO ALLOWING US TO DEFINE GROUP HOMES PROVIDES ADDITIONAL ASSURANCES THAT THESE ARE IN FACT MEET THE DEFINITION IF THEY ARE LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE REGULAR BUILDING AND FIRE CODE REGULATIONS AS ANY RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
SO IF THERE IS A CODE VIOLATION, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTS CAN, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE A, YOU KNOW, SUBMIT A REQUEST TO CODE CODE ENFORCEMENT IF THERE IS A VIOLATION AGAINST THEIR USE.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE.
FIRST OF ALL, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SABELLICO ON HIS EARLIER COMMENT WITH REGARD TO THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LICENSED GROUP HOMES BEING REQUIRING A PERMIT AND UNLICENSED, NOT LARGE, UNLICENSED, REQUIRING [INAUDIBLE]. LET'S START AGAIN.
THE LARGER LICENSED FACILITIES HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CUP PROCESS AND THE LARGER UNLICENSED FACILITIES WOULD NOT THEY WOULD BE PERMITTED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, AND I DON'T SEE THE LOGIC IN THAT.
I DON'T SEE THE RATIONALE FOR THAT, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT STATE LAW, OUR LEGISLATURES IN SACRAMENTO HAS MADE CERTAIN DIRECTIONS AND LIKE IT OR NOT, WHAT I'M SEEING IS THAT THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE HAVE TO CONFORM WITH THE STATE LAW.
WE MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OR AGREE WITH THE DISTINCTION HERE, AND I DON'T, BUT STILL, IT'S THE STATE LAW AND WE'VE BEEN GIVEN CERTAIN MARCHING ORDERS BY THE STATE.
FORTUNATELY, THEY DID APPROVE OUR HOUSING ELEMENT, WHICH IS NOT TO BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED.
THAT'S A BIG THING, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO STAY WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF THE STATE DIRECTIONS, ALMOST LIKE GUARDRAILS ON A ROAD WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND THERE'S GUARDRAILS ON EACH SIDE, YOU BETTER STAY WITHIN THOSE OR YOU'RE GOING TO GET YOURSELF IN TROUBLE.
SO I SEE THESE ARE GUARDRAILS AND THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, MUCH LIKE WE DID LAST MEETING WITH REGARD TO ADUS, WHERE THERE'S STATE LEGISLATION ON ADUS AND STAFF'S COME TO US TO SAY OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE IS A BIT OUT OF ALIGNMENT.
WE NEED TO MAKE THESE CHANGES TO MAKE IT ALIGN WITH STATE LAW.
LIKE IT OR NOT, THAT'S THE STATE LAW.
I THINK WE'RE DOING THE SAME THING HERE.
SO AND IN TERMS OF MAKING THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO PROGRAMS FOR THE PURPOSES OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION, I WON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK WE'RE IT'S ONE ACTION AND IT'S ALL UNDER THE RUBRIC OF COMPLYING WITH STATE LAW MANDATES, AND I THINK OUR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY WAS SPOT ON WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT WHAT OUR CODE SAYS
[01:20:09]
AND THAT WE ARE BASICALLY HAVE TO IT'S A CLEAN UP.WE HAVE TO CLEAN UP OUR CODE SO THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, AND ANYTHING THAT WOULD WHERE WE WOULD BE SUGGESTING THAT WE, FOR EXAMPLE, PUT A CAP ON THE NUMBER OF GROUP HOMES OR SIMILAR FACILITIES, WHICH MIGHT SOUND APPEALING, I THINK WOULD INVITE LITIGATION, AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE WANT AS A COMMISSION DO ANYTHING BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF WHAT THE STATE IS REQUESTING US TO DO AND CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY AWAY WITH TAKING ANY INITIATIVE THAT INVITES LITIGATION.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS STINE.
JUST ONE QUESTION ABOUT NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
IF A NON-LICENSEDL SOBER LIVING HOME CAME INTO A STRUCTURE THAT HAD NON-CONFORMING SOMETHING, SETBACKS, WHATEVER, WOULD THE HOUSING LAWS APPLY ON TOP OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SOBER LIVING.
