Oct 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting

WHAT'S TODAY'S DATE? OCTOBER 18TH.

[00:00:02]

GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO THE OCTOBER 18TH, 2023 MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.

[CALL TO ORDER]

READY? BEGIN.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

MS. VIGELAND, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? SO ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COMMISSIONER STINE AND COMMISSIONER MEENES.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 20TH PLANNING COM MISSION MEETING? YES, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

I WASN'T PRESENT FOR THE OCTOBER 4TH MEETING.

IS THAT THE ONE YOU'RE LOOKING AT? SEPTEMBER 20TH, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 20TH? I HAD NONE. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY? OKAY.

OKAY, SEEING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20TH.

I'LL SECOND. OKAY, GREAT.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE IS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SABELLICO AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

OKAY. PLEASE VOTE AND WAIT UNTIL YOU PUSH THE BUTTON, EVERYBODY.

WHY IS THIS NOT WORKING ONCE AGAIN? PUSHED THE BUTTON EARLY. OKAY.

DO WE WANT TO REVOTE? YES. I HAVE TO REMOVE COMMISSIONER STINE.

OKAY, GREAT. PLEASE REVOTE.

NOT YET. NOT YET.

TRYING TO GET MEENES ON THERE TOO.

OKAY. YAY! OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

THE MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 0 WITH COMMISSIONER STINE AND COMMISSIONER MEENES ABSENT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THE NEXT TIME FOR APPROVAL IS THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 4TH OR OCTOBER 4TH, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 4TH PLANNING COM MISSION MEETING? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. I WASN'T ACTUALLY AT THE MEETING.

SO THE ROLL CALL IS INCORRECT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL GET THAT ON THERE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS.

CAN WE GET A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOVE TO APPROVE. OKAY, AND SOMEONE SECONDED.

OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE IS MADE BY COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

PLEASE VOTE.

IT'S NOT HAPPENING.

IT'S [INAUDIBLE] IT'S NOT SHOWING UP? OH, YEAH. THERE WE GO.

IT WOULDN'T BE A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IF WE DIDN'T HAVE SOME CHALLENGE WITH THE VOTING.

SO HERE WE GO. [INAUDIBLE] I VOTED. SHOULD WE DO IT? ONE MORE. [INAUDIBLE] OOPS.

OH, OKAY.

OKAY.

IT PASSES.

MOTION PASSES FOUR IN FAVOR OF ABSTAIN BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY AND COMMISSIONER STINE AND COMMISSIONER MEENES ARE ABSENT.

OKAY, THERE WE GO.

ALL RIGHT, SO THE COMMISSION SETS ASIDE, THIS TIME FOR UP TO 15 MINUTES TO ACCEPT COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA THAT IS

[PUBLIC COMMENT]

[00:05:09]

MS. VIGELAND, HAS ANYONE FILED A REQUEST A SPEAKER SLIP THIS EVENING ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. NO. OKAY.

OKAY. SO IF NOT, THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE PROCEDURES FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.

CORRECT? OH, SOMEONE DID YOU HAVE THIS WE DO SET ASIDE TIME OF THE BEING FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT FOR NON AGENDA ITEM? I THINK I DO. IT'S UNCLEAR WHAT THE AGENDA IS.

I THINK IT'S JUST FOR ITEM 17.

AS I READ ON THIS AGENDA, ITEM 17 IS ONE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT SITES.

THAT WOULD BE AGENDA ITEM ONE, AND IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM ONE, PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER SLIP AND TURN IT IN.

RIGHT. YEAH, AND SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT SO THOSE ARE SITES.

SO WHAT WE HAVE WE ACTUALLY ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM ON THE AGENDA, AND THAT'S PART OF AN AGENDA ITEM.

SO YOUR COMMENTS WOULD BE DURING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PORTION OF THAT.

THIS REFERS TO IF SOMEONE HAS SOMETHING THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT ISN'T ON THE AGENDA, BUT YOU'RE REFERRING TO ACTUAL SITE NUMBERS.

SO I CAN SEE HOW THAT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING SOMETIMES.

OKAY, SO YOU HAVE SOMETHING NOT ON AGENDA THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON.

OKAY. WELL, THEN IF YOU COULD COME TO THE PODIUM AND LIST YOUR NAME.

YEAH, AND SO THIS WOULD BE JUST TO CONFIRM.

THESE ARE SOMETIMES AGAIN, THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING IS SOMETIMES PEOPLE HAVE THINGS THAT ARE OF INTEREST TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT AREN'T LISTED ON THE AGENDA, AND WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON THOSE BECAUSE THEY AREN'T ON THE AGENDA, BUT WE DO LEAVE THAT TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT.

SO PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS CLEARLY.

FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS TOM.

[INAUDIBLE] EXCUSE ME, CAN YOU PAUSE WHILE WE GET THE MIC ON? SORRY. OKAY, ONE MORE TIME.

MY NAME IS TOM FRIEDER AND MY ADDRESS IS 1183 MARIPOSA ROAD IN CARLSBAD.

OKAY, I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON SITE EIGHT, WHICH I BELIEVE IS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

YES, SIR. SITE EIGHT IS ON THE AGENDA.

SO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE IS THE ENTIRE PACKAGE OF HOUSING ELEMENT SITES AND THAT IS ON THE AGENDA.

OKAY, THEN I'LL JUST RESERVE MY COMMENTS FOR THAT PERIOD.

RIGHT, AND YOU HAVE A SPEAKER SLIP IN ON THAT ALREADY I BELIEVE.

CORRECT. OKAY. YOU'RE GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

PERFECT. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE PROCEDURES FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING, WHICH ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THEY NORMALLY ARE.

SO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN.

SO REQUEST TO SPEAK.

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

SO IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE THAT, PLEASE DO THAT NOW.

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

OKAY SO THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

THE PROCEDURES ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT TONIGHT AS THIS IS KIND OF A UNIQUE MEETING WITH AS IT ENCOMPASSES THE ENTIRE THE ENTIRE CITY.

SO. SO THE PROCEDURES FOR TONIGHT, THE MODIFIED PROCEDURES ARE THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPENED.

IT'LL BE A STAFF PRESENTATION.

AT THAT TIME, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY WILL BE OPEN.

WE WILL RECEIVE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC.

AFTER ALL THE SPEAKERS HAVE SPOKEN OUT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

THEN WE'LL GO ON TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EXHIBIT ONE.

THERE'LL BE PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS, PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION, AND A PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE.

THEN NUMBER SEVEN WILL BE HOUSING SITE NUMBER FOUR EXHIBIT TWO, THERE WILL BE PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS, PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE.

THEN ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS BALANCE OF THE SITES WHICH WILL BE EXHIBIT THREE WILL BE PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS.

PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE.

THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED OKAY.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 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 $900 FOR ALL MATTERS.

IF ANYONE WISHES TO QUESTION A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION, THEY MAY CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT 1635 FARADAY AVENUE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:30 AND 5:30 MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, AND 8 TO 5 ON FRIDAY, AND THEN AGAIN, A TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES IS ALLOWED TO EACH SPEAKER.

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

OKAY, SO NOW WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.

[00:10:08]

WE'LL DO AFTER PUBLIC TESTIMONY IF YOU WILL REMIND ME ON THAT THING.

SO WHAT'S THAT? OKAY. YEAH. SO WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.

[1. EIR 2022-0007 (PUB 2022-0010) HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE]

HE APOLOGIZES FOR THAT, BUT ROB EFIRD AND I WILL BE GIVING THE STAFF PRESENTATION FOR THIS .

AGENDA ITEM ONE IS THE HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY UPDATE.

I'M GOING TO START WITH A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT.

WHAT'S INCLUDED WITH THE HOUSING SITES AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY UPDATE.

WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, AND THEN WE'LL CONCLUDE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.

A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT.

THIS PROJECT FIRST BEGAN WHEN THE 2021 HOUSING UPDATE CONCLUDED WITH ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN APRIL 2021.

IN JULY OF THAT YEAR, THE STATE'S DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT.

INCLUDED IN THAT ADOPTED HOUSING ELEMENT'S PROGRAM 1.1, WHICH REQUIRES THE CITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE SHORTFALL OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION BY APRIL 2024.

AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THE CITY CONDUCTED PUBLIC OUTREACH IN THE SUMMER AND FALL OF 2021 ON POTENTIAL SITES TO REZONE.

THIS OUTREACH INCLUDED TWO PUBLIC WORKSHOPS WITH OVER 71 PARTICIPANTS, A SURVEY WITH 950 RESPONDENTS AND 95 WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE.

THE PROCESS CONCLUDED WITH DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL IN FEBRUARY 2022 TO STUDY TWO MAP ALTERNATIVES THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY.

ON FEBRUARY 15TH, THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEWED THESE OPTIONS AND DIRECTED THEM BOTH TO BE STUDIED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO PROVIDE OPTIONS TO THEM IN THIS TIME FRAME.

THE PURPOSE IS TO ENSURE THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE CONTAIN ENOUGH CAPACITY TO ALLOW SUFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT TO MEET THE CITY'S SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING PRODUCTION, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 30% BUFFER.

THE PROJECT DOES NOT DIRECTLY CONSTRUCT HOUSING, BUT IT CLEARS THE REGULATORY HURDLES AND PROVIDES CAPACITY FOR THAT HOUSING THROUGH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE.

I'LL PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ON THE MAPS THAT WE DID STUDY.

MAP ONE, AS DIRECTED BY COUNCIL, INCLUDES 18 SITES INDICATED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND SHOWN ON THIS MAP.

MAP THREE REMOVES THREE OF THE SITES FROM CONSIDERATION, WITH SITE THREE NEAR EL CAMINO REAL AND CHESTNUT.

SITE EIGHT NEAR AVIARA PARKWAY AND COBBLESTONE ROAD, AND SITE 15 NEAR OAK AVENUE AND TYLER STREET IN THE VILLAGE.

IN ADDITION, MAP TWO ADDS DENSITY TO TWO SITES THAT ARE ALSO ON MAP ONE.

THE CARLSBAD COASTER STATION AND SITE 17 AT THE POINSETTIA COASTER STATION.

IN ALL, THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL UNITS IN BOTH MAPS IS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME, ALTHOUGH MAP TWO PROVIDES 43 MORE UNITS THAN MAP ONE.

BOTH MAPS CONTAIN ENOUGH ADDITIONAL UNITS TO MEET THE CITY'S RHNA REQUIREMENTS.

I WILL NOW HAND THE PRESENTATION OVER TO ROB EFIRD, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON THE HOUSING SITE, REZONE AND PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT.

THANKS, ERIC. THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU TODAY SATISFIES MULTIPLE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES FROM THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT TO ALLOW AND ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNITS, IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING HOUSING CAPACITY REQUIRED BY THE HOUSING ELEMENT.

THE CHANGES PROVIDE STREAMLINING FOR PROJECTS WITH LOWER INCOME UNITS.

REQUIRE LOWER INCOME UNITS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.

CREATE TWO NEW GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS WITH HIGHER DENSITY ALLOWANCES, AND INCREASE THE MINIMUM DENSITY FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.

THE REZONE PROGRAM COMPLEMENTS PAST AND ONGOING EFFORTS BY THE CITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE HOUSING, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. A KEY CONSIDERATION IS THE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE CITY'S FOUR QUADRANTS.

AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HOUSING SITE SELECTION PROCESS, STAFF REVIEWED LOCATIONS THAT CONTAIN EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, HAVE APPROVED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS THAT WERE UNBUILT AND VACANT SITES WITH HIGH OR MEDIUM DENSITIES ALLOWED FROM THESE WITH PUBLIC INPUT AND DIRECTION FROM THE HEAC AND THE CITY COUNCIL STAFF IDENTIFIED HOUSING SITES TO STUDY.

THIS GRAPHIC SHOWS ALL THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED SITES FOR THE NORTHWEST AND THE NORTHEAST QUADRANTS.

THIS GRAPHIC SHOWS ALL THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED SITES FOR THE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST QUADRANTS.

[00:15:06]

AS YOU SEE, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL UNITS IN EACH OF THE QUADRANTS, WITH THE NORTHEAST HAVING THE MOST AT ABOUT 1800 UNITS.

THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST HAVING ABOUT 750 UNITS EACH, AND THE SOUTHEAST WITH THE LEAST AT APPROXIMATELY 250 NEW UNITS.

FOR MAP TWO THE NET RESULT OF THE REMOVAL OF THE THREE SITES AND THE ADDITION OF DENSITY AT THE TWO NCTD COASTER STATIONS IS AN INCREASE IN UNITS IN THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST QUADRANTS, AND NO CHANGE FOR THE NORTHEAST AND FOR THE SOUTHEAST.

AS ERIC MENTIONED, BOTH MAPS INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY THE SAME TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS AND BOTH EXCEED THE REQUIREMENT TO ACCOMMODATE RHNA AND THE 30% BUFFER.

I WILL NOW REVIEW THE PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT PORTION OF THE PROJECT.

SAFETY ELEMENTS ARE A REQUIRED ELEMENT IN EVERY GENERAL PLAN.

THE LAW SPECIFIES WHICH TOPICS ARE TO BE ANALYZED, BUT CAN BE EXPANDED BEYOND THESE TO MEET LOCAL NEEDS.

THE GOAL OF THE SAFETY ELEMENT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS TO DECISION MAKERS, PARTNER AGENCIES AND THE PUBLIC IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY DIRECTION.

TOPICS ADDRESSED IN THE CARLSBAD PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT INCLUDE WILDFIRE, FLOODING, AIRPORT AND RAILROAD HAZARDS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, EARTHQUAKES, AND A NEW SECTION RELATED TO THE HAZARDS PRESENTED BY CLIMATE CHANGE.

STATE LAW REQUIRES THE SAFETY ELEMENT TO BE UPDATED WHENEVER THE HOUSING ELEMENT IS UPDATED, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR THIS UPDATE.

THE PROPOSED UPDATE INCLUDES NEW AND UPDATED INFORMATION RELATED TO EMERGENCY EVACUATION, CLIMATE ADAPTATION, AND RESILIENCY.

UPDATING OF HAZARD INFORMATION AND MAPPING.

DISASTER RECOVERY FUNDING ELIGIBILITY.

COORDINATION WITH OTHER PLANS AND PROGRAMS. IN ALL, THE UPDATE INCLUDES THREE NEW MAPS, FIVE UPDATED MAPS, 17 UPDATED POLICIES, 53 NEW POLICIES, AND ONE REMOVED POLICY.

THE UPDATED PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE CALIFORNIA BOARD OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION AT THEIR HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2023.

BASED ON THE COMMENTS MADE AND DISCUSSION AT THE HEARING, STAFF ANTICIPATES THE BOARD WILL FORMALLY SUPPORT THE ELEMENT AND RECOMMEND ONLY MINOR EDITS.

NEXT, WE WILL REVIEW COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CONDUCTED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT FOR ALL COMPONENTS.

THE CITY UNDERTOOK A PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS TO ENGAGE RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES AND OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REZONING PROGRAM.

THE CITY INVITED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THROUGH VIRTUAL AND IN-PERSON MEETINGS, ONLINE SURVEYS, EXTENSIVE MAILINGS, AND SOCIAL MEDIA.

IN ADDITION TO THE MEETINGS AND HEARINGS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED AS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, STAFF HELD THREE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS AND RELEASED THE DRAFT SEIR FOR A 45 DAY PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD IN JULY AND AUGUST EARLIER THIS YEAR.

PUBLIC COMMENT PROVIDED THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE PROJECT HAS RELATED TO THE FOUR THEMES LISTED HERE.

DIFFERENT COMMENTERS HAVE ADVOCATED FOR OR AGAINST 1 OR 2 OF THE MAPS, OR FOR OR AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF CERTAIN SITES.

MANY COMMENTERS EXPRESSED THEIR DESIRE TO MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE.

CONCERNS INCLUDED INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION, INCREASED CRIME, LOSS OF OPEN SPACE OR NATURAL RESOURCES, AND LOSS OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER ASSOCIATED WITH LOWER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.

FINALLY, SOME COMMENTS RELATED TO TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING THE ASSUMPTIONS USED TO ESTIMATE AND ANALYZE ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND HOW THE SIER STRUCTURE COULD BE USED BY FUTURE PROJECTS.

I WILL NOW HAND IT BACK TO ERIC TO DISCUSS THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND PRESENT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

THANK YOU, ROB, AND FOR THE RECORD, I'LL JUST MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THAT.

COMMISSIONER STINE HAS ARRIVED AT 5:20.

I'M NOW GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR.

THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR, OR EIR, DEVELOPED FOR THIS PROJECT IS BASED ON THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN EIR, WHICH STILL CONTAINS SOME VALID INFORMATION RELATED TO THIS PROJECT.

SINCE THIS IS A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, THIS AMENDS THAT EIR.

THE EIR BRINGS IN NEW INFORMATION ANALYSIS RELATED TO THE CHANGED CONDITIONS AS DESCRIBED EARLIER.

AS WITH THE GENERAL PLAN EIR, THIS IS A PROGRAM LEVEL DOCUMENT, MEANING IT ANALYZES ALL THE ACTIONS AS A WHOLE AT A HIGH LEVEL BASED ON THE INFORMATION KNOWN AT THE

[00:20:03]

BUILDING UPON THAT ANALYSIS OF THE TOPIC AREAS STUDIED, MOST OF THEM WERE DETERMINED TO HAVE A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

FIVE OF THEM WERE DETERMINED TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS BASED ON THE LATEST STATE LAW AND REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE TOPIC AREAS.

HOWEVER, WE ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT TWO OF THOSE FIVE WERE ALSO DETERMINED TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS IN THE 2015 EIR.

GREENHOUSE GASES, NOISE, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES WERE ADDITIONALLY ADDED IN THIS EIR DUE TO THE LATEST STATE REQUIREMENTS AND THE INCREASED POPULATION THAT WOULD RESULT WITH ADDITIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS FROM ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION USES.

EXHIBIT ONE INCLUDES THE FINDINGS AND REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.

AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS PROJECT, THERE ARE STILL SEVERAL STEPS AS A LEGISLATIVE ACTION.

THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE FINAL DECISION MAKER ON THIS PROJECT.

IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT WE WILL PRESENT THIS PROJECT TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN EARLY 2024.

THE AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE COASTAL ZONE WILL BE EFFECTIVE AFTER THE SECOND READING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ORDINANCES, AND THE AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT.

WE ANTICIPATE THAT THAT PROCESS WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY 12 TO 18 MONTHS, AND LASTLY, WHILE THIS IS OUR LARGEST HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM, THERE WILL BE CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING OF ALL OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS TO ENSURE CONTINUED COMPLIANCE AND CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT.

WITH THAT, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PHASE OF THE PRESENTATION, AND WE WOULD MOVE INTO PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

THANK YOU, MR. LARDY.

SO, MS. VIGELAND WILL ACTUALLY WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

IF THE FIRST SPEAKERS COULD COME UP OR DO YOU CALL THEM UP? THAT'D BE GREAT. THANK YOU.

I'LL CALL YOU UP IN GROUPS OF THREE IF YOU COULD LINE UP BEHIND.

