Mar 20, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting

[00:00:03]

AND WELCOME TO THE MARCH 20TH, 2024, MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE CLERK.

[CALL TO ORDER]

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT KEVIN SABELLICO IS ABSENT.

ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT WITH THE ABSENCE OF COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED THIS EVENING BY COMMISSIONER STINE.

READY. BEGIN.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THERE ARE NO MINUTES FOR THE PROOF FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.

CORRECT. THERE ARE THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING ON FEBRUARY 21ST.

OKAY, GOOD.

THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT.

WE WILL REQUIRE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM FOR ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS.

REQUESTS TO SPEAK FORMS MUST BE TURNED INTO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING.

THIS WILL ALLOW SPEAKER TIME TO BE MANAGED IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER.

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

SPEAKERS MAY NOT GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANOTHER SPEAKER.

GROUP TIME WILL BE PERMITTED FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA.

THE REPRESENTATIVE MUST IDENTIFY THE GROUP, AND AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE MEETING AT WHICH THE PRESENTATION IS BEING MADE.

THOSE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF A GROUP HAVE TEN MINUTES, UNLESS THE TIME IS CHANGED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.

THE MINUTE CLERK WILL CALL THE NAMES OF THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN THE ORDER.

THE REQUESTS TO SPEAK ARE RECEIVED.

THE BROWN ACT ALLOWS ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

PLEASE TREAT OTHERS WITH COURTESY, CIVILITY AND RESPECT.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY PROVIDING COMMENTS AS PROVIDED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THIS AGENDA.

THE PLANNING PRESERVATION COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED, UP TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES IN THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.

ALL OTHER NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE HEARD AT THE END OF THE MEETING IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT.

NO ACTION CAN OCCUR ON THESE ITEMS. I MEAN, IT'S, CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS? WE DON'T HAVE ANY NON-AGENDA ITEM SPEAKER SLIPS.

GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

I'M SORRY.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

ANY CORRECTIONS OR REVISIONS.

SEEING NONE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO.

I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER.

I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.

THANK YOU. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

MINUTES. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

OKAY. A MOTION TO APPROVE HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER MEENES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STINE.

ARE THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS? PLEASE VOTE.

THE MINUTES APPROVAL.

THE MINUTES PASS 4 TO 2, WITH COMMISSIONER MERZ AND HUBINGER ABSTAINING.

THANK YOU.

IF EVERYONE DIRECTS THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN, I WILL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES THE COMMISSION WILL BE FOLLOWING FOR THIS EVENING'S PUBLIC HEARINGS.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPENED.

STAFF WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATIONS.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THE STAFF PRESENTATION.

THE APPLICANTS WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION AND RESPOND TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS.

THEY WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION.

THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL THEN BE OPENED.

A TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES IS ALLOTTED TO EACH SPEAKER.

[00:05:03]

THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE CLOSED.

THE APPLICANT AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO ISSUES OR QUESTIONS RAISED.

THE COMMISSIONERS WILL THEN DISCUSS THE ITEM AND THEN VOTE ON IT.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CLOSED.

CERTAIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ARE FINAL BUT MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES ON THE BACK OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

TRIED THEM ON.

CORRECT. OKAY, GOOD.

AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

THANK YOU. MR. LARDY, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA? YES. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND COMMISSION.

THE FIRST ITEM IS THE LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

[1. LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE TO PLANNING COMMISSION]

THANK YOU. WHAT A PLEASURE TO BE HERE TODAY.

I'VE NEVER SAT IN THIS SEAT.

I USUALLY SIT WHERE COMMISSIONER MEENES IS SITTING.

IT'S SUCH A PLEASURE TO BE HERE.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO YOU TODAY.

WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING AT THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND THE GOAL IS REALLY TO SHARE WITH YOU THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING AT THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADVOCATE FOR OURSELVES WITH THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT I HAVE BEEN ON THE LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE SINCE JANUARY OF 2021, AND I'VE SERVED WITH MAYOR MATT HALL AND NOW WITH COUNCIL MEMBER MELANIE BURKHOLDER. AND THE TWO OF US COMPRISE THAT SUBCOMMITTEE.