I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHEN WE LOOK AT NON CONFORMING STRUCTURES, HOW DOES THIS OVERLAY WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT, I GUESS? I THINK COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION RIGHT, WHETHER A MOM AND DAD AND TWO KIDS MOVED INTO THE HOUSE OR A SOBER LIVING FACILITY DID THEY? BOTH WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES SO THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING NEW OR DIFFERENT APPLIED TO THE SOBER LIVING HOUSE.
SO BASICALLY, THERE'S NO NO NECESSITY TO CORRECT THE NON-CONFORMING CONDITION.
I MEAN, THE SAME RULES APPLY REGARDLESS.
I HAVE SUSPECTED WHILE YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT LICENSE VERSUS NON LICENSE, THAT THERE IS A REASON FOR THE DISTINCTION THAT MAKES SENSE OTHER THAN IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, AND WHAT MY BASIC UNDERSTANDING AND I DIDN'T WANT TO SAY IT IF I WASN'T SURE ABOUT IT, WAS THAT THERE IS DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CARE IN HOMES FOR SOBER LIVING HOMES AND AT THE LOWEST LEVEL WHERE YOU'RE JUST PROVIDING A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE AND TO, AS THEY TALK ABOUT IN THE GUIDANCE HERE TO SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER.
YOU DON'T NEED A LICENSURE, BUT AS I'M GOING TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S WEB PAGE, WHO HAS A VERY EXTENSIVE WEB PAGE ON HERE, A LICENSURE IS NEEDED FOR HOMES THAT OFFER DETOXIFICATION SESSIONS WITH A LICENSED COUNSELOR, EDUCATION, RECOVERY OR TREATMENT PLANNING, INDIVIDUALIZED SERVICES.
SO, IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S A LOT MORE BEING OFFERED TO THE RESIDENTS THAN JUST A PLACE BASICALLY ALMOST TO CRASH AND TO BE TOGETHER, AND SO ONE MAY BE ABLE TO DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT IF THE SERVICES ARE MORE INTENSIVE, THERE'S MORE OF AN IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEREFORE YOU CAN PUT CONDITIONS ON IT, AND SAY IT NEEDS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHEREAS THE OTHER 1ST MAY BE CONSIDERED JUST TO BE TREATED AS A TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL. SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY I'M 100% RIGHT ON THAT BECAUSE I'VE DONE LIKE, YOU KNOW, 2 OR 3 MINUTES OF RESEARCH AND BASED ON, YOU KNOW, 25 YEARS OF WORKING AS A GOVERNMENT LAWYER, KNOWING THAT THERE'S USUALLY A REASON WHY THEY DO THINGS, AND I SUSPECT IT WAS IT WAS THE INTENSITY OF THE CARE BEING DONE, AND THAT'S WHY THERE WAS A HIGHER LEVEL OF LICENSURE.
SO IF YOU APPLY THAT LOGIC TO OUR ABILITY TO PERMIT OR PUT CONDITIONS BECAUSE ALL A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS SAYING IS THAT USE IS CONDITIONALLY ALLOWED, MEANING IT'S PERMITTED, BUT BECAUSE OF THE INTENSITY OF THE USE OR SOMETHING, THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE IMPACTFUL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU COULD PUT CONDITIONS ON IT.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS?
[01:25:06]
SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS ON THIS? THERE'S NONE, RIGHT? NO.
OKAY, THE VOTE CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS 6 TO 0.
OKAY, WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.
OKAY, THIS CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF TONIGHT'S MEETING.
ARE THERE ANY REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS?
[PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS]
LET'S SEE. I THINK WE'LL START AT THE FAR END.YES, FIRST, I WANT TO THANK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
THIS WAS AN INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION ON AGENDA ITEM TWO.
I THINK WE ALL HAVE SOME SHARED CONCERNS, AND BUT THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY THE PLACE WHERE WE CAN MAKE THE CHANGES, AND ATTORNEY KEMP, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORDS OF WISDOM.
I HAVE ONE ACTUAL UNEQUIVOCAL GOOD NEWS.
I WAS ON THE BLOCK GRANT COMMITTEE MEETING LAST WEEK.
WE GAVE AWAY OVER HALF $1 MILLION TO WORTHY APPLICANTS, AND IT'S REALLY HEARTWARMING TO HEAR THESE PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE WORK THEY DO, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THAT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE ON THAT COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THAT COMMITTEE ALSO.