PARDON ME, UNDERNEATH THE CLOCK UP THERE.

LAURA BROWN.

LAURIE ROBBINS, BILL HOFFMAN, AND AS YOU'RE COMING FORWARD, THERE'S A TIMER WILL SHOW UP ON THE SCREEN.

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES AND THEN YOU'LL SEE THE COLORS CHANGE AS IT GETS CLOSER.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS CLEARLY SO MISS VIGELAND CAN ENTER INTO THE RECORD.

LAURA. OH, YEAH, HOW MANY SPEAKERS APPROXIMATELY DO WE HAVE, MISS VIGELAND? TEN? TEN. YEAH, COMMISSIONER STINE.

YES, CLARIFICATION FROM CITY ATTORNEY.

IS THIS A STAGE THAT I SHOULD BE RECUSING MYSELF? NO. ONCE THE OKAY.

SO I CAN LISTEN TO THE.

YOU CAN LISTEN. JUST DON'T REACT.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

OKAY. GO AHEAD. OKAY.

I'M LAURA BROWN. I LIVE AT 5117 LAUREL DRIVE IN CARLSBAD.

IT'S TERRAMAR COMMUNITY OFF OF CANNON ROAD.

I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 25 YEARS.

OUR HOUSE IS RIGHT AROUND SITE FIVE, WHICH IS ON THE CORNER OF CANNON EXIT FROM I-5 IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD TRACK, ACROSS FROM THE POWER PLANT AND DESALINATION PLANTS.

UNLIKE THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF CARLSBAD, WE'RE FEELING THE PRESSURE FROM INCREASED TRAFFIC, NOISE, PARKING, ADUS, ZONING VARIANCES, BUT OUR AREA LACKS THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCES TO SUPPORT A HIGH DENSITY SITUATION.

WE FEEL THAT REZONING SITE FIVE IS NOT ONLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA, IT'S ALSO COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE EXISTING LAWS ARE GREATLY INCREASING THE DENSITY WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA WHERE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWED.

THE PROPOSED [INAUDIBLE] EXCUSE ME, THE PROPOSED REZONE WOULD CHANGE A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL TWO ACRE LOT TO A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH 60 UNITS.

IF YOU INCLUDE THE HOUSING LAWS ENACTED IN 2023 AND CALIFORNIA'S DENSITY BONUS LAWS, THE DENSITY CAN INCREASE AN ADDITIONAL 80% CLOSER TO 110 HOMES.

ALSO, YOU CAN SEE CONCESSIONS LIKE LIFTED HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, REDUCED SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY LINES AND REDUCED PARKING MINIMUMS, OR ACTUALLY REQUIRE NO PARKING AT ALL. TRAFFIC IN THE AREA IS ALREADY A PROBLEM FOR US, ESPECIALLY DURING RUSH HOURS, BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE CARLSBAD WORK ZONE.

THE [INAUDIBLE] BACKS UP ON A DAILY BASIS AND MANY ACCIDENTS LEAVE THE DRIVERS EXITING ONTO CANNON ROAD AND THE 101 CAUSING CONGESTIONS, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO

[00:25:06]

WE ALSO HAVE VISITOR RELATED TRAFFIC FOR LEGOLAND, STRAWBERRY FIELDS, FLOWER FIELDS, OUTLET MALL, CARLSBAD COUNTRY.

THEY ALL USE CANNON ROAD.

PARKING IS LIMITED IN THIS AREA.

THE ONLY STREET PARKING IS ALONG A SMALL STRIP OF CANNON PARK AND THE WEST PARK.

THE STREET PARKING IN TERRAMAR IS ALREADY BEING FILLED FROM BEACHGOERS AND FROM INCREASED ADU DEVELOPMENT.

THERE IS NOWHERE ELSE TO PARK.

WE ASK THAT THE CITY REVIEW THE NOISE ELEMENT OF ITS GENERAL PLAN BEFORE A REZONE DECISION IS MADE TO ENSURE THAT ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE CUMULATIVELY WITH THE NOISE LOCAL NOISE ENVIRONMENT.

AS WE ARE A SENSITIVE AREA WITH NOISE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE FREEWAY, TRAIN CROSSING, POWER AND DESALINIZATION PLANT NOISES, CARLSBAD AIRPORT AND THE MILITARY HELICOPTERS FLYING UP AND DOWN OUR PRECIOUS COASTLINE.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS AREA DOES NOT HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE HIGH DENSITY HOUSING.

IT'S NOT WALKABLE AS THERE ARE NO GROCERY STORES, RESTAURANTS, OR OTHER CONVENIENCES WITHIN SEVERAL MILES.

ITS LOCATION WITHIN 30FT OF THE TRAIN TRACKS AND CROSSING SIGNALS MAKE IT A HIGH NOISE EXPOSURE AREA.

THERE'S 550FT THAT RUN 30FT.

OKAY.

HI, I'M LAURIE ROBBINS.

I LIVE IN THE VILLAGE, AND IF I HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN ALTERNATE 1 OR 2, I PICK SUPPORT ALTERNATE ONE, WHICH SPREADS THE NEW HOUSING MORE EVENLY AND BRINGS FAMILIES AWAY FROM THE TRAIN TRACKS.

SPREADING THE HOUSING WILL EASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION, ADDRESS OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS, AND ALLOW FOR LOWER INFRASTRUCTURE LOADS.

IT WILL ALLOW MULTIPLE SITES TO BE DEVELOPED AT THE SAME TIME.

NEW RESIDENTS WILL NOT BE ISOLATED AND WILL INTEGRATE BETTER IN THE COMMUNITY.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY THAT WAS DONE DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR A DECREASE IN TRAFFIC.

THIS WILL BE A CHALLENGE AROUND THE TRAIN TRACKS IN THE VILLAGE, WHERE EMERGENCY VEHICLES ALREADY HAVE A PROBLEM AND GRIDLOCK IS A THREAT.

TRAFFIC FOR NEW APARTMENTS WILL ADD MANY CAR TRIPS THAT INCLUDE PACKAGE AND GROCERY DELIVERIES AND TRIPS WITH UBER.

SECOND, THE STUDY DID NOT LOOK AT CHILD SAFETY AS AN ISSUE.

BUILDING NEXT TO THE TRACKS CAN BE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS TO CHILDREN AND TEENS.

THIRD, THE STUDY SEEMED TO BE ONLY CONCERNED WITH HIGHWAY NOISE.

THE TRAIN HORN IS AN ISSUE ALL HOURS OF THE NIGHT AND THE DAY.

FOURTH, THE STUDY DID NOT LOOK AT SPACE FOR PLAYGROUNDS AND CHILDCARE.

INSTEAD OF INCREASING THE HOUSING AT THE TRACKS, I HOPE THE PLANNING BOARD WILL CONSIDER INCREASING THE HOUSING AT THE SEARS SITE.

THAT AREA CAN BE LANDSCAPED, SIMILAR TO BRESSI RANCH.

RESIDENTS CAN WALK TO RETAIL AND GROCERY STORES, MOVIES AND RESTAURANTS.

THIS SITE PROVIDES ENOUGH SPACE FOR SAFE PLAYGROUNDS AND EVEN A CHILD CARE CENTER.

YOU MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO FIT IN A DOG PARK.

WHY NOT PROVIDE A FREE SHUTTLE FROM SEARS SO THAT IN UNDER 15 MINUTES, RESIDENTS AND VISITORS CAN REACH THE VILLAGE, THE BEACH AND THE TRAIN.

THE SHUTTLE CAN ALSO PROVIDE OVERFLOW PARKING FOR FARMERS MARKET AND SPECIAL EVENTS.

IN CONCLUSION, IF I HAVE A CHOICE, ALTERNATE ONE IS A BETTER CHOICE FOR LEVEL LOADING OF SCHOOLS AND INFRASTRUCTURE, PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY FOR MULTIPLE DEVELOPERS, KEEPING TRAFFIC AT A MINIMUM, MAINTAINING CARLSBAD'S COMMUNITY ATMOSPHERE, AND PROVIDING A SAFE, LIVABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR NEW RESIDENTS.

THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIR MERZ AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS BILL HOFFMAN WITH HOFFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES.

ADDRESSES AT 5900 PASTEUR COURT IN CARLSBAD, AND FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THIS EVENING.

ALTHOUGH I REPRESENT SOME OF THE PROJECT SITES, I'M NOT HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT ANY INDIVIDUAL PROJECT OTHER THAN TO TELL YOU THAT I SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. IT'S BEEN A VERY LONG TIME AND A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS TO GET TO THIS CULMINATION POINT.

WE STARTED WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT COMMITTEE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOPS, THE HOUSING COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FINALLY

[00:30:10]

THIS HAS TAKEN OVER TWO YEARS OF EFFORT, AND THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS THERE WERE NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT, INCLUDING AN OUTREACH PROGRAM, SURVEYS, THE CONSTANT SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC INPUT, INCLUDING AN OUTREACH FROM CITIZENS, AND TONIGHT'S HEARING.

THIS PROCESS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST VETTED PROCESSES I'VE SEEN IN CARLSBAD.

THIS IS A TRIBUTE TO THE GREAT JOB I BELIEVE YOUR STAFF HAS DONE AND PUTTING THIS ALL TOGETHER AND I'M JUST SORRY THAT SCOTT CAN'T BE HERE TONIGHT, AND I HOPE HE I KNOW HE'S FEELS A LITTLE BIT ILL THIS WEEK AND I HOPE HE RECOVERS SOON, BUT I'M SURE HE'S WATCHING, AND SCOTT, PLEASE GET BETTER SOON.

SO WITH THAT, I JUST WANT TO URGE YOU TO KEEP THE PROCESS GOING BY MOVING THIS ITEM TONIGHT ON TO CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY, THE COUNTY, THE STATE THEY DESPERATELY NEED MORE HOUSING AND THIS ESPECIALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THIS IS A BIG STEP IN ACHIEVING THAT.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU CALL THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS, PLEASE, MS. VIGELAND? MR. [INAUDIBLE]. TOM FRIEDER.

HOWARD KRAUSS.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS SAHIL [INAUDIBLE].

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF ALPS GROUP.

THAT IS THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND OWNERSHIP GROUP THAT OWNS SITE TEN.

SO I ALSO WANT TO SHARE MY APPRECIATION AND MY SUPPORT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND FOR OUR SITE TEN.

WE FEEL THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY POSITIVE ADDITION TO THE COMMUNITY DUE TO ITS PROXIMITY TO SHOPS AND GROCERY STORES, AND WE FEEL IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY, YEAH, VALUED ADDITION TO THE COMMUNITY.

SO THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR DILIGENT WORK.

THAT WAS QUITE A READ IN THAT 719 PAGE DOCUMENT.

SO THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR SUPPORT.

HELLO, TOM FRIEDER AGAIN.

1183 MARIPOSA ROAD.

I RISE TODAY TO STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED REZONING OF SITE EIGHT NEAR THE CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND AVIARA PARKWAY, FROM R-4 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO R-23 CONDOS AND APARTMENTS.

ADDING UP TO 150 MORE POSSIBLE UNITS AND CONCENTRATING THESE NEW UNITS INTO THIS SMALL AREA THAT ALREADY HAS MANY UNITS AVAILABLE AND OR CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION IS UNSAFE, UNSUPPORTABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE, WITH THE SPACE AVAILABLE IN INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED.

THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, I'M HOWARD KRAUSS.

I RESIDE AT 3211 FOSCA STREET IN THE SOUTH PART OF CARLSBAD.

I JUST HAVE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS BASED ON.

A BRIEF LOOK AT 780 PAGES, AND FIRST OF ALL, WE KNOW THERE IS A TREMENDOUS INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS OVER THE CURRENT GMP NUMBERS AT BUILDOUT.

I MAYBE YOU CAN FIND THAT, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE ALMOST A 50% INCREASE.

NOW, THE VOTERS OF CARLSBAD PASSED AN INITIATIVE, PROP E, THAT IS STILL VALID.

IT SAYS THAT ADEQUATE FACILITIES MUST BE GUARANTEED WITH DEVELOPMENT, AND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN HAS SEVERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

I READ SOMEWHERE THAT EXHIBIT 11 STATES THAT ALL THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WILL BE COMPLIED WITH.

NOW, MAYBE YOU CAN FIND THAT AND BRING THAT UP AND SHOW IT TO US, BUT I COULDN'T FIND THAT EXHIBIT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MENTION THAT PARK STANDARD, WHICH WE ALL KNOW IS THREE ACRES OF PARK PER THOUSAND RESIDENTS IN EACH QUADRANT OF THE CITY.

[00:35:04]

I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE, AND I DON'T SEE THAT IN ANY OF THE PLANS, AND THAT THREE ACRES PER THOUSAND, WHICH IS KIND OF A MINIMUM STANDARD THAT'S BEEN UPHELD BY THE RECENT REPORT OF THE CITIZENS GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.

THE OTHER PERFORMANCE STANDARD I LIKE TO MENTION IS THE OPEN SPACE STANDARD.

15% OF THE UNCONSTRAINED, DEVELOPABLE OPEN SPACE NEEDS TO BE LEFT OPEN.

THAT'S NORMALLY DONE ON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS.

SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT EACH NEW PROJECT HERE NEEDS TO HAVE A FOOTPRINT THAT LEAVES 15% OPEN, AND THAT WOULD BE JUST TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO AND NOT MAKE UP FOR ANY CURRENT SHORTFALLS IN THE 15%.

A COUPLE OF LAST QUICK COMMENTS.

WE KNOW THAT MOST OF THESE ARE GOING TO BE DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS TO TRY TO GET LOW INCOME HOUSING.

I WOULD URGE THAT THAT PERCENTAGE NEEDS TO BE MORE THAN 15%.

THE HIGHER THE BETTER.

OTHERWISE, THE NEXT TIME THE RHNA NUMBERS COME OUT, WE'LL BE BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL EVEN MORE, AND FINALLY, HOW CAN HOUSING BY THE BEACH IN PONTO WHERE PEOPLE HAVE WANTED A PARK FOR YEARS? HOW CAN THAT BE LOW INCOME? I THINK I HAVE TWO SECONDS LEFT.

THANK YOU. NEXT, CAN YOU PLEASE CALL THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS? CHRIS BARNES, JENNIFER FORNELL, JOANNE TALBOTT.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

CHRIS BARNES LIVE AT 6404 CALMERIA PLACE IN CARLSBAD.

I'M HERE TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION TO SITE EIGHT, WHICH DIRECTLY ABUTS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AT SHORE POINT.

MAIN REASONS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO ACCESS THIS PARCEL OF PROPERTY DIRECTLY IS VIA A SMALL ROAD CALLED FLAME TREE LANE, WHICH IS IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TURN LEFT ONTO.

COMING EITHER NORTH ON AVIARA OR COMING OUT FROM FLAME TREE BECAUSE OF A CENTER DIVIDER.

THERE ARE BIG BEAUTIFUL PINE TREES THAT ARE DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF THE AVIARA NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE ONLY WAY TO CREATE A PASSABLE INTERSECTION IN THAT SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE 150 NEW UNITS WITH HUNDREDS OF MORE PEOPLE, HUNDREDS OF MORE CARS WOULD BE TO DESTROY THOSE THAT ESTHETIC.

THE ONLY OTHER WAY THROUGH THAT WOULD BE TO GO THROUGH MARIPOSA ROAD, WHICH COMES RIGHT THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, CHILDREN, STROLLERS, SCOOTERS, BICYCLES, AND THE ADDITION OF AN EXTRA 100 PLUS CARS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD DESTROY THE VALUE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CREATE SIGNIFICANT SAFETY HAZARDS.

NUMBER TWO, IT'S NOT CLEAR.

JUST DOWN THE ROAD THERE IS A MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT TAKING PLACE, THE AVIARA APARTMENTS, WHICH IS ADDING OVER 300 UNITS TO A SPACE THAT HASN'T HAD ANYTHING THERE BEFORE. WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WILL BE FROM THE ADDITION OF ALL OF THAT DENSITY IN THAT VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF SPACE.

THIS IS IMMEDIATELY NEXT TO THE COTTAGE ROW PROPERTY, WHICH IS SITE EIGHT, AND ADDING ALL THOSE PEOPLE IN THAT VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF SPACE.

WE JUST DON'T KNOW. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IMPACT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE YET ON POLLUTION, TRASH, MORE PEOPLE, MORE TRAFFIC, POTENTIALLY MORE CRIME.

SO VOTING NOW TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY WITHOUT YET KNOWING THE FULL IMPACT OF THAT DEVELOPMENT, THE APARTMENTS I THINK WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE AND WRONG FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

IT'S REALLY JUST FOR WHAT BENEFIT? IT'S FOR ADDING AN EXTRA 100 UNITS.

IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, THIS IS LESS THAN 5% OF THE 3000 WE'RE LOOKING TO ADD.

THE COST IS WAY MORE THAN THE BENEFIT.

THAT FAR OUTWEIGHS THE BENEFIT FROM ADDING DENSITY THERE.

SO I WOULD URGE YOU TO PLEASE LEAVE [INAUDIBLE] ALONE, LEAVE COTTAGE ROW ALONE, AND EVALUATE POSSIBLY CARVING OUT THE MAPS AND MAYBE SWAPPING OUT, NOT NECESSARILY STICKING WITH MAP ONE.

MAP TWO. THERE COULD BE SOME OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO TAKE SITES IN AND OUT OF THOSE MAPS, AND BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CREATIVE ABOUT HOW WE GET TO OUR REQUIRED HOUSING UNITS.

THANK YOU.

[00:40:11]

IS THAT CORRECT? HI, I'M JEN FORNELL, AND I RESIDE AT 6460 PYRUS PLACE.

I'M HERE TONIGHT. I'M A CARLSBAD RESIDENT, OBVIOUSLY, AND ALSO A HOMEOWNER FOR THE LAST 16 YEARS, BUT TONIGHT I'M REPRESENTING MY FAMILY, WHO ARE HOMEOWNERS AND RESIDENTS FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS, AND ALSO THE PRINCIPAL OWNERS OF SITE THREE, WHICH WE CALL CHESTNUT CARLSBAD.

I'M HERE TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND TO THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING TO MOVE THIS HOUSING ELEMENT FORWARD.

I KNOW IT'S BEEN QUITE AN UNDERTAKING OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, AND I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE SO FAR.

I DID ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE LISTENING AND TWO, FOR THE RECORD, TO PUT DOWN THE FACT THAT WE'VE OWNED THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR THE LAST THREE DECADES, 30 YEARS, AND OUR VISION HAS ACTUALLY EVOLVED QUITE A BIT OVER THE TIME, THE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE REFLECTS THE CITY'S ENCOURAGEMENT THAT WE RECEIVED TO DESIGN AN APPROPRIATE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT OF SUITABLE DENSITY, CONSISTENT WITH TOWNHOMES LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF OUR PROPERTY.

WE'VE ACTUALLY INVESTED OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, TIME AND ENERGY, CLOSE TO $250,000 TO DESIGN THIS PROJECT.

THAT INCLUDES 26 TOWNHOMES WITH GARAGES AND TEN SMALLER UNITS PARKED AT CODE.