SO, WE SIT RIGHT HERE ONCE A MONTH AND WE TALK ABOUT LEGISLATION AND ADVOCACY.

WE'VE HAD THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WE'VE HAD ATTORNEY FROST WITH US, AND NOW WE HAVE CITY ATTORNEY MCMAHON SITTING AT THE DAIS WITH US. I THINK THE NEXT SLIDE WILL BE GOOD.

SO TODAY WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT OUR INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS PROGRAM.

AND YOU'LL LEARN FROM MR. JASON HABER WHO'S HERE WITH ME A BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE DOING SINCE HE IS THE DIRECTOR OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS FOR THE CITY.

YOU'LL LEARN ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AND CALENDAR AND HOW WE FIT INTO THAT.

OUR LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND HOW THE COUNCIL APPROVES THAT, BUT ALSO WITH THE LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE DOES TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CITY FUNDING REQUESTS.

AND THEN THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR Q&A.

BEFORE I HAND IT OVER TO MR. HABER, I WANTED TO SHARE ALSO THAT I HAVE A VERY STRONG BACKGROUND IN PUBLIC POLICY.

THIS IS A REALLY GOOD FIT FOR ME.

AND YOU CAN TRUST THAT WE ARE WORKING REALLY HARD ON ADVOCACY.

I STARTED MY CAREER WORKING FOR A STATE SENATOR IN THE LA AREA FOR SEVEN YEARS, FROM THE AGE OF 21 TO THE AGE OF 28, I WORKED FOR A STATE SENATOR ON STATE POLICY ISSUES.

AND THEN I WENT TO WORK FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES.

AND MY JOB THERE WAS TO ADVOCATE FOR CITIES IN THE LA AREA, TO THE STATE, AND TO LET THEM KNOW ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL, LOCAL AUTHORITY AND LOCAL RIGHTS. SO, THIS IS SOME OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING FOR YOU NOW.

I GOT PAID TO DO THOSE JOBS.

AND THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, VOLUNTEER COMMITMENT THAT I STEPPED UP FOR BECAUSE I KNOW THAT I'VE GOT THE EXPERTISE AND THE ABILITY TO HELP.

I ALSO SIT ON A NUMBER OF STATEWIDE BOARDS THAT DO THIS KIND OF ADVOCACY WORK.

SO, I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO SHARING WITH YOU AND HAVING THE Q&A WITH YOU ABOUT THESE ISSUES, BECAUSE THERE'S I THINK THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN'T THROW AT ME THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD BEFORE.

I'LL HAND IT OVER TO MR. HABER.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. JASON HABER, I'M THE CITY'S INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, AND I WORK OUT OF THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

I MANAGE OUR INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS PROGRAM.

AND TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THAT INVOLVES BACK IN THE 2018-2019 TIME FRAME, THE CITY COUNCIL WANTED TO GET MORE ACTIVE IN INFLUENCING STATE LEGISLATION, PRIMARILY, BUT AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AS WELL.

AND A COUPLE OF COUNCIL POLICY AND ULTIMATELY A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED WHICH ESTABLISHED THE PROGRAM OVERALL AND ESTABLISHED THE CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE.

THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING SINCE THAT TIME.

AND ONE OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE COUNCIL POLICY IS THAT THE CITY ADOPTS A LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM.

WE'VE HAD A PLATFORM IN PLACE FOR MANY YEARS.

IT WAS A DOCUMENT THAT WAS ADDED ONTO OVER TIME.

WE UNDERTOOK AN OVERHAUL AND CLEANUP OF THAT DOCUMENT IN THE TIME FRAME.

AND NOW THAT SERVES AS REALLY THE POLICY GUIDANCE IN TERMS OF POSITIONING ON PROPOSED STATE LEGISLATION OR FEDERAL MATTERS AS WELL.