I HAD THE HONOR OF GOING TO THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES PLANNING COMMISSION ACADEMY LAST WEEK IN GARDEN GROVE, AND COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY WAS ALSO ABLE TO JOIN FOR ONE DAY.
SO THAT WAS REALLY GOOD, AND THE HIGHLIGHTS OR THE PURPOSE OF THE CONFERENCE OBVIOUSLY IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON RULES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, WHICH WE'RE ALL STILL LEARNING HOW TO DO.
SO THE HIGHLIGHTS INCLUDED, THOUGH, THE, I HAVE TO SAY, THE ETHICS LAW TRAINING, EVEN THOUGH I HAD TO SIT THERE FOR THE TWO HOURS, WAS SO MUCH BETTER IN PERSON.
SO I HIGHLY RECOMMEND GOING TO GET ONE IN PERSON IF YOU CAN GET ONE SECRET TRAINING PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE HOUSING UNDER SB 330 OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND A LEGISLATIVE UPDATE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS REALLY INTERESTING WITH THE TAKEAWAYS, DURING THE ETHICS LAW, THEY TALKED ABOUT THE LEVINE ACT THAT APPLIES TO ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS REGARDING CAMPAIGN DONATIONS WITH A 250 MAXIMUM AND THE CEQA WAS REALLY INFORMATIVE AND THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT STREAMLINING AS OPPOSED TO CEQA AND YOU KNOW, BUT BECAUSE CEQA IS THE PUBLIC RECOURSE TO ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT.
SO, THAT WAS A REALLY INFORMATIVE PIECE OF INFORMATION.
THE SB 330 LEGISLATURE--DID THEY TALK ABOUT THE HOOVER COMMISSION WHEN THEY TALKED AT CEQA? I'M SORRY, DID THEY TALK ABOUT THE HOOVER COMMISSION AT CEQA? I DON'T THINK SO.
THEY DID NOT. I DON'T THINK I HEARD THAT BECAUSE I WENT TO A SECRET REVIEW A WEEK AGO IN PALM SPRINGS, AND THEY DID TALK ABOUT THE HOOVER COMMISSION, WHICH I GUESS IS A COMMISSION THAT'S BEEN SET UP TO IN SACRAMENTO TO TAKE A LOOK AT CEQA AND SEE WHAT'S AVAILABLE FOR REFORM RIGHT NOW.
ONE OF THE DISCUSSION ITEMS AND I'M SORRY TO JUMP IN ON--NO, NO--THIS IS FUN, IS POTENTIALLY REFORM AS TO WHO ACTUALLY CAN CHALLENGE ON CEQA AND WHAT KIND OF STANDING YOU HAVE TO HAVE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'LL GET THERE, BUT THEY'VE IDENTIFIED THAT SOMETIMES LABOR UNIONS USING CEQA AS A WEAPON TO GET A PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT CAN BE A PROBLEM.
WELL, AND THAT WAS DEFINITELY PART OF THE CONVERSATION WAS CEQA ISN'T A WEAPON.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO BE A TOOL FOR INFORMATION FOR THE COMMUNITIES, YOU KNOW, SO, YOU KNOW, AND WE ALL ARE CONCERNED THAT IT IS A HURDLE AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT'S A BOX THAT WE ALL HAVE TO SORT OF CHECK TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP BUT IN ANOTHER WAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY TO INFORM OUR COMMUNITY WHAT'S HAPPENING, AND THE PROCESS OF HAVING THAT INFORMATION IS, I THINK, THE
[01:30:08]
MOST VALUABLE, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, EVERYTHING HAS BECOME POLITICIZED.SO IT'S BECOME REALLY A CHALLENGE TO CONTINUE THAT, BUT THE STREAMLINING DOES SORT OF NIP THAT IN A WAY THAT MAY BECOME, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WITH INFILL PROJECTS, AND SO AND BY STREAMLINING, I'M ASSUMING YOU MEAN EXCEPTIONS, STREAMLINING THE HOUSING EXEMPTIONS.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, AN INFILL PROJECT OR A MINOR PUBLIC WORKS THOSE KIND OF THINGS WHERE.
OKAY, SO YEAH, THAT WAS A GOOD CONVERSATION.
IT CONTINUES TO BE A CONVERSATION.