WE'VE MADE TWO PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS TO THE CITY IN WHICH YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE DESIGN, WHICH INCLUDES OPEN COURTYARDS AND EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPED AREAS, INCLUDING THAT WESTERN SLOPE, ALL CONSISTENT WITH CARLSBAD'S DESIGN AND SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES.

WE ASKED OUR DESIGN TEAM TO USE THE RECENT KENSINGTON PROJECT OVER IN BRESSI RANCH AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE WANTED TO ACHIEVE AND LOOK AND FEEL.

WE BELIEVE OUR TEAM HAS ACCOMPLISHED A DESIRABLE DESIGN THAT UTILIZES THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE PROPERTY WHILE MAINTAINING OPEN SPACES FOR THIS SMALL COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE A WEB SITE, CHESTNUTCARLSBAD.COM, WHICH PROVIDES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND FURTHER DETAILS ABOUT THIS DESIGN.

WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT GROWTH AND CHANGE CAN BE UNSETTLING, AND THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS OF OUR NEIGHBORS.

WE'VE ADDRESSED MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS QUESTIONS IN OUR APPLICATIONS, AND WE KNOW THAT A FINAL DESIGN WILL BE SUBJECT TO MORE PUBLIC REVIEW.

I ALSO WANT TO SHARE MY NEIGHBORS CONCERNS.

I AM A RESIDENT THAT LIVES WITHIN A QUARTER OF A MILE OF SITE EIGHT.

FOR THE PROPOSED UP-ZONE OF SITE EIGHT IS POTENTIALLY PUTTING A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF NEW APARTMENT HOUSING NEXT DOOR TO THE BRAND NEW AVIARA APARTMENTS IN MY IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO MY AIM IS TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT WITH THIS NOTION OF EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUAL SITES SHOULD BE EVALUATED SEPARATELY BASED ON THEIR INDIVIDUAL MERITS, INCLUDING SITE EIGHT AND SITE THREE, AND WE HOPE THAT YOU.

HELLO, I'M JOANNE TALBOT.

I LIVE AT 5470 WOLVERINE TERRACE, AND I WANTED TO JUST BE HERE TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE DENSITY OF THE HOUSING ON SITE FOUR AND THE REZONING ON SITE FOUR, FOR MANY OF THE SAME REASONS THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE OPPOSED THE SITE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THEIR AREA. CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC.

EL CAMINO REAL IS ALREADY BACKED UP EVERY DAY DURING RUSH HOUR, ALL THE WAY BACK TO COLLEGE, AND THAT'S WITH THE EXISTING HOUSING.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PLAN IS TO EXTEND COLLEGE THROUGH TO THE SCHOOL, BUT 300 NEW UNITS, AT LEAST IN THAT AREA, IS PROBABLY 600 CARS.

THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE A BIG TRAFFIC CONCERN.

THE PARKING IN THE AREA WILL BE A CONCERN.

A LOT OF OUR KIDS RIDE THEIR BIKES TO SCHOOL IN THAT AREA.

IF YOU'VE BEEN DOWN THERE 24 HOUR FITNESS AT THE END OF COLLEGE AND SEEN THE PARKING, THE OVERFLOW FROM THE HIGH DENSITY HOUSING THERE.

THERE'S CARS PARKED EVERYWHERE.

THERE'S NOWHERE TO PARK.

SO WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE OVERFLOW PARKING FROM BUILDING TOO MANY HOMES IN THAT AREA.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PUBLIC OUTREACH ON THESE PROJECTS, BUT WE HEARD ABOUT THIS ON THE 12TH, AND MOST OF OUR COMMUNITY HAD NO IDEA THAT THAT AMOUNT OF HOUSING WAS BEING PROPOSED IN THE SITE NEAR OUR HOMES, AND SO WITH THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT RESPONDED, I THINK YOU SAID 91 PEOPLE RESPONDED

[00:45:09]

IT SEEMS LIKE THE PUBLIC OUTREACH, PEOPLE DON'T KNOW.

WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DISCUSS IT WITH OUR NEIGHBORS, AND I THINK THAT MORE TIME IS NEEDED FOR OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS SITE.

IT WAS BURIED IN A WHAT WAS IT? 700 PAGE DOCUMENT.

THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

TWO. ANY MORE SPEAKERS? OKAY. JAMIE AUGUSTINE.

ROBERT DAVIS.

HELLO, JAMIE AUGUSTINE, 6026 COLT PL.

I'D LIKE MY NEIGHBORS JUST RAISE THEIR HANDS IN THE BACK.

I'LL BE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP IN OPPOSITION TO SITE TEN KENSINGTON AT THE SQUARE.

WE ARE A FAMILY FRIENDLY COMMUNITY.

IT'S A TOWNHOME COMMUNITY THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE REFERENCED ALREADY TODAY.

OUR MAIN CONCERN IS THE SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS AND OF THE CHILDREN OF OUR COMMUNITY.

WE BELIEVE A HIGH DENSITY BUILDING WOULD CREATE A NUMBER OF ISSUES WHEN IT COMES TO SAFETY.

FIRST OF ALL, WHEN IT COMES TO TRAFFIC, OUR WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING TO BUILD ON SITE TEN HAS ACCESS NOT DIRECTLY FROM PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, BUT BY TWO SMALL ROADS.

IT'S INNOVATION WAY OR COLT PL, WHICH IS A TINY CUL DE SAC THAT'S ALREADY OVERWHELMED WITH TRAFFIC.

WHAT THIS DOES FOR US IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, WHETHER IT'S A GOD FORBID, A PLANE CRASH BECAUSE WE DO LIVE ADJACENT TO PALOMAR AIRPORT OR A WILDFIRE, WE HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO EVACUATE IN A TIMELY MANNER DUE TO THE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC THAT WOULD BE EXPERIENCED WITH A HIGH DENSITY PLACEMENT.

WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETHING DOES NEED TO BE BUILT, SO WE WOULD ASK FOR A LOW DENSITY HOUSING PLACEMENT SIMILAR TO THE KENSINGTON AT THE SQUARE TOWNHOME COMMUNITY. WE THINK THAT THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR SOME HOUSING TO BE BUILT.

AGAIN, WE WOULD ASK FOR A MINIMAL PERCENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO KEEP THE SPIRIT OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THEN AS FAR AS TRAFFIC GOES, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE A VERY SMALL STREET THAT'S ADJACENT TO A PLAYGROUND WHERE CHILDREN PLAY.

THIS ROAD IS NOT ABLE TO TAKE HIGH FLOW TRAFFIC INTO THE SHOPPING CENTER, SO PLEASE DO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

AGAIN, CHILDREN PLAY IN THAT AREA AND AGAIN, WE ARE RIGHT NEXT TO SITE 11 WHICH YOU ARE ALSO CONSIDERING, SO PLEASE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

HAVING BOTH SITE TEN AND 11 BUILT WOULD CREATE A LOT OF STRESS ON THE COMMUNITY.

AGAIN, I WANT TO REITERATE THAT WE UNDERSTAND YOU NEED TO BUILD SOMETHING, BUT PLEASE TRY AND EASE THE AMOUNT OF BURDEN THAT YOU'RE PLACING ON OUR COMMUNITY, ON OUR CHILDREN, AND ON OUR SAFETY.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS ROBERT DAVIS.

I REPRESENT THE OWNERSHIP FOR SITE FOR LEDCOR DEVELOPMENT.

I JUST WANTED TO SUPPORT STAFF IN THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE.

I THINK THE SITE ALLOWS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT'S NEEDED IN THE CITY, AS WELL AS THE STATE, AND HELPS GET TO THE RHNA NUMBERS.

IT'S ALSO BEEN ZONED FOR RETAIL USE FOR A GOOD DURATION, AND THAT HAS BEEN FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE FOR THE PREVIOUS OWNERS, AND THE CITY NEEDS HOUSING.

THE STATE NEEDS HOUSING AND THIS IS A GOOD SITE FOR IT.

SO THANK YOU.

I THINK THAT WAS THE LAST OF OUR SPEAKERS.

OKAY, SO THAT CONCLUDES THE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC.

SO NOW THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY WILL BE CLOSED.

DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY EX-PARTE ON THESE ITEMS? OKAY. COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

I'M FAMILIAR WITH SEVERAL OF THEM, AND IN FACT, I THINK I'VE DRIVEN BY OR WALKED MOST OF THEM.

OKAY. ANY OTHER EXPERT OR COMMISSIONER? YEAH I MEAN, I'VE SEEN SEVERAL OF THESE.

YEAH. SO. YEAH.

[00:50:02]

I LOOKED MOST OF THEM UP ON NOT ONLY THE MAPS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED, BUT ALSO ON GOOGLE MAPS, JUST TO GET A FAMILIARITY OF WHAT'S WHAT'S ON THE SITES AND. I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT.

YEAH. YEAH, SURE. YEAH.

COMMISSIONER STINE. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE POINT.

I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF DUE TO OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN SOME PROPERTY.

THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE EVALUATION FOR CEQA PURPOSES.

THANK YOU, AND, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

I WILL DO MY EX-PARTE AND THEN RECUSE MYSELF.

SO I AM FAMILIAR WITH MANY OF THE SITES FOR THE ONES THAT I HAVEN'T PERSONALLY VISITED.

I MADE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO AT LEAST REVIEW ALL OF THEM ON GOOGLE MAPS, AND I HAVE SPOKEN WITH MR. LANCE SCHULTE ABOUT SITE NUMBER 18, AND THAT IS THE ONLY CONVERSATION I HAD WITH A RESIDENT ABOUT ANY OF THE SITES.

I WILL ALSO RECUSE MYSELF FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BECAUSE I LIVE WITHIN 500FT OF SITE NUMBER FOUR.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, AND THEN AGAIN, I'VE BEEN A LONG-TIME CARLSBAD RESIDENT.

I'M FAMILIAR WITH A NUMBER OF THE SITES.

YEAH. OKAY. OKAY.

SO WE'LL GIVE THE COMMISSIONERS A MINUTE TO LEAVE THE ROOM, BUT WHILE THEY'RE DOING THAT, THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE WE'RE CLOSING PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND THEN HAVING ANY QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, WHICH IS EXHIBIT ONE IN THE STAFF REPORT.

OKAY, SO PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS NOW CLOSED.

DO COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON EXHIBIT ONE? YEAH, THERE WAS ONE OF THE SPEAKERS THAT BROUGHT UP THE NOISE REQUIREMENT.

IS THIS COVERED UNDER THIS SECTION? YES IT IS. OKAY.

CAN CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR.

YEAH, SURE. SO THE PROGRAM EIR IS REQUIRED TO LOOK AT WHAT IS THE PROJECT AND WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AND SO WE DO THAT WITH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT METHODS.

WE LOOK AT THE POTENTIAL NOISE OF THE REZONES THEMSELVES.

WE ALSO LOOK AT OUR GENERAL PLAN STANDARDS, WHICH LOOKS AT HIGHWAY AND OTHER NOISE.

RAILROAD NOISE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S SPECIFICALLY A TOPIC AREA UNDER CEQA, AND SO THAT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY STUDIED IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND IF THERE'S ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, OUR CONSULTANT WITH RINCON CONSULTANTS IS ALSO AVAILABLE TO HELP PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THIS TOPIC.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN, WERE YOU? [INAUDIBLE] DO YOU WANT TO GO FIRST? COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN? ERIC, I'D LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS ON PAGE 14 OF THE STAFF REPORT THE AIR QUALITY ISSUE.

SURE SO LOOKING AT THE PROJECT, THE AIR QUALITY IS SOMETHING THAT THERE'S EXISTING EVALUATIONS LOOKING AT THE SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT STANDARDS AND LOOKING AT WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL EMISSIONS.

WE LOOK AT BOTH THE OPERATION OF THE PROJECT AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, AND SO THERE'S DIFFERENT DRIVERS AND TRIGGERS THERE, AND SO LOOKING AT THOSE DIFFERENT CRITERIA POLLUTANTS, THAT'S WHEN SOMETHING WE DETERMINE THAT IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE BASED ON THE ADDITION OF THESE UNITS AND THE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION WORK AS PART OF THAT.

I THINK I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO OUR CONSULTANT TEAM IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT THEY WANT TO ADD IN RESPONSE TO THE AIR QUALITY FINDING ON THIS PROJECT.

REAL QUICK BEFORE I TURN OVER TO OUR CONSULTANT.

SO THE AIR QUALITY IMPACT, THERE WERE MULTIPLE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED, BUT THE ONE THAT WAS SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE WAS THE COMPREHENSIVE OR THE OVERALL PROJECT IMPACT.

SO ALL THE REST OF THEM WERE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT JUST TO MAKE SENSE OF THERE'S MORE PEOPLE IN MORE LOCATIONS.

IT GENERALLY IS EXPECTED EVEN THAT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AT A REGIONAL SCALE.

WE'RE GOING TO BE IMPACTED.

THANK YOU. HI, CARLY KAUFMANN WITH RINCON CONSULTANTS HELPED THE CITY WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.

SO BASICALLY, AS WE DO LOOK AT AS A WHOLE OF THE 3000 PLUS UNITS, WHAT THE IMPACTS COULD BE RELATED TO EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND THEN EMISSIONS DURING OPERATION OF THE

[00:55:01]

SO THERE IS A MITIGATION MEASURE THAT'S REQUIRED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS ON THE SITES TO DO AN OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF WHAT THEIR AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS COULD BE, TO SEE IF THEY WOULD BE BELOW THE THRESHOLDS, IN WHICH CASE THEY'RE FINE; THERE'D BE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

IF THEY ARE ABOVE THE THRESHOLDS, THEN TO HAVE MITIGATION TO TRY AND ADDRESS THOSE EXCEEDANCES, BUT BECAUSE WE CAN'T REALLY GUARANTEE WE DON'T HAVE THE EXACT PLANS AT THIS TIME, WE CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT THE DEVELOPMENTS WOULD BE BELOW THE THRESHOLDS.

SO WE DID CALL THAT AN UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT, WHICH IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN EIR FINDINGS.

IT CONCERNS ME BECAUSE IN THE STAFF REPORT ITSELF.

IT TALKS ABOUT THIS PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS FOR WHICH THE PROJECT REGION IS NON-ATTAINMENT UNDER APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS.

IS THIS FOREVER? SO THE WAY THE AIR DISTRICT THRESHOLDS ARE WRITTEN ARE BASICALLY SAYING, IF YOU'RE BELOW THE THRESHOLDS, WE'RE ASSUMING YOU'RE NOT CONTRIBUTING TO A CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY PROBLEM, BUT IF YOU ARE ABOVE THE THRESHOLDS, THEN YOU COULD BE CONTRIBUTING TO A CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY PROBLEM IN THE REGION.

SO JUST BY ITS NATURE, BECAUSE WE CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WOULD BE BELOW THE THRESHOLDS, THEN WE ARE SAYING THERE COULD BE A CUMULATIVE IMPACT BUT THIS IS BASICALLY BECAUSE WE CAN'T RULE OUT THE IMPACT.

SO WE HAVE THE MITIGATION MEASURE, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT THAT COMES FORWARD.

IMPLEMENTING THIS MITIGATION MEASURE SHOULD IN MOST CASES BE BELOW A THRESHOLD, BUT THERE COULD BE A CASE WHERE THEY ARE EXCEEDING THE THRESHOLD, AND THAT THRESHOLD IS BASICALLY TELLING YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE POLLUTION THAT EXCEEDS A CERTAIN LEVEL.

IT COULD BE ADDING TO THE TO THE AIR QUALITY PROBLEMS OF THE REGION.

WELL IN TERMS OF MITIGATION FOR THIS.

I MEAN, IT COULD BE SORT OF A RUSH TO JUDGMENT, COULDN'T IT? THE PROJECTS THAT GOT IN FIRST, BUILT AND APPROVED FIRST MIGHT HAVE MORE LEEWAY THAN THOSE THAT WOULD COME AFTERWARDS.

WELL, EACH PROJECT WOULD BE EVALUATED IN TERMS OF THE AIR DISTRICT THRESHOLDS.

SO WE ARE LOOKING AT A WHOLE AS A PROGRAM AS A WHOLE, BUT THAT IT WON'T REALLY BE A FIRST MOVER THING.

IT'LL JUST BE WHICHEVER PROJECTS WILL BE COMPARED TO THE AIR DISTRICT THRESHOLDS AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY EXCEED THEM OR NOT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

THANKS. FIRST, I HAVE A COUPLE OF CLARIFICATIONS.

THE MAPS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE EIR, SO CHOOSING BETWEEN THE TWO MAPS.

THIS IS NOT WHERE WE DO THAT.

IS THAT CORRECT OR AM I WRONG? BOTH MAPS ARE INCLUDED AND STUDIED IN THE EIR.

A RECOMMENDATION TO CERTIFY COULD BE FOR EITHER MAP, SO I'D RECOMMEND THAT WITH EXHIBIT THREE.

THAT'S WHEN YOU HOLD ANY RECOMMENDATIONS.

DISCUSSION ON THE MAPS.

OKAY. MAPS, OKAY TRENCHING THE RAILROAD TRACK, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS PART OF THE EIR? THAT'S NOT A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE PROJECT.

SO THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT STUDIED IN THE EIR.

IF THAT PROJECT IS FUNDED AND MOVES FORWARD, IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO ITS OWN CEQA AND LIKELY NEPA COMPLIANCE.

OKAY. WHAT ABOUT EVACUATION ROUTES? IS THAT PART OF THIS EIR? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, EVACUATION ROUTES WERE ANALYZED AS A PART OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE, AND SO THE RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED IN THAT ELEMENT AS PART OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WERE ANALYZED IN THE EIR ITSELF.

IT EVALUATED EXISTING EVACUATION ROUTES AND ADDITIONAL VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES, AND SO THAT WAS PART OF THE ANALYSIS.

OKAY. SO I CAN ASK QUESTIONS ON EVACUATION ROUTES ON THIS PORTION.

I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IT BE DISCUSSION ON OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT IN THE EIR.

OKAY. SO THAT'S IN THIS SECTION.

OR DO I WAIT FOR THE OTHER TWO? THAT'S MY QUESTION.

HARD TO KNOW UNTIL WE HEAR THE QUESTION.

OKAY, SO THE QUESTION IS THERE WAS A KIND OF A GOOD MAP, AND I GUESS I SAW IT LATER IN THE ACTUAL PRESENTATION.

SO I DON'T THINK IT WAS IN THE EIR, BUT I AM IT SAYS, IDENTIFYING NEIGHBORHOODS WITH LIMITED EVACUATION ROUTES AND OBVIOUSLY, ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE WITH THE TRENCHING OF THE RAILROAD TRACK AND THE BARRIO AREA BEING SO CONFINED ON THREE

[01:00:04]

SO I WANTED TO QUESTION, HAS THE BARRIO BEEN STUDIED FOR ADDITIONAL IN THIS EIR ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ROUTES, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT SITE 15, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT ON THE LIST, IS ONE OF THOSE POTENTIALLY POTENTIAL SITES THAT HAVE BEEN HAS BEEN TOSSED AROUND.

SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

SURE, SO THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS UNDERTAKEN AS A PART OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT DID USE STATE LAW TO DESCRIBE COMMUNITIES THAT ONLY HAD ONE MEANS OF INGRESS EGRESS.