WE WORK WITH A VARIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND PARTNERS, INCLUDING THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, THAT HELPS INFORM US AND KEEP US UP TO DATE

[00:10:09]

THAT DOES SIMILAR TRACKING AND INFORMING OF MEMBER AGENCIES ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL.

THE CITY AND PERSONALLY, MYSELF AND OUR LOBBYISTS, WE EMPLOY TWO SETS OF LOBBYISTS, A STATE LOBBYIST AND A FEDERAL LOBBYIST. WE MEET ANNUALLY AND ON AN ONGOING BASIS WITH DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE CITY TO UNDERSTAND PRIORITIES FOR THEM, ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP IN THE PRIOR YEAR, ANY PAIN POINTS THAT THEY'RE SEEING IN TERMS OF REGULATORY OR LEGISLATIVE ISSUES THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS, THAT WE KNOW MIGHT BE COMING UP IN THE COMING YEAR.

AND AS I SAID, WE'RE CLOSELY WITH OUR LOBBYISTS AND THEIR SUPPORT TO UPDATE THE PLATFORM ON AN ONGOING BASIS, REGULAR BASIS, AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PREPARED TO RESPOND QUICKLY AND EFFECTIVELY TO ANY ISSUES THAT COME UP THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE CITY.

WE UNDERTAKE A VARIETY OF EFFORTS AROUND LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY ADVOCACY, AND THEN ALSO MANAGE A CONTRACT GRANT WRITER THAT HELPS US IDENTIFY FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES THAT MIGHT CREATE OUTSIDE FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE CITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF AND ADVANCE SOME OF OUR PRIORITY PROJECTS. SOME OF THE WORK THAT WE DO AT THE LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE IS TAKE POSITIONS, AND THOSE POSITIONS ARE BASED ON THE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM, FIRST AND FOREMOST, THAT IS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH YEAR OR THE END OF THE PRIOR YEAR.

BUT IT'S ALSO ADVISED BY OUR LOBBYISTS, OUR CONTRACT LOBBYISTS, AND THE POSITIONS OF OUR PARTNERS, LIKE THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES OR THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES.

SO, WE TAKE THE POSITIONS, WATCH, SUPPORT, OPPOSE OR SUPPORT, IF AMENDED, OPPOSE IF AMENDED.

WE ARE IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH THE BILL AUTHORS IF THEY ARE OURS, IF THEY ARE OUR LOCAL LEGISLATORS AND WE KNOW THEM, WE PROVIDE LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR LETTERS OF OPPOSITION.

OUR LOBBYISTS HAVE REALLY GREAT CONTACTS, SO THEY ARE IN TOUCH WITH COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS AND STAFF.

BUT WE ALSO DO ADVOCACY TRIPS AND VISITS LOCALLY IN OUR DISTRICT OFFICES WITH OUR LOCAL LEGISLATORS.

AND THROUGH COMING UP, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES HAS AN ADVOCACY TRIP COMING UP IN APRIL IN SACRAMENTO.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES INVITES ALL CITY OFFICIALS WHO ARE DOING ADVOCACY TO COME UP AS PART OF A TRIP, A LEGISLATIVE ACTION TRIP TO SACRAMENTO.

SO, THAT'S COMING UP IN APRIL.

WE HAVE HAD THE HONOR OF SPONSORING SOME LEGISLATION RECENTLY.

I BELIEVE IT'S THE FIRST TIME IN OUR HISTORY, OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS THAT WE HAVE REALLY GOTTEN INVOLVED WITH SPONSORING BILLS.

SO, WE I THINK WE'VE GOT THEM ON A ON A NEXT SLIDE.

YES. WE HAVE COME UP WITH SOME ISSUES WHERE WE FEEL THAT THERE ARE LEGISLATIVE CORRECTIONS, LEGISLATIVE FIXES.

SO, I OFTEN SAY THAT LEGISLATION SHOULD BE ABOUT IMPROVING OUR LIVES, IMPROVING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE, AND FOR LEGISLATION'S SAKE.

IT SHOULD ALSO BE THOUGHT THROUGH CAREFULLY SO THAT WE CAN CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES.

