Apr 19, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting

[00:00:06]

GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE APRIL 19TH, 2023 MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.

[CALL TO ORDER:]

READY. BEGIN.

OKAY. WOULD THE MINUTES CLERK PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL? THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK.

AND I ALSO WANT TO WELCOME COMMISSIONER DAVID HUBINGER, AND WE'LL HOPEFULLY HEAR FROM A LITTLE BIT DURING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.

SO YEAH. LATER ON.

OKAY. AT THE END.

YEAH. OH, AT THE END.

YEAH. AGAIN. PERFECT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ALL RIGHTY.

SO WE COULD GO TO DIRECT YOURSELF TO THE SCREEN AND WE'LL GO OVER THE.

PROCEDURES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE PROCEDURES ARE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM FOR ALL ITEMS. REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS MUST BE TURNED TO THE CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING.

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

SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN.

WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION PLANNING COMMISSION, QUESTIONS ON STAFF PRESENTATION, APPLICANT PRESENTATION.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS OPEN.

WE HAVE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC.

THE APPLICANT RESPOND IF NECESSARY.

THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS CLOSED.

WE HAVE PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION FOLLOWED BY A PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE.

THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

OKAY. 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 1635 FARADAY AVENUE BETWEEN 730 TO 530 MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY AND 8 TO 5 ON FRIDAY.

A LIMIT OF THREE TIMES IS ALLOTTED EACH SPEAKER.

ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR VIEWING, INCLUDING PRESENTATION DIGITAL MATERIALS, WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE TIME LIMIT MAXIMUM FOR SPEAKERS.

OKAY. OKAY.

I THINK THAT'S IT. GREAT.

OKAY. I WILL NOW.

OH, AND WE. MADAM CLERK, WE DON'T HAVE ANY NON PUBLIC AGENDA SPEAKERS TONIGHT, DO WE? NO, WE DO NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ALL RIGHTY.

[1. CDP 2021-0056 / V 2021-0003 (DEV2021-0227) – EDWARDS RESIDENCE]

I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.

MR.. WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR.

SO THIS IS ONE OF OUR ITEMS WHERE IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

IT'S ONE OF THOSE ITEMS WHERE WE ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND GO THROUGH THE DESIGN PLANS.

BUT WE DO HAVE NOT PREPARED A STAFF PRESENTATION.

WE WOULD NORMALLY HAVE IT ON CONSENT, AS WE HAD DISCUSSED FOR PART OF THESE, BUT WE DO HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC PRESENTATION.

SORRY, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE DO ALSO HAVE THE APPLICANT WHO'S AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF BUT DO NOT DOES NOT NEED TO GIVE A PRESENTATION.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. FIRST OFF, HAVING THE COMMISSIONERS HAD ANY EX PARTE DISCLOSURES ON THIS ITEM.

THIS IS BILL KAMENJARIN.

I VISITED THE SITE AND I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT BECAUSE IT'S OPPOSITE MCGEE PARK.

YES, I VISITED THE SITE.

OKAY. MR. LAFFERTY. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

I LOOKED IT UP ON GOOGLE, GOOGLE MAPS, AND I DID ASK FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REPORT, IF THERE WAS ONE.

WAS THERE ONE? YES, COMMISSIONER.

I DID SEND THAT VIA EMAIL.

DID YOU NOT RECEIVE? I DIDN'T.

I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO CHECK IT BEFORE I CAME, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

OKAY. ANY OTHERS? OKAY. AND THEN I VISITED THE SITE.

COMMISSIONER STINE? YES.

I DROVE TO THE SITE TODAY.

PARKED AND WALKED AROUND.

OKAY. I ALSO DROVE THE SITE.

OKAY. AND I'VE DRIVEN BY THE SITE.

OKAY, GOOD. OKAY, LET'S SEE.

NEXT. SO THERE'S NOT A STAFF PRESENTATION.

SO WE SEE IF WITH THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION OR ASK ANY QUESTIONS.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS JUST FOR QUESTIONS OR JUST FOR QUESTIONS.

YEAH. NONE.

OKAY. NONE. OKAY.

SEE, SO I THINK I THINK IT'D BE APPROPRIATE TO SEE IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS ON THE STAFF REPORT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.

OKAY. WERE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY ANY.

OKAY. YES.

QUESTION FOR FOR STAFF IN REGARD TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

I HAD NOTICED IN THE STAFF REPORT NO IMPROVEMENTS EXIST ALONG THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S FRONTAGE ON GARFIELD.

AND THAT IS CORRECT.

MY QUESTION TO YOU IS IN REGARD TO SIDEWALKS, I WAS GOING THROUGH THE STAFF REPORT TRYING TO DETERMINE IF SIDEWALKS WERE REQUIRED OF THE APPLICANT AND ANY OTHER

[00:05:10]

EXCUSE ME. I'M JUST REVIEWING THE CONDITIONS.

ERIC, YOU WANTED TO SPEAK ON THAT BEHALF.

YEAH, IF YOU COULD.

HI. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER.

THE APPLICANT FOR THE MEMBERS RESIDENTS.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

GARFIELD IS CONSIDERED A DESIGN ALTERNATIVE STREET.

OH, YEAH. SO GARFIELD BETWEEN BEACH AND NORTH IS CONSIDERED AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET, WHICH MEANS IT IS GOING TO BE LOOKED AT IN A DIFFERENT CAPACITY IN TERMS OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

AND THAT STUDY HAS NOT OCCURRED YET.

SO THERE ISN'T ANY DIRECTION FROM THE CITY IN TERMS OF WHAT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE SAME CONDITION ON OCEAN STREET AS WELL, WHERE IT'S AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET.

AND SO WHERE THERE'S NO CURB AND GUTTER IN THAT SECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.

JASON, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? WAS I CLEAR ON THAT, JASON? YES, THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET WAS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL.

AND WHAT IT IS, IS A PROCESS FOR.

DOING IMPROVEMENTS TO THOSE STREETS.

IT'S AN INTENSE PROCESS.

SEVERAL STEPS WITH ULTIMATELY WITH COUNCIL APPROVING THAT.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE IDEA IS THAT THAT THE STREET IS SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENTS, BUT THERE'S AN AUTOMATIC, ALMOST AUTOMATIC IN THE CODE.

WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR, RON? YOU CAN DEFER IT.

THAT'S IT. THERE'S A DEFERRAL FOR THAT.

AND. AND ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE FURROWS THAT THEY ENTERED INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT.

SO THIS PROJECT WILL I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S PREVIOUSLY BEEN OR IT MIGHT BE CONDITIONED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT.

EITHER WAY, THEY'LL BE ENTERED INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT.

SO WHEN A DISTRICT, IF THERE WAS A FUTURE DISTRICT FORMED, THAT THEY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE A PART OF THAT AND CONTRIBUTE FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STREET.

SO THAT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED YET AT THIS TIME.

THERE HAS NOT BEEN A DISTRICT FORMED FOR THAT AND THEY WERE ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEFERRAL.

NOW, THEY COULD HAVE CHOSEN TO DO IMPROVEMENTS, BUT THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE 12 STEP PROCESS THAT'S BEEN OUTLINED FOR ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS WITH ULTIMATELY GOING TO COUNCIL FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE APPROVED.

YEAH, I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE THE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BEACH HAS SIDEWALKS AND THEN FROM IF YOU CONTINUE NORTH THERE ARE NO NO FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT THAT TIME ALL THE WAY OUT TO CYPRESS.

YEAH. SO THE STREETS AND SIDEWALKS COMMITTEE THAT THAT ADDRESSED THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS THAT WAS FORMED IN 2000. THE COUNCIL ADOPTED THE LIST OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS AND THE PROCESS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AROUND THAT SAME TIME IN 2000.

SO THERE ARE SOME STREETS THAT HAVE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE BUILT PRIOR TO THAT ADOPTION.

THANK YOU. SO ESSENTIALLY, COMMISSIONER, ABOUT OVER 20 YEARS AGO, PEOPLE IN THE OLD AREA OF CARLSBAD, SO THEY LIKED THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.

AND SO THE COUNCIL APPOINTED A COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE AREA AND THEY LABELED A NUMBER OF STREETS THROUGHOUT THIS AREA EAST OF THE FIVE AND WEST OF THE FIVE IS ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY WILL NOT BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF DOING IMPROVEMENTS TO PUT IN EXCUSE ME, TIME OF DOING DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS.

BUT IF WE CAN, WE WILL ASK THEM TO DO WHAT'S CALLED A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH MEANS WHEN THEY DO SOME KIND OF A DEVELOPMENT WHERE WE CAN GET A BENEFIT FROM IT, THEY CAN DELAY PUTTING THE IMPROVEMENTS INTO A TIME SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE.

SO IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD EVER DECIDES THAT IT WANTS TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS A RESULT OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD OCCUR NOW, THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO FULFILL THEIR OBLIGATION TO PUT IN THE IMPROVEMENTS.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. OH, YEAH, TO TAG ON TO THAT.

HOW IS THAT EQUITABLE TO THE REST OF THE CITY? BY EQUITABLE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WELL, DELAYING IMPROVEMENTS IN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT BECAUSE IT'S OCEAN STREET, IT'S GARFIELD, IT'S HIGHLAND, IT'S, YOU KNOW AND OTHER THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY

[00:10:07]

SO HOW WAS THAT EQUITABLE? THE WE CAN ONLY REQUIRE IMPROVEMENTS AS A RESULT OF SOME KIND OF A DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THERE'S SOME KIND OF AN IMPACT TO THE CITY.

AND SO.

IT WAS A CHOICE THAT WERE MADE BY THE CITIZENS WHO LIVE IN THE AREA TO NOT HAVE THE IMPROVEMENTS.

SO IT'S, I GUESS, CONSIDERED EQUITABLE TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THEM.

APPARENTLY THAT WAS WHAT THE WHAT HAPPENED AT THE TIME.

THERE WAS AN UPROAR THAT IT WAS CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY DID NOT WANT TO HAVE THE THE STREETS AND THE SIDEWALKS PUT IN.

I GUESS THE EQUITY PART OF IT WOULD COME IN IN THAT WE DON'T LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY WHEN SOMEBODY DOES DO A DEVELOPMENT TO GET THEM ON THE HOOK TO PUT IN THE IMPROVEMENTS AT SOME POINT IN TIME IN THE FUTURE.

THEY COULD ALWAYS CHOOSE TO PAY FOR IT UP FRONT.

BUT I WOULD SAY EVERY TIME PEOPLE CHOOSE TO DEFER IT AND IT'S A RISK TO THEM BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE COST OF DOING AN IMPROVEMENT TODAY COULD GO WAY UP. I MEAN, THERE'S A NUMBER OF WHAT WE CALL FUTURE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHERE SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO DO DEVELOPMENT AND IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO PUT THE SIDEWALK IN IN FRONT OF, SAY, ONE HOUSE AND JUST HAVE A SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF A HOUSE BECAUSE WE CAN'T REQUIRE SOMEBODY TO PUT A SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE UNLESS THEY'VE ASKED FOR SOME KIND OF BENEFIT FROM THE CITY, UNLESS THERE'S SOME KIND OF IMPACT FROM THEIR PROJECT.

SO PRIOR TO I THINK IT WAS PROPOSITION 218, WE JUST ENTERED INTO WHAT WE CALL FUTURE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS, WHICH WE COULD ENTER INTO AND GET THEM TO BUILD THE IMPROVEMENTS WHENEVER IT FIT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO WE WOULD HAVE LIKE CONTIGUOUS SIDEWALKS, CONTIGUOUS CURBS AND GUTTERS.

I MEAN, IF THERE'S A GUTTER IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE BUT NOBODY ELSE'S, IT REALLY ISN'T GOING TO HELP.

SO ONCE I THINK IT WAS 218 WAS PASSED, IT ALLOWED PEOPLE TO VOTE ON AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT.

SO THE FUTURE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WAS UPDATED TO WHERE THE PERSON WHO SIGNS THAT IS GIVING UP THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE ON THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND THEY'RE GIVING IT TO THE CITY SO THEY CAN'T STOP THE FORMATION OF AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT SHOULD THE NEIGHBOR DECIDE THAT THEY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MODERNIZE THE STREET, SO TO SPEAK.

SO I GUESS MY BIG CONCERN IS, IS IT? THE NEIGHBORHOODS CONCERNED OR CALL IS IT THE CITY'S CALL BECAUSE YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UTILITIES? RIGHT. OR IS THIS JUST ANOTHER CASE OF, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING HOUSING THAT SORT OF DEFERS THINGS BUT DOESN'T REALLY HELP THE REST OF OUR CITY? SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M CONCERNED WITH, IS HOW IS IT EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED? WE HAVE A CORNER LOT THAT HAS BEEN TRYING TO BE DEVELOPED AROUND CHINQUAPIN FOR A LONG TIME AND THE MANDATE IS YOU HAVE TO PUT THE SIDEWALKS IN BEFORE YOU CAN BUILD ANYTHING. AND YOU KNOW, IT'S PROHIBITIVE.

I MEAN, IT'S REALLY, REALLY EXPENSIVE.

AND IT WOULD BE THE ONE HOUSE THAT WOULD HAVE SIDEWALKS AND NO PLACE ELSE WOULD HAVE SIDEWALKS.

BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN GIVEN THE OPTION TO GET DEFERRED.

SO MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, AND THAT MEANS THAT WE'RE LOSING REVENUE BECAUSE OF THAT DEFERRAL BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BUILD.

SO IT'S IT SEEMS LIKE A CYCLE THAT MAYBE NEEDS MORE ANALYSIS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IN THIS HOUSING CLIMATE, WE ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO AND OUR HOUSING ELEMENT, WE'RE TRYING TO INCLUDE EQUITY IN THAT.

AND THE UTILITIES ARE A HUGE PART OF THAT.

I MEAN, EVERYBODY NEEDS A BATHROOM.

EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE A SIDEWALK, ESPECIALLY ACROSS FROM A PUBLIC PARK, AS IN THIS INSTANCE.

WELL, THIS IS A POLICY THAT WAS ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

YOU KNOW, STAFF DOESN'T TAKE A POSITION ON WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NECESSARY OR NOT.

AND IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU FEEL SHOULD BE CHANGED, WE COULD BE HAVING THE CITY COUNCIL REVISIT IT.

I THINK THEY DID, ACTUALLY.

JASON, DID THEY SINCE YOU'VE BEEN HERE? YES. AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL CONCERNS ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS.