WITH THAT DEFINITION, THAT TENDS TO BE A SMALLER SCALE OF A COMMUNITY, LARGELY SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE OLDER, THAT DID NOT HAVE THAT STANDARD AT THE TIME.

SO IN THAT ESSENCE, THE RESULTING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT ARE SMALLER THAN LIKE A BARRIO SCALE OR A VILLAGE SCALE.

THAT INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE AND WE DID WORK WITH OUR SAFETY DEPARTMENT, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, POLICE DEPARTMENT TO IDENTIFY THE IDENTIFY, TO VERIFY THE IDENTIFIED EVACUATION ROUTES, WHICH IN OTHER PLANS, EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLANS, EVACUATION PLANS, ETCETERA, WHICH LIE OUTSIDE THE GENERAL PLAN.

WE STARTED WITH THOSE AND THEN WE VERIFIED THOSE AND WE DID EXPAND.

WE ADDED JEFFERSON, WHICH WAS NOT ON THE LIST THAT WE STARTED WITH, BUT THIS IS NOT AN EVACUATION PLAN ITSELF.

IT DID NOT LOOK AT THE VILLAGE OR THE BARRIO COMPREHENSIVELY, ALTHOUGH IT DID PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE EIR AND THEN OTHER PARALLEL PLANS THAT COULD USE THAT INFORMATION TO DO MORE ROBUST EVACUATION ANALYSIS.

OKAY, THAT THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE.

LIKE I SAY, I THINK THAT WITH THE EXISTING HOUSING THAT'S GOING UP IN THE BARRIO AREA, ESPECIALLY IN THE SOUTH SIDE, AND HAVING THAT ONE, THAT SINGULAR STREET OF JEFFERSON IN FRONT OF JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY, I'M MOST CONCERNED THAT THERE AREN'T MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO GO SOUTH AT ALL, AND EAST AND WEST ARE NOT AN OPTION EITHER.

SO I DO FEEL THAT ANY KIND OF DENSITY INCREASE IS GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE THROUGHOUT THROUGHOUT THE CITY. SO THE OTHER QUESTION, SO WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THE MAP QUESTIONS.

LET'S SEE SO I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE, AND MAYBE THIS IS A CONCERN, BUT. I GUESS THE WHILE YOU'RE INCREASING HIGHER DENSITIES, AND YOU'VE STUDIED ALL THE HIGHER DENSITIES FOR THE EIR.

WHEN THESE DEVELOPMENTS HAPPEN, AND I KNOW IN THE PAST WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AS BEING DEFERRED IF PEOPLE HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT WHERE THEY CAN ACTUALLY PURCHASE CREDITS, RIGHT, FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING? WOULD IT BE SIMILAR IF ONE SITE, ONE OF THESE PARTICULAR SITES, DEVELOPS A HIGHER NUMBER THAN WHAT WE'VE ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED? WOULD OTHER AREAS IN THIS OVERALL HOUSING ELEMENT POTENTIALLY DECREASE BECAUSE OF THAT INCREASE? NO, BUT JUST TO BACK UP A LITTLE BIT, THAT'S THE SHORT ANSWER THE REQUIREMENT FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING WOULD BE OUR STANDARD REQUIREMENTS, WHERE ANYTHING ABOVE SEVEN UNITS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING.

IN ADDITION, ANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE UP ZONED AS PART OF THIS, SIMILAR TO PROPERTIES THAT WERE UP ZONED IN THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN, WILL HAVE A HIGHER THRESHOLD OF 20% INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, SO THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET THAT IF THERE WAS SOME PROJECT THAT CAME IN ON ONE OF THESE SITES WITH MORE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AND ADDITIONAL OR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY WORKING WITH AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER AND POTENTIALLY RELYING ON CITY FUNDING, BUT THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE OVERALL FUNDING PACKAGE.

THAT WOULDN'T REDUCE ANYONE ELSE'S REQUIREMENT FOR IT.

JUST TRYING TO EASE SOME OF THE MINDS OVER HERE IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY, BUT I WANTED TO FIND OUT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT OUR REQUIREMENT. WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS STATE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS.

IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT, THE SHORTFALL THAT WE HAD IN OUR REGIONAL NEEDS ALLOCATION IS THE REASON THAT WE NEED TO ADD THESE UNITS INTO THE GENERAL PLAN, AND THEN RECENT STATE LAWS

[01:05:01]

WHEN DID IT START? THE HOUSING ELEMENT COVERS THE PERIOD 2021 TO 2029.

HOWEVER, IT REALLY STARTS A COUPLE OF YEARS BEFORE THAT, AND SO JURISDICTIONS STARTED TO GET THEIR HOUSING NUMBERS IN ABOUT 2019.

I REMEMBER BECAUSE THEY WERE MEETINGS IN PERSON, AND THEN THE HOUSING ELEMENT WAS REALLY DEVELOPED IN THE YEAR 2020 BECAUSE IT WAS DUE IN APRIL OF 2021.

THE HEAC WAS FORMED TO OPINE ON THAT, AND THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THESE SITES DID COME FROM.

A LOT OF THESE SITES CAME FROM THAT PROCESS, AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHEN THE CITY STARTED THIS EFFORT, AND SO IN THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OH NO, THE CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT CURRENTLY, BECAUSE WE'RE WORKING WITH A CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED IN JULY 2021.

IT WAS APPROVED BY THE STATE AS CERTIFIED IN JULY 2021.

OKAY, AND THAT ONLY HAD THE FIRST 15 SITES.

CORRECT. SO THE 19 SITES ARE OR THE 19 SITES IDENTIFIED ARE IN ADDITION TO THOSE FOUR SITES THAT ARE IN ADDITION TO.

YEAH, THE APPROVED HOUSING ELEMENT INCLUDED POTENTIAL SITES FOR REZONE, BECAUSE WE HAD TO PROVE TO THE STATE THAT WE COULD DO A REZONE.

SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THE CITY COUNCIL ASKED US TO LOOK FOR ADDITIONAL SITES, AND SO, YEAH, ESSENTIALLY, SITES NUMBERED BEYOND 15 WERE SUBSEQUENTLY DIRECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO EVALUATE AND STUDY, BUT THAT WAS PART OF THE PUBLIC OUTREACH THAT WAS DONE IN ESSENTIALLY SUMMER FALL 2021.

SO IF WE APPROVE MAP ONE VERSUS MAP TWO, AND I GUESS MAYBE THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT CONVERSATION FOR THAT, BUT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

THE HOUSING ELEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED OR CERTIFIED AS ONE ELEMENT WITH 15 SITES ON IT.

PICKING AND CHOOSING OF THESE OTHER SITES THAT HAVE BEEN EVALUATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ALL COMPLY WITH WHAT THE OVERALL GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ARE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT SEEM TO WORK, BUT THE QUESTION I HAVE GOES BACK AND MAYBE IT'S A CITY ATTORNEY QUESTION, BACK TO THIS MEMO THAT WE RECEIVED ABOUT THE CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE APPELLATE COURT DECISION, AND SO IF WE START PICKING APART. ALL OF THESE SITES, DOES THAT KICK US BACK INTO THE WHOLE REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO BE RE EVALUATED OVER AGAIN, DISQUALIFIED AND RE EVALUATED AGAIN? SOMEHOW I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

TO A CERTAIN EXTENT IT WOULD, BECAUSE THESE ARE THE SITES THAT THE COUNCIL HAS DIRECTED US TO STUDY, AND IF WE START PICKING THIS APART JUST AT A BASE LEVEL, THE EIR WAS DONE ON THESE SITES, AND IF YOU START ELIMINATING THOSE SITES AND WE NEED TO GET MORE SITES IF YOU START PICKING SITES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN STUDIED, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE STUDIED AND IT WOULD BACK EVERYTHING UP, AND WE HAVE A TIME FRAME IN WHICH WE NEED TO GET THE LIST OF SITES APPROVED.

SO I GUESS I'M JUST QUESTIONING THE FOUR SITES THAT WEREN'T ON THE ORIGINAL CERTIFIED LIST.

SO THAT LIST WASN'T SPECIFICALLY CERTIFIED.

REALLY, WHAT WAS CERTIFIED WAS THE PROGRAM TO DO THE REZONING, BUT I WILL SAY THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THE STATE WAS VERY CLEAR THEY WANTED US TO LOOK AT IS BOTH THE NUMBER OF SITES AS WELL AS THE OVERALL DISTRIBUTION OF THE SITES.

SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT.

IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE DIDN'T PLAN ALL 3000 UNITS IN ONE LOCATION IS BECAUSE WE NEEDED TO REALLY BALANCE GOOD PLANNING PRINCIPLES OF WHERE TO PLAN, AS WELL AS HOUSING PRINCIPLES, WHICH IS TO LOOK TO DISTRIBUTE THE HOUSING TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THE BALANCE OF MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW.

THANK YOU. OKAY THE QUESTION I HAD FOR STAFF IS THAT AS YOU'RE LOOKING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT LETTERS THAT CAME IN, IT SEEMED LIKE A COMMENT OR REPETITIVE RESPONSE BACK FROM THE STAFF ON THE LETTERS THAT CAME IN READING [INAUDIBLE] THIS COMMENT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE DRAFT, SIR, AND NO SIR REVISIONS ARE REQUIRED.

ANOTHER ONE WOULD BE SIMILAR TO DRAFT.

THE COMMENTER DOES NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR OR INFORMATION OR ANALYSIS TO CHALLENGE ITS ANALYSIS OR CONCLUSIONS, AND NO REVISIONS TO THE

[01:10:08]

THAT SEEMED TO BE A COMMON THREAD GOING THROUGHOUT THIS.

SO IF YOU COULD MAYBE JUST SORT OF EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT AND HOW THAT RELATES TO THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT.

SURE SO THIS PROJECT HAS HAD SEVERAL DIFFERENT PHASES OF PUBLIC OUTREACH, AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST PARTS OF PUBLIC OUTREACH OCCURRED BEFORE WE STARTED ANY OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WORK, REALLY LOOKING AND GETTING DIRECTION ON WHAT DID THE CITY COUNCIL WANT US TO STUDY? FOLLOWING THAT, WE DO HAVE A PROCESS THAT WE NEEDED TO FOLLOW WITH PREPARATION OF THE PROGRAM EIR, AND SO WE STARTED THAT WITH FIRST A SERIES OF SCOPING MEETINGS TO LOOK AT WHAT THE PUBLIC AND FOLKS WANTED US TO STUDY, AND THEN THERE WE PREPARE THE EIR, AND THEN WE RELEASED THAT ENTIRE DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. IT IS QUITE COMMON THAT WHEN WE GET COMMENTS DURING THE PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS, WE GET COMMENTS THAT ARE BOTH ON THE SEQUA ITSELF AND THEN JUST COMMENTS ON THE PROJECT, AND SO WE WORKED WITH OUR CONSULTANT TEAM TO LOOK AT THOSE, TO SEE IF THEY PERTAIN TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT THEMSELVES, OR IF IT WAS REALLY JUST A COMMENT ON THE PROJECT.

THE COMMISSION IS PART OF ITS ACTION, CAN EVALUATE ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS RECEIVED, BUT OUR RESPONSES ARE REALLY GEARED TOWARDS THE ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT IS COMPRISED OF EXHIBIT ONE, BECAUSE IT INCLUDES THOSE RESPONSES, THE REVISIONS WE DID MAKE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT, AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS THAT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT IT AND SO THAT'S REALLY THE CORE OF EXHIBIT ONE IS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

IF YOU THINK THE EIR, THE RESPONSES AND THE FINDINGS ARE ADEQUATE FOR THEM TO CERTIFY THIS DOCUMENT.

ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT MR. KEMP? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.

JUST TO KIND OF GO OVER WHERE WE ARE.

WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW IS THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.

WHEN THE GENERAL PLAN WAS APPROVED IN 2015, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS COMPLETED AT THAT TIME, AND WHAT THIS IS TONIGHT IS AN UPDATE TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.

SO THIS IS AN UPDATE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THAT WAS DONE IN 2015, AND YOU DO A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WHEN THERE COULD BE CHANGES TO THAT ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WEREN'T STUDIED, AND SO BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING NEW SITES, THIS SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT SIMPLY THE UPDATES TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR TONIGHT.

SO WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THE IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT FROM ADDING THE SITES THAT WERE STUDIED, AND SO RIGHT NOW WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CHANGING THE ZONING ON THESE PARTICULAR SITES TO A HIGHER DENSITY OVERALL, AND THEN THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS CAN COME BACK AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT SITES WOULD BE INCLUDED, THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE BEEN RECUSED BECAUSE THESE WERE STUDIED AS A WHOLE, AND THEY HAVE A CONFLICT ON THOSE SITES.

THEY CANNOT DISCUSS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WITHOUT TOUCHING ON THAT CONFLICT.

SO ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF INCLUDING THESE PARTICULAR SITES INTO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AND IF I COULD JUST MAKE ONE THING FOR THE RECORD, WE CALL THIS THE HOUSING ELEMENT A LOT.

WE'RE ACTUALLY MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT.

BECAUSE I GUESS THE POINT I WAS GETTING TO, IS IT SEEMS THAT MANY OF THE COMMENTS, THE STAFF COMMENTS BACK ON THE LETTERS SAYING THAT THOSE AREN'T REALLY, REALLY SALIENT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD TO THE EIR, TO THE SEIR ITSELF.

CAN YOU COMMENT A LITTLE BIT ON THAT? I DON'T KNOW IF I REALLY SAID THAT PROPERLY OR THE RIGHT WAY, BUT YEAH.

WELL, JUST AS FURTHER CLARIFICATION AS WELL, WHEN THE GENERAL PLAN WAS WRITTEN AND THE EIR WAS DONE, IT WAS DONE AS WHAT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A PROGRAM EIR, AND WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN IS NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD COME IN COULD POTENTIALLY USE THE EIR FROM THE GENERAL PLAN ON THEIR PROJECTS WHEN THEY GET APPROVED.

HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS PECULIAR TO THEIR PARTICULAR PROJECT OR IF THEY'RE INCREASING THEIR DENSITY, WHICH A LOT OF THESE DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS MIGHT, THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO DO THEIR OWN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND STUDY WHETHER THEY NEED TO DO A FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL

[01:15:02]

WE COULDN'T POSSIBLY STUDY ALL THE IMPACTS FROM THEM BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROJECT WILL BE ULTIMATELY, AND SO WHEN THOSE ARE DEVELOPED, THEY'LL HAVE TO DO THEIR OWN ANALYSIS AND THEY COULD POTENTIALLY TEAR OFF KIND OF A WORD OF ART.

THE GENERAL PLAN EIR, BUT THEY DEFINITELY WILL HAVE TO STUDY THE IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE PECULIAR TO THEIR PROJECT.

THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO.

SORRY I JUST WANTED TO ASK IF ANY OF THE SITES HAD SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND OF CULTURAL RESOURCES AS FAR AS POTENTIAL HISTORIC BUILDING SITES.

THERE WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION ON TRIBAL, CULTURAL, HISTORIC RESOURCES, BUT THERE WAS REALLY NOTHING ON ANY KIND OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPPORTUNITY. SO I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT.

I CAN JUMP IN THERE. SO WE DID LOOK AT ALL OF THE SITES AND SEE WHAT STRUCTURES ARE THERE NOW AND WHAT YEAR THEY'RE BUILT.

STRUCTURES THAT ARE OVER 45 YEARS IN AGE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE ELIGIBLE HISTORICAL RESOURCES.

AT THE PROGRAM LEVEL, WE DON'T NECESSARILY GO THROUGH AND EVALUATE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS TO SEE IF THEY ARE ELIGIBLE OR NOT.

SO THERE IS A CHANCE NONE OF THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON ANY OF THESE SITES ARE HISTORICAL RESOURCES, BUT WHAT WE SET FORTH IN THE EIR IS BASICALLY A PROCESS FOR EVALUATING THOSE SITES THROUGH MITIGATION.

IF A IF A DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING TO COME IN ON A SITE THAT HAD A STRUCTURE THAT'S OVER 45 YEARS IN AGE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO EVALUATE IF IT'S ELIGIBLE TO BE LISTED ON A HISTORIC RESOURCES DATABASE, AND AT THAT TIME, YOU COULD SEE IF IT'S IF IT IS A HISTORIC RESOURCE OR NOT, AND.

MY UNDERSTANDING FROM OUR BRIEFING WAS MOST OF THESE SITES ARE VACANT RIGHT NOW.

IS THAT TRUE? AND ARE THERE ANY I MEAN, ARE THERE PARTICULAR THINGS WE SHOULD BE ASKING HISTORIC PRESERVATION ABOUT? THAT'S REALLY MY ULTIMATE QUESTION.

YEAH. ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE STATE IS TO REALLY FOCUS ON VACANT SITES.

SO MAJORITY OF THESE SITES ARE VACANT.

IF THEY'RE NOT VACANT, THEY HAVE TO BE DETERMINED, IS UNDERUTILIZED.

SO WHILE THERE ARE SOME STRUCTURES ON SOME OF THEM THAT WILL LIKELY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT ANALYSIS, WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY STRUCTURES THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY HISTORIC ON ANY OF THESE SITES. LET ME JUST DOUBLE CHECK.

I THINK THAT WAS IT FOR UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS.

OKAY. YEAH, THAT GOES TO THE LAND USE.

THE LAND USE IS NOT IN THIS, RIGHT? ARE WE DOING LAND USE IN THE NEXT PHASE? LAND USE WOULD BE EXHIBITS TWO AND THREE.

OKAY, GREAT. THEN I'M GOOD.

THANKS. THAT'S GOOD. OKAY, SO I THINK UNLESS THERE'S ANY MORE QUESTIONS, WE'LL MOVE ON TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS ON ON THIS? OKAY, I GUESS I WOULD.

IN REVIEWING THIS LARGE PACKAGE AND LOOKING ALL THESE THINGS, I GUESS I HAVE A SENSE OF THE RIGHT WAY, I GUESS, TO BE RESPECT FOR THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE AHEAD OF US I THINK OF THE HEAC AND THE LONG PROCESS IT'S TAKEN US TO GET HERE, THE EXTENSIVE WORK OF THE STAFF, AND IT'S JUST AN ENORMOUS PROJECT, AND I JUST HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR THAT WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE, AND SO I'M BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M INCLINED I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR AND RECOMMEND THE STAFF MOVE THIS FORWARD BASED ON ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE, AND YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO.

WITH THAT LET'S SEE DOES ANYONE LIKE TO SEE NO MORE DISCUSSION.

SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

YEAH. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE.

IS THAT, OH, THAT'S THE NEXT ONE.

RIGHT. I'M ON THE WRONG ONE.

YES, COMMISSIONER, EXHIBIT ONE.

IMPACT REPORT, EXHIBIT ONE.

I'M TRYING TO JUST MOVE THIS ALONG REALLY QUICKLY NOW.

NO, YOU'RE DOING GREAT.

THE WHOLE PROCEDURES ARE VERY DIFFERENT TONIGHT.

SO WE'RE ALL KIND OF WORKING [INAUDIBLE].

YOU'RE DOING GREAT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? [INAUDIBLE]. WELL, NO, LET'S MAKE SURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.