THERE ARE SOMETIMES GREAT IDEAS THAT TURN INTO LEGISLATION AND THEN THEY HAVE NEGATIVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

SO, I BELIEVE I TRY I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS WITH THEIR LEGISLATION, AND SOMETIMES IT JUST DOESN'T WORK OUT FOR OUR COMMUNITIES.

BUT OUR BILLS ARE ALL ABOUT FIXES, THINGS THAT WE HAVE FOUND THAT COULD USE JUST A LEGISLATIVE FIX IN SACRAMENTO.

AND WE'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL.

WE ARE LIKE 100% SUCCESS RATE SO FAR, WHICH IS REALLY GREAT.

OUR IN 2022, WE HAD TWO BILLS THAT WERE AUTHORED BY OUR ASSEMBLY MEMBER, TASHA BURNER, BOTH OF THEM RELATING TO WATER SAFETY.

AND THEY'RE NOT IT'S NOT ALWAYS EASY TO PASS LEGISLATION.

THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT GOES BEHIND IT.

MR. HABER AND OUR CONTRACT LOBBYIST AND THE STAFF OF THE AUTHOR ALL WORK TO FIND AMENDMENTS AND COMPROMISES WITH ANY OBJECTIONS THAT WE RECEIVE. AND THEN WE CONTINUE TO PUSH FORWARD.

SO, WE WERE ABLE TO GET THOSE THROUGH.

LAST YEAR, SENATOR BLAKE SPEAR AUTHORED SB 42, WHICH WAS RELATED TO HAVING OUR EMPLOYEES, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES BEING HARASSED AND HOW TO PROTECT THEM.

SO THAT LEGISLATION DID GET THROUGH AND DID PASS.

AND THEN THIS YEAR, WE HAVE TWO BILLS THAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER BERNER IS AUTHORING THAT WE ARE SPONSORING, ONE RELATED TO E-BIKE SAFETY RIDER TRAINING AND A 12-YEAR AGE MINIMUM TO RIDE E-BIKES, AND THE OTHER ABOUT CYBERSECURITY AND HOW CITIES NEED TO

[00:15:04]

WE'D LIKE TO MOVE THOSE TO CLOSED SESSION, BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE BAD GUYS MIGHT BE WATCHING OUR MEETINGS AND LEARNING HOW WE'RE PROTECTING OURSELVES AND FINDING THE CHINKS IN OUR ARMOR. SO, I THINK THAT THAT IS A BILL THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, AND EVERYONE KNOWS THE THREAT THAT CYBERSECURITY IS.

THE DATA IS OUT THERE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE.

SO, THESE ARE OUR BILLS THAT WE'VE SPONSORED AND HAVE BEEN VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE COME THROUGH.

AND IT LOOKS GOOD FOR THIS YEAR, TOO.

SO, THIS IS JUST TO WALK YOU A BIT THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR FOR THE YEAR.

THIS IS THE STATE RUNS A TWO-YEAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

SO, WE'RE IN THE SECOND YEAR OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION RIGHT NOW.

THE LEGISLATURE RECONVENED IN EARLY JANUARY.

LET'S SEE, I THINK THERE'S AN ANIMATION HERE, EXCEPT YOU GOT TO HIT THE ARROW, NOT THE ZERO.

AND SO WE'RE HERE IN THE PROCESS.

WE'VE HIT THE BILL.

INTRODUCTION DEADLINE MID-FEBRUARY.

AND NOW BILLS ARE PROCEEDING THROUGH POLICY COMMITTEE REVIEW.

WILL BE GOING THROUGH TO THE BUDGET DEADLINE COMING IN JUNE AND ULTIMATELY TRACKING TOWARDS A SEPTEMBER DEADLINE FOR THE GOVERNOR TO SIGN AND VETO HIS BILLS.

SO, WE ADVOCATE THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS, EITHER WRITING SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION LETTERS TO THE VARIOUS POLICY COMMITTEES, OR ULTIMATELY SIGN AND VETO REQUESTS TO THE GOVERNOR.