AND AT THAT TIME THEY DECIDED NOT TO ADDRESS IT OR CHANGE ANYTHING.

YEAH. SO THEY THEY AFFIRMED THAT THEY LIKE THE POLICY THE WAY.

YOU KNOW, FOR THE INDIVIDUAL STREETS.

YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S JUST SAY YOU HAD A NUMBER OF FAMILIES MOVE IN AND THEY WANTED THEIR CHILDREN TO WALK ON A SIDEWALK.

THEY COULD APPROACH THE CITY AND SAY, WE'D LIKE TO SET UP AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TO BUILD THE SIDEWALK.

[00:15:04]

BUT THE REST OF THE PEOPLE COULD VOTE ON WHETHER TO ASSESS THEMSELVES TO TO BUILD THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT WOULD BE RECEIVING THE BENEFIT FOR THAT.

SO THE WAY THE POLICY IS WRITTEN UP, THE RESIDENTS ON I THINK IT'S BASICALLY SPLIT UP BY BLOCK COULD COME TO THE CITY AND SAY WE REALLY WANT SIDEWALKS.

AND THEN AND I THINK WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF INQUIRIES AND THEN WE ASK THEM TO GO BACK TO THEIR NEIGHBORS AND GET THEM TO TO SIGN A PETITION.

AND IT HASN'T COME TO FRUITION THAT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET THEIR NEIGHBORS TO WANT TO ASSESS THEMSELVES TO BUILD A SIDEWALK, FOR EXAMPLE.

BUT IT CAN BE TRIGGERED BY THAT AND IT CAN ALSO BE TRIGGERED BY THE CITY MANAGER TAKING A LOOK AT THE SAFETY OF THE STREETS AND DETERMINING THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO GO FORWARD WITH BUILDING SIDEWALKS.

CURBS, GUTTERS, THAT KIND OF THING.

BUT REALLY, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THE COUNCIL WAS BEING RESPONSIVE TO THEIR CITIZENS WHO SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT THE CHARACTER OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD TO CHANGE.

SO A RATHER LARGE COMMITTEE WAS SET UP AND THEY REVIEWED ALL THE STREETS IN THE AREA AND DESIGNATED A LARGE NUMBER OF THE STREETS HERE UP IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT AS ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS.

WELL, I'M CONCERNED THAT IT'S NOT EQUITABLE TO THE REST OF THE CITY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS FOR MOST AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT IN THIS COMMUNITY.

SO. SO I'M CONCERNED WITH THAT.

I DID NOT GET TO LOOK AT THE HISTORIC REPORT, SO I'M ALSO CONCERNED.

COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THE HISTORIC REPORT FOR ME, PLEASE? SURE. SO THE HISTORIC REPORT DID CONTAIN AN ANALYSIS OF THE HOME, I BELIEVE WAS BUILT IN THE MID FIFTIES.

AND THE ARCHITECTURE WITH IT WAS SIMILAR TO THE OTHER HOMES THAT WERE SUBDIVIDED AND BUILT AROUND THAT TIME IN THIS AREA.

HOWEVER, THERE'S ALSO BEEN SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE HOME SINCE THAT TIME.

DIFFERENT ITERATIVE IMPROVEMENTS OVER THE YEARS THAT THE REPORT INCLUDED ANALYSIS OF THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND FOUND THAT IT DID NOT MEET ANY OF THE TRIGGERS FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES.

AND THAT WAS FACTORED INTO THE CEQA EXEMPTION THAT I FILED FOR THIS PROJECT.

THE DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION.

SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE TOOK THE REPORT, REVIEWED IT, AND IT FACTORED INTO OUR DETERMINATION UNDER CEQA.

NOW, DID THE CITY PERFORM THIS HISTORIC ANALYSIS OR DID THE APPLICANT? IT WAS A CONSULTANT HIRED BY THE APPLICANT.

GREAT. SOME OTHER QUESTIONS.

UH OKAY.

THE SO IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE HOUSE WAS NOT WORTHY OF PRESERVATION.

IS THAT WHAT THE CONCLUSION WAS ON THAT HISTORIC REPORT? IT CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS IT MET THE STANDARD OF CEQA OR I GUESS IT DIDN'T MEET THE STANDARDS UNDER CEQA THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED PRESERVATION OR ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. SO THE ON PAGE THREE OF THE STAFF REPORT TALKS ABOUT THE GENERAL PLAN, CONSISTENCY AND ALSO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS IS THEY ARE YOU ARE ACTUALLY STILL USING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONTROL POINT.

IS THAT CORRECT? AS A DEFINING METRIC FOR THE AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT GOES ON THIS? WE'RE STILL USING THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS BUILT INTO OUR ZONING ORDINANCE AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS AS WHAT IS THE APPLIED DENSITY FOR A CERTAIN PROJECT OR A PROPERTY. WHAT WE ARE NOT DOING IS WE'RE NOT APPLYING THE UNIT BANK PROVISIONS OF THAT.

AND SO WE'RE STILL TRACKING ALL OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND UNITS BASED ON THE ORIGINAL CALCULATIONS.

BUT PRIOR TO THE SUSPENSION OF THAT BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED CERTAIN KINDS OF DEVELOPMENT TO TAKE UNITS OUT OF THAT BANK.

AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DO ANYMORE.

OKAY. AND SO HOW DOES THAT FIT IN WITH THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE? BECAUSE WHAT IT SEEMS TO ME THIS PROJECT IS SORT OF DIPPING FROM BOTH ENDS HERE.

BASICALLY, WE'RE WITH THE VARIANCE, WE'RE LOSING OPEN SPACE BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE VARIANCE THAT THEY'RE INCREASING THEIR SETBACKS TO.

[00:20:01]

SO I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE'S A THERE'S SORT OF A CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY AND THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT PROJECTS LIKE THIS THAT ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE SHOULD ACTUALLY BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE GAP.

AND THEN AND BECAUSE THIS SORT OF SEEMS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE GAPS IN THE POLICIES BY INCENTIVIZING DENSITY DECREASES INSTEAD OF INCENTIVIZING DENSITY INCREASES RIGHT? SO AND THAT BECOMES A LOSS OF OPEN SPACE AS WELL.

SO I THINK THAT RUNOFF AND THINGS LIKE THAT, ESPECIALLY NEXT TO RIGHT NEXT TO A PARK, SEEMS TO BE A MISSED OPPORTUNITY.

SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE.

SURE. SO IF I COULD JUST COMMENT A LITTLE BIT ON THAT.

SO THE PARCEL SIZE IS ABOUT 3000FT².

IT'S A LITTLE OVER.

AND SO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR HAVING TWO UNITS BASED ON THE AR 15.

SO I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE CONVERSATION.

IT'S ALSO JUST A SMALL SIZE OF PROPERTY.

THAT SAID, OUR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IS A SEPARATE SECTION OF CODE AND LAW.

AND WHAT THAT SAYS IS THAT IF YOU ARE REMOVING A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND REPLACING IT WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, THAT YOU DON'T PAY THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEE.

AND SO IF THIS WAS RAW LAND AND THEY WERE CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, WE WOULD BE CHARGING THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEE.

BUT THAT'S HOW THAT IS APPLIED.

OKAY. SO THE SETBACKS.

SO WHAT I'M CONCERNED WITH THE ON PAGE FOUR IS THE DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND FINDINGS REQUESTED, THE SETBACK REDUCTION IS FIVE FEET ON THE FRONT YARD AND WHAT A ONE FOOT SIX ON THE BACK YARD.

AND YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION BECAUSE OTHER SITES HAVE THIS REDUCTION IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WHAT'S THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT IS IN THIS STAFF REPORT THAT ACTUALLY PROVES THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS HAPPENING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WHY IS IT HAPPENING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? WHY IS THIS CONSIDERED A SUBSTANDARD LOT WHEN IT WAS LEGALLY SUBDIVIDED IN LIKE 1928 OR SOMETHING? SO SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ALL THESE LITTLE ELEMENTS HERE THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL ELEMENT, THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO MODIFY THESE SETBACKS WHEN WE'RE ACTUALLY BUILDING A BRAND NEW HOUSE ON A VACANT LOT BECAUSE YOU'RE TEARING DOWN THE OLD HOUSE.

DOESN'T SEEM QUITE NEEDED, NECESSARY.

IT SOUNDS LIKE POOR DESIGN TO ME IF WE CAN'T MEET THE SETBACKS OF NEW HOMES.

SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE TAKE ON THAT IS AND WHY THE VARIANCE IS BEING PROPOSED.

SO THE VARIANCE WAS APPLIED FOR BY THE APPLICANT, AND SO THAT WAS THEIR DESIGN AND SUBMITTED TO US.

OUR JOB WAS TO REVIEW IT AGAINST THE REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS AS WELL AS THE BROADER CONTEXT OF THE COMMUNITY.

THESE LOTS, AS YOU ALLUDED TOO, WERE CREATED IN THE LATE 1920S AND THEY ARE VERY SMALL THEN WHAT'S TYPICALLY SEEN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOT LOT AT THIS TIME, TYPICALLY AT A DENSITY LIKE THIS.

NOW, IF IT WAS BEING DEVELOPED, IT WOULD BE SOME FORM OF ATTACHED UNITS OR SOME FORM OF ZERO LOT LINE HOMES, EVEN IF THEY'RE DETACHED OR IT'D BE COMMON AREAS AND DEVELOPED ON COMPREHENSIVE SCALE.

SO WE FACTOR THAT INTO OUR EVALUATION.

WE ALSO DID LOOK AT THE EXISTING SETBACKS AND KIND OF DISTINCTIONS OF THIS LOT AND OTHER LOTS AND THE REALITY IS YOU HAVE AN AREA WHERE YOU HAVE SMALL LOTS AND YOU DO HAVE HOMES CLOSE TOGETHER.

SO THAT WAS PART OF THE EVALUATION AND THE FINDING.

AND ONE OF OUR KEY FINDINGS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE IS, IS THIS GIVING THIS OWNER, OWNER, APPLICANT ANY RIGHTS THAT ARE NOT BEING AFFORDED TO OTHER OWNER APPLICANTS. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WERE WE FELT THAT WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE THE FINDINGS, GIVEN THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE SIZE OF THE LOTS IN THIS AREA. ALTHOUGH I'M CONCERNED THAT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

I KNOW THERE'S SMALL LOTS ALL OVER THE OLD VILLAGE AREA.

SO MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ALSO NEED TO STUDY, IS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ALL THESE SMALL LOTS MEAN, AND ESPECIALLY NEXT TO A PARK FACING A PARK, YOU KNOW, HOW IS THAT HOME HELPING THE PARK SITUATION, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE A SIDEWALK.

[00:25:10]

AND ACTUALLY FROM THAT PARK, INCREASING THE SIZE OF THAT TO 30FT, YOU ARE GOING TO OBSTRUCT THE VIEW FROM PUBLIC LANDS, SO TO THE OCEAN.

SO I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS HOME IN THIS CONFIGURATION IS REALLY MEETING THE FINDINGS, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ABOUT THIS.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE.

THANK YOU.

WOULD THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. WRIGHT, PLEASE. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON A COMMENT MY COLLEAGUE, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, MADE CONCERNING VIEW. I WAS OUT THERE TODAY.

IT WAS A BEAUTIFUL SPRING DAY.

OKAY. I WALKED ACROSS THE STREET TO MAGEE PARK AND MAGEE PARK, I FOUND IS SLIGHTLY ELEVATED FROM THE STREET, GOES UP A LITTLE BIT.

I'M SIX FEET TALL AND FROM MAGEE PARK WHEN I LOOK WEST, I COULD SEE THE OCEAN.

NOT A GREAT VIEW, BUT AN OCEAN VIEW OFF TO THE SOUTHERN END OF THE LOT.

OKAY, SO IT SEEMS TO ME THERE IS AN OCEAN VIEW FROM PUBLIC LANDS.

MY QUESTION FOR YOU, SIR, IS THAT IN DESIGNING THIS PROJECT, DID YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION A POSSIBLE IMPACT TO THAT OCEAN VIEW FROM MAGEE PARK? WE DID A PRELIMINARY REVIEW WITH THE CITY.

THERE WAS NO CONDITIONS THAT WE WOULD MEET, HAVE TO MEET ANY REQUIREMENTS OF MAINTAINING VIEWS FROM PUBLIC LAND.

THAT CONVERSATION NEVER OCCURRED EARLY ON IN THE PLANNING OF THIS PROJECT.

SO GETTING BACK TO MY QUESTION THEN, IS IT FAIR TO SAY YOU DID NOT CONSIDER THAT BECAUSE THE CITY NEVER MADE IT AN ISSUE? WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD THIS PROPERTY IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING HOMES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO EXACTLY THE SAME THING IN TERMS OF BUILDING TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT, POTENTIALLY ALTERING THE VIEW FROM ANY LOCATION ON THAT PARK.

SO I'VE NEVER BEEN AFFILIATED WITH A PROJECT HERE IN CARLSBAD WHERE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT VIEWS HAS ANY SUBSTANCE TO IT.

I MEAN, JASON AND ERIC NEED TO CHIME IN ON THAT.

THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT'S NEW TO ME THAT HAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT UP IN TERMS OF NOT BEING ABLE TO BUILD TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT TO MAINTAIN A VIEW.

OKAY, SIR, IT IS AN ISSUE FOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, AND I AM CONCERNED WITH THE THREE STORY SIZE OF THIS GOING FROM 1 TO 3 STORIES. YOU MAY BE COMPROMISING THAT OCEAN VIEW, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM STAFF UH ABOUT OUR UNDER OUR COASTAL PROGRAM.

WE ARE TO PROTECT COAST.

WE ARE TO PROTECT COASTAL LINE VIEWS.

DOES COASTAL LINE VIEWS UNDER OUR PROGRAM, UNDER STATE LAW INCLUDE OCEAN VIEWS BECAUSE YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE THE COASTLINE FROM THERE, BUT YOU CAN DEFINITELY SEE THE OCEAN FROM A MAGEE PARK ACROSS THE STREET.

RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

SO OUR REGULATIONS SPEAK TO PROTECTING SCENIC CORRIDORS.

IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO COAST VERSUS OCEAN, BUT IT SPEAKS TO THE CORRIDORS THAT ITSELF.

AND THAT'S DEFINED IN OUR COASTAL PROGRAM AND SECTIONS OF CARLSBAD CODE, WHICH SPEAK TO SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONE, APPLYING TO ARTERIAL STREETS WITHIN THE CITY.

AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS IS NOT A STREET THAT'S DESIGNATED AS ONE OF OUR ARTERIAL SCENIC CORRIDORS.

AND SO IN OUR REVIEW OF THE PROJECT, THAT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WE SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN OUR COASTAL PROGRAM AS AN IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENT.

THIS PROPERTY ALSO HAS THE BEACH PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONE APPLIED TO IT, WHICH IS REALLY WHERE WE SEE WHAT IS THE HEIGHT REGULATION, WHICH THE REGULATION FOR THAT IS A 30 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.

IF THERE IS A PITCHED ROOF UP TO THE 312 PITCH RATIO, WHICH THAT THIS PROJECT IS PROPOSING THAT IS LOWER THAN OTHER LOCATIONS IN THE CITY FOR HEIGHT BECAUSE OF THE BEACH PRESERVATION OVERLAY, WHICH IS PART OF OUR COASTAL PROGRAM AND PART OF MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORY AND NEGOTIATIONS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF OUR COASTAL PROGRAM.

OKAY. I'M STILL NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN ISSUE OF A CORRIDOR ALONG A STREET OR AN ARTERIAL.

MY MIND WALKING ACROSS THE STREET.

IT WAS A QUESTION OF A PARK, MAGEE PARK BEING PUBLIC LANDS AND LOOKING WESTWARD AND BEING ABLE TO SEE THE OCEAN AGAIN, NOT A GREAT VIEW, A DISTANT VIEW AND CONCERNS ABOUT HOW A THREE STORY PROJECT, PARTICULARLY ONE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE IT'S REQUESTED A VARIANCE IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO MOVE THAT UP A LITTLE BIT, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT ON THAT OCEAN VIEW.

PERHAPS MR.

[00:30:02]

DO WE HAVE IS IT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO PROTECT OCEAN VIEWS AS PART OF COASTAL VIEW PROTECTION? IT IS POTENTIALLY AN UNFORTUNATELY, WE DO HAVE A NEW COASTAL PLAN THAT IS PENDING APPROVAL WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED.

SO WE'RE WORKING OFF THE OLD LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AND THAT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE IN WHICH YOU ARE SPEAKING.

IT WAS FIRST WRITTEN IN 1996.

THE NEW COASTAL PLAN DOES ADDRESS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE HELD TO THE STANDARD THAT WAS ADOPTED AND IN FORCE AT THE TIME THAT THEY APPLIED.

SO WE CANNOT APPLY THE NEW LOCAL COASTAL PLAN THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT A DEVELOPER TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT SINCE I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN, AS FAR AS I KNOW, ANY DIAGRAMS THAT WOULD SHOW HOW MUCH OF THE BLOCKING OF THE VIEW IS.

I'M A LITTLE HESITANT TO TELL YOU ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE PROJECT.

THAT MAY BE SOMETHING YOU COULD ASK FOR AND AND CONTINUE THE PROJECT TO ANOTHER DATE.

IF YOU WANT TO GET INFORMATION ON HOW MUCH OF A COASTAL VIEW THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BLOCK, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

SO AM I TO UNDERSTAND, MR. KEMP CORRECTLY THEN, THAT OUR CURRENT PROGRAM, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT'S APPLICABLE, I UNDERSTAND THAT COMPLETELY, IS SILENT ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT AN OCEAN VIEW, ALBEIT A DISTANT OCEAN VIEW, WOULD BE PART OF OUR COASTLINE VIEW THAT WE PROTECT FROM PUBLIC LANDS.

IT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THAT.

AND I THINK IN TALKING WITH STAFF EARLIER BEFORE THE MEETING BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT THIS ISSUE UP, I THINK AT LUNCHTIME TODAY.

SO I HAVEN'T HAD, YOU KNOW, TO BE HONEST, I HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH TIME TO REALLY FULLY ADDRESS IT.

BUT BUT I WAS TOLD THAT COULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS AND I'M SAYING COULD HAVE AS A DEFICIENCY IN THE OLD PROGRAM.

COULD HAVE BEEN, YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO GO ON RECORD AND SAY IT WAS FOR SURE BECAUSE THIS IS JUST HEARSAY.

SO WHEN OUR LOCAL COASTAL PLAN WAS UPDATED, I MEAN, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SAYS.

THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE THAT ARE THAT WE IMPLEMENT THROUGH OUR COASTAL PLAN, RIGHT? WELL, THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE IS, IS WHERE THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION PERMISSION IS AND OUR POWER TO GRANT COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS DERIVES FROM THAT.

YEAH, I JUST WONDERED IF IT PROVIDES ANY GUIDANCE ON THIS ISSUE.

IF YOU NEED SOME ADDITIONAL TIME, PERHAPS WE COULD GO ON TO ANOTHER.

YEAH, I'VE GOT THE CODE SECTION UP, BUT THE SCENIC AND VISUAL QUALITIES OF COASTAL AREAS.

IT DOESN'T SAY OCEAN, IT DOESN'T SAY COASTLINE.

IT SAYS COASTAL AREAS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AND PROTECTED AS A RESOURCE OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE.

PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE SITED AND DESIGNED TO PROTECT VIEWS TO AND ALONG THE OCEAN AND SCENIC COASTAL AREAS TO MINIMIZE THE ALTERATION OF NATURAL LANDFORMS TO BE VISUALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREAS AND WHERE FEASIBLE, TO RESTORE AND ENHANCE VISUAL QUALITY AND VISUALLY DEGRADED AREAS.

NEW DEVELOPMENT AND HIGHLY SCENIC AREAS SUCH AS THOSE DESIGNATED IN THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL LINE PRESERVATION AND RECREATION PLAN.

BLAH BLAH BLAH. THAT PART DOESN'T APPLY TO US AND THE CODE SECTION HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE 1976, SO IT'S NOT A NEW CODE SECTION.

SO I HESITATE TO TELL YOU ONE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AT THIS POINT..

I'D LIKE TO SHARE, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU.

SURE. PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ALREADY APPROVED A PROJECT AT 2668 OCEAN STREET THAT IS BEHIND US THAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO OR IS ACTUALLY INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF THAT BUILDING.

SO EVEN IF WE WERE TO HAVE A ONE STORY HOUSE ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT, THE PROJECT BEHIND US IS ALREADY MOVING FORWARD.

SO THEY'RE BUILDING A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY HOUSE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.

YEAH. SO I HESITATE TO TELL YOU TO DISPROVE THIS PROJECT.

I MEAN, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY TALKED ABOUT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT'S NECESSARILY THE STANDARD, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF YOU OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, DOING A SITE VISIT AND READING A PLAN ABOUT HOW MUCH OF THE VIEW IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BLOCK YOU SUSPECT THAT IT WILL, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT NECESSARILY IN FRONT OF US.

[00:35:05]

IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS THAT BIG OF A CONCERN TO YOU AT THIS POINT.

YEAH, IT REMAINS A CONCERN.

AND I'M SPECULATING A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IMPACT THIS, BUT MY COMMON SENSE TELLS ME GOING FROM ONE STORY TO THREE STORIES MAY HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON THAT VIEW OF THE OCEAN, PARTICULARLY SINCE THE BUILDING IS BEING MOVED UP, ASSUMING WE APPROVE THE MINOR VARIANTS TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 20 TO 15FT.

BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THE DRAWINGS AND APPARENTLY MR. WRIGHT THIS HAS NOT BEEN STUDIED RIGHT? AND I THINK IF WE WERE TO DO A STUDY, YOU WOULD SIMPLY SEE THE HOME THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED IS SIGNIFICANTLY TALLER ON 2668 OCEAN STREET. SO THAT HOME IS GOING TO BE SIMILAR IN HEIGHT TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE.

SO THAT PROJECT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND THEY'RE WORKING TOWARDS OBTAINING A PRECISE GRADING PLAN.

SO NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT, YOU KNOW, THE HEIGHT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS INCREASING AND THAT PROJECT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.

SO HOW DO WE LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S BEING PRESERVED ON OUR PROPERTY WHEN THE REALITY IS THE PRESERVATION ISN'T OCCURRING ON A NEIGHBORING LOT, WHICH IS MOVING FORWARD IN CONSTRUCTION SO.

BUT THAT NEIGHBORING LOT IS NOT BEFORE US TONIGHT, SIR.

MR. LARDY, CAN YOU COMMENT ON THE OTHER PROJECT? YOU GIVE US ANY INSIGHT AS TO THE OTHER PROJECT BEING APPROVED SIZE AND WHERE THAT STANDS? I'D HAVE TO DO RESEARCH ON THAT AND GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT ONE.

WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT WE WE LOOKED AT THE REGULATIONS AS WE HAVE AND APPLIED AND DIDN'T REQUEST THAT AS AS PART OF IT BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE BEACH OVERLAY ZONE AND IT'S NOT ON ONE OF OUR SCENIC CORRIDOR ITEMS. SO THAT'S WHY IN OUR REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE RAISED AND DON'T HAVE INFORMATION BEFORE YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE.

YES. YOU WERE ON THE SITE TODAY.

I JUST WALKED IT ON GOOGLE MAPS.

IT APPEARED THAT THERE'S AT LEAST TWO OTHER THREE STORY HOMES WITHIN 1 OR 2 HOUSES FROM THIS HOUSE ON GARFIELD.

IS THAT CORRECT? I DID.

WATCH THIS. THERE ARE ON EACH SIDE.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

UM. THANK YOU.

IS THIS CONVERSATION RELEVANT SINCE THE SECRET DETERMINATION WAS ALREADY MADE BY THE CITY? YES, IT'S RELEVANT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

NOW, THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BECAUSE OF THIS.

THAT WAS A CEQA ISSUE.

BUT ONE OF THE PARTS OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS TO TAKE A LOOK AT VIEWS.

SO. OKAY, THERE COULD BE SOME RELEVANCE TO IT.

THIS IS NOT SO.

THE VIEWS ARE NOT NECESSARILY I MEAN, VIEWS ARE PART OF CEQA, BUT THIS IS SEPARATE FROM VIEWS ARE PART OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT VIEWS FROM PUBLIC LAND IS ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE POINTED OUT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH.

OKAY. OH, COMMISSIONER MEENES.

EXCUSE ME. SO, CAN I SPEAK? I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

I'M SORRY, I.

I THINK WE'RE A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER ON THAT.

HOLD ON JUST ONE MOMENT THERE.

WELL, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, FILL OUT A SPEAKER SLIP, WE'RE STILL IN THE QUESTION PHASE AND WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY MOVED TO PUBLIC COMMENT YET.

RIGHT. WE'RE ABOUT TO OPEN THE PUBLIC.

DO YOU WANT TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER WHICH WE CAN HELP YOU? THEN WE CAN CALL YOU IN THE NEXT PHASE OF THE HEARING.

ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. QUESTION COUNSELOR.

SO. IF I'M READING.

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING CORRECTLY, IS THAT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CURRENT CODES, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY IN REGARD TO VIEW CORRIDORS AND WHATEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE VERSUS ONE THAT IS PENDING, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PENDING ONE WILL LOOK LIKE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF OF COASTAL VIEWS.

BUT DO WE NOT NEED TO NECESSARILY JUST LOOK AT WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE TODAY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE CEQAS AND THE AND THE COASTAL REQUIREMENTS? YEAH. I WANT TO JUST CLARIFY 1 OR 2 THINGS.

THE COASTAL PLAN HAS BEEN UPDATED BY COUNCIL.

HOWEVER, IT HASN'T BEEN ACCEPTED YET BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION, SO IT'S NOT IN EFFECT YET.

OKAY. SO WE'VE DRAFTED WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE OUR FINAL DRAFT.

IT'S GONE TO COUNCIL, IT'S BEEN APPROVED.

SO WHAT SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE REFERRING TO IS ACTUAL STATE LAW IN REGARD TO THE ISSUANCE OF COASTAL PERMITS AND

[00:40:08]

SO WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

BUT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW OPEN A PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

I THINK WE DO HAVE SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE WITH THE SPEAKER SLIP.

SO IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME.

PLEASE SPEAK YOUR NAME INTO THE MICROPHONE SO IT CAN BE RECORDED BY THE MINUTES CLERK AND YOUR ADDRESS.

MARION EDWARDS, 2669 GARFIELD STREET, CARLSBAD.

MAGEE PARK, IS THAT PUBLICLY OWNED OR IS THAT PRIVATELY OWNED ? MR. LAURIER. THAT'S CITY OWNED LAND.

THE CITY OWNED PARK. I BELIEVE IT'S CITY OWNED.

YEAH, IT IS CITY OWNED.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

IF YOU GUYS CAN LOOK INTO THAT, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT A LEASE.

DEAL ON THAT.

IF YOU CAN JUST LOOK INTO THAT.

IT'S A GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE IN OUR NEW LOCAL COASTAL PLAN, THEY LIST PARKS IN WHICH THIS WOULD APPLY AND MAGEE PARK IS NOT LISTED ON THAT LIST.

IT IS.

MAXINE BROWN PARK IS ON THERE.

THE PARK OVER AT THE CORNER OF CANNON AND CARLSBAD BOULEVARD IS.

I DON'T KNOW IF MAGEE PARK IS OWNED BY THE CITY OR NOT, SO I'LL SEE IF I CAN FIGURE IT OUT HERE ON MY IPAD.

BUT I CAN'T GUARANTEE YOU THAT THE ANSWER IS GOING TO BE CORRECT WITHOUT ACCESS TO MY ACTUAL COMPUTER.

AND FOR MR. STINE WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE CORRIDORS, WERE YOU LOOKING OVER THE HOUSE? OF 2669, OR WERE YOU LOOKING TO WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CENTER MEMORY CARE? NO, MA'AM. I WAS LOOKING WEST FROM MAGEE PARK, DIRECTLY OVER THE EXISTING HOUSE.

OVER MY HOUSE. OKAY. YES, I WAS, MA'AM.

SO, YEAH, AND THAT'S WHERE THE APPROVAL IS FOR THE TWO AND A HALF STORY ALREADY HOME.

SO YOU WOULD NEVER SEE THE OCEAN FROM THERE AGAIN NOW THAT THAT'S BEEN APPROVED.

THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

I THINK NOW, COMMISSIONER MEENES, DID YOU HAVE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, FINE.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL NOW CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE STAFF? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NOW WE'LL OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

OH, I JUST WANTED TO INTERJECT.