[01:20:02]

DO YOU WANT TO TRY ONE MORE TIME THERE? TAKE A LOOK AT THAT RESOLUTION? DOWN AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER.

IT'S NOT GOING TO MATCH YOUR PDF PAGES.

IT'S GOING TO BE OFF BY ABOUT 3 OR 4.

PDF PAGE 28.

OKAY. THERE IT IS.

HOW ABOUT I MOVE TO APPROVE THE HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND PUBLIC? NOPE, THAT'S THE SAME ONE.

HOW DID IT GET THERE? IS THAT THE SAME ONE? LOOK FOR 2022-07.

THIS IS 28 OF--LOOK IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER FOR 17 OF 780.

YEAH, AND SO THE CASE NAME IS HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE.

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.

EIR 2022-0007.

IS THAT THE RIGHT ONE? YEAH, YEAH, IT'S THE RIGHT ONE.

IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE CALLED THE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION.

WELL, YOU'RE READING THE CASE NAME.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MORE IN THE BODY AT THE TOP.

OKAY, WELL, YOU GOT TO MAKE IT BOLD.

MOVE TO PASS A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT.

THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY. OKAY.

IT'S AT THE VERY TOP THERE.

SO SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RECOMMEND ADOPTION.

I MOVE TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION.

[INAUDIBLE] I THINK YOU WANT ME TO TAKE A SHOT AT THIS.

CAN I MAKE IT? SURE.

WOULD THAT BE OKAY? SO I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO IT'S AT THE VERY TOP HERE, RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY, SO I MOVE, MAKE A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 2022-007 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS.

[INAUDIBLE]. KEEP GOING.

FINDINGS OF FACT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT.

KEEP GOING. YEP, FINISH.

INCLUDING THE LAND USE MAP, PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ZONING MAP, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND VARIOUS MASTER AND SPECIFIC PLANS.

YOU GOT IT. WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE SECOND THAT MOTION? YEAH. OKAY. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES, FOUR PASSING, TWO RECUSED.

COMMISSIONER SABELLICO AND STINE RECUSED, AND COMMISSIONER MEENES ABSENT.

OKAY, NOW, I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT WE TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK.

YEAH, WE'LL TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK AND THEN RECONVENE.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY, LET'S RECONVENE THE MEETING.

GRAB A SEAT. OKAY.

NOW, WE'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC OR OPEN THE HEARING.

OKAY. WE'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE HOUSING SITE NUMBER FOUR, EXHIBIT TWO.

[Additional Item]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

YES, I HAVE WALKED TO THE SITE, AND I'M QUITE FAMILIAR WITH IT.

THANK YOU. OKAY, GOOD.

ALL RIGHT. GREAT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS.

SO THE NEXT COMPONENT OF THIS IS ANY PLANNING COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION, DELIBERATION AND VOTE ON SITE FOUR.

SITE FOUR IS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT TWO IN YOUR PACKAGE.

IT IS PAGE 291 OF THE AGENDA PACKAGE.

SO IT'S AFTER THE EIR AND RELATED DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS.

THIS PACKAGE IS THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE REZONE, AS WELL AS A GENERAL PLAN POLICY THAT SPECIFICALLY AFFECTS THIS PROPERTY.

THERE'S A GENERAL PLAN POLICY THAT TALKS ABOUT THE RETAIL COMPONENT ON THE SITE, AND THAT POLICY IS BEING UPDATED TO REFLECT THE CHANGE THAT WOULD BE CHANGING IT TO RESIDENTIAL SITE.

SO WITH THAT, WE WOULD RECOMMEND QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION AND VOTE, AND THEN JUST FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE STILL HERE,

[01:25:07]

HE HAS A CONFLICTING INTEREST.

THE RULES ALSO ALLOW US TO SEGREGATE OUT THE CONFLICTED PROPERTY, AND YOU CAN DISCUSS THIS AS A COMMISSION WITHOUT COMMISSIONER SABELLICO PARTICIPATING. JUST TO CONTRAST THAT WITH COMMISSIONER STINE.

HE WAS CONFLICTED OUT ON THE FIRST ACTION BECAUSE HE OWNS A PROPERTY THAT IS CLOSE TO THE NCTD SITE IN THE VILLAGE.

HOWEVER, THAT PROPERTY IS ALREADY ZONED FOR THE USE AND THERE WILL NOT BE AN ACTION CHANGING THE ZONING ON THAT SO HE IS ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ENTIRE ITEM.

THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION, MR. KEMP. OKAY, SO NOW WE WILL GO ON TO PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS ON EXHIBIT TWO, HOUSING SITE NUMBER FOUR.

ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ITEM? OH, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? SO THE HOUSING SITE FOR USED TO DID IT USED TO COMPRISE OF WHAT'S IN THE CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT. WAS IT THREE PARCELS AND NOW IT'S JUST TWO.

IS THAT CAN YOU GIVE US A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT? THE SITE.

CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS ARE AND WHY THERE'S A CHANGE.

SURE, WE COULD DO THAT.

SO ON THE SCREEN IS SHOWING THE TWO PARCELS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE SITE FOUR THAT WAS STUDIED IN THE EIR AND IS BEFORE YOU FOR THE REZONE.

ORIGINALLY THE PARCEL TO KIND OF THE NORTHWEST IF MY LASER POINTER WORKS WAS INCLUDED IN IT.

I CAN POINT AT THE SCREEN IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT.

I DON'T KNOW, ROB, IF YOU CAN POINT TO IT WITH YOUR CURSOR.

THE LASER POINTER DOESN'T SEEM TO WORK GREAT.

ORIGINALLY THAT WAS INCLUDED DURING SOME OF THE PUBLIC OUTREACH.

AFTER ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THAT PROPERTY REQUESTED TO BE WITHDRAWN AND TO STUDY IT AT A DENSITY THAT IT WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE FOR HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING. SO THAT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THAT SITE, AND IS THAT SITE PART OF THE ORIGINAL MARRON ADOBE? THERE IS A HOME ON THAT SITE AND THEN THAT IS AN ADDRESS.

IT'S THE SAME SITE THAT CAME UP WITH THE EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT IN FRONT OF IT, AND SO ANY FUTURE PROJECTS HAVE OCCURRED WOULD POTENTIALLY BE EVALUATED FOR IMPACTS TO THAT PROPERTY. GREAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

WE THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.

COMMISSIONER STINE. YES.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

I'M QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

HAVE WALKED THE SITE SEVERAL TIMES, AND THIS IS A SITE THAT'S BEEN VACANT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.

I THINK, WITH ONE EXCEPTION.

THERE IS A SMALL STORAGE LOT THERE, AND THIS IS RIGHT ON A MAIN ARTERY.

THERE IS BASICALLY A GOLF COURSE ON ONE SIDE FOLLOWED BY A MOBILE HOME PARK, AND THAT'S TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST.

IT'S FAIRLY OPEN SPACE.

IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE THERE WAS SOME EQUESTRIAN IN THERE.

I'M IN FAVOR OF, THIS IS A SITE THAT'S BEEN VACANT AND I'D LIKE TO SEE IT UTILIZED.

WE HAVE A CRYING NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING HERE IN THIS AREA.

I DON'T SEE THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE COMMUNITY, TRAFFIC OR OTHERWISE, HERE.

IT'S A LARGE SITE.

IT'S A SITE THAT HAS LET ME SEE THE ACREAGE ON THIS AGAIN.

IT'S 200, EXCUSE ME, 17.8 ACRES, 212 SITES, 212 UNITS POTENTIALLY.

SO I THINK THIS IS ALL POSITIVE FOR A SITE THAT'S BEEN, I DON'T WANT TO SAY MAYBE NOT UNDERUTILIZED, JUST NOT UTILIZED AT ALL FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, AND BEING THAT THE CITY HAS A CRYING NEED AS CITIES UP AND DOWN THE STATE DO FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I THINK THIS WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT CANDIDATE.

SO I SUPPORT THIS ONE.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER STINE FOR THE REASONS HE STATED, AND I WOULD SUPPORT THIS.

OKAY. SEEING NO MORE DISCUSSION, I CAN TAKE A CRACK AT THE MOTION.

[01:30:02]

I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I MOVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT, INCLUDING THE LAND USE MAP AND THE ZONING MAP REGARDING SITE FOUR.

I'LL SECOND.

OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MERZ AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STINE.

PLEASE VOTE.

OKAY, SO THE MOTION PASSES 5 TO 0 WITH COMMISSIONER SABELLICO RECUSED AND COMMISSIONER MEENES ABSENT. OKAY.

[INAUDIBLE] YEAH, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO COULD COME BACK.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK OR JUST GIVE HIM A MOMENT TO COME BACK.

GIVE HIM A MOMENT TO COME BACK. WE JUST TOOK A BREAK.

WHILE THAT'S HAPPENING, I CAN INTRODUCE THIS ITEM IN THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS, AND SO THIS WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION FOR EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH INCLUDES THE

[Additional Item]

SO ALL 18 SITES EXCEPT FOR SITE FOUR.

IT ALSO INCLUDES THE AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT, AS WELL AS THE VARIOUS MASTER AND SPECIFIC PLANS THAT ARE BEING CHANGED AS PART OF THIS ACTION.

ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP TO ME AT THE BREAK WAS, DO YOU NEED TO VOTE ON EACH INDIVIDUAL SITE? YOU DO NOT NEED TO VOTE ON EACH INDIVIDUAL SITE.

THE RESOLUTION IS CRAFTED WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WOULD BE TO ADOPT MAP ONE IF THE COMMISSION WANTED TO ADOPT MAP TWO OR MAKE ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THAT COULD BE INCLUDED IN PART OF THE MOTION AND DELIBERATION FOR THAT.

GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. LARDY. OKAY.

SO MOVING ON NOW TO PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS.

DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THE BALANCE OF SITES? EXHIBIT THREE. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

COULD YOU SHOW THE MAPS ON THE SCREEN IF THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY SO WE CAN SEE THE COMPARISON? YES, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY DO THAT.

IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU JUST LET US KNOW WHICH SITE YOU WANT TO SEE, AND THEN GIVE US A SECOND SO WE CAN PULL THAT ONE UP.

OH, YOU HAVE IT IN INDIVIDUAL SITES.

NO, THE OKAY, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

SO NO, I WAS TRYING TO GO BACK TO THE TABLES THAT WE COMMISSIONER, WE COULD GO TO THE SLIDE THAT WAS IN THE POWERPOINT THAT HAD THE ARROWS ON THE FIVE SITES THAT ARE DIFFERENT, THE THREE THAT ARE REMOVED.

I WAS LOOKING FOR.

YEAH.

SO WE TALKED IN THE BRIEFING ABOUT I'M SORRY? GO BACK TO THE MAP. [INAUDIBLE].

YEAH, I HAVE THAT THE WE TALKED IN THE BRIEFING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL USE IN OUR CITY. IS THAT THE NEXT? NO, NO, THIS IS THE LAST PHASE.

SO THIS IS THE.

SO WE ARE TALKING LAND USE IN THIS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THIS IS THE LAND USE PORTION.

YES. THIS IS THE LAND USE PORTION OKAY.

SO AND IN A RECENT ARTICLE IN THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE SAID THAT THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO WAS ZONED 80% OR SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

OUR LAND USE INFORMATION ON PAGE 313 OF THIS DOCUMENT STATES THAT 29% OF OUR LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL, AND 21% IS SINGLE FAMILY ZONING.

THE MAJORITY OF, OR THE BIGGEST CHUNK OF SPACE ACTUALLY IS DESIGNATED TO OPEN SPACE 32%.

SO I GUESS WHAT I'M CONCERNED WITH IS.

TAKING APART AN ALREADY CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT AND TRYING TO MOVE TO.

SWAP OUT SITES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I DO FEEL THAT THAT'S A BIG CONCERN, GIVEN THAT ONLY 29% OF OUR LAND IS ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL.

SO THE QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE WE LOSING/GAINING IF WE'RE ACTUALLY AS OF JANUARY, WE ONLY REALLY HAVE 47,600 UNITS.

[01:35:08]

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING HERE? APPROXIMATELY 3100 UNITS.

3100 UNITS.

OKAY, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE.

WE'RE IN LINE WITH OUR OVERALL PLAN.

IF WE UTILIZE AND REZONE SOME OF THESE SITES, IS THAT WOULD THAT BE A CORRECT ASSUMPTION? AND WE STILL HAVE AROUND 3000 LEFT OVER TO BE ABLE TO WITHIN THAT PROP E.

WE STILL HAVE 3000 POTENTIALLY TO GAIN.

WE DO ANTICIPATE THAT WITH WITH THESE CHANGES AND WITH JUST THE CUMULATIVE GROWTH THAT OCCURS, THAT WE DO HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO GO OVER THE PROP E.

DWELLING UNIT NUMBERS.

AS PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S ACTION IN APRIL 2021, THEY DID ADOPT A RESOLUTION THAT DID SUSPEND THE DWELLING UNIT CAP PORTIONS OF PROPOSITION E, SO THOSE ARE NO LONGER A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THE STATE AT THE TIME PROVIDED ADVICE THAT YOU BOTH NEED TO COMPLY WITH YOUR RHNA AND YOUR HOUSING ALLOCATION, BUT THEY ALSO STATED THAT A PROPOSITION SUCH AS THAT WITH A DWELLING UNIT CAP ITSELF IS INCONSISTENT WITH WITH OTHER STATE LAWS, SUCH AS THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.

SO IN OUR EIR, WE DID STUDY WHAT WOULD BUILD OUT OF THE CITY, BE WITH THESE WITH THESE DWELLING UNITS AND THAT'S WHAT THAT ANALYSIS IS BASED UPON.

SO I GUESS THE QUESTION REALLY ENDS UP BEING WHERE WE HAVE 29% OF OUR LAND IS DESIGNATED AS RESIDENTIAL, AND 32% IS DESIGNATED AS OPEN SPACE, 5% PARKS, 2% AGRICULTURE.

YOU KNOW HOW MUCH OF THIS OTHER STUFF? ARE WE AFFECTING ANY OF THE PARK'S AGRICULTURE OR OPEN SPACE IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO APPROVE RIGHT NOW IN MAP 1 OR 2? WE ARE NOT.

SO NONE OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE DESIGNATED AS PARKS.

NONE OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE DESIGNATED AS OPEN SPACE, AND NONE OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE ACTIVE AGRICULTURE OR IMPACTING WHAT WE CALL THE OPEN SPACE WORKING LANDS CATEGORY, AND SO THIS IS REALLY WOULD BE CHANGING THOSE NUMBERS, TAKING SOME EXISTING LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND INCREASING IT TO MORE MULTIFAMILY. OR SOME OF THESE SITES ARE A COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION AND SWITCHING INTO THOSE.

OKAY, AND DOES THIS.

SO THE LAND USE PAGE THAT I MENTIONED IN PAGE 313, IN THE PACKET, UNDEVELOPED LAND IS 3%.

DOES DO ANY OF THESE MAPS HIT 3% OF OUR UNDEVELOPED OR VACANT LAND? ARE WE USING? COULD YOU REPEAT THE PAGE NUMBER YOU'RE REFERENCING TO, PLEASE? 313 OF THE 780 PAGES.

SO COMMISSIONER THAT'S THE TEXT FROM THE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT, SECTION 2.2.

YOU GIVE ME A SECOND, I CAN PULL IT ON THE SCREEN.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO THIS TABLE IS REALLY LOOKING AT THE EXISTING SANDAG LAND USES.

THEY PREPARE ESTIMATES ANNUALLY AND PROVIDE THEM TO US TO BASE OUR ANALYSIS.

IT'S ACTUALLY LOOKING AT WHAT IS THE EXISTING USE OF THE SITE, AND SO THERE COULD BE SITES HERE THAT ARE CLASSIFIED AS AS UNDERDEVELOPED OR UNDEVELOPED IN THIS TABLE.

IT LOOKS LIKE THIS DATA SOURCE WAS 2022.

SO THIS WOULD GET UPDATED OVER TIME, NOT NECESSARILY 100% REFLECTIVE OF WHAT THE ZONING AND USE IS.

IT'S MORE USING ASSESSOR DATA AND JUST OVERALL GIS DATA OF KIND OF WHAT'S OUT THERE TODAY.

SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE WE HIT THE 3% VACANT LAND WITH OUR PROPOSALS OF THE MAP ONE OR MAP TWO.

IF WE, WE'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK EXACTLY WHAT EACH OF THESE ARE DESIGNATED IN THE EXISTING SANDAG DESIGNATIONS, BUT I WOULD SAY LIKELY SOME OF THESE WOULD IMPACT THE 3% VACANT LAND.

OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

THANKS A LOT.

YEAH. YES, COMMISSIONER STINE.

[01:40:01]

I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF CAN GIVE A LITTLE ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND.

I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK THAT'S GONE INTO EFFORTS THAT ARE CULMINATING HERE TONIGHT, AND I KNOW IT'S GOING TO CITY COUNCIL ONE FURTHER TIME, AND THE THERE WAS THE HEAC COMMITTEE THAT WORKED ON THIS AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. LARDY, THAT AS A RESULT OF THE HEAC, THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL THAT BASICALLY WHAT WE SEE AS SITES 1 TO 15 BE APPROVED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AM I RIGHT ON THAT OR AM I MISTAKEN? IT'D BE CLOSER TO SITES ONE THROUGH 14.

SITE 15 AND BEYOND WERE ONES THAT CAME IN SUBSEQUENT PROCESSES AFTER THEY HAD CONCLUDED THEIR WORK.

OKAY, SO THE HEAC WHEN IT COMPLETED ITS WORK SAID WE THINK ONE THROUGH 14.

WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS ONE THROUGH 14 ARE SUITABLE SITES FOR ADDITIONAL UP-ZONING TO ACHIEVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY, NOW THAT HEAC REPORT WENT TO CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY COUNCIL DID WHAT WITH IT? DID THEY MODIFY IT? DID THEY ACCEPT IT THE WAY IT IS? WHAT THEY DO, THEY DID A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS.

WHEN THE HOUSING ELEMENT WAS APPROVED, THEY REMOVED ONE OF THE FORMER SITES FROM IT, AND THEN THEY DIRECTED ADDITIONAL SITES BE EVALUATED IN THE QUADRANTS THAT THAT SITE WAS REMOVED FROM, AND THAT WAS REALLY THE ORIGIN OF SITES 15 THROUGH 18 WITH RESPECT TO THE FORMER SITE 13, AND SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE CAME WITH THE CURRENT LIST OF SITES.

SO THESE WERE REPLACEMENTS OR ALTERNATIVE TO THE ONE SITE THAT COUNCIL SAID TO REMOVE? YES. OKAY.

WHEN THIS WENT TO COUNCIL MOST RECENTLY, DID IT GO WITH A STAFF RECOMMENDATION WHERE THERE WAS JUST THE ONE MAP, WHAT WE CONSIDER MAP ONE TONIGHT, THAT THAT ENTIRE MAP COME TO COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

THE ENTIRE MAP DID GO TO COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT US TO STUDY IT FOR, SO THAT IT WOULD BE APPROVABLE.