SOME FROM TIME TO TIME.

WE'LL ALSO WEIGH IN ON VARIOUS BUDGET PROPOSALS.

IF THERE ARE PROPOSED CUTS OR SPECIFIC FUNDING THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IS INCLUDED IN THE STATE BUDGET, WE CAN ADVOCATE ON THAT AS WELL.

AND THEN THE START OF THE NEW TWO-YEAR SESSION WILL BEGIN WHEN THE LEGISLATURE RECONVENES IN DECEMBER.

AND THIS IS JUST A FLOW CHART THAT GENERALLY SHOWS YOU THE PROCESS.

AND APOLOGIES FOR IT.

IT'S SOMEWHAT COMPLICATED, BUT THESE ARE TWO PARALLEL PROCESSES.

DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU HAVE A BILL INTRODUCED BY AN ASSEMBLY MEMBER ON THE TOP ROW OR BY A SENATOR ON THE BOTTOM ROW, ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU SEE IS FOR HALF THE SESSION, THOSE WILL PROCEED THROUGH A REVIEW PROCESS IN THE HOUSE OF ORIGIN.

AND THEN ONCE THEY GET PASSED OUT OF THAT HOUSE, THEY'LL TRANSITION OVER TO THE SECOND HOUSE FOR REVIEW THROUGH POLICY COMMITTEES AND ULTIMATELY APPROVAL.

ONCE THAT GETS OFF THE FLOOR, IT'LL GO TO THE GOVERNOR FOR SIGNATURE AND BECOMES LAW, TYPICALLY GOING INTO EFFECT THE FOLLOWING YEAR IF UNLESS THERE'S AN URGENCY CLAUSE ATTACHED TO THE BILL.

SO ALL OF OUR LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS, ADVOCACY POSITIONS THAT WE TAKE ARE BASED ON OUR LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE DISCUSS, AS I MENTIONED DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE AND BRING TO THE FULL COUNCIL.

AND THE COUNCIL DISCUSSES AND APPROVES IT AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY YEAR.

OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES REMAIN VERY FOUNDATIONAL TO WHY WE'RE HERE AS PUBLIC SERVANTS, WHY WE WORK IN IN OUR POSITIONS AS COUNCIL MEMBERS. PRESERVING LOCAL CONTROL IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US TO PROTECT THE CITY.

THE CITY SUPPORTS VERY BROAD AUTHORITY FOR OUR CITIZENS AND THE COUNCIL TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT OUR OWN CITY.

AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF ATTEMPTS TO ERODE LOCAL CONTROL AND LOCAL AUTHORITY.

AND NUMBER ONE ON OUR LIST IS PRESERVING LOCAL CONTROL AND PRESERVING OUR LOCAL AUTHORITY.

NUMBER TWO IS FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

AND WE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING AT LEGISLATIVE AND BUDGET MEASURES THAT PROTECT OUR FUNDING SOURCES.

YOU MAY REMEMBER IN PAST YEARS THAT THE STATE HAS LOOKED TO HOLD ON TO OUR MONEY, TO MUNICIPAL FUNDS AND RETURN IT AFTER THEY'VE SPENT A LITTLE BIT OF IT, AND THEN THEY'LL GIVE IT BACK TO US.

AND I HAVE WORKED IN ON MEASURES THAT PROTECT CITIES FOR A LONG TIME.

THIS CONTINUES TO BE A THREAT FOR CITIES, IS FOR THE STATE TO LOOK AT HOLDING ON TO OUR MONEY A LITTLE BIT LONGER SO THAT THEY CAN SPEND IT.

WE ARE FIGHTING AND ADVOCATING ALWAYS FOR THE STATE TO REMAIN FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND FOR OUR FUNDING STREAMS TO REMAIN SECURE.

THE THIRD IS PROTECTING QUALITY OF LIFE.

I HAVEN'T USED THE PHRASE YET, BUT I'M GOING TO, EVEN IF IT'S CLICHE.

WE ARE NOT A COOKIE CUTTER STATE.