I DO THINK MAYBE IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DETERMINE WHETHER MAGEE PARK IS OWNED BY THE CITY OR NOT, BECAUSE AS I'M LOOKING HERE, THE CARLSBAD HISTORICAL SOCIETY MAY ACTUALLY OWN THE PARK. BUT IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION THAT YOU WERE MAKING EARLIER, THE FIRST FINDING IN YOUR RESOLUTION IS THAT IT SAYS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WILL NOT OBSTRUCT VIEWS OF THE COASTLINE AS SEEN FROM PUBLIC LANDS OR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, NOR OTHERWISE DAMAGE THE VISUAL BEAUTY OF THE COASTAL ZONE.

IT IS A FINDING YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE.

BUT I DON'T WANT YOU TO MAKE NOT MAKE THAT FINDING BECAUSE WE ARE UNDER THE MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION THAT MAGEE PARK IS ACTUALLY PUBLIC LANDS.

SO. SO HOW DO WE RESOLVE THIS? AND WHAT'S THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO RESOLVE THIS AT THIS POINT? WELL, CONTINUE TO SPEAK AND I'LL SEE IF I CAN RESOLVE IT HERE.

OR WE CAN MAYBE TAKE A TEN MINUTE RECESS AND TAKE A LOOK AT A PARCEL MAP ON THE CITY'S GIS SYSTEM, WHICH ERIC CAN PROBABLY ACCESS THROUGH HIS.

OKAY. WE'LL TAKE A RECESS TO DO THAT.

WE CAN DO IT, BUT TAKE THAT RECESS NOW.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR SHOULD WE JUST TAKE THAT RECESS NOW? LET'S TAKE THAT RECESS NOW.

TEN MINUTE RECESS.

ALL RIGHT? YEAH, SURE THING. ALL RIGHT, LET'S CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.

COMMISSIONER MEENES, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR.

NO? OKAY. COMMISSIONER STINE.

YES. I WONDER IF STAFF CAN PROVIDE ANY CLARIFICATION FROM THE RESEARCH DONE AT THE BREAK.

SURE. BASED ON THE RECORDS THROUGH THE COUNTY ASSESSOR AND THE CITY'S WEBSITE, THAT IS A PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.

THAT WAS MY MY FEELING TOO.

I KNOW THERE'S BEEN FRIDAY NIGHT JAZZ CONCERTS THERE THAT I'VE ATTENDED, ACTUALLY.

[00:45:03]

IN PAST WE'VE HAD PROJECTS THAT ARE MILES AWAY FROM THE OCEAN AND NO CONCEIVABLE, IN MY MIND, PUBLIC VIEW ISSUES OR CERTAINLY NO ACCESS ISSUES.

IN MY MIND, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO ACCESS ISSUE AT ALL HERE.

THIS IT'S NOT ACCESSIBLE FROM THE BEACH, FROM YOU DON'T GO THROUGH THIS LOT TO GET TO THE BEACH.

THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE.

BUT THERE IS A LINGERING ISSUE IN MY MIND WITH REGARD TO WHETHER THIS PROJECT AS A THREE STORY GOING FROM ONE STORY TO THREE STORY AND MOVING THE BUILDING UP ANOTHER FIVE, MOVING THE SETBACK UP FIVE FEET.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE A 15 FOOT OR THE 20 FOOT SETBACK.

I HAVE A REAL CONCERN THAT THIS MAY IMPAIR THE VIEW OF THE COASTLINE.

I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

APPLICANT HAS NOT STUDIED THAT POINT.

I UNDERSTAND. AND STAFF YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE CLEAR GUIDANCE ON THAT.

BUT BECAUSE IT'S THE APPLICANT'S BURDEN TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT WE CAN LOOK TO, TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS, I PERSONALLY CAN'T MAKE THE FINDING ON, NUMBER ONE, THAT SAYS IT WILL NOT OBSTRUCT VIEWS OF THE COASTLINE AS SEEN FROM PUBLIC LANDS.

I THINK IT VERY WELL MAY.

SO I COULD NOT SUPPORT THIS TONIGHT IF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WANTED TO CONSIDER AND AND THE APPLICANT WAS AGREED TO CONTINUE THIS MATTER SO THAT WE CAN GET FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON IT.

I'M FINE WITH THAT, BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT IT AS SUBMITTED.

ANY OTHER, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER STINE.

STAFF'S DONE A GOOD JOB.

MR. KEMP, I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU HAVING TO WORK UNDER THIS SORT OF PRESSURE.

I THINK THERE'S A REAL ISSUE HERE, AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE.

COMMISSIONER STINE IS RIGHT ABOUT THE APPLICANT'S DUTY.

I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS TO WITHIN A MONTH SO WE CAN GET SOME SORT OF DETERMINATION.

MOTIONS MADE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THE SECOND CAN.

NO, I WANT TO.

WELL, I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION.

BEFORE THERE'S A SECOND.

IF IT IS THE COMMISSION'S WISH TO CONTINUE, I'D RECOMMEND YOU CONTINUE TO A DATE CERTAIN OF MAY 3RD, WHICH IS THE NEXT MEETING.

AND THAT WAY MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE WOULDN'T NEED TO REDO ALL THE NOTICING.

IF YOU CONTINUE TO A DATE CERTAIN, YOU DO NOT NEED TO REDO THE NOTICING.

IF YOU DO NOT PICK A DATE, THEN IT HAVE TO BE RE NOTICED.

AND MOST LIKELY WE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES BY MAY 3RD.

AND ALSO UNTIL THERE'S A SECOND ON THE MOTION, I DON'T THINK IF COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY WANTS TO DISCUSS IT, WE NEED A SECOND BEFORE IT COULD BE DISCUSSED. THE MOTION ITSELF CAN MOTION TO MAY 3RD.

OR IS IT? YEAH.

YEAH. DID YOU WANT TO AMEND THAT TO TO CONTINUE TO MAY 3RD? THAT'S FINE. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT SECOND? OKAY. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STINE.

OKAY, LET'S VOTE.

WELL, NO, NOBODY'S CALLED FOR A VOTE YET.

YOU CAN DISCUSS THE MOTION NOW.

OKAY. I'M SORRY.

SORRY ABOUT THAT, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.7 MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH THIS PROJECT IS THE VARIANCE FOR THE SETBACKS.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT THERE ARE PUBLIC LANDS THAT ARE GOING TO BE OBSTRUCTED, BUT SINCE THERE'S ALREADY THREE STORY BUILDINGS THERE, IT'S A HARD CALL BECAUSE YOU ALLOW OUR COMMUNITY ALLOWS 30 FOOT BUILDINGS ON THOSE SITES.

MY CONCERN IS IF WE ALLOW THE SETBACKS TO BE REDUCED, NOT ONLY ARE WE GOING TO GAIN ANOTHER 30 STORY OR 30.

FOOT HIGH, BUILDING 30 STORIES.

I'M SORRY. 30 FOOT HIGH BUILDING ON THAT STREET.

BUT WE'RE ALSO GOING TO LOSE THE CORRIDORS THAT ARE CREATED BECAUSE OF THE ACCESS AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR OUR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS, IT'S BEYOND HEALTH AND SAFETY WHEN YOU'RE LOSING THOSE CORRIDORS FOR SETBACKS.

SO THIS IS MY CONCERN WITH THAT.

IF THE VARIANCE WASN'T THERE AND WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND THE SETBACKS WERE MAINTAINED BECAUSE THIS IS A BRAND NEW HOME, WE, YOU KNOW, THAT WILL COMPLY WITH OUR STANDARDS NOW.

I COULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH APPROVING THIS PROJECT, BUT AS THE VARIANCE STANDS, I CAN'T APPROVE THIS PROJECT GIVEN THE FINDINGS OF ONE AND EIGHT AND THREE AND FOUR AND SIX.

[00:50:02]

UM, SO THAT'S MY CONCERN.

SO I THINK IT'S PRUDENT TO CONTINUE, BUT THAT'S, BUT I THINK THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD ON THAT SITE.

THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD 30FT HIGH.

BUT I'M CONCERNED THAT THE VARIANCE SETS A PRECEDENT THAT ALREADY IS NOT REALLY GREAT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THE DEFERRALS OF THESE UTILITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE ALSO PROBLEMATIC.

SO COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, WOULD YOU ASK STAFF TO BRING IN EVIDENCE OF OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT MAY ALREADY HAVE THAT SAME VARIANCE? IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND HOW BAD THIS CONDITION IS.

YES, BECAUSE THAT'S MY ONE OF YOUR.

YES. ONE OF THE FINDINGS THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE FOR THE VARIANCE IS THAT THIS ISN'T A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE BEING GIVEN TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY THAT OTHER PROPERTIES DON'T ENJOY OR, YOU KNOW, CONVERSELY, THAT THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T GET THAT.

THAT OTHER PROPERTIES ARE ENJOYING.

LIKE I SAY, IT'S A QUESTION OF SINCE WE'VE ONLY TOLD YOU REALLY ANECDOTALLY THAT THERE'S OTHERS, IF SOMETHING WAS PREPARED THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT, THAT WOULD PROBABLY GIVE YOU A LITTLE MORE COMFORT MAKING THOSE FINDINGS.

CORRECT. I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE INCREDIBLY HELPFUL.

YOU KNOW, THEN IT WOULD GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE HISTORIC REPORT, WHICH COULD BE A GOOD THING TOO, YOU KNOW, JUST TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CRITERIA IS, YOU KNOW SO THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING, TOO.

SO I SUPPORT THE THE POSTPONEMENT, BUT I DO THINK THAT THEY DO HAVE A RIGHT TO DEVELOP ON THIS PROPERTY.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THE VARIANCES ARE SUBSTANTIALLY I DON'T THINK THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO ALLOW THAT YET.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS.

OKAY. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

SO IT'S BEEN SECONDED.

YOU JUST NEED A VOTE. YOU JUST NEED A VOTE.

PLEASE VOTE.

THE MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0.

[2. HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS (1.1.N, 1.3.C, 1.3.D, 1.3.E, 1.8.D, AND 2.13.J)]

SO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A DEPARTMENTAL REPORT GIVING OUR STAFF PRESENTATION IS SENIOR PLANNER, SCOTT DONNELL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SHELLY GLENNON AND PRINCIPAL PLANNER ROBERT EFORD.

THANK YOU. MR.. THANK YOU, MR. LARDY, AND GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THROUGH EVALUATION AND CONSIDERATION OF SIX DIFFERENT PROGRAMS IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT.

YOU MAY REMEMBER JUST TWO WEEKS AGO, WE BROUGHT TWO DIFFERENT PROGRAMS TO YOU FROM THE HOUSING ELEMENT.

THOSE RESULTED IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS.

THE SIX PROGRAMS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING WITH YOU TONIGHT ACTUALLY DON'T INVOLVE ANY ZONE CODE AMENDMENTS.

INSTEAD, THEY'RE REALLY HERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF YOU EVALUATING STAFF'S REVIEW OF THOSE PROGRAMS AND PROVIDING ANY DISCUSSION DIRECTION THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE AS THE RESULT OF OUR ANALYSIS.

SO THIS AGENDA REALLY FIRST DEFINES THAT THE THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING, NOT TO SEEK A RECOMMENDATION FROM YOU NECESSARILY, BUT TO HELP YOU WITH THIS ANALYSIS, PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME BACKGROUND FROM THE HOUSING ELEMENT.

AND WE AS STAFF THEN WILL GO THROUGH EACH OF THE PROGRAMS, EACH OF THE SIX PROGRAMS INDIVIDUALLY.

WE ARE ASKING THAT FOLLOWING THAT ANALYSIS, THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR DISCUSSION, FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT EACH OF THE PROGRAMS. AND THEN FINALLY, WE'LL JUST CONCLUDE WITH SOME NEXT STEPS.

AND I THINK TO HELP MAYBE DEFINE WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TO DO TONIGHT AS PART OF YOUR EVALUATION OR CONSIDERATION OF THESE SIX PROGRAMS IS JUST TO REALIZE, FIRST OF ALL, THE FIRST FOUR OF THE PROGRAMS ARE REALLY OUR EFFORT TO SHOW HOW BASED ON WORK WE'VE DONE OR ARE DOING OR WILL BE DOING, HOW WE COMPLY WITH WHAT THE PROGRAMS REQUEST.

AND WE'LL WALK THROUGH EACH OF THOSE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT.

NOW THE LAST TWO PROGRAMS THAT MR. EFFORD WILL SHARE WITH YOU ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE FIRST FOUR.

THEY ARE REPORTING ON TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF THINGS.

ONE, THE QUESTION OF EXPANDING LIVE WORK UNITS.

AND SECOND, THE IDEA OF ADDING EMERGENCY SHELTERS OR TEMPORARY HOUSING AS A PERMITTED USE FOR PROPERTIES OWNED BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.

AND THOSE ARE MORE PRESENTING INFORMATION TO YOU, PERHAPS IDENTIFYING SOME PROS AND CONS WHICH YOU MAY THEN WANT TO USE TO PROVIDE FURTHER DIRECTION TO STAFF ON HOW TO GO FORWARD WITH THEM. SHOULD THAT BE YOUR CHOICE? THE OTHER ADVANTAGE OF BRINGING ALL OF THESE PROGRAMS TO YOU IS THAT IT ENABLES DISCUSSION IN A PUBLIC SETTING SO THE COMMUNITY, IF IT WISHES, CAN WEIGH IN OR AT LEAST OBSERVE WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT.

AND THEN FINALLY, SPEAKING OF THAT DISCUSSION, AS I'VE SAID, THERE IS NO ACTION THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THESE ITEMS. IT'S REALLY FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND SHOULD YOU CHOOSE, YOU CAN PROVIDE DIRECTION TO US.

[00:55:06]

SOME BACKGROUND ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT.

IT IS A DOCUMENT THAT WE APPROVED TWO YEARS AGO.

IT IS REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WITH BOTH WITH WHICH BOTH REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE DOCUMENT.

IT SERVES AS OUR HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS.

IT PROVIDES A STRATEGY FOR ALL TYPES OF HOUSING, WHETHER FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS TO LARGER FAMILIES.

WE IMPLEMENT THAT HOUSING ELEMENT THROUGH VARIOUS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS. AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, IN ADDITION TO THE TWO A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, WE HAVE THE SIX THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT, AS WELL AS OTHERS THAT WILL PRESENT TO YOU IN THE FUTURE, IN ADDITION TO THE STATE REVIEW OR CERTIFICATION OF OUR ELEMENT, WHICH WE DID RECEIVE IN 2021.