OBVIOUSLY, SB 330, THE LEGISLATURE IS BECOMING MORE INVOLVED IN LOCAL LAND USE.
THERE'S A WHICH I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS A 17 ITEM CHECKLIST FOR SB 330, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY DID HIGHLIGHT WAS THE BANKERS HILL 150 VERSUS THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, AND THERE WERE THREE WAYS TO EVALUATE FINDINGS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY, IF IT VIOLATES THE LAW AND ACTUALLY THE IMPACT ON A HISTORIC REGISTER.
SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THOUGHT WAS REALLY KEY, AND IT'S NOT A YOU CAN'T HAVE JUST A LOCAL HISTORIC REGISTER DISTRICT OR BUILDING OR SOMETHING.
IT HAS TO BE A STATE OR NATIONAL, BUT THAT, I THOUGHT, WAS A REALLY INTERESTING THING GIVEN OUR FLEDGLING OR NEWLY REAPPOINTED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
SO MAYBE THAT'S A CONVERSATION WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO HAVE.
SB 35 IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THOSE PROJECTS, IT WILL BE THE ONLY OBJECTIVE DESIGN WILL BE THE ONLY WAY THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO EVALUATE THE STANDARDS OF THE PROJECTS, AND THEY DID TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEVEL OF SERVICE AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED.
THE OLD SYSTEM OF MEASURING TRAFFIC VERSUS THE NEW SYSTEM.
I'M SEEING COUNCILOR KEMP SMILE OVER THERE.
I'M KIND OF CURIOUS WHAT YOUR OPINION OF THAT WAS BECAUSE THIS WAS SUGGESTING THAT THE VMT WAS NOT AS EFFECTIVE FOR SMALLER COMMUNITIES. SO WE'RE KIND OF IN THAT IN BETWEEN.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FOR US, BUT WHAT DID THEY SAY ABOUT IT IN YOUR CONFERENCE? WELL, I SHOULD CALL IT JASON GELDERT UP HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOS AND VMT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT WAY OF LOOKING AT WHAT THE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT IS.
VMT IS SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT HOW MANY VEHICLE TRIPS ARE BEING GENERATED BY THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, WHEREAS LOSS WAS REALLY LOOKING AT WHAT THEY DID IN GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
SO COMMISSIONER STINE COULD TALK ABOUT THIS AS WELL, BUT IT WAS LOOKING AT WHAT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE WAS, WHAT THE IMPACT WAS ON THE ABILITY TO MOVE TRAFFIC THROUGH THE CITY, WHICH I THINK WAS FELT THAT IT REALLY WASN'T CAPTURING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS MUCH AS IT WAS CAPTURING, YOU KNOW, CONGESTION, WHICH, YOU KNOW, DOES HAVE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BECAUSE YOU HAVE CARS SITTING THERE DOING EXHAUST OR WHATEVER BUT WITH VMT, YOU'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT HOW MUCH YOU ARE PUTTING ON THE ROAD FROM THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROBLEM IS COMING UP WITH A STANDARD THAT ACTUALLY MEASURES AND MAKES IT WORK.
THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE SAYING.
IT WAS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO MEASURE, YOU KNOW, THE VMT.
SO THAT I THOUGHT WAS REALLY INFORMATIVE, AND THE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE, THE PRIORITIES OF THE STATE RIGHT NOW ARE HOMELESSNESS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PUBLIC SAFETY AND FINANCIAL FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY.
THE STATE IS RIGHT NOW FACING A $26 MILLION DEFICIT.
IT HAS TALKED ABOUT LEGISLATION WITH THIS EVOLVING 1700 BILLS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO THIS CURRENT.
BODY OF GOVERNMENT UP AT THE STATE LEVEL.
35 NEW LEGISLATORS, AND THEN THE BIG ISSUE THAT CAME OUT OF THAT WAS THE SB 35 BEING CONTINUED WITH A BILL THAT'S SB 423, AND WHAT THAT'S TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SB 35 PERMANENT , AND THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT BEING ONE OF THOSE 67 COASTAL CITIES THAT WE ARE COASTAL IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE COMPLIANCE
[01:35:03]
AS MAYBE THEY THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A FEW MORE REGULATIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH IF THEY'RE COASTAL, WHEREAS FOR 23 WOULD PROBABLY ELIMINATE THAT.SO WE'RE OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE WATCHING THAT MANY MORE ISSUES AND HOPEFULLY THE LEGISLATION CAN FIND SOME SOLUTIONS.