ALL CITIES IN THE STATE ARE NOT THE SAME RURAL, URBAN, COASTAL FARMLAND, BIG, SMALL.

WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF COMMUNITIES IN THIS STATE, AND WE IN CARLSBAD HAVE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE ARE HERE TO PROTECT.

AND WHEN IT COMES TO STATE LEGISLATION OR FEDERAL LEGISLATION, WE ALWAYS LOOK AT HOW THAT LEGISLATION MAY AFFECT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE.

THIS GOES BACK TO THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

ASSUMING THAT LEGISLATION HAS GOOD INTENT, YOU KNOW, HOW IS IT GOING TO PLAY OUT?

[00:20:04]

IN ADDITION TO OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES, WE HAVE ALIGNED OUR LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES WITH OUR STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE CITY AND OUR TOP AREAS.

YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN THOSE DOCUMENTS.

WE HAVE MANY OF THEM ON THE WEBSITE.

BUT COMMUNITY CHARACTER, QUALITY OF LIFE AND SAFETY, SUSTAINABILITY AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMIC VITALITY, ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE AND FISCAL HEALTH.

THESE ARE OUR CITY'S PRIORITIES FOR THE CITY, AND WE ALWAYS ADVOCATE TO PROTECT THOSE.

SO THIS SLIDE SHOWS GENERALLY THE ORGANIZATION OF OUR LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM.

AND THE STRUCTURE IS REALLY BUILT ON THE FRAMEWORK THAT THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES HAS ESTABLISHED FOR HOW THEY STRUCTURE THEIR ADVOCACY WORK, HOW THEY TRACK BILLS, HOW THEY CATEGORIZE BILLS AND ADOPT POLICY POSITIONS TO ALLOW THAT ORGANIZATION TO POSITION ON BILLS AND TAKE ACTION FOR OR AGAINST.

AND SO WE'VE DONE THE SAME THING.

YOU CAN SEE RELATIVE TO THE WORK OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAVE A SECTION DEDICATED TO WORK RELATIVE TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND THEN ANOTHER SECTION AROUND HOUSING, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THAT REALLY TOUCHES ON A LOT OF THE FOCUS AREAS THAT ARE ADDRESSED HERE.

I'LL GO INTO A FEW OF THE SPECIFIC POSITIONS THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED IN THE PLATFORM.

THIS IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE.

THERE'S A LONGER LIST, BUT JUST TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW.

UNDER PLANNING AND ZONING, THE CITY HAS ADOPTED POSITIONS THAT ESSENTIALLY MEAN IF THE LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEWS A BILL, THEY DETERMINE THAT IT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF BEING A PRIORITY BILL, SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO WEIGH IN AND USE THE CITY'S VOICE TO ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST.

THIS GIVES US THE BASIS FOR TAKING THAT POSITION.

IF THE POSITION THE LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S IN THE PLATFORM.

WE CAN GO AHEAD AND WRITE A LETTER, SUBMIT THAT TO THE MAYOR FOR HIS SIGNATURE, AND GO AHEAD.

IF WE DON'T HAVE CLEAR POLICY DIRECTION IN THE PLATFORM.

BUT THE SUBCOMMITTEE DECIDES THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY SHOULD BECOME ACTIVE ON, WE'LL BRING THAT BACK TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION AND DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD ON.

SO JUST TO TOUCH REALLY QUICKLY IN PLANNING AND ZONING, SUPPORTING MEASURES IN LOCAL LAND USE THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE DOCTRINE OF HOME RULE AND THE LOCAL EXERCISE OF POLICE POWERS. SUPPORTING MEASURES THAT AUTHORIZE LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING LAW TO OVERRIDE CONFLICTING STATE LAW.

THAT'S MAYBE CONTROVERSIAL AND BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS HOPE SO.

SUPPORT LEGISLATION THAT PRESERVES THE AUTHORITY OF LOCAL AGENCIES TO REGULATE SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS, OPPOSE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD DIMINISH LOCAL CONTROL, TO SET AND ASSESS DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW AND BUILDING INSPECTION FEES.