THE STATE ALSO MONITORS OUR PROGRESS ON THE ELEMENT.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE SHOW REGARDLESS OF THE PROGRAM, WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS, AND THAT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY PRESENTING THESE PROGRAMS TO YOU TONIGHT.

SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT THE FIRST PROGRAM.

I SHOULD MENTION THAT THIS ONE, WHICH REGARDS THE DEFINITION OF DENSITY OR HOW WE CALCULATE DENSITY, IS THE ONLY ONE OF THE SIX THAT ACTUALLY REQUIRES A PRESENTATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

BUT AGAIN, THERE IS NO ACTION REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM.

WHAT THIS PROGRAM ASKS THE CITY TO DO IS TO EVALUATE THAT DEFINITION OF DENSITY, TO DETERMINE IF HOW WE CALCULATE DENSITY REPRESENTS SOME KIND OF IMPEDIMENT OR OBSTACLES FOR PROJECTS, RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS TO REACH THE MAXIMUM OF THE DENSITY RANGE.

IF WE DO FIND THAT THERE ARE CONSTRAINTS, WE ARE TO RECOMMEND WHAT CHANGES MIGHT BE NEEDED.

SO SPEAKING OF DENSITY, WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS THE DENSITY RANGE THAT'S BEEN ASSIGNED TO EACH OF THE DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES.

AND HERE I'VE JUST PULLED OUT ONE OF SEVERAL THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY, THE R 30 DESIGNATION.

WHAT THE PROGRAMS CONCERN IS, IS WHETHER DEVELOPMENTS CAN REACH THE MAXIMUM OF THE RANGE, IN THIS CASE 30 UNITS PER ACRE.

AND THIS SLIDE, I THINK, HELPS TO ILLUSTRATE THE FINDINGS THAT WE'VE MADE.

FIRST OF ALL, THIS TAKES A LOOK AT NINE DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE CITY, ALL THE WAY FROM VERY LOW DENSITY 0 TO 4 UNITS PER ACRE TO THE UPPER END OR THE HIGHEST DENSITY RANGE WE HAVE IN THE CITY IN THE VILLAGE OF 28 TO 35 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

AND WHAT IT SHOWS IS HOW THE DIFFERENT PROJECTS WE'VE SURVEYED SURVEYED 39 TOTAL OVER ABOUT THE 20:20 PLUS YEARS, HOW THEY HAVE ACHIEVED OR WHERE THEY ARE IN RELATION TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY.

AND WHAT THIS SLIDE SHOWS THAT IN THE MAJORITY OF CATEGORIES WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE AT LEAST 90% OR MORE OF THE DENSITY OF THE MAXIMUM DENSITY BASED ON THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE REVIEWED.

THEY HAVE ALL BEEN APPROVED PROJECTS.

IN ADDITION, HIGHEST PROJECT DENSITIES APPROVED IN FOUR OF THE NINE CATEGORIES HERE ON THIS SLIDE HAVE ACTUALLY ACHIEVED 94% OR EXCUSE ME, 99% OR BETTER OF THE MAXIMUM DENSITY DEPENDING ON THE DENSITY CATEGORY THAT YOU SEE HERE.

WITH THAT SAID, WE DO NOT FEEL THAT THE DEFINITION OF DENSITY, HOW WE CALCULATE IT, REPRESENTS ANY KIND OF CONSTRAINT.

THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGES TO THE DEFINITION BE REQUIRED.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND TURN THE PRESENTATION NOW OVER TO OUR ASSOCIATE PLANNER, SHELLY GLENNON.

THANK YOU, SCOTT.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIR MERZ AND PLANNING COMMISSION.

SHELLY GLENNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER.

I WILL BE PRESENTING THE NEXT THREE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES.

OKAY. PROGRAM 1.3 C'S OBJECTIVE IS TO DEVELOP CODE UPDATES TO ENCOURAGE AFFORDABILITY BY DESIGN.

THERE ARE SEVERAL TYPES OF AFFORDABLE BUILDING AND SITE DESIGNS THAT IS ALLOWED PURSUANT TO CITY'S EXISTING CODE REGULATIONS AS LISTED HERE.

SMALL UNITS SUCH AS ADUS/JADUS MANAGE LIVING UNITS AND MOBILE HOMES.

THESE UNITS ARE CONSIDERED AFFORDABLE DUE TO ITS SIZE AND ARE PERMITTED IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ZONES.

FLEXIBLE UNIT BUILDING DESIGN ALLOWS FOR UNITS TO HAVE MULTI-PURPOSE ROOMS OR ROOMS THAT CAN BE FLEXIBLE AND DIVIDED INTO SMALLER ROOMS. LIVE WORK UNITS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS IN WHICH ALLOWS RESIDENTS TO USE THEIR UNIT AS A HOME AND A WORKSPACE.

CURRENTLY, LIVE WORK UNITS ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE VILLAGE, NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN COMMERCIAL ZONES.

GREEN BUILDING DESIGN HELPS ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WHICH HELP REDUCE ENERGY AND BUILDING COSTS.

THE CITY ENCOURAGES GREEN BUILDING BUILDING DESIGN THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE CAL GREEN BUILDING CODE AND THROUGH THE CITY'S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.

REDUCED OR ELIMINATED PARKING ON SITE REQUIREMENTS ALLOWS FOR ALTERNATIVE HOUSING UNITS TO BE DEVELOPED NEAR SITES OF EMPLOYMENT.

[01:00:08]

AND LASTLY, THE CITY ENCOURAGES DENSITY BONUSES THROUGH THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE.

DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS ALLOW FOR INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHTS OR REDUCE SETBACKS, THEREBY PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN HABITABLE BUILDABLE AREA AS NEEDED TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.

OKAY. BASED ON STAFF'S ANALYSIS, THE CITY'S EXISTING CODE REGULATIONS DO ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESIGN, AND THE CITY WILL CONTINUE TO UPDATE ITS AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESIGN REGULATIONS AS NEEDED.

OKAY. PROGRAM 1.3 D.

HAS AN OBJECTIVE TO UTILIZE THE CITY'S REGULATORY POWERS TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE HOUSING.

ALTERNATIVE HOUSING IS HOUSING THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE AGING ADULTS, STUDENTS, LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND OTHERS WHO ARE CONSIDERED HANDICAPPED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

THERE ARE SEVERAL TYPES OF ALTERNATIVE HOUSING AS LISTED HERE.

RECENTLY THE CITY HAS ADOPTED OR IS IN THE PROCESS OF ADOPTING SEVERAL CODE AND POLICY AMENDMENTS TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE HOUSING. THE CITY'S ADU AMENDMENTS FOR 2020 AND 23 PROJECTS ENCOURAGE ADU DEVELOPMENT BY CREATING LESS RESTRICTIVE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND BY CREATING MORE REGULATIONS TO STREAMLINE THE PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.

THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN LIEU FEES UPDATED IN 2022, ENCOURAGES THE CONSTRUCTION OF SMALLER, LESS EXPENSIVE UNITS BY CHANGING THE FEE STRUCTURE FROM A PER UNIT BASIS TO A PER SQUARE FOOTAGE BASIS.

THE ZONING ORDINANCE CLEANUP, A PROJECT APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER 2022 AND CURRENTLY PENDING COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL ENCOURAGES ALTERNATIVE HOUSING BY REMOVING MANY DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS WHILE ADDING NEW REGULATIONS TO PERMIT NEW ALTERNATIVE HOUSING USES, SUCH AS EMPLOYEE HOUSING.

SERVING SIX OR FEWER PERSONS ARE NOW PERMITTED WITHIN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES.

THE HOUSING ELEMENT REZONING PROGRAM CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW WILL PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE HOUSING SITES.

AND LASTLY, THE ALTERNATIVE AND TEMPORARY HOUSING AMENDMENT PROJECT PRESENTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION LAST MONTH AND WILL BE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION IN MAY, WILL ALLOW FOR LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS AND GROUP HOMES TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY CONSISTENT WITH STATE HOUSING LEGISLATION.

BASED ON STAFF'S ANALYSIS THE CITY IS USING, IS UTILIZING ITS REGULATORY POWERS TO ENCOURAGE ALTERNATIVE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO.

PROGRAM 1.3 E.

OBJECTIVE IS TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE TYPES OF HOUSING FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS BY UPDATING LAND USE FEES TO BE BASED ON BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE RATHER THAN BY UNIT.

AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, THE CITY RECENTLY UPDATED ITS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AND LIEU FEES BY CHANGING THE FEE STRUCTURE FROM A PER UNIT BASIS TO A PER SQUARE FOOTAGE BASIS FOR PROJECTS PROPOSING 2 TO 6 UNITS.

THE UPDATE ALSO ALLOWS IN-LIEU FEES TO BE WAIVED FOR WAIVED IF AN ADU IS CONSTRUCTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE MARKET RATE HOME FOR PROJECTS PROPOSING SIX OR LESS HOMES.

LASTLY, THE CITY IS UPDATING ITS GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT AND WILL INCLUDE NEXUS STUDIES THAT WOULD DETERMINE IF IMPACT FEES CAN BE UPDATED TO A SQUARE FOOT BASIS RATHER THAN A PER UNIT BASIS.

OKAY. BASED ON STAFF'S ANALYSIS, THE CITY CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING PERMIT.

FLAT FEES AND FEES BY SQUARE FOOTAGE.

THE IN LIEU FEES HAVE BEEN UPDATED AS JUST DISCUSSED, AND NEXUS STUDIES WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE FUTURE TO DETERMINE IF CERTAIN IMPACT FEES CAN ALSO BE UPDATED BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE. OKAY.

NOW I WILL TURN IT OVER TO PRINCIPAL PLANNER ROBERT EFIRD TO DISCUSS THE NEXT TWO PROGRAMS. THANK YOU, SHELLY.

PROGRAM 1.8 D FOR LIVE WORK EXPANSION.

THE PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM IS TO EVALUATE AND CONSIDER THE EXPANSION OF LIVE WORK ZONING ALLOWANCES CITYWIDE.

TO REMIND THE COMMISSION THIS ACTUALLY WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE BACK IN MARCH 3RD, 2021.

[01:05:06]

IT IS DIFFERENT THAN HOME OCCUPATION IN THAT HOME OCCUPATION IS ALLOWED IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES, BUT IT EXCLUDES ATTRIBUTES SUCH AS EMPLOYEES, CUSTOMERS, SIGNAGE, ETCETERA.

AS SUCH, LIVE WORK REGULATIONS ARE TIED SPECIFICALLY TO DESIGN TO ACCOMMODATE USES SUCH AS CUSTOMERS AND DELIVERIES AND MORE COMMERCIAL TYPE ACTIVITIES.

THESE UNIT TYPES ARE TYPICALLY LOCATED IN AREAS THAT SUPPORT MIXED USE AND ARE COMPLEMENTARY TO BOTH THE LIVING AND THE WORKING ASPECTS OF THE UNITS.

LIVE WORK UNITS AND MIXED USE ZONING CURRENTLY OCCUR WITHIN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IN THE VILLAGE BARRIO IN TWO DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL ZONES, AS WELL AS THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN BY THE POINSETTIA COASTER STATION.

THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT IS THE BLUEWATER CROSSING DEVELOPMENT, WHICH DOES INCLUDE LIVE WORK LOFTS.

STAFF ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT LIVE WORK UNITS WITHIN CARLSBAD.

THE REGULATIONS RELATED TO LIVE WORK UNITS ARE SIMILAR TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS WITHIN THE REGION.

SEVERAL OF THE CITIES SURVEYED DO NOT HAVE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS RELATED TO LIVE WORK UNITS, BUT THEY DO HAVE MIXED USE ALLOWANCES WHICH ACCOMPLISH A SIMILAR OUTCOME.

TWO OF THE DIFFERENT CITIES THAT WERE SURVEYED DID HAVE A TIE BETWEEN THE LIVE WORK REGULATIONS AND SPECIFICALLY TWO ADAPTIVE REUSE OF A SPECIFICALLY COMMERCIAL, OLD COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS.

BASED ON CARLSBAD'S, EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS.

AS THERE ARE TWO ZONES THAT MAY BE COMPATIBLE WITH LIVE WORK UNITS AND WARRANT FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

THOSE ARE THE RESIDENTIAL, PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE ZONES THAT AGAIN WOULD BE POTENTIALLY COMPATIBLE WITH BOTH LIVING AND WORKING FULLY RESIDENTIAL OR FULLY INDUSTRIAL ZONES WITHIN THE CITY.

WOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDED AS THE INTRODUCTION TO THE OPPOSITE USE MAY CREATE SOME COMPATIBILITY ISSUES.

AND FINALLY OF NOTE, IN OUR RESEARCH, WE DID NOTE THAT LIVE WORK UNITS HAVE MIXED RESULTS AS IT RELATES TO THEIR ECONOMIC VIABILITY FOR BOTH USES.

IN SOME CASES, THE UNITS TEND TO BE USED FULLY FOR RESIDENTIAL, WHERE THERE MAY NOT BE ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION OR SUPPORT FOR THE COMMERCIAL OR THE THE NON RESIDENTIAL USE.

THE FINAL PROGRAM WILL PRESENT TONIGHT IS RELATED TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION PROPERTIES THAT WOULD SUPPORT EMERGENCY SHELTERS.

AND THE PROGRAM PURPOSE IS SPECIFICALLY TO THAT IS SEEING ABOUT ALLOWING EMERGENCY SHELTERS ON PROPERTIES OWNED BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.

WE'LL START WITH THE DEFINITION OF EMERGENCY SHELTER.

SO FIRST OF ALL, IT IS MEANT TO BE TEMPORARY BASED ON STATE CODE, MEANING THAT IT WOULD BE SIX MONTHS OR LESS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE STAYING THERE.

THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THE FACILITIES THEMSELVES ARE TEMPORARY, BUT THOSE WHO TRANSIT THROUGH THE FACILITY WOULD WOULD BE THERE FOR A SHORT, SHORT OR MID-TERM PERIOD.

AND IT CAN THERE CAN BE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RELATED TO WHAT THOSE FACILITIES ARE BUILT LIKE.

IT'S NOT AGAIN, MEANT TO BE ANY PARTICULAR TYPE OF BUILDING.

THERE ARE ALLOWED AND ENVISIONED MINIMAL SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, SO NOT SOMETHING THAT'S INTENSIVE OR LONG TERM, BUT THAT THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST THE HOUSING ITSELF. AND THEN OF COURSE, AS YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD, IT WOULD BE FREE OF COST, SO THERE WOULD BE NO BARRIER TO ENTRY JUST FOR SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. YOU MAY HAVE ALSO HEARD SIMILAR TERMS. THEY ARE USED INTERCHANGEABLY IN GOVERNMENT CODE AND ELSEWHERE.