I THINK RIGHT NOW IT'S, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE IN A STATE OF FLUX RIGHT NOW, BUT I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING TIME TO SEE WHAT'S GOING TO FLY FROM SACRAMENTO AND THEN THE TWO MEETINGS THAT ARE COMING UP, THE NEXT HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS ON MAY 8TH AND THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN.
THANK YOU. YEAH, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS A PARTICULARLY GOOD LEAGUE OF CITIES MEETING THIS TIME, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE I MEAN, COMPARED TO OTHER ONES YOU'VE BEEN TO, AS YOU SAID, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME QUITE A BIT OF GOOD INFORMATION THAT CAME OUT OF THIS ONE.
WELL, I DON'T THINK I'VE BEEN DISAPPOINTED WITH ANY OF THEM, BUT, YOU KNOW, AND I'M GRATEFUL TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GO BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE POST-PANDEMIC, YOU KNOW, IN-PERSON, IT WAS GOOD TO GO LAST YEAR.
IT CERTAINLY HAD A MUCH SMALLER SCALE LAST YEAR.
THIS WAS A MUCH LARGER GROUP OF PEOPLE, IT SEEMED, AND, YOU KNOW, VERY MUCH ENGAGED.
WE ARE. SO, YOU KNOW, BUT THEY'RE STRATEGIZING IN DIFFERENT WAYS, AND THAT'S, I THINK, WHAT BRINGS THE THESE CONFERENCES SO, YOU KNOW, THAT BECOME SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE'S NOT JUST ONE WAY TO SOLVE SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS. SO IT'S REALLY FASCINATING TO HEAR WHAT OTHER OTHER COMMUNITIES AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING IN THEIR COMMUNITIES TO HELP NAVIGATE THESE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE'RE ALL KIND OF COPING WITH SO. WELL, YEAH, ON BEHALF OF ALL THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING TAKING SUCH GOOD NOTES AND GIVING US THAT UPDATE.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
YES, I WANT TO REPORT ON THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE.
WE KIND OF CALL OURSELVES CARLSBAD TOMORROW GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE.
WE'VE BEEN AT IT FOR A YEAR NOW.
WE STARTED IN MARCH OF LAST YEAR.
WE HAD A MEETING ON THE 23RD OF MARCH, AND THAT MEETING WAS TO REVIEW A STAFF PREPARED DRAFT REPORT.
I HAPPEN TO HAVE A COPY OF IT WITH ME HERE.
WE SPENT OVER FOUR HOURS GOING THROUGH THIS ISSUE BY ISSUE.
I'M NOT GOING TO SAY LINE BY LINE, BUT IT WAS A VERY EXTENSIVE REVIEW.
CERTAIN ISSUES ARE VERY CONTENTIOUS AND WE DEBATE, BUT THEN WE FINALLY TAKE A VOTE AND THAT'S IT.
WELL, SO WE HAD THE MEETING ON MARCH 23RD WITH THE IDEA THAT MIGHT BE THE FINAL MEETING.
WE MAY BE ABLE TO WRAP EVERYTHING UP JUST TO MAKE A FEW FINE TUNING OF THE DRAFT REPORT AND SEND THAT TO COUNCIL , BUT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.
WE AFTER FOUR HOURS AND CONSIDERABLE COMMENTS, SOME MEMBERS WANT TO KIND OF REVISIT SOME OF THE ISSUES, PARTICULARLY THE CONTROVERSIAL ONES WE KIND OF BUILT INTO OUR SCHEDULE THE IDEA OF POSSIBLY MEETING IN APRIL AND THAT POSSIBILITY HAS BECOME A REALITY. WE ARE GOING TO BE MEETING ON APRIL 20TH WITH THE IDEA, FINGERS CROSSED THAT WILL BE OUR LAST AND FINAL MEETING WHERE WE WILL HAVE AGREEMENT ON A DRAFT REPORT TO THE COUNCIL, WHICH WILL FOCUS ON PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR EACH OF THE ELEMENTS THAT WE'VE AGREED THAT THERE SHOULD BE ELEMENTS IN A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND THEN SOME COMMENTS ON WHAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TEND TO CALL QUALITY OF LIFE MATTERS THAT DON'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF AN ELEMENT, BUT THERE'RE STILL SIGNIFICANT POLICY ISSUES THAT WE'D LIKE FUTURE LAND USE, PLANNING AND CARLSBAD TO PAY SOME ATTENTION TO. SO WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THIS.