RECOGNIZING THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST AREAS WHERE THE STATE HAS TRIED TO COME IN AND USURP SOME OF THAT AUTHORITY FROM LOCAL AGENCIES.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE READY TO ACT WHEN THAT OCCURS IN THE FUTURE.

IN THE DOMAIN OF HOUSING SUPPORTING LEGISLATION THAT RECOGNIZES IMPEDIMENTS TO INFILL HOUSING DUE TO INADEQUATE OR DETERIORATED INFRASTRUCTURE, AND WHICH PROVIDES FUNDING OR COST RECOVERY MECHANISMS FOR LOCAL AGENCIES TO COMPLETE NECESSARY UPGRADES.

AND WE'VE SEEN A VARIETY OF BILLS RECENTLY THAT IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS ON ADDED DENSITY FOR CITIES AND REALLY TAKES AWAY SOME OF OUR AUTHORITY TO OPPOSE THAT OR CONTROL THAT.

SUPPORTING MEASURES THAT WOULD ESTABLISH A FORMULA BASED RHNA ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY REFLECTING THE UNIQUE NEEDS AND PRACTICAL CAPACITY OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES.

AND AGAIN, I'LL JUST MENTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION THAT ENSURES THAT UNITS CREATED UNDER DENSITY BONUS LAW ARE NOT USED FOR VACATION RENTALS, AND WE'VE ADOPTED A FEW POSITION STATEMENTS RELATIVE TO DENSITY BONUS IN ADDITION TO THAT AS WELL.

SUPPORTING LEGISLATION THAT MAINTAINS LOCAL DECISION MAKING REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, SUPPORTING LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS FOR LOCAL DECISION-MAKING REGARDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER AREA WE'VE SEEN IN RECENT YEARS.

BEING THE SUBJECT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION.

AND IN FACT, ADOPTED LEGISLATION.

LET'S SEE.

SUPPORTING MEASURES THAT WOULD EXEMPT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS FROM CEQA COMPLIANCE WHILE CONTINUING TO MITIGATE FOR POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS.

AND THEN OPPOSING LEGISLATION THAT WOULD EXPAND THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY OVER STATE AND LOCAL HOUSING POLICY, WHICH COULD RESULT IN ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCIES AND POLICY CONFLICTS.

AND, AGAIN, AN AREA THAT WE'VE SEEN AND CONTINUE TO SEE PROPOSALS ACTIVE IN THAT SPACE.

[00:25:04]

THESE ARE POSITIONS THAT WE HAVE TAKEN THIS YEAR.

OH, WAIT. THIS IS YOU.

THAT IS A J. THIS IS JUST A HIGHLIGHT.

SORRY. THAT'S RIGHT. THIS IS JUST TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW OF THE BILLS THAT ARE IN PLAY THIS YEAR THAT HAVE KIND OF COME TO OUR ATTENTION, AND WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE IS CURRENTLY CONTEMPLATING REVIEWING, ANALYZING.

WE'LL BE WORKING WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING STAFF TO GET DEEPER UNDERSTANDING ON THESE.

AND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE FOR THE CITY SPECIFICALLY AND WHAT POSITIONS WE MIGHT WANT TO TAKE.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE POSITIONED ON ANY OF THESE QUITE YET, BUT WE ARE AT THE RELATIVELY BEGINNING OF THE SESSION.

AND SO, AS THEY PROCEED THROUGH THE PROCESS AND COMMITTEE REVIEW BEFORE YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

SURE. I WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE DIFFERENT BUCKETS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND HOW THEY ALIGN WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES.

BUCKETS. BECAUSE THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES HAS A PROCESS BY WHICH THERE ARE COMMITTEES FOR EACH BUCKET COMPRISED OF ELECTED OFFICIALS AND STAFF MEMBERS APPOINTED BY BY DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT COME TOGETHER FOUR TIMES A YEAR TO DISCUSS BILLS.

AND THURSDAY AND FRIDAY THIS WEEK WE ARE HAVING COMMITTEE