WE ALSO RECOMMENDED COUNCIL THAT IF THEY WANTED OTHER OPTIONS, THEY SHOULD RECOMMEND WE STUDY IT SO THAT THEY HAVE OPTIONS IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT WAS PART OF THE FEBRUARY 2022 ACTION THAT THEY DIRECTED US TO STUDY THESE TWO MAPS.

OKAY, SO THE ORIGIN I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE ORIGIN OF MAP TWO WAS THE ORIGIN OF MAP TWO BY COUNCIL DIRECTIVE SAYING, LOOK AT THESE OTHER SITES, OR DID STAFF COME BY BECAUSE THEY ELIMINATED ONE NEED TO FIND OTHER SITES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR STAFF COME BY AND SAY, WELL, WE FOUND SOME OTHER AND THEY THEY CAME BACK WITH WHAT WE CONSIDER 15 TO 19 NOW.

15 THROUGH 19, WERE ALREADY ON THE TABLE AT THAT POINT.

THERE WAS A HEARING IN AUGUST 2021 WHERE WE RETURNED AND GAVE THEM OPTIONS.

THERE WAS A COUPLE OTHER SITES THAT WERE OPTIONS PROVIDED AT THAT TIME.

THEY DIRECTED INCLUSION OF WHAT IS NOW 15 THROUGH 19 AT THAT ACTION.

THEN THEY DIRECTED US TO CONDUCT PUBLIC OUTREACH, AND SO FOR THE REMAINDER OF 2021, WE CONDUCTED PUBLIC OUTREACH, AND THAT WAS THE SUMMARY I PROVIDED WITH THE 950 SURVEYS, THE TWO PUBLIC WORKSHOPS THAT HAD AROUND 70 PERSONS, AND THE WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE.

THEN WE PREPARED A PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY AND PROVIDED THAT TO CITY COUNCIL AT A HEARING IN FEBRUARY 2022 AND SAID, HERE'S THE INPUT THAT'S RECEIVED.

WE GAVE THEM A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS AND THINGS THAT COULD BE CONFIGURED AS POTENTIAL OPTIONS AT THAT TIME, AND AT THAT MEETING, THEY DIRECTED US TO STUDY WHAT IS NOW MAP ONE, WHICH INCLUDES ALL 18 SITES, AND THEN TO STUDY WHAT IS NOW MAP TWO, WHICH REMOVES THOSE THREE SITES AND INCREASES THE DENSITY ON THOSE OTHER TWO SITES.

DID COUNCIL HAVE BOTH OF THOSE MAPS IN FRONT OF THEM WHEN IT GAVE THAT DIRECTION? YES THEY DID.

OKAY, SO AS I'M UNDERSTANDING THE DIRECTION WAS TO STUDY BOTH MAPS, BRING IT THROUGH THE PROCESS, BRING IT HERE TONIGHT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION GIVE INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION ON MAP ONE VERSUS MAP TWO.

THEY DIDN'T EXPLICITLY SAY GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.

WHAT THEIR DIRECTION WAS WAS GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDES PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION ON ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN.

SO IT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GIVE A RECOMMENDATION ON ONE OR ANOTHER OR SOME COMBINATION OF THOSE MAPS, BUT I WILL JUST SAY THAT THE REASON WE REQUESTED DIRECTION ON WHAT TO STUDY IS WE'VE STUDIED ALL OF THESE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS.

[01:45:04]

I UNDERSTAND THAT, I UNDERSTAND THAT, SO JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION.

THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN THE RESOLUTION IS NOW IS FOR MAP ONE, RIGHT.

IF WE APPROVE THE RESOLUTION [INAUDIBLE] IT APPROVES MAP ONE, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT COMPLETELY, BUT I'M ALSO UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE A CHOICE HERE BETWEEN A MAP ONE AND MAP TWO.

ALTHOUGH WE DON'T HAVE A RESOLUTION FOR MAP TWO, THAT WE HAVE THAT ALTERNATIVE MAP IN FRONT OF US FOR DELIBERATION AND MAKING A RECOMMENDATION.

RIGHT? YES YOU COULD INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF YOUR MOTION AND ACTION TONIGHT.

RIGHT, AND IF THAT WAS THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION AND WE VOTED, A MAJORITY VOTED TO SUPPORT MAP TWO VERSUS MAP ONE, THEN THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A RESOLUTION THAT WOULD COME BACK AT A LATER MEETING FOR THE ADOPTION OF MAP TWO.

AM I RIGHT? WE'D HAVE TO TAKE A BREAK AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE RESOLUTION AND SEE IF WE'D BE ABLE TO JUST SWAP OUT SOME LANGUAGE.

OKAY, SO YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO BUY SOME FINE TUNING IF WE WANT TO MAP TO APPROVE.

I MEAN, IF IT WAS THAT SIMPLE, I THINK WE DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK IF YOU STARTED TO PICK AND CHOOSE SITES.

YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I'M NOT GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE DO SO.

MR. LARDY, CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT INPUT ON THE IN LOOKING AT THE TWO MAPS, THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE THAT I SEE ARE REALLY EXPLICIT DIFFERENCES ON BASICALLY ONE MAP HAS THREE AND EIGHT AND THAT'S MAP ONE AND MAP TWO DELETES THREE AND EIGHT AND HAS 14 AND 17.

I KNOW THERE IS WE RECEIVED SOME EMAILS HERE, CONSIDERABLE EMAIL COMMENT COMING INTO THIS COMMISSION MEETING TONIGHT WITH REGARD TO THREE AND EIGHT.

GIVE ME A LITTLE SENSE ON 14 AND 17.

THEY ARE NCTD SITES, AND HOW DID THESE COME ABOUT BEING ADDED TO MAP TWO? SO THE CONVERSATION THAT OCCURRED AT THAT MEETING WAS REALLY CENTERED AROUND WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY OF THOSE SITES IS.

IN OUR EARLIER WORK, WE DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT PLANS PLANS WERE FOR THOSE SITES.

THEY HADN'T SELECTED CONCEPTUAL TEAMS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT.

SO WE PICKED WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS FEASIBLE CAPACITY ON THOSE.

THE FIRST SETS OF NUMBERS THAT WE HEARD ON THOSE SITES WERE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN OURS.

SO ONE OF THE OPTIONS IN THAT MYRIAD OF OPTIONS WE PROVIDED CITY COUNCIL WAS, WAS YOU COULD ASK US TO STUDY INCREASED DENSITIES OR INCREASED UNIT ASSUMPTIONS ON THOSE TWO SITES, AND SO THAT'S HOW THAT CAME ABOUT.

IT LOOKS LIKE JUST REVIEWING THE MINUTES, THE DELIBERATION WAS BECAUSE THEY REMOVED SOME SITES THEY WANTED TO STUDY SOME INCREASES TO OTHER SITES.

OKAY SO THEN THESE WERE STUDIED, AND AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, NCTD AS THE OWNER OF THOSE TWO SITES IS IN SUPPORT OF I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ONE MAP VERSUS ANOTHER, BUT WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE UP-ZONING CHANGES THAT WOULD BE PART OF INCLUDING THOSE IN MAP TWO.

GENERALLY, NCTD IS IN SUPPORT OF UP-ZONING OF THEIR SITES.

I DON'T THINK THEY'VE OPINED OFFICIALLY ON ONE MAP OR THE OTHER, AND THOSE WOULD INVOLVE REPLACING PARKING AREAS WITH NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

CORRECT. OUR UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE REPLACING THE EXISTING SURFACE PARKING WITH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL SOME FORM OF STRUCTURED PARKING.

GOOD. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE ALL THE HARD WORK.

IT'S UNBELIEVABLE HOW MUCH IT'S BEEN INTO THIS.

IT'S REALLY FANTASTIC.

SO I KNOW IT'S BEEN A TOUGH SLUG A LOT GOING ON HERE.

MY QUESTION IS WITH ALL OF THESE SITES.

EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY IF WE WERE TO APPROVE ONE OR WELL APPROVE MAP ONE AND OR TWO, BUT EACH SITE WOULD THEN GO THROUGH AN APPROVAL PROCESS.

ONCE THE DEVELOPER DECIDES TO DEVELOP THE SITE, AND THAT WOULD BE A RATHER DETAILED APPROVAL PROCESS, CORRECT? YES THIS IS NOT ANY INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

SHOULD THESE BE APPROVED, AN APPLICATION WOULD NEED TO BE FILED FOR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE LIKELY ADDITIONAL STUDIES, SUCH AS SOME OF THE ONES WE REFERENCED

[01:50:06]

CORRECT SO WE'RE NOT SPECIFICALLY VOTING TODAY ON A SITE AND WHAT A SITE WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WHAT THE UNITS WOULD BE AND EVERYTHING.

IT'S A GENERAL BROAD ACROSS ALL THE SITES, CORRECT? RIGHT, YOU'RE CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE CAPACITY WHICH WHICH OF THE TWO MAPS? RIGHT, ONE WHICH WE'RE VOTING ON.

WHICH ONE GIVES THE CITY THE MOST FLEXIBILITY AND THE MOST KIND OF ADAPTABILITY WITH BEING ABLE TO AS A BIT OF A JIGSAW PUZZLE TRYING TO MAKE IT WORK.

WHICH ONE GIVES YOU GUYS THE MOST FLEXIBILITY? SO MAP ONE GIVES US THE MOST FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE IT HAS THE MOST NUMBER OF THE GREATEST NUMBER OF SITES ON IT.

ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE NEED TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THROUGH THE YEAR 2029 IS THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY FOR OUR REMAINING RHNA.

WE ANTICIPATE THAT SOME OR MULTIPLES OF THESE SITES WILL BE DEVELOPED AT MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENTS, WHICH WILL PROVIDE LOW INCOME HOUSING FOR THEIR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT WILL ALSO APPLY HOUSING THAT'S ABOVE MODERATE.

WE NEED TO TAKE IT OFF OUR LIST AT THAT POINT AND STILL SHOW WE HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY, AND SO THAT GIVES US THE MOST FLEXIBILITY.

IF WE EVER WERE TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY FOR OUR REMAINING RHNA, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO UP-ZONE ADDITIONAL SITES AT THAT TIME.

RIGHT, SO WE TEND TO FOCUS ON THE HERE AND NOW BUT IF WE LOOK OUT INTO 27, 28 AND 29, THIS COULD BE KIND OF CRITICAL TO HAVE THIS KIND OF FLEXIBILITY IN THE OUT YEARS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S WHY OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE MAP ONE.

YES. RIGHT. SO ABSOLUTELY.

YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK UP TO THE 30,000 FOOT LEVEL AGAIN JUST ONE MORE TIME.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR ACTION, THE STATE TELLS THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HOW MUCH HOUSING IS NEEDED IN THE AREA BECAUSE OF THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT, AND THEN IT'S UP TO SANDAG TO DETERMINE WHAT EACH INDIVIDUAL CITY AND THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO GETS ALLOCATED.

SO WE RECEIVED OUR ALLOCATION.

THAT'S WHAT WE CALL THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT, AND YOU OFTEN HEAR US REFER TO AS RHNA, AND I THINK SOMETIMES WE THINK EVERYBODY SPEAKS OUR LINGO, BUT BECAUSE WE DEAL WITH IT EVERY DAY, BUT YOU KNOW FROM A BIG PICTURE POINT OF VIEW.

SO SANDAG THEN TELLS US WE HAVE TO HAVE THE CAPACITY, AND THAT WAS THE WORD ERIC JUST USED, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE CAPACITY TO BUILD A CERTAIN AMOUNT, BECAUSE THE CITY ISN'T GOING TO GO OUT AND DO THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT SO WE JUST ZONED PROPERTIES THAT ALLOW FOR US TO HIT THOSE RHNA NUMBERS, AND THE STATE'S DECIDED THAT ONE OF THE WAYS WE GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS BY HAVING A HIGHER DENSITY ON SOME OF THE PROPERTIES.

THEY EQUATE DENSITY WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SO THEY ASK US TO ZONE FOR A PARTICULAR MIX OF PROPERTIES, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.

WE HAVE TO IDENTIFY PROPERTIES THAT CAN BE UP ZONED.

SO OUR RHNA NUMBERS AS WE KEEP USING THE PHRASE CAN BE HIT.

WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THEM GET BUILT.

THAT'S UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNER ON WHAT THEY WANT TO BRING TO YOU LATER, RIGHT, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'VE ZEROED IN ON, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AMPLIFIED YOUR POINT, BECAUSE I THINK YOUR POINT IS A VERY GOOD POINT IS THAT WE ARE SIMPLY TONIGHT IDENTIFYING LOCATIONS WHERE UP-ZONING HAPPENS SO THEN LATER A DEVELOPER CAN COME IN AND BRING IN A PROJECT WHICH WOULD THEN BE ANALYZED UNDER ALL THE USUAL RULES.

RIGHT, AND WHAT I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT.

THAT TO GIVE THE CITY THE FLEXIBILITY.

I MEAN, WE'RE STUCK HERE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.

WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE BEST OF WHAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO, AND I REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THE CITY HAS THE FLEXIBILITY IN THE OUT YEARS TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN, AND THAT'S SORT OF MY CONCERN WITH MAP TWO, IF WHATEVER WE'RE SAYING THERE, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T GIVE US AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS MAP ONE.

SO ANYWAYS, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

WE'RE STILL IN QUESTIONS.

YEAH WE ARE ON YES, QUESTIONS.

OKAY. OH, I'M SORRY COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

[INAUDIBLE]. SO TO COMMISSIONER HUBINGER'S POINT ABOUT FLEXIBILITY, I UNDERSTAND THAT

[01:55:10]

THERE IS A BUFFER THAT PROTECTS US FROM BEING IN A POSITION WHERE EVEN IF THESE PROJECTS COME IN AT MORE MARKET RATE THAN WE'RE PROJECTING, THAT WILL STILL BE ABLE TO HIT OUR RHNA NUMBERS OR AT LEAST SHOW THE ABILITY TO HIT OUR RHNA NUMBERS.

SO WHAT IS THAT BUFFER? AND COULD WE, IF WE CHOSE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SITES, HOW MANY OF THOSE SITES COULD WE REDUCE AND STILL HAVE A REASONABLE BUFFER? SURE. ROB, LET'S GO AHEAD AND PULL UP SLIDE 44.

SO THIS SLIDE KIND OF WALKS THROUGH THE MATH OF HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT, AND SO WHAT RON ATTORNEY ALLUDED TO WAS WHAT IS OUR REQUIRED RHNA? WHAT'S THAT NUMBER THAT IS ALLOCATED TO US FROM SANDAG.

THAT'S THAT FIRST ROW ON THIS MAP.

OUR NUMBER WAS APPROXIMATELY 38,900.

THAT WAS ALLOCATED TO THE CITY AS PART OF OUR ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT IN 2021.

WE DID SHOW THAT WE HAD EXISTING CAPACITY FOR A PORTION OF THOSE, AND SO WHAT WE DO IS WE LOOK AT WHAT ARE THE INCOME CATEGORIES AND THE WAY HOUSING ELEMENT LAW EQUATES INCOME CATEGORY FOR THIS STEP OF THE PROCESS IS BY DENSITY.

SO WE LOOKED AT WHERE DO WE HAVE HIGHER DENSITY CAPACITY, AND SO THAT'S THAT SECOND ROW EXISTING CAPACITY SHOWS THAT WAS WHAT WAS IN THE EXISTING PLAN AND THEN THAT NET RHNA, THAT WAS WHAT I REFERRED TO AS THE SHORTFALL.

THAT IS OUR REQUIREMENT IN PROGRAM 1.1, AND THEN WE ADD A 30% BUFFER ON TOP OF THAT, AND SO THAT'S HOW WE GET TO OUR TARGET IS 2578.

BOTH MAPS DO HIT THAT TO A DIFFERENT EXTENT, AND SO THIS THIS SLIDE SHOWS KIND OF WHAT IS OUR TARGET FOR RHNA, AND WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENT NUMBERS FOR EACH MAP THAT ARE PROPOSED.

MAP ONE IS A SLIGHTLY LOWER NUMERIC NUMBER BECAUSE OF THOSE ESTIMATED ASSUMPTIONS THAT THE NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT SITES, BUT IT DOES INCLUDE THOSE OTHER THREE SITES, BUT THAT GIVES KIND OF A PERSPECTIVE OF WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THAT BUFFER.

I'LL JUST SAY THAT THAT BUFFER IS BASED ON CURRENT ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STATE HCD.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO SEE IS 30% ENOUGH IS 30% NOT ENOUGH.

IT'S 30% TOO MUCH REALLY OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS OF OUR HOUSING ELEMENT CYCLE.

WELL, THIS IS MORE THAN 30%, RIGHT? I MEAN, SO LET'S LOOK AT MAP TWO FOR A SECOND.

NO, NO STAY ON THE SLIDE.

SO IT SAYS 142%.

SO IT'S A 42% BUFFER.

IS THAT CORRECT.

IT IS MORE THAN THAN 30% BUFFER.

THAT IS CORRECT OKAY.

SO I MEAN I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE DO THIS, BUT I'M SAYING IF WE WANTED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SITES LIKE, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE THERE WAS LIKE SITE 25, I KNOW THERE'S NOT 25 SITES, BUT I DON'T WANT TO PICK A SITE SITE 25.

WE REMOVED SITE 25, AND WE REDUCE THAT NUMBER.

WE COULD STILL. APPROVE THIS WITHOUT SITE 25 OR SITE X AND STILL HAVE THE 30% BUFFER THAT'S RECOMMENDED BY HCD.

YOU COULD DO THAT.

YES, THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE BUFFER.

YES. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

I THINK THAT'S IT FOR MY QUESTIONS.

YES, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

LET'S STAY ON THIS SLIDE, BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING AT THIS, READING THROUGH THESE 700 PAGES THIS WEEKEND, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE GREATER BUFFER IS THAT OFFERED BY MAP TWO.

EVEN THOUGH WE DROPPED TWO OF THE SITES THAT HAVE BEEN HEAVILY PRODUCT OF EMAILS AND LETTERS WE'VE EACH READ OVER THE WEEKEND.

TO ME, ERIC, I JUST THINK THAT MAP TWO GIVES US MORE FLEXIBILITY JUST ON THE NUMBERS ALONE.

IT CERTAINLY GIVES US MORE OF A BUFFER.

IT DOES, IT GIVES US A MORE OF A BUFFER.

IT'S REALLY WHICH SITE AND WHICH MAP WILL BE BETTER IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE A FACTOR OF HOW QUICKLY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS COME IN ON THESE SITES,

[02:00:09]

AGREED.

COMMISSIONER STINE. THANK YOU.

ON THAT ISSUE, KIND OF PICKING UP FROM WHAT COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN SAID, I LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS AND I SEE THAT MAP TWO GIVES US MORE THAN MAP ONE.

LET ME SEE IF I CAN UNDERSTAND THE STAFF'S CONCERN.

IS IS THE STAFF'S CONCERN THAT THESE ARE ALL FINE IN THEORY AND UP-ZONING TO ACCOMPLISH IT WHERE NEEDED. NOT ALL OF THEM NEED IT, BUT SOME OF THEM DO.

THAT'S FINE.

IS THE STAFF'S CONCERN WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHICH OF THESE SITES ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY, IN PRACTICE, BE DEVELOPED OR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED.

WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT.