THE DRAFT REPORT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE SAME AS THE FINAL REPORT BECAUSE WE HAD A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT CHANGE THIS CHANGE THAT.
SOME WERE SUBSTANTIVE, SOME WAS IT READS BETTER.
IT'S A COMBINATION OF THE TWO.
SO ON APRIL 20TH, WE WILL HAVE SUPPOSEDLY OUR LAST MEETING, AND IF EVERYTHING GOES AS AS WE HOPE IT WILL GO, THAT THE UPSHOT OF THAT MEETING WILL BE A FINAL REPORT AND THAT REPORT WILL BE GOING TO COUNCIL IN MAY.
[01:40:10]
FORUM FOR GETTING COMMENTS OR GIVING ME DIRECTION TO DO THIS OR DO THAT, THAT WOULD BE OUT OF BOUNDS.I'M JUST GOING TO WHEN WE FINISH IT, WE'RE I THINK WE HAVE A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BEFORE.
WHAT'S OUR NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON THE 19TH? YES. OKAY, SO THE VERY NEXT DAY WOULD BE THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.
SO I WILL NOT HAVE A FOLLOW UP REPORT ON THAT ONE, BUT I WILL IN MAY, WHEN WE FINALLY ASSUMING THAT APRIL IS THE CONCLUSION OF THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE A 13 MONTH LONG ENDEAVOR.
I LIKED THE DISCUSSIONS, BUT IT'S BEEN EXHAUSTING AND WE'RE REACHING THE HOME STRETCH.
COMMISSIONER SABELLICO. WELL, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, FOR ATTENDING THAT CONFERENCE.
I WAS SAD THAT I COULDN'T GO THIS YEAR AS WELL, BUT I'M GLAD THAT YOU GOT TO GO AND PROVIDE THAT.
YOU PROVIDED US THAT DETAILED REPORT.
SO THANK YOU. I KNOW WE'RE--AFTER TONIGHT'S MEETING, WE'RE ALL VERY INTERESTED IN STATE LEGISLATION.
SO WE'LL BE WE'LL ALL BE FOCUSING ON THAT, AND THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE, FOR ATTENDING THE CARLSBAD TOMORROW AS YOUR ALTERNATE; I'M GRATEFUL THAT YOU ARE A DILIGENT PARTICIPANT IN THOSE MEETINGS.
YEAH, I WANT TO THANK ALL OF US FOR JUST HAVING THIS INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION.
ON ITEM NUMBER TWO TONIGHT, I SHARE COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN THOUGHTS ON THAT.
I DID VOTE YES UNDER PROTEST, BUT I'M GLAD THAT WE GOT IT DONE.
SO THANK YOU ALL. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE CITY PLANNER?
[CITY PLANNER REPORT]
JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS, AND SO APRIL 11TH, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE CONSIDERING THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER.SO WE DO ANTICIPATE THAT THE NEXT MEETING, WE WILL HAVE THAT SEAT FILLED AND THEN APRIL 19TH AND MAY 3RD, WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF ITEMS, SO THOSE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN SOME OF OUR MEETINGS, BUT WE CURRENTLY HAVE THREE ITEMS ON APRIL 19TH AND FOUR ITEMS ON APRIL 3RD.
SEVERAL OF THOSE ARE RELATIVELY EASY, BUT ONE OF THEM IS A LARGER PROJECT.
WE CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE ANY ITEMS AND ANTICIPATE CANCELING THE MAY 15TH MEETING AND THEN RESUMING ON JUNE 7TH, AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER FINAL COMMENT I HAD IS THAT THE [INAUDIBLE] ACTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED ON MAY 1ST WAS APPEALED.
SO WE ARE LOOKING AT TAKING THAT TO CITY COUNCIL IN MAY.
OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY? NO. NO? OKAY, THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WELL, WITH THAT, WE WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.