SO EMERGENCY SHELTERS AS WELL AS NAVIGATION CENTER OR LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTER, AS YOU'VE RECENTLY HEARD IT, BRIDGE HOUSING AS WELL AS RESPITE AND RECUPERATIVE CARE.

SO OUR ANALYSIS ON THIS PROPOSAL SHOWS THAT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, ARE ALLOWED IN MOST ZONES THROUGHOUT THE CITY WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

IN CONTRAST, EMERGENCY SHELTERS ARE CURRENTLY ONLY ALLOWED IN TWO ZONES.

THEY ARE THE INDUSTRIAL ZONES WITHIN THE CITY, ALTHOUGH FOR REFERENCE, THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ACTUALLY DOES HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL ZONED LAND, WHICH TOTALS ABOUT 7% OF THE CITY AREA, WHICH IS IN CONTRAST TO OTHER CITIES IN THE REGION.

AND AS I MENTIONED, THE EMERGENCY SHELTERS ARE ALLOWED IN THOSE TWO INDUSTRIAL ZONES.

AND DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE FACILITY, IT WOULD BE EITHER BY RIGHT IF IT'S A SMALLER FACILITY WITH 30 BEDS OR LESS OR WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 30 BEDS OR MORE.

TO REMIND YOU OF YOUR ACTION, JUST EARLIER THIS MONTH, ON APRIL 5TH, YOUR ACTION WAS TO RECOMMEND THAT EMERGENCY SHELTERS BE EXPANDED WHERE THEY'RE ALLOWED INTO MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS AS WELL, IN LINE WITH STATE LAW.

AND JUST TO GIVE YOU A PREVIEW OF WHAT WILL BE COMING EVEN IN THE FUTURE, THE STATE CONTINUES TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS.

[01:10:02]

SO THAT IS PENDING IN THE YEARS THAT ARE COMING.

SO STAFF RESEARCH AS IT RELATES TO OTHER CITIES WITHIN THE REGION FOUND THAT THEY GENERALLY ALLOW EMERGENCY SHELTERS IN INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE AREAS.

AND IF THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PC MADE EARLIER THIS MONTH IS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WE WOULD COME IN LINE WITH THAT, EXPANDING BEYOND JUST THE INDUSTRIAL USES.

WE DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS A STANDOUT IN THE REGION.

THE CITY OF EL CAJON ACTUALLY DOES HAVE A PILOT PROGRAM SPECIFICALLY TO ALLOW EMERGENCY SHELTERS ON RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION PROPERTIES.

AND THIS WAS A TEMPORARY PILOT PROGRAM.

WHAT THEY'VE PASSED AND IT WAS IN CONJUNCTION WITH ONE CHURCH THAT HAD A PROPOSAL TO PUT TINY HOMES ONTO THEIR PROPERTY, TO HOUSE HOMELESS MOTHERS AND THEIR CHILDREN.

SO EL CAJON DID INCLUDE AND DEVELOPED SOME SITE CRITERIA OF WHICH PROPERTIES, WHICH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION PROPERTIES WOULD BE ELIGIBLE.

SO IT'S NOT ALL.

AND THOSE CRITERIA INCLUDE MINIMUM LOT SIZE PROXIMITY TO MAJOR THOROUGHFARES, ADEQUATE PARKING AND SUBMITTAL OF MANAGEMENT PLANS.

SO WITH THAT CRITERIA APPLIED, THERE WERE 13 SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF EL CAJON THAT WERE ELIGIBLE, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE JUST RECEIVED ONE APPLICANT, AND THEY HAVE THE ONE PROJECT AT MERIDIAN BAPTIST CHURCH, AND THEY'RE THE THE PERMIT IS APPROVED AS A STAFF LEVEL ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT.

SO JUST FOR CONTRAST, IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY, IF WE WERE TO APPLY SIMILAR CRITERIA WITHIN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, PRELIMINARY GIS ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT WE WOULD HAVE ABOUT 25 SITES THAT MAY BE ELIGIBLE.

SO HERE ARE OUR FINDINGS, AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED.

STATE LAW HAS ALREADY EXPANDED WHERE EMERGENCY SHELTERS WILL BE CONSIDERED.

AND SO YOU ALL ARE AWARE OF THOSE.

AND WE'LL BE BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION ON THOSE.

THAT'LL BE IN THE NEXT HOUSING ELEMENT.

OBVIOUSLY, ALLOWING EMERGENCY SHELTERS ON ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION PROPERTIES WOULD EXPAND IT ONTO SINGLE FAMILY ZONED AREAS AS WELL AS OPEN SPACE AREAS. AND SO THAT WOULD BE A CONSIDERATION THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO A POTENTIAL EXPANSION.

IF EXPANSION IS DESIRED, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THERE BE FURTHER OUTREACH TO THE FAITH COMMUNITIES, SPECIFICALLY TO GAUGE THE LEVEL OF INTEREST AND POTENTIALLY DEFINE A CHAMPION TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRITERIA THAT THE CITY MAY WANT TO USE.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, DEPENDING ON WHATEVER THE PROPOSAL IS, THERE WOULD BE REQUIRED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN, TO THE GENERAL PLAN AS AS APPROPRIATE. SO THIS INCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF COMMISSIONER MEENES.

COULD YOU COULD YOU CLARIFY FOR ME ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THAT YOU JUST SPOKE ON IN REGARD TO RELIGIONS, RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, EMERGENCY SHELTERS? WHAT DESIGNATES WHY IT HAS TO BE RELIGIOUS VERSUS NOT? COMMISSIONER MEENES THE PROPOSAL IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT AS ADOPTED HAD THIS LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY, AND SO WE TOOK A BROAD DEFINITION OF IT AND APPLIED IT DIRECTLY SO IT COULD INCLUDE ANY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.

SO OF COURSE IT WAS CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES, MOSQUES, TEMPLES, ANYTHING THAT THAT HAD AN ASSOCIATION WITH THAT THROUGH THE OWNERSHIP RECORDS.

SO FROM AN EMERGENCY SHELTER ASPECT OR OTHER TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS CAPABLE OF PROVIDING THIS TYPE OF EMERGENCY SHELTERS OTHER THAN RELIGIOUS.

GIVEN. THE ADOPTED I MEAN I THINK THERE'S THERE'S ANY LIMIT OF THINGS THE CITY COULD STUDY AND WORK WITH ANY SORT OF ORGANIZATIONS. THIS THIS ONE WAS TARGETED SPECIFICALLY.

I THINK JUST BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN SOME INTEREST IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS FOR THIS.

WE ALSO ALLOW EMERGENCY SHELTERS ON REALLY ANY PROPERTIES WITHIN OUR INDUSTRIAL ZONES, WHICH COULD BE ANY SORT OF OWNERSHIP GROUP.

SO THAT'S WE WERE DOING OUR EVALUATION BASED ON THE PROGRAM.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IN THE FUTURE WE COULD COULDN'T LOOK FOR OTHER TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS OR OTHER TYPES OF PROPERTIES.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE.

YES, I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS.

FIRST ONE HAS TO DO WITH.

HOUSING ELEMENT 1.3.

AND I THINK, MISS GLENNON, YOU GAVE THE PRESENTATION.

I WAS INTERESTED IN THE CHANGE FROM IN TERMS OF IDENTIFYING, GOING

[01:15:02]

THAT'S A CHANGE IN METHODOLOGY.

CAN YOU COMMENT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT PRECIPITATED THE CHANGE AND ALSO THE STAFF HAVE ANY PROJECTION AS TO THE REVENUE IMPACT OF THIS CHANGE IF IT'S ADOPTED? IF I MAY, I CAN RESPOND TO THIS, THIS, AND THEN YOU CAN ADD ON ANYTHING.

SO THIS CHANGE WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL LAST MAY.

SORRY, LAST MARCH. SO IT WAS ADOPTED AND IMPLEMENTED.

THERE WERE REVENUE PROJECTIONS AND STUDIES PREPARED FOR REALLY A NEXUS STUDY TO ENSURE THAT THESE COMPLIED WITH THE STATE LAW AND REQUIREMENTS.

ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR THE CHANGE, AND IT'S SIMILAR TO WHY WE HAVE THIS IN OUR PROGRAM, WAS TO ENCOURAGE DIFFERENT SIZES OF DWELLING UNITS.

AND SO IF THE FEE IS A FLAT FEE, THEN IT DOESN'T REALLY DISCOURAGE ANYBODY.

IT ACTUALLY ENCOURAGES SOMEONE TO BUILD THE LARGEST UNIT THEY CAN.

THIS COULD ENCOURAGE WHICH DIFFERENT UNIT SIZES AND DIFFERENT TYPES.

SO THE FEE IS VARIABLE.

IF YOU HAVE 1000 SQUARE FOOT UNIT VERSUS A 2500 SQUARE FOOT UNIT.

SO THAT WAS REALLY THE INTENT OF THAT.

WE'D HAVE TO RESEARCH AND GET BACK TO YOU EXACTLY WHAT THE REVENUE PROJECTIONS WERE.

BUT IT ALSO DID BRING UP THE FEE TO CURRENT COSTS FOR PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT IT WAS INDEXED TO AND SET AT.

OKAY. SO YOU DON'T KNOW WITHOUT DOING FURTHER RESEARCH WHAT THE PROJECTION ARE WE GOING TO RAISE MORE MONEY OR THE SAME OR YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT? I MEAN, PER UNIT OVERALL, IT WOULD BE MORE MONEY, BUT THAT WAS PRIMARILY BECAUSE IT WAS BRINGING UP THE COST TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO IT HAD BEEN SOME TIME SINCE THE FEE WAS UPDATED.

SO IT'S IT'S INDEXED TO WHAT IS THE COST TO PROVIDE ONE UNIT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING? GOOD. THAT MAKES SENSE.

THANK YOU. THE OTHER QUESTIONS I HAD WERE ON PROGRAM 1.8.

I'M INTRIGUED BY THIS LIVE WITH LIVE NEAR AND LIVE NEARBY IDEA AND THERE WAS REFERENCE IN THE STAFF REPORT TO BLUE WATER CROSSINGS.

I BELIEVE THAT'S VERY CLOSE TO THE POINSETTIA RAIL STATION.

CORRECT. ANY SENSE FROM STAFF AS TO HOW THAT'S DOING? DO WE HAVE IS IT OCCUPIED? I ASSUME WE HAVE COMMERCIAL DOWN BELOW AND RESIDENTIAL ABOVE.

ARE THEY FILLED UP? ARE THEY DOING WELL? ANY SENSE ON THAT? COMMISSIONER STINE.

ANECDOTALLY, I CAN SAY THAT SOME OF THE FACILITIES OR SOME OF THE UNITS DO HAVE A COMMERCIAL COMPONENT IN THERE.

FROM WHEN I'VE DONE A SITE VISIT.

I DON'T HAVE NUMBERS RIGHT NOW TO GIVE YOU A TOTAL OCCUPANCY PERCENTAGE OR TENURES OF LESSEES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

OKAY. JUST ANY.

OKAY. IT SEEMS TO BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS SEEMS LIKE A GREAT IDEA.

I THINK OF [INAUDIBLE] HILLS IS A SIMILAR CONCEPT RIGHT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA WHERE YOU HAVE BUSINESSES, SMALL BUSINESSES AND THEN RESIDENTS ABOVE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ABOVE OPERATE THE BUSINESSES DOWN BELOW.

THEY VERY WELL MAY, BUT I THINK IT'S AN EXCELLENT IDEA.

I JUST WANT SOME REAL WORLD SENSE IS THIS GOING TO WORK? SO, YOU KNOW GOOD IDEAS.

ONE THING I WANT IT TO BE PRACTICAL AND WORK AND GENERATE MORE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE.

BUT THE IDEA OF A SMALL BUSINESS, WHETHER IT'S A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE OR OR MAYBE A HAIR SALON OR A SMALL MARKET, FOR EXAMPLE, DOWN BELOW.

AND THE PEOPLE WHO OPERATE THAT MARKET ABOVE, I THINK MAKES ABUNDANT SENSE.

AND YOU SEE THAT IN SOME BIG CITIES, SEE THAT VERY, VERY THING.

SO I COMMEND STAFF FOR LOOKING INTO THIS.

I JUST I JUST HOPE IT WORKS.

THE THE OTHER THING AND I HAD ANOTHER COMMENT WITH REGARD TO, OH, THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, EMERGENCY SHELTERS. RIGHT NOW WE ONLY HAVE ONE AND THAT'S THE LOS POSADAS, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO THE IDEA IS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SET UP A SITUATION WHERE WE WOULD ATTRACT ADDITIONAL SIMILAR EMERGENCY SHELTERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OR IN CERTAIN PLACES OF THE CITY.

COMMISSIONER STINE, THE THE PROPOSAL WAS TO ANALYZE WHAT MIGHT BE THE PARAMETERS AROUND A PROGRAM THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM IN MORE AREAS THAN JUST THAT INDUSTRIAL AREA.

SO WE LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT WHAT ARE SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION PROPERTIES CITYWIDE.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE LOOKED AT, IS WHO ELSE IN THE REGION DOES SOMETHING SIMILAR AND WHAT ARE PARAMETERS AROUND THEIR PROGRAMS.

[01:20:05]

THAT'S PART OF THE PURPOSE BEHIND IT AS A WAY OF PROVIDING A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING GENERALLY.

I BELIEVE THAT'S THE REASON THAT THAT HCD INCLUDED THIS AS PART OF THE PROGRAM FOR OUR HOUSING ELEMENT IS IT IS ONE PIECE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING SOLUTION.

SO IN SETTING AREAS THAT MAY BE CONDUCIVE TO THESE TYPE OF SHELTERS, ARE WE FACTORING IN WHERE, IN FACT OUR HOMELESS CONCENTRATIONS TEND TO BE? THIS ANALYSIS DID NOT LOOK AT THE POINT IN TIME SURVEY, BUT THAT WOULD BE A CONSIDERATION THAT COULD BE FACTORED IN MOVING FORWARD.

YEAH, I WOULD HOPE SO.

TO BE EFFECTIVE, I WOULD HOPE IT WOULD BE IN THE GENERAL VICINITY WHERE WE HAVE THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF HOMELESS PEOPLE.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT IS, BUT SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT OF IDENTIFYING PARTICULAR SITES THAT WE FACTOR IN WHERE WE'RE HAVING THE ISSUES, THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION AND SEE IF WE CAN GENERATE A EMERGENCY SHELTER CLOSE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THOSE AREAS.

TO ME, THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE.

COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

YEAH. JUST WANT TO TRY OUT THE MIC.

NO, I'M KIDDING. I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONER STINE'S COMMENTS.

THIS IS PRIMARILY THE UTILITY OF THE OF THE EMERGENCY SHELTERS.

IS PRIMARILY HOMELESS.

IS THAT THE. COMMISSIONER KUBINGER THERE'S NO REGULATION ON WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO VISIT THE SITE.

IT'S FREE OF COST.

AND I MEAN, THERE ARE CERTAIN GROUND RULES, OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

BUT AS FAR AS ADMITTANCE, THIS DIDN'T LOOK AT ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

AND GENERALLY, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

WHAT'S AN EMERGENCY? I MEAN, HOW DO YOU. YEAH, I THINK IT'S JUST TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE IN VULNERABLE SITUATIONS BEING WITHOUT A HOUSE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE AND IT'S JUST SORT OF A FUTURISTIC QUESTION, YOU KNOW, WHERE IS THE FUTURE HERE IN 5 TO 10 YEARS OF HOUSING? AND ARE WE ARE WE, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWING THIS IN THE RIGHT WAY SO THAT WHEN IN 5 TO 10 YEARS, WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW ACTUALLY PROVIDES WHAT OUR CUSTOMERS OR OUR CITIZENS.

NEED AND WOULD.

WOULD BE WOULD WORK FOR THEM.

COMMISSIONER HUBINGER ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE IN REQUIREMENTS IS TO DO A HOUSING ELEMENT.

WE CALL IT OUR HOUSING PLAN, AND IT COVERS AN EIGHT YEAR PERIOD AND WE'RE IN YEAR THREE OF THAT.

AND PART OF THE REASON WE'RE PRESENTING THIS IS IT INCLUDES A HUGE LIST OF THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO.

AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS DO THIS EVALUATION.

IT'S HARD TO PREDICT THE FUTURE.

IT'S THE FURTHER OUT YOU GO, THE HARDER IT IS TO PREDICT.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT KIND OF WHAT WAS THE NUMBERS AND ASSIGNMENTS GIVEN TO US BY THE STATE TO IMPLEMENT.

AND THIS THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE TASKS AND THINGS.

THE ONE THING ABOUT HOUSING ELEMENT LAW IS IT RESETS ITSELF EVERY EIGHT YEARS.

SO IN THE YEAR 2028, 2029, WE WILL BE DOING A NEW HOUSING PLAN AND LIKELY GETTING A NEW SET OF NUMBERS AND A NEW SET OF ASSIGNMENTS FOR US TO LOOK AT LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE. AND AT THIS POINT, WE HAD A CONVERSATION THIS WEEK.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF CALIFORNIA ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

WE'RE STILL COMING OUT OF PANDEMIC AND THINGS ARE STILL CHANGING.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE SITUATION WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT.

SO IT'S PRETTY MUCH A FOLLOWING A STATE DIRECTIVE.

IS THAT IS THAT FAIR? YES. OKAY.

SO WHERE'S THE LOCAL INPUT ON A STATE DIRECTIVE? YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF THE STATE IS, YOU KNOW, HAS THEIR BLINDERS ON AND SEES THINGS FROM ONE PERSPECTIVE, BUT YET WE'RE UNIQUE IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO PROVIDE THE RIGHT HOUSING AT THE RIGHT TIME.

DO WE HAVE INPUT INTO THAT, THAT CROSS-CURRENT? WELL, I SAY WE DO AND WE DON'T.

I THINK THIS HERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INPUT.

OUR PROGRAM AND OUR ASSIGNMENT IS TO EVALUATE THE FEASIBILITY OF GOING FURTHER WITH A PROGRAM LIKE THIS.

AND SO WE'D BE INTERESTED IN COMMENTS FROM YOU ON WHETHER THE PLANNING COMMISSION THINKS SOME OF THESE ARE THINGS WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO PURSUE.

THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE WHAT WE CALL STATE MANDATES WHERE WE REALLY DON'T HAVE INPUT, AND THERE'S THOSE ARE THINGS AND WE'LL TELL YOU WHEN THOSE THINGS ARE HERE.

OKAY, THANKS. YEAH.

YEAH. SO NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

OH, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

I'M SORRY YOU HAD A COMMENT.

ARE WE? ARE WE AT A POINT WHERE WE CAN STILL ASK QUESTIONS TO THE STAFF? YEAH. I DID NOT SEE YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, SO I JUMPED AHEAD.

SO PLEASE DO. I WANTED TO JUST MAKE SURE.

NO, NO. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY GOT THEIR TURN.

SO THIS KIND OF GOES TO, I GUESS, ALL OF YOU.

[01:25:05]

AND AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO THE PROJECT WE JUST SAW WITH THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE THAT THE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH THAT MAXIMUM DWELLING UNIT NUMBER CONTROL POINT AND THE DENSITIES FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEES.

SO MY, MY CONCERN IS THAT IF THEY'RE BUILDING LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM.

SOME TYPE OF FEE COULD BE APPLIED.

AS AN IN LIEU AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE OR AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEE OR SOMETHING THAT TO COMPENSATE FOR THESE LOST UNITS. RIGHT.

SO THE PROJECT THAT WE JUST SAW AND CORRECT ME IF THIS ISN'T POSSIBLE.

UM, THAT LOT.

EVEN THOUGH IT HAS A SMALL SIZE.

COULD IT BE SUBDIVIDED AS AN SB NINE WHICH COULD ALLOW FOR UNITS ON THAT SITE? WELL, SETTING ASIDE THE PHYSICAL FEASIBILITY OF THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE IT COULD BECAUSE IT'S IN THE COASTAL ZONE.

WE WOULD HAVE TO EVALUATE THAT AS A SEPARATE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THOSE.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THE SB9 APPLICATIONS WE'VE SEEN TO DATE ARE NOT WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE, IN OUR OPINION, LIKELY BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN THE COASTAL PROGRAM AND SB NINE ITSELF.

WELL, THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT I'M HAVING WITH KIND OF THIS IS THAT I GUESS I'M I'M TRYING TO SEE IT IN A HOLISTIC WAY AS OPPOSED TO PIECE BY PIECE BY PIECE.

AND I WANT TO, AS OUR COLLEAGUE, OUR NEW COLLEAGUE HAS JUST POINTED OUT, THERE IS A CONCERN WITH THE STATE REGULATIONS AND OUR LOCAL CONTROLS.

SO WE'RE YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL CONCERNED WITH THAT.

THIS IS THE BODY THAT HOPEFULLY HELPS TO DEBATE THAT.

AND, YOU KNOW, BUT I DO THINK THAT SOME OF THE LOOPHOLES OR SOME OF THE GAPS THAT ARE IN OUR POLICY AREN'T QUITE COMPENSATING WITH ESPECIALLY THESE DENSITY CONCERNS.

I KNOW THAT PEOPLE ARE VERY CONCERNED WITH DENSITY, BUT THAT LITTLE SMALL LOT COULD HAVE FOUR TINY HOMES.

IT WOULD BE REALLY CONCEIVABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S A IT'S A TINY LOT, RIGHT? SO I'M KIND OF LOOKING AT THESE OPPORTUNITIES TO SAY, HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT WE GET THAT MAXIMUM DENSITY? BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE CORRECT? IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THAT MAXIMUM DENSITY, BUT ALSO HOW DO WE NOT PENALIZE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY CREATING THE DENSITY? AND WE YOU KNOW, AND AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S A WAY WE HAVE TO SHIFT THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT.

DEVELOPMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY OUR COMMUNITY IS NOT RURAL ANYMORE.

IT'S NOT SMALL, IT'S INDUSTRIAL, IT'S URBAN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF STUFF THAT'S HAPPENING AND IT'S COASTAL AND PEOPLE WANT TO BE HERE. SO WE HAVE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FILL THOSE GAPS THAT THE DEVELOPERS AREN'T GETTING.

ALL THE ADVANTAGES IN OUR CITY CAN HAVE THE COMPENSATION THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S SERVICES AND POLICE AND FIRE AND ACCESS TO THESE PROPERTIES AND PARKS AND SEWERS AND I LIKE SEWERS.

SO ANYWAY, SO, SO THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS I'M CONCERNED WITH.

IS THERE A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE TWO? SHOULD. SHOULD OUR WHOLE FEE STRUCTURE BE KIND OF INVERTED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE SERVICES WE NEED AS A COMMUNITY? SO, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION.

I THINK OUR FEES ARE NOT BUILT THAT WAY.

I MEAN, I THINK OUR FEES ARE REALLY ALL BUILT TOWARDS THE UNITS.

WHAT I CAN SAY IS ONE THING WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS AND ACTUALLY, IF MR. DONNELL, YOU COULD SAY IS WE ARE ADDING IN MINIMUM DENSITIES TO A LOT OF OUR HIGHER DENSITY DESIGNATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS AREN'T COMING IN AT SIGNIFICANTLY UNDER THE DENSITY.

SO THAT'S ANOTHER WAY.

IT'S KIND OF A HOUSING REQUIREMENT, BUT TO MAKING SURE WE ARE GETTING WHAT WE'RE PLANNING FOR.

SO I DON'T KNOW, SCOTT, IF YOU CAN ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THAT.

WELL, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I WOULD ALSO ADD TO THAT, I DON'T THINK THE PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM IS TO MAKE SURE EVERY PROJECT HITS THE MAXIMUM, BUT TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

AND IN SOME CASES, AS THE STAFF REPORT POINTS OUT, IT MAY NOT BE THE DESIRE TO HIT THAT MAXIMUM DENSITY SO OTHER HOUSING ELEMENT OBJECTIVES CAN BE ACHIEVED.

CASE IN POINT WOULD BE A PROJECT THAT PERHAPS PROVIDES LARGER UNITS FOR LARGE FAMILIES, MAYBE THAT TYPE OF PROJECT BECAUSE THE UNIT SIZES ARE LARGER, CAN'T HIT THE MAXIMUM. WELL, AND THAT'S KIND OF THAT DOES SORT OF BRING ME TO THE CONCERN OF TINY HOMES.

[01:30:06]

YOU KNOW, OUR OUR BUILDING CODE REQUIRES AS A MINIMUM STANDARD THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, 5.7FT² OF EGRESS SPACE, WHICH MEANS A DOOR OR A WINDOW FOR A BEDROOM.

SO TO HAVE FLEXIBLE BEDROOMS DOESN'T QUITE SOUND LEGAL TO ME IN A STRICTLY MINIMUM CODE STANDARD.

APPLYING THE BUILDING CODE.

RIGHT. SO, SO THAT'S THAT'S A CONCERN THAT I HAVE WITH THESE KINDS OF TINY HOMES AND TO, YOU KNOW, SORT OF ANYBODY WHO SAYS THAT BUILDING SMALLER UNITS WITH BATHROOMS AND KITCHENS, JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE SMALLER SQUARE FOOTAGE DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN YOUR SQUARE FOOTAGE COST IS LESS BECAUSE YOU'RE STILL BUILDING A BATHROOM IN A KITCHEN.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, SO SO I'M NOT 100% SURE THAT THESE ARE.

COST SAVINGS BECAUSE OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN OUR STATE RIGHT NOW.

AND I ALSO AM A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT, LIKE THE THE CAVEAT THAT MOST OF OUR COMMUNITIES ARE NOT ALLOWING MOBILE HOMES BECAUSE OF WHAT DO THEY CALL IT, CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE BEING.

THAT ARE PART OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS OR WHATEVER THEY ARE.

BUT MOBILE HOMES AND MANUFACTURED HOMES ARE ACTUALLY PROBABLY THE MOST ECONOMICAL HOUSING STRUCTURE, ALBEIT MAYBE NOT THE BEST.

SO SO I THINK THERE'S A CONCERN ABOUT THIS SMALL SPACE WHERE PEOPLE REALLY DO NEED LARGER SPACE AND MAYBE A VARIETY OF LARGER SPACES.

SO THE TINY HOME I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK IS A SOLUTION.

I THINK THE ADU PROGRAM REALLY HELPS OUR COMMUNITY.

BUT BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT TINY HOMES ARE NOT REALLY THE ANSWER.

WHEREAS IF THERE WAS A HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMPONENT WITH THE LIVE WORK THAT COMMISSIONER STINE MENTIONED, TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW THAT, YOU KNOW, ABILITY WHERE THEY'RE MORE URBAN AREAS ARE BECOMING CONNECTED TO AN ADAPTIVE REUSE CONDITION THAT WOULD BE REALLY IMPORTANT.

AND HOW DO WE BALANCE THOSE THOSE ELEMENTS WITH THE HISTORIC COMPONENT? BECAUSE I THINK THAT THOSE THOSE ELEMENTS WOULD BE REALLY IMPORTANT TO ALSO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THOSE ARE WHERE THE WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE.

SO SO ANYWAY, THAT'S A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

I HAVE MORE, BUT WE'LL CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION FOR NOW.

RIGHT. THANK THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

NOW WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS ON THIS ONE? CHAIR WE DO NOT. OKAY, GOOD.

OKAY, GOOD. ALL RIGHT THEN.

SO ANY OTHER FURTHER APPLICANTS OR ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE STAFF? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I THINK THAT'S IT, THEN. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT PRESENTATION.

YEAH. YEAH.

YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER THREE, PLEASE?

[3. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024]

THANK YOU, EVERYONE.

YEAH. THANK YOU, EVERYONE.

THANK YOU. SO THE THIRD ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM.

AND SO I JUST HAVE A REAL BRIEF PRESENTATION TO ORIENT EVERYONE TO THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT.

SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.

IN 2018, THE MUNICIPAL CODE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE UNIFORM POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AROUND THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

WHAT IT REQUIRES IS TWO THINGS ANNUALLY FROM EACH GROUP.

FIRST IS A REPORT ON THE PRIOR WORK PROGRAM.

SO OUR PRIOR WORK PROGRAM IS ACTUALLY THE FISCAL YEAR WE'RE CURRENTLY IN, WHICH IS THE FISCAL YEAR 2022, 2023, WHICH COVERS THROUGH JUNE 30TH OF THIS YEAR, AND THEN COMING UP WITH A NEW WORK PROGRAM COVERING THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR 2023 TO 2024.

AS YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION COVERS A NUMBER OF FACETS WITH THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, MAINLY TITLES 2019 AND 21, AS WELL AS IMPLEMENTING STATE LAW.

THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

THERE IS AN ANNUAL REPORT INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT SUMMARIZES THE PROJECTS THAT WERE EITHER COMPLETED OR WE ANTICIPATE TO BE COMPLETED THROUGH JUNE 30TH OF THIS YEAR.

THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

TWO LARGE CITY PROJECTS, VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK AND ORION CENTER, WERE APPROVED BY THIS GROUP IN THE LAST FISCAL YEAR OR A LITTLE BIT TIME BEFORE THAT, AS WELL AS A PLANNING

[01:35:07]

THIS REPORT ALSO LISTS ITEMS THAT WERE NOT COMPLETED DUE TO EITHER THE APPLICANTS OR OTHER THINGS OCCURRING, AND THE REPORT INDICATES IF IT'S BEEN INCLUDED IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR'S ANNUAL REPORT.

AND THEN ALSO INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTION IS THE WORK PLAN.

IT'S BEEN DIVIDED NOW INTO THREE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES WITH ADVANCED PLANNING, CURRENT PLANNING AND THEN JUST OVERALL TRAINING AND CITY OPERATIONS SORTING KIND OF OUR MAIN FUNCTIONS AS WELL AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE TYPE THINGS THAT ARE YOUR FUNCTIONS.

IT INCLUDES A LISTING OF A NUMBER OF KEY PROJECTS THAT WILL BE OCCURRING NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

OF COURSE, THE HOUSING ELEMENT REZONING PROGRAM IS ONE OF THE MAIN PROJECTS THAT YOU'LL BE SEEING IN THE MIDDLE OF NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

WE ALSO DO THINK THAT THE NEW AGE CARLSBAD RESORT HOPE APARTMENTS AND THE LEGOLAND PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD BE COMING FORWARD NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

WE'VE GOT THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS BOTH CITYWIDE AS WELL AS IN THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO, WHICH ACTUALLY MIGHT BE EITHER AT THE END OF THIS OR EARLY NEXT FISCAL YEAR COMING BEFORE THIS BODY.

AND THEN THEN THE BEACH ACCESS REPAIRS, WHICH IS ANOTHER CITY INITIATED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROJECT THAT WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND THEN LASTLY, I DID INCLUDE, AGAIN, A PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP IN THE WORK PROGRAM.

REALLY BE INTERESTED IN FEEDBACK ON TIMING AND CONTENT OF THAT.

WE HAD A GOOD ONE IN JULY OF THIS YEAR TALKING ABOUT KIND OF BASICS AND OPERATIONS, BUT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE COULD TALK ABOUT.

WE ALSO INCLUDED IN THIS WORK PROGRAM WOULD BE ONE WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO TALK ABOUT NEW UPDATES TO STATE LAWS AND THAT THAT COULD BE EITHER AS AN AGENDA ITEM OR PART OF THAT PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP.

SO THE PROPOSED ACTION IS TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE ANNUAL REPORT AND APPROVAL OF THE WORK PROGRAM FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

FOLLOWING THIS, WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT TAKING THIS ACTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, AND WE'D ALSO BE ASKING FOR THE COMMISSION TO NOMINATE A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THAT MEETING.

WE ARE LOOKING AT HAVING THIS GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 23RD.

THANK YOU, MR. LARDY. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? UH, COMMISSIONER STINE.

YES. JUST. I THINK THIS WAS JUST AN OVERSIGHT.

MR. LARDY, ON THE LAST PAGE THERE, YOU WERE INDICATING WHERE HE SAID MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO SERVE ON THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEES.

YOU DIDN'T PUT GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE.

OH, WELL, COMMISSIONER, THAT'S ACTUALLY BECAUSE THIS IS FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR AND WE ARE BELIEVING THAT COMMITTEE WILL BE CONCLUDING TOMORROW.

SO I BELIEVE SO TOO.

BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T SHORTCHANGED HERE.

WAS IT EMPHASIZED ON THE WORD BELIEVE THERE? I BELIEVE THAT TOMORROW WILL BE OUR LAST MEETING.

BUT I THOUGHT THIS REFLECTED SERVE ON YOU THAT THAT COMMITTEE HOPEFULLY WILL BE SUNSETTING VERY QUICKLY.

WELL, WE'LL KEEP THE FAITH AND BELIEVE WITH YOU, MR. MR STINE YEAH.

AND IN TERMS OF WORKSHOP, YES, I THINK WORKSHOP WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.

I LIKE THE IDEA OF COMBINING SOME NUTS AND BOLTS TRAINING ISSUES WITH UPDATES IN STATE LAW BECAUSE OUR FRIENDS IN SACRAMENTO KEEP CHANGING THE THE RULES ON US AND IN MANY TIMES TYING OUR HANDS A LITTLE BIT MORE.

BUT WE WE NEED TO BE CURRENT ON ALL THOSE CHANGES AND THAT SEEM TO BE NEVER ENDING.

SO HAVING A WORKSHOP IN WHICH WOULD INCLUDE AN UPDATE ON STATE LAWS I THINK WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER MEENES.

COMMISSIONER STINE I THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO STATE AS WELL AS IN REGARD TO THE WORKSHOP.

I REALLY LIKED THE IDEA OF THE UPDATE ON STATE LAWS AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS.

I THINK IF THAT COULD BE CONDENSED TO WHERE WE CAN ZERO IN ON SOME OF THOSE AND HOW THEY I GUESS THEY RELATE TO SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH ON A DAILY BASIS THAT WOULD BE CLARIFYING AS WELL.

GREAT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DIDN'T NOTICE ON HERE, AND I GUESS I'M A BROKEN RECORD, CONTINUED TO COORDINATE WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE, ESPECIALLY WHEN PROJECTS PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES THEN.

AND WHAT ABOUT REVIEWING THE LIST OF THE HISTORIC PROPERTIES WITH THE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUST BECAUSE RIGHT NOW HISTORIC PRESERVATION HAS MOVED FROM THE LIBRARY TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

SO I'M NOT SURE THAT OUR COLLEAGUES ARE ALL.

UP TO DATE ON OUR OLD INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO MAYBE THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD IT TO MAYBE A TASK OR A GOAL, OR MAYBE IT'S JUST PART OF OUR WORKSHOP, JUST SOMETHING TO,

[01:40:08]

BECAUSE NOW THAT I MEAN, I KNOW THAT IT'S ALL NEW WITH MILLS ACT AND THIS AND THAT, BUT I'M WONDERING WHAT THAT WHAT THAT COORDINATION WOULD BE BETWEEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND AND CEQA AND OUR COMMUNITY HERE.

SO, COMMISSIONER, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS WE ACTUALLY INCLUDE THAT AS A TOPIC IN THE WORKSHOP, IF THAT'S OF INTEREST TO THE COMMISSION, BECAUSE THE HISTORIC BOARD IS, IS WITHIN PLANNING.

NOW, THERE WAS UPDATES TO THE [INAUDIBLE] PROGRAM.

THERE WAS ALSO UPDATES TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE THAT SPEAK TO WHAT ARE THE PROCEDURES IF THERE IS A PROJECT THAT IMPACTS A POTENTIALLY HISTORIC RESOURCE.

SO IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO HAVE THAT INCLUDED IN THE ACTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND AS PART OF THAT WORKSHOP.

OKAY. YEAH. SO JUST QUICKLY, JUST SO WILL THERE BE AN OUTLINE OF THE WORKSHOP GIVEN TO COUNCIL OR JUST THIS? I MEAN, WE WERE RECOMMENDING GIVING THIS IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO MAKE CHANGES TO IT BEFORE WE SEND THAT TO CITY COUNCIL, WE COULD.

THE LAST YEAR IT WAS INCLUDED AS JUST A WORKSHOP AND THEN WE DISCUSSED AS A SEPARATE AGENDA ITEM WHAT WERE THE EXACT TOPICS TO BE ON IT.

SO IT'S REALLY THE COMMISSION'S PURVIEW OF, OF WHICH FORMAT YOU'D PREFER.

I THINK IT'D BE IMPORTANT TO HEAR THE CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMISSION, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN OPINION ON THAT? I THINK COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN IS UP NEXT.

YEAH. LOOKING AT WHAT'S BEEN DONE.

I'M IMPRESSED AT THE HARDWORKING MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION.

BRINGS BACK A LOT OF MEMORIES.

I LIKE THE IDEA OF A WORKSHOP, BUT I WOULD BE I REALLY WANT TO GET SOME INPUT FROM EACH OF US.

AND NOT TONIGHT.

YEAH, PLEASE.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

THANK YOU. I THINK THERE ARE THINGS THAT EACH OF US WOULD LIKE TO KNOW OR KNOW MORE OF AND MR. LARDY I'D APPRECIATE IF YOU WILL INDULGE US, SO TO SPEAK, THAT WE CAN HAVE INPUT ON THE COMPONENTS OF THE WORKSHOP.

FINALLY, I'M LOOKING AT PAGE FOUR OF THE RESOLUTION AND I APPRECIATE THE WORDING. I REMEMBER LAST YEAR WE HAD A PROLONGED DISCUSSION OF WHICH I WAS A PART REGARDING ADOPTING SOME SORT OF FINDINGS THAT WERE PALATABLE AND DOABLE.

SO KUDOS ON THIS REVISION.

YEAH. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YES, I THINK THE WORKSHOP SHOULD FOR SURE INCLUDE THE HISTORICAL ISSUES THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH REGARDING THE MILLS ACT.

I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO WITHIN THAT DISCUSSION, HAVE STAFF PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION IN REGARD TO THE MILLS ACT AND THE COMPONENTS OF THE MILLS ACT AND HOW THAT IMPACTS ITS APPLICATION I GUESS YOU COULD SAY NOT ONLY JUST FROM THE STANDPOINT OF IMPLEMENTATION, BUT THE I KNOW THE MILLS ACT HAS SOME COMPONENTS IN REGARD TO ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, FOR PEOPLE WHO APPLY FOR THE MILLS ACT AND THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL INFORMATION AS WELL TO HAVE THE COMMISSION HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE MECHANICS OF THAT WORKS, BECAUSE IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING IN THE FUTURE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY.

DO YOU HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS ON THIS ONE? NO, WE DO NOT. NOT SURPRISING.

OKAY, SO.

OKAY. SO ANY OTHER FURTHER APPLICANT? FURTHER QUESTIONS OF APPLICANT OR STAFF.

OKAY. SO ANY OPEN IT FOR COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

ANYONE. AND IF I MAY REMIND THE COMMISSION IN THE MOTION, IT'D BE HELPFUL TO NOMINATE A COMMISSION MEMBER TO ATTEND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WITH US.

OKAY. I SEE COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

DO I HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND. OKAY.

MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STINE.

[01:45:10]

OKAY, GOOD.

OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THAT ITEM.

AND SO WE DON'T YOU NEED A MOTION ON THE RESOLUTION.

THERE IS A RESOLUTION WITH THIS ITEM.

OH, I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS RESOLUTION? YES, COMMISSIONER MEENES.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION FOR ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

YES, I'LL SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER MEENES AND SECOND, BY COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

PLEASE VOTE. MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. AND CONCLUDES.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.

I WILL MOVE ON TO ANY REPORTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS BY.

[PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS]

OKAY. START OF THE END.

WE'RE GOING TO START AT THE END. WELL, START AT THE END.

ANYTHING FROM OUR NEW COMMISSIONER? I'M STANDING BETWEEN YOU GUYS AND DINNER.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? BUT NO, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR WELCOMING ME.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU AND HOPEFULLY ADD SOME VALUE AND HELP MAKE THE CITY A BETTER PLACE.

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

WE'RE VERY GLAD AND EXCITED TO HAVE YOU ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

ANY OTHER REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? OH, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

FIRST WELCOME, SIR.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU.

SECOND, I WANT TO COMPLIMENT STAFF.

THIS IS OUR INAUGURAL NIGHT FOR THIS NEW REPORT FORMAT.

IT'S EXCELLENT.

CONGRATULATIONS. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS THIRD.

WELL, THAT'S IT FOR TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

OKAY. FROM CITY PLANNER MR.

[CITY PLANNER REPORT]

ON MAY 3RD, WE'LL LOOK TO SEE IF IF ALL OF THOSE ITEMS GO.

BUT WE DEFINITELY WILL HAVE THE CONTINUANCE AND WE DEFINITELY WILL HAVE THE FCC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT.

SO I WOULD EXPECT IT NOT TO BE OUR SHORTEST MEETING GIVEN THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE ON THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY NOT LOOKING AT HAVING A 17TH.

AND THEN WE'RE STARTING TO LOOK AT JUNE AND JULY AND KIND OF SLOTTING THE MEETINGS IN THERE.

I WOULD PROBABLY RECOMMEND AS WE GET CLOSER TO JULY, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A MEETING ON JULY 5TH.

I'D PROBABLY RECOMMEND WE GO AHEAD AND NOT HAVE THAT MEETING.

IT'LL JUST COMPLICATE BRIEFINGS AND EVERYTHING.

WE DO HAVE UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL MEETING TIMES, THE ZONING CODE, AMENDMENTS FOR THE ADUS AND HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS ARE GOING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 9TH AND THE IONA'S APPEAL IS GOING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 16TH.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

MR CAMPAIGN REPORTS.

NO COMMENTS. I WOULD SAY YES.

COUNCIL ON JULY 5TH MEETING BECAUSE I WON'T BE HERE.

MR. MERZ.

YES. COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

YEAH. MR. LARDY. I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST IF WE, WHEN WE HAVE FUTURE INFORMATIVE REPORTS FROM STAFF, IF YOU CAN SORT OF USE YOUR CRYSTAL BALL TO THINK ABOUT MAYBE THE BEST TIME FOR THAT PRESENTATION, I'M THINKING IN LIEU OF WHAT HAPPENED TONIGHT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL FOR STAFF IF WE TOOK AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO FIRST.

I MEAN, I HATE TO SEE STAFF BASICALLY SIT FOR AN HOUR PLUS WHILE WE DO OTHER BUSINESS, BUT THAT'S OBVIOUSLY YOUR PREROGATIVE.

YES, WE DO OUR BEST TO TRY TO DO THAT.

BUT YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD COMMENT.

SO THANK YOU. YEAH.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

OKAY. I THINK THAT'S IT.

WE'RE IN. WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE THE MEETING.

OKAY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.