SO THAT THE HAVING A THREE ADDITIONAL SITES ON ONE IS PREFERABLE TO HAVING THREE LESS ON TWO.

IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? YES, THAT IS FAIR TO SAY.

SO IT'S KIND OF COVERING OUR BETS BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW.

WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL ON WHICH ONES WILL GET DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS OR WHICH ONES WE WON'T, AND THE MORE WE HAVE THE GREATER LIKELIHOOD THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH OUR RHNA GOALS.

YES THAT'S A CORRECT STATEMENT.

OKAY, TURNING A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT DIRECTION HERE, WE HAVE RECEIVED A PLETHORA OF EMAILS IN THE LAST WEEK OR SO, AND EVEN SOME THAT CAME IN TODAY THAT SEEM TO FOCUS ON THE VERY TWO, THE TWO SITES WHERE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAP ONE AND MAP TWO AND THOSE ARE SITE THREE, THE CHESTNUT PROPERTY, AND SITE EIGHT, THE COTTAGE ROW APARTMENTS, AND INCIDENTALLY, FOR THE RECORD, I'VE BEEN TO BOTH SITES RECENTLY.

WOULD COULD STAFF KIND OF ADDRESS EACH OF THOSE IN SOME DETAIL IN ADDRESSING THE I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE A PROJECT IN FRONT OF US THAT'S A HANDICAP.

WE DON'T HAVE IT LAID OUT, BUT WE'VE HEARD AND WE'VE RECEIVED EMAILS.

FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S LOOK AT THREE THERE GREAT.

THAT AREA, IT'S RIGHT ON EL CAMINO REAL, WHICH IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE HEAVILY TRAFFICKED, PARTICULARLY DURING PEAK RUSH HOUR TIMES, AND THERE IS A AND I WAS DOWN THERE, THE CHESTNUT SLOPES DOWN TO AN INTERSECTION THERE, AND WE'VE HEARD THROUGH SOME OF THE EMAILS THAT THERE IS A COMMUNITY CONCERN, NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERN ABOUT NOT JUST TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION, BUT ALSO TRAFFIC SAFETY AND CARS COMING OFF SITE THREE EITHER ON CHESTNUT OR ON EL CAMINO REAL, AND THAT THERE WOULD BE VULNERABLE TO ADDITIONAL ACCIDENTS.

SO COULD STAFF ADDRESS THAT A LITTLE BIT? HOW THE STAFF PERCEIVES THAT? I KNOW THERE'S NO PROJECT DESIGN, BUT JUST CAN WE ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS, PLEASE? SURE, AND I'M GOING TO ASK NICK GORMAN FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO COME IN AND ADDRESS THIS QUESTION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. LARDY, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER STINE.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

NICK GORMAN, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS, TRANSPORTATION.

SO I DO JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE DO HEAR ALL THESE CONCERNS REGARDING TRAFFIC CONGESTION AROUND A LOT OF THESE SITES, PARTICULARLY SITE THREE, THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, AND SO, AS MR. LARDY HAD ALLUDED TO PREVIOUSLY AND YOU AS WELL, COMMISSIONER STINE, WE DON'T HAVE A PROJECT IN FRONT OF US.

SO AT THE TIME OF THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, THESE ARE, THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE WILL STUDY.

ALL THESE SITES WILL MEET OUR CRITERIA FOR WHAT WE CALL A LOCAL MOBILITY ANALYSIS, WHICH CAN BE ESSENTIALLY CALLED A TRAFFIC STUDY.

SO AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT WE WILL BE ABLE TO STUDY.

SO FOR EXAMPLE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO KIND OF THAT ACCESS CONCERN.

WE CAN LOOK AT THE SITE ACCESS STUDY WITHIN OUR LOCAL MOBILITY ANALYSIS REPORT.

SO IN EFFECT STAY TUNED.

WE'LL LOOK AT IT IN MORE DETAIL IF AND WHEN A PROJECT COMES.

RIGHT. EXACTLY.

COMMISSIONER YOU KNOW I CAN'T COMMENT ON SPECIFIC DETAILS.

[02:05:03]

SO NO SPECIFIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME, BUT AS MR. LARDY HAD ALLUDED TO, THESE WILL BE STUDIED AND THIS WILL BE SUBJECT TO OUR LOCAL MOBILITY ANALYSIS.

OKAY, PRIOR TO DOING THAT, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING TO INDICATE THAT RIGHT NOW THERE IS AN UNUSUALLY HIGH LEVEL OF EITHER CONGESTION OR ACCIDENTS ON OR ABOUT THAT CHESTNUT VERSUS AT EL CAMINO INTERSECTION? DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ON THAT SUGGESTS THERE'S SOMETHING REALLY DIFFERENT ABOUT THAT? IN TERMS OF--SORRY, REPEAT THE QUESTION.

IN TERMS OF COLLISIONS? COLLISIONS OR UNUSUAL DEGREE OF CONGESTION, DO WE HAVE WE SEEN THAT ANYTHING FROM STAFF? YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO SAY YES, YES OR NO.

I DON'T HAVE THAT DATA IN FRONT OF ME AT THIS TIME.

OKAY, COMMISSIONER, IF I MAY.

SURE, PLEASE. PLANNING ACTUALLY WORKED WITH PUBLIC WORKS TO DEVELOP A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY ON THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE.

SO, LIKE THE EIR, THIS ANALYZED THE EFFECT OF ALL OF THE SITES TOGETHER.

SO IT'S NOT AN INDIVIDUAL SITE, BUT IT DID LOOK AT THE EFFECT OF ADDING THESE HOUSING UNITS TO THE ROADWAY NETWORK, AND IN THIS LOCATION, THE ANALYSIS FOR THE LEVEL OF SERVICE, WHICH IS A CONGESTION METRIC, SHOWED THAT THERE WAS THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AND IT REMAINED AS AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE IN THIS AREA.

GENERALLY, IT'S NOT AN INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, IT'S JUST LOOKING AT THE CAPACITY OF THE ROADWAYS.

SO AGAIN, LIKE THE EIR, IT'S SORT OF A HIGH LEVEL PROGRAM LEVEL ANALYSIS, BUT IT DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY ADDITIONAL IMPACTS AT THAT LEVEL FROM CONGESTION, AND JUST AND JUST TO SPEAK TO THAT, THAT IS SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ON EL CAMINO REAL, NOT CHESTNUT.

OKAY, AND WE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 20 UNITS, AND WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT OF THAT WHEN, IF AND WHEN A PROJECT COMES TO US.

FAIR TO SAY? CAN YOU CLARIFY THE QUESTION UNDER MAP THREE EXCUSE ME, SITE THREE, MAP ONE.

IT SAYS WE WOULD BE ADDING ADDITIONAL 20 UNITS.

YES. WE'RE ADDING OVER WELL OVER 100.

YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

SO BASED ON THE EXISTING R-4 DESIGNATION, WE ESTIMATED THERE WOULD BE ABOUT EIGHT UNITS ALLOWED TODAY, AND WE ESTIMATED THAT IF THIS REZONE WERE APPROVED, IT WOULD ADD 20 FOR A TOTAL OF 28 UNITS.

THE PROJECT ITSELF WOULD HAVE TO STUDY ALL 28 OF THOSE UNITS, BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE NEW UNITS THAT WERE BEING ADDED TO THE NETWORK.

OKAY, AND IF YOU COULD STAY FOR JUST A MINUTE, PLEASE.

TURNING TO THE OTHER SITE WHERE THERE SEEMS TO BE CONSIDERABLE OPPOSITION, JUDGING FROM THE EMAILS THAT WE RECEIVED RECENTLY, AND THAT'S NUMBER EIGHT, THE COTTAGE ROW APARTMENTS.

THERE SEEMS TO BE CONCERN ABOUT CONGESTION THERE.

WE APPROVED SOME YEARS AGO I WAS ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME, A MAJOR HOUSING PROJECT, APARTMENT PROJECTS, THAT'S GOING UP RIGHT NOW.

I JUST WALKED BY IT THE OTHER DAY.

IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON BOTH SIDES OF AVIARA.

ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT, AGAIN, NOT A PROJECT IN FRONT OF US ABOUT ADDING THIS NUMBER OF IT'D BE 117 POTENTIALLY WHAT THAT MIGHT DO TO AN AREA THAT'S YOU KNOW A LOT OF TRAFFIC.

ANY THOUGHTS? YEAH, COMMISSIONER, I HEAR YOUR COMMENT, AND YOU KNOW LIKE I SAID SAME COMMENT WE WILL STUDY IT AT THE TIME AND I WILL MENTION DEPENDING ON SAY THIS COMES IN NEXT YEAR.

MAYBE IT COMES IN FIVE YEARS.

OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T HAVE A CONTROL OVER THAT, BUT THE IMPACTS FROM THOSE TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED, THOSE WOULD BE INCLUDED IN OUR ANALYSIS TO HELP US UNDERSTAND WHETHER THEY'RE BUILT OR NOT.

GOOD. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE.

GOOD QUESTION. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

A QUICK QUESTION.

THE NUMBERS THAT ARE IN THE PROPOSAL, ARE THOSE MINIMUMS OR MAXIMUM? I MEAN, SO IF A PROJECT COMES IN AND YOU THIS ONE WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT 28 AND THE PROJECT COMES IN AND THEY WANT TO PUT 58 ON.

HOW DOES THAT ALL FIT? SO OUR PROJECT AND OUR CHARGE FROM THE STATE WAS TO LOOK AT WHAT DO WE THINK IS REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT THAT OCCUR THAT COULD OCCUR ON THESE, AND SO WE LOOKED AT WHAT WERE THE DEVELOPMENTS, WHAT WERE THE POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS, WHAT WERE ANY OTHER SITE CONSIDERATIONS, AND CAME UP WITH OUR BEST ESTIMATES OF WHAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT COULD HAPPEN.

DEVELOPMENT COULD COME IN LOWER, COULD COME IN HIGHER.

IF THEY UTILIZE SOMETHING SUCH AS A DENSITY BONUS AND WE WOULD REVIEW THAT AGAINST THE REGULATIONS AND REVIEW THAT AGAINST WHAT WAS STUDIED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT EVERYTHING WAS STILL APPROPRIATE. SO IT'S OUR BEST ESTIMATE, AND FOR OUR PURPOSES, WE ARE TRYING TO BE CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE WE NEED TO PROVE TO THE STATE THAT THIS IS

[02:10:03]

SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? SO PAGE 421 OF THE DOCUMENT OF 780. SO I GUESS IT'S 432 OF THE PDF NOTES DOUBLE TRACKING AND TRENCHING FOR THE TRAIN CORRIDOR.

HOW ANXIOUS IS NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT? OR HOW READY ARE THEY AT THIS POINT IN THE FIVE YEARS OR WHATEVER WE HAVE LEFT OF THIS HOUSING ELEMENT? DO THEY FEEL THAT THIS IS A PRIORITY DEVELOPING THEIR SITES AS HOUSING VERSUS.

I UNDERSTAND THE DOUBLE TRACKING EFFORT IS ONGOING, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE MAYBE MORE OF A PRIORITY TO THEM RIGHT NOW.

SO ARE THEY ACTIVELY TRYING TO DEVELOP THEIR SITES RIGHT NOW FOR HOUSING OR WHAT'S THE PRIORITY FOR NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT? DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA? I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO WHAT THEY'VE MADE OFFICIALLY AS PART OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON THE HOUSING SITES.

THEY HAVE ISSUED A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR EACH OF THE HOUSING SITES, AND THEY HAVE SELECTED A DEVELOPER FOR BOTH THE VILLAGE AND THE POINSETTIA SITE, TWO DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS AND OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THEY ARE CURRENTLY NEGOTIATING AND EVALUATING POTENTIAL OPTIONS TO MOVE FORWARD FOR THAT.

SO IT DOES SEEM THAT THAT'S A PRIORITY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE ANY SPECIFIC TIMELINES.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO THEIR PRIORITY FOR THE DOUBLE TRACKING OR THE UNDER-GROUNDING, BUT WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT THIS SECTION AND THIS PAGE IS REALLY LANGUAGE IN OUR PLANS THAT SPEAK TO WHAT'S GOING ON TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY.

SO IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE IT'S NOT A BINDING EFFECT ON THIS PROJECT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

IT'S DESCRIPTIVE TEXT.

WELL, I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BETWEEN MAP ONE AND MAP TWO WHICH SITES ARE MORE VIABLE IN THE RECENT IN THIS MORE RECENT TIME? YOU KNOW, WITH THE DOUBLE TRACKING THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME AND TO TRY AND OVERLOAD OVERLOAD HOUSING WITH THAT OR OVERLAY, I SHOULD SAY HOUSING WITH THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER FORM OF REPORTS MITIGATION, ENVIRONMENTAL, WHATEVER IT IS TYPICALLY THESE PROJECTS, HOW LONG DO THEY TAKE? I MEAN, A HOUSING PROJECT THAT REQUIRES A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT IS PROBABLY ALONG THE 18 TO 3 YEARS TIMEFRAME, DEPENDING ON WHAT EXACTLY IS PROPOSED AND WHAT OTHER USES ARE PROPOSED IN THERE.

THE DOUBLE TRACKING WHILE NOT AN EXPERT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE MUCH, MUCH LONGER.

YEAH, I GUESS THAT'S SORT OF MY QUESTION BETWEEN THE TWO MAPS IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, WELL WHAT'S GOING TO BE VIABLE NOW, BECAUSE TECHNICALLY IN 2028-29 THERE'S ANOTHER HOUSING ELEMENT, RIGHT? AND WE'LL GET ASSIGNED NEW RHNA NUMBERS AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KIND OF DO THIS.

NONE OF US WILL MAYBE BE ON.

MAYBE KEVIN WILL BE ON THE COMMISSION, BUT NONE OF US WILL BE ON THE COMMISSION BY THEN, BUT WE'LL TRY TO FIGURE OUT THAT NEXT PHASE. SO DOES THE DO THOSE TWO SITES BECAUSE THEY'RE IN NEGOTIATIONS.

WOULD THEY BE REALIZED BEFORE WE COULD ASSIGN RHNA NUMBERS TO THEM? WOULD THEY TAKE OVER DIFFERENT RHNA NUMBERS FOR OTHER SITES? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S AN OVERLAY OR SWAP OR HOW DO HOW DO WE GET THAT TO HELP EITHER THIS HOUSING ELEMENT OR POSSIBLY THE NEXT HOUSING ELEMENT? IS IT BETTER TO WAIT FOR THE NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT SITES FOR THE NEXT HOUSING ELEMENT AS OPPOSED TO THIS? OUR REQUIREMENT IS TO SHOW CAPACITY AND THAT THE STATE DOES HAVE A HIGHER BAR FOR SITES THAT ARE GOVERNMENT OWNED, WHERE YOU HAVE TO THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE INTERESTED IN DISPOSING OF IT.

WE COULDN'T JUST PICK LAND THAT WE KNOW THEY WEREN'T GOING TO DO IT AND PUT A BUNCH OF UNITS THERE.

THE REQUIREMENTS HAVE GOTTEN A LOT MORE STRINGENT.

WHENEVER THOSE SITES DO DEVELOP, REGARDLESS OF THEIR IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT OR NOT, WE WOULD COUNT THOSE TOWARDS OUR REQUIREMENTS OF THE RHNA AND IT'S THE SAME WAY A PROJECT THAT'S NOT ON THIS LIST.

IF IT'S DEVELOPED, WE STILL COUNT THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS AGAINST OUR RHNA, AND WE STILL COUNT THE ABOVE MODERATE UNITS AGAINST OUR RHNA, AND WE HAVE AN ONGOING TRACKING.

SO IT'S HARD TO SAY WHICH IS BETTER.

I THINK IT JUST DEPENDS ON ON HOW QUICKLY NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT AND THOSE DEVELOPERS CHOOSE TO MOVE AND GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS TO, TO DEVELOP IT, BUT WE DO

[02:15:09]

IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, AND WE NEED TO LOOK TO INCLUDE IT IN THE NEXT HOUSING ELEMENT, THERE'S AN EVEN HIGHER BAR FOR SITES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN A PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT TO REALLY SHOW THAT IT'S REASONABLE AND FORESEEABLE.

SO SO IT KIND OF MOVES ON AN INDIVIDUAL SITE BASIS AND GETS HARDER.

SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING IF WE ACTUALLY INCLUDE THE NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT SITES, BUT THEY DON'T GET DEVELOPED? WE'D NOT ONLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE, BUT ANY ADDITIONAL SITES THAT THEY WOULD THE STATE WOULD REQUIRE.

IT WOULDN'T GIVE US ANY ADDITIONAL SITES.

IT WOULD JUST BE HARDER TO COUNT THEM NEXT CYCLE.

OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS, I GUESS I'VE ENJOYED.

I THINK THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ASKED EXCELLENT QUESTIONS.

I GUESS THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD ON THE PREFERENCE OF STAFF TOWARDS MAP ONE VERSUS MAP TWO? THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED? I REALLY DON'T.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE POINTED OUT THAT UPZONING THE SITE ISN'T ON THE TABLE TONIGHT.

OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE COMMISSIONER STINE RECUSE HIMSELF.

SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THINGS OF THE FUTURE, BUT IF YOU ARE REALLY SERIOUSLY GOING TO BE CONSIDERING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE COMMISSIONER STINE LEAVE THE ROOM. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. FINE. OKAY, AND IF THERE'S ANY MORE QUESTIONS, IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS, WE'LL MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION.

OKAY. I DON'T SEE MORE QUESTIONS.

SO LET'S MOVE ON TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

FIRST. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK STAFF.

I GOT THIS FRIDAY NIGHT.

THANK YOU. CYNTHIA.

THIS IS LIKE READING WAR AND PEACE.

I DEVOTED MANY OF MY WAKING HOURS THIS WEEKEND.

I COULD'VE BEEN WATCHING BALL GAMES, BUT I HAD A LOVE AND DEDICATION TO THE CITY.

THANK YOU, AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO IS HERE TONIGHT WHO SPOKE ON THIS.

I CAME DOWN TO THE PROMISED LAND.

CARLSBAD HAVING LEFT L.A.

I KNOW.

PERSONALLY WHAT CANCEROUS DEVELOPMENT CAN DO TO A COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF PROPERTY VALUES, IN TERMS OF LIFESTYLE, IN TERMS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY.

THIS HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT, AND THEN I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY WHO'S NOT HERE TONIGHT, WHO MAY BE WATCHING THE LETTERS AND EMAILS WE GOT.

I GOT EMOTIONAL READING SOME OF THEM.

THEY WENT INTO GREAT DEPTH AND GREAT DETAIL.

SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO COME TO THIS CONCLUSION, AND THEN I'M LOOKING AT MAP ONE AND MAP TWO, AND WHILE I WOULD BE INCLINED NORMALLY TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHEN I TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VARIOUS FACTORS AND PARTICULARLY VISITING THE SITES OF THREE AND EIGHT, AND THEN LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT READING THE LETTERS AND THEN THAT THAT CHART, SIR, THAT YOU SHOWED US, WE'VE GOT MORE OF A BUFFER WITH MAP TWO WE WANT TO.

COMMISSIONER SABELLICO POINTED OUT APTLY, WE HAD WE NEEDED AT LEAST 30%, I THINK, FOR MAP TWO, WE GOT 42%.

I'D LIKE TO SEE FLEXIBILITY TO, BUT I REALLY THINK THAT MAP TWO IS THE WAY I WILL VOTE, AND I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR INPUT. I GUESS WE CAN WE CAN DISCUSS ITEMS MORE THAN ONCE.

SO I THINK I THINK THE TWO POINTS IS I'VE.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE STAFF AND FOR ALL THE PUBLIC THAT HAS COME AND SPOKE AND WROTE AND WRITTEN LETTERS TO, I THINK THE TWO THE TWO THINGS THAT REALLY STOOD OUT TO ME TONIGHT.

ONE WAS IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS MR. HOFFMAN WHEN HE SPOKE ABOUT TALKING ABOUT ALL THE WORK AND DEDICATION AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE WORKED ON THIS PROJECT AND RECOMMENDS THAT WE APPROVE IT AS IT IS, AS IT IS WRITTEN.

AND I THINK THAT THAT CARRIES A LOT OF WEIGHT FOR ME, BECAUSE I THINK THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION WHEN STAFF SAYS THEY PREFER ONE OR ANOTHER, THAT MEANS A LOT TO ME, AND I THINK ALSO TO COMMISSIONER HÜBNER'S QUESTIONS I THINK WERE SPOT ON ABOUT LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT SITES, THOSE ARE NUMBERS, BUT I THINK THE FACT THAT THE

[02:20:01]

COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

YEAH, I WOULD, FOR THE REASONS OF FLEXIBILITY.

I MEAN, FLEXIBILITY IS TOO TWO DIMENSIONAL, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT'S THE IT'S THE, THE SITES AND WHO KNOWS WHAT THE CRYSTAL BALL LOOKS LIKE, AND IT'S THE AMOUNT OF UNITS, WHICH IS KIND OF A SLIDING SCALE ANYWAYS TO I PREFER TO GIVE STAFF TOTAL FLEXIBILITY AND I SUPPORT MAP ONE.

OKAY, COMMISSIONER.

LET'S SEE WHAT YOU GOT.

COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER.

STINE. YEAH.

THANKS, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS A CLOSE CALL.

I THINK EITHER ONE OF THESE MAPS ARE DOABLE.

THEY MAKE SENSE FOR VARIOUS REASONS, AND I'D LIKE TO THINK THAT BOTH OF THEM WOULD WORK IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH AND ALLOW US TO DO THE RHNA NUMBERS.

THE ADVANTAGE OF ONE IS THAT YOU GET THREE ADDITIONAL SITES, SO YOU'RE COVERING YOUR BASES A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHICH OF THOSE SITES IN ACTUALLY IS GOING TO BE SUBMITTED PROJECT APPLICATION.

SO WE'RE SPREADING WE'RE WE'RE REDUCING THE RISK, IF YOU WILL.

WE'RE SPREADING OUT THAT A LITTLE BIT.

HOWEVER MAP TWO AND I THINK COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN COMMENTS WERE VERY WELL STATED.

IT DOES GIVE US MORE AND IT DOES PROVIDE US WITH TWO N.C.T SITES, AND I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON THE POINSETTIA, ONE THAT WOULD TAKE PARKING OUT, AND I'VE BEEN TO THE POINSETTIA SITE MANY TIMES.

THERE'S ABUNDANT PARKING THERE AND HAVING RESIDENTIAL CLOSE TO A COASTER STATION FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE TO GET ON THE FREEWAY AND IT CAN CAN GET ON THE COASTER, I THINK IS A GREAT DEAL.

SO I SEE SOME BENEFITS IN THOSE SITES, BUT BUT I'M THINKING THOSE MIGHT BE DEVELOPED ANYHOW EVEN IF WE DON'T MAKE THESE CHANGES.

SO THAT IS SO THIS IS A VERY CLOSE CALL, AND I'M ALSO VERY SENSITIVE TO CONCERNS RAISED BY NEIGHBORS IN THE NUMBER THREE AND NUMBER EIGHT AREA.

I LOOKED AT BOTH OF THOSE EXTENSIVELY, BUT AS STAFF INDICATES, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROJECT OUT IN FRONT OF US.

THERE IS NO DRAWINGS.

WE DON'T SEE WHERE UNITS ARE GOING TO GO.

WE DON'T SEE WHERE PARKING IS GOING TO GO.

WE DON'T SEE HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING IN AND OUT.

THAT COMES LATER, AND I LOOKED AND DESPITE THE COMMENTS WE HAVE ON BOTH OF THOSE, AND THEY'RE PRIMARILY NEGATIVE TO THEM, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING FROM EITHER SITE THAT ON ITS FACE, I WOULD SAY IS SO INAPPROPRIATE THAT WE SHOULD NOT INCLUDE THOSE IN THE MAPS.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT I SAY THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY WORK, YOU COULDN'T DESIGN AROUND THESE ISSUES, YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS WORK, THEN I WOULD BE INCLINED TO SAY WE SHOULD TAKE OUT THREE AND EIGHT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S GONE TO THAT LEVEL.

SO HEARING STAFF NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY.

WE DO NEED THIS IS THREE ADDITIONAL SITES.

WE DON'T KNOW WHICH OF THESE ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE REAL WORLD.

ALTHOUGH I WOULDN'T BE TERRIBLY UPSET IF THIS COMMISSION VOTED TO APPROVE MAP TWO, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE MAP ONE FOR THOSE REASONS.

I THINK, COMMISSIONER STINE.

LET'S SEE, LET'S SEE.

COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO ECHO MANY OF THE COMMENTS THAT COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN HAS SAID.

THIS HAS BEEN A REMARKABLE EFFORT BY OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT, OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

IT'S. IT STARTED LIKE A LONG TIME AGO, BEFORE I WAS EVEN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

ONE OF MY FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS WAS WHEN WE APPROVED THE HOUSING ELEMENT IN APRIL OF 2021, AND I WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BECAUSE AT THE TIME, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME OF THE SITES AND WHAT WE DECIDED AT THE TIME, I THINK UNANIMOUSLY PERHAPS, WAS WE WANTED TO LEAVE ALL THE SITES ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT THAT WE SUBMITTED TO HCD, SO WE COULD HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO DECIDE LATER, AS IN NOW, WHICH OF THOSE SITES WE WOULD ACTUALLY UPZONE.

[02:25:04]

IT'S ALSO NOT THE DECISION LATER TO UPZONE THE PROPERTY AND THEN DENY IT FOR SPECIOUS REASONS.

WE HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION ON HERE AND ONLY WE CAN MAKE THIS DECISION.

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE DECISIONS THAT I DON'T THINK WE CAN RELY ON STAFF TO, TO MAKE, BECAUSE FRANKLY, IT IS NOT THEIR JOB.

IT IS OUR JOB, AND WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS BALANCE THE NEED FOR THE OUR LEGAL REQUIREMENTS GIVE THE CITY AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS IT NEEDS TO BE ON THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW WITH HCD AND NOT HAVE TO HAVE TO DO ALL THIS ALL OVER AGAIN, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO BALANCE THAT WITH THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND WE'VE HEARD A LOT FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO HAVE SPOKEN HERE TONIGHT WHO HAVE WRITTEN LETTERS TO US.

I THINK THERE'S BEEN OVER 100 LETTERS.

PARTICULARLY ABOUT SITES, THREE ABOUT SITES, EIGHT.

ABOUT SITES, TEN I'VE HEARD, AND I WANTED TO I WAS HOPEFUL THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A DEEP DIVE INTO THESE SITES, AND I DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND HOURS TALKING ABOUT EACH ONE AND GOING FROM ONE TO THE NEXT TO THE NEXT, BUT I WANTED US TO REALLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE MERITS OF EACH OF THESE SITES AND THINK TO OURSELVES, LIKE, WHICH OF THESE SITES DO WE WANT? AND I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO JUST SAY, WE WANT TO GIVE THE CITY THE MOST FLEXIBILITY POSSIBLE BECAUSE.

I THINK OUR JOB IS TO CHOOSE LIKE WE HAVE TO CHOOSE WHERE WE WANT TO BUILD HOUSING.

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND IF WE DON'T CHOOSE, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE DOING OUR JOBS THE RIGHT WAY, AND SO I WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE IN FAVOR OF MAP TWO, BUT I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF MAP TWO AS IT STANDS NOW.

I WOULD ACTUALLY RATHER PUT SITE THREE BACK INTO THE PLAN AND REMOVE SITE TEN.

THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE, AND THE REASON IS SITE THREE.

THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE TO US REQUESTING SITE THREE IS REMOVAL.

I ABSOLUTELY SYMPATHIZE WITH THOSE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE, AND I THINK I CAN'T REALLY ARGUE AGAINST ANY OF THE POINTS THAT THEY MADE, BUT WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT ALL THE POINTS THAT THEY MADE ABOUT TRAFFIC, ABOUT JUST EVERYTHING.

THE SAME EXACT THINGS CAN BE SAID ABOUT EVERY SINGLE OTHER PROJECT ON THIS, ON THIS LIST, OR EVERY SINGLE OTHER SITE ON THIS LIST, I SHOULD SAY.

I DON'T THINK THAT THEY MADE ANY ARGUMENTS UNIQUE ENOUGH TO MERIT THE REMOVAL OF THE SITE FROM THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE.

I DO THINK THAT SITE TEN COULD APPROPRIATELY BE REMOVED, AS WELL AS THE OTHER TWO SITES.

THAT SITE THAT MAP TWO REMOVES, WHICH ARE SITE EIGHT AND 15.

SO MY MY PREFERENCE, I WON'T MAKE A MOTION YET BECAUSE I WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE THE CHANCE TO SPEAK FIRST, BUT MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE MAP TO PUT SITE THREE BACK IN AND TAKE SITE TEN OUT.

SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

Q MR.. LAFFERTY.

THANKS. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS.

I'M REALLY GRATEFUL THE PUBLIC CAME TO DISCUSS THIS WITH US TODAY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROCESS.

IT IS VERY DIFFICULT AND WE ARE CONCERNED TOO.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT OF CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE HAVING ABOUT THIS.

WE NEED TO FULFILL STATE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING RINA AND HOUSING INCLUSION.

THE CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENTS NOTES THE SPECIFIC SITES IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS ADDED.

MY GREAT CONCERN IS REMOVING OR SWAPPING SITES COULD CAUSE THE HCD HOUSING TO REJECT OUR HOUSING ELEMENT, AND THIS IS WHAT WOULD PUT US BACK TO HAVING A LOT OF CONSEQUENCES.

THERE'S A WHOLE LIST OF CONSEQUENCES ON ONE OF THESE PAGES.

IN THE 780 DOCUMENTS THAT TALKS ABOUT HAVING OUR HOUSING ELEMENT REJECTED, I AM VERY CONCERNED WITH REVISITING ALL OF THIS AND REMOVING OR SWAPPING SITES AND PLAYING WITH THIS, BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD PLAN, WE HAVE THE BUFFERS WE NEED, AND THE REALITY IS EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT WHEN IT COMES TO US WILL POTENTIALLY HAVE.

A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CERTAINLY STAFF REVIEW BUT ALSO PUBLIC REVIEW.

THESE THINGS WILL COME OUT.

[02:30:02]

IT'S REALLY EASY AND IT'S IT'S REALLY WORTHWHILE BECAUSE YOU DO STAY ABREAST OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING THROUGHOUT OUR CITY.

SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO MAINTAIN THE MAIN SITES THAT WERE LISTED IN MAP ONE AND BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT, WHICH ACTUALLY INCLUDES ALL OF THESE SAME SITES.

THAT'S REALLY WHERE I'M HOPING WE CAN GO TODAY, AND I DO FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT IF WE START PLAYING WITH THIS, WE WILL GET REJECTED BY THE STATE, AND I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT THAT WOULD NOT HELP.

WE WERE ONE OF THE FIRST TO GET CERTIFIED.

WE WERE ONE OF, WHAT, SIX CITIES OUT OF 300 CITIES IN OUR STATE TO BE CERTIFIED TO GET A HOUSING ELEMENT CERTIFIED IN 2021. SO I DON'T WANT TO LOSE THAT MOMENTUM, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN CONTINUE THAT WITH GETTING THIS ONE LITTLE PIECE IN MAP ONE APPROVED TODAY.

THANKS. YEAH.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YEAH, I THINK I REALLY APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY'S COMMENTS ON THAT.

ALSO, I THINK WE ARE AT A BALANCE TO WHERE WE NEED TO.

WE'RE UNDER SOME PRESSURE WITHIN THE STATE TO GET THIS DONE, AND ALSO TO, I THINK, IN REGARDS TO THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS IN THAT TOO, I THINK THE FUTURE DECISION WILL BE WITH THE ACTUAL PROJECT THAT COMES ON THE SITE, AND SO YEAH, I YEAH, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS ON THAT.

LET'S SEE IF THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION.

MOVE ON TO A MOTION UNLESS COMMISSIONER STINE.

I JUST. WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY FOR HER COMMENTS.

I THINK THAT HER CONCERN IS VERY WELL FOUNDED AND VERY WELL STATED.

I SHARE HER CONCERNS ABOUT MIXING AND MATCHING THAT KIND OF THING.

I THINK WE HAVE SHOULD CHOOSE ONE VERSUS THE OTHER.

I. COMMISSIONER SABELLICO SUGGESTED THAT WE EXCLUDE NUMBER TEN.

I HAVE TO RESPECTFULLY DIFFER WITH HIM.

DISAGREE WITH HIM ON THAT.

I DON'T SEE THAT THAT ONE IN PARTICULAR PRESENTS ANY SPECIAL HARDSHIPS OR SOMETHING THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE.

SO I PERSONALLY WOULD APPRECIATE HIS THOUGHTS AND GIVE THIS CAREFUL ATTENTION, BUT I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF TAKING THAT OUT.

I THINK WE JUST LOOK AT IT AS A PACKAGE.

ARGUMENTS CAN BE MADE FOR EITHER ONE, BUT ON BALANCE, FOR THE REASONS THAT I STATED, AND AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY WHO'S COMMENTED HERE, STAFF HAS WORKED ON THIS NOT FOR MONTHS BUT FOR YEARS.

AND I RESPECT ALL THE HARD WORK THAT'S TAKEN, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.

SO I'M STILL A MAP ONE PERSON.

COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

WELL, I APPRECIATE THE LIVELY DIALOG FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY FOR MAKING THOSE COMMENTS.

I THINK WE ALL DEFINITELY WANT TO SEE THE SUCCESS OF OUR HOUSING ELEMENT, AND I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE PUBLIC, AS WELL AS ALL OF OUR STAFF AND OUR COMMISSIONERS, DO WHAT WE CAN TO SUPPORT THAT AND SUPPORT THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

SO I WILL VOTE YES ON WHAT I SENSE IS THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION, DESPITE MY PREFERENCES FOR SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS, BUT I WILL BE SUPPORTIVE BECAUSE I WANT TO I WANT TO BE ON RECORD AND SAY THAT I SUPPORT WHAT THE CITY IS DOING.

I SUPPORT WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE TODAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? WELL, SEEING THAT THIS IS AN UNUSUAL PROCEDURE MEETING, AND IT SEEMS LIKE I'VE GOT THE SYSTEM DOWN FOR MAKING THE MOTION.

I THINK I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION, WHICH I USUALLY DON'T DO.

SO I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE.

IT RIGHT HERE. OKAY.

OKAY. SO ALL RIGHT, SO I MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT, INCLUDING THE LAND USE MAP, THE GENERAL MAP, THE GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT, THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP, THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM INTO THE BRESSI RANCH MASTER PLAN, GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN, FENTON, CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN, NORTH COUNTY PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND WESTFIELD CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN BASED ON THE FINDINGS CONTAINED THEREIN.

DO I HAVE A SECOND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? PLEASE VOTE.

[02:35:02]

NOW CLOSES THE PUBLIC HEARING AS WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I JUST WANT TO. IT'S BEEN SAID BEFORE, BUT JUST A HEARTFELT THANKS TO STAFF AND ALSO TO FOR THE PUBLIC FOR COMING OUT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BEING A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, I FEEL THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALWAYS DONE A VERY GOOD JOB ON US LISTENING TO THE PUBLIC AND YEAH, SO I APPRECIATE ALL THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE PUBLIC AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR INVOLVEMENT TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

CHAIR MERZ.

OKAY, NOW WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT REGARDING MY VOTE.

EVERYTHING I SAID ABOUT THE STAFF, THE CONCERN OF THE CITIZENS, THE LETTERS WE RECEIVED IS TRUE.

I VOTED FOR AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION AS WORDED BECAUSE I STILL BELIEVE MAP TWO WOULD GIVE THE CITY MORE FLEXIBILITY AND MORE TOTAL NUMBERS. I MEAN, IT'S JUST IN THE CHARTS.

OKAY, GOOD, BUT AGAIN, AND I ALSO ECHO ECHO.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY'S GOOD.

THANK YOU FOR YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT.

WE APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK IT WAS A VERY GOOD DISCUSSION TONIGHT AND GETTING IN PLACE, AND THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

OKAY, AND SO NOW WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AGAIN. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING OUT.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

SO THIS CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF TONIGHT'S MEETING.

[PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS]

THE NEXT HISTORIC PRESERVATION, I THINK, IS GOING TO BE THE 11TH OF NOVEMBER, AND THE OTHER QUICK QUESTION, AND I GUESS IT'S MR. LARDY. QUESTION. A MINOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR 395 CARLSBAD VILLAGE HAS COME, BEEN IN THE PUBLIC REVIEW, AND SO I WANTED TO ASK, HAS THAT BEEN FORWARDED TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION? BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A MAYOR'S HOUSE AT ONE POINT, AND SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT BUILDING WAS.

ON SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THE RECORD BECAUSE THEY'RE RECOMMENDING DEMOLITION OF BUILDING FROM THE 1920S.

I CAN CERTAINLY FOLLOW UP ON THAT APPLICATION AND GET BACK WITH YOU.

OKAY, AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IT'S ACTUALLY NOVEMBER 13TH.

IS THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 13TH OKAY.

SOMEWHERE. SO SO YOU'RE NOT MEETING ON SATURDAYS? NO. OKAY, GREAT.

THANKS A LOT.

ANY OTHER REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY REPORTS FROM OUR CITY PLANNER, MR..

[CITY PLANNER REPORT]

SO WE ANTICIPATE CANCELING THE NOVEMBER 1ST MEETING BECAUSE WE HOLDING IT FOR POTENTIAL CONTINUANCE FOR THIS ITEM.

WE DO HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS FOR NOVEMBER 15TH, WITH TWO COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR PRIVATE RESIDENCES AND ONE FOR A PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT.

SO THAT IS SHOULD BE A LIGHTER AGENDA WITH THREE AGENDA ITEMS, BUT NOTHING OF SIGNIFICANT CONTROVERSY.

GOOD. WONDERFUL. THANK YOU, AND COMMISSIONER OR EXCUSE ME, COUNCILOR KEMP, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR US? NO COMMENTS. OKAY, GOOD.

WELL, WITH THAT, WE WILL END TONIGHT'S.

WE'LL ADJOURN TONIGHT'S MEETING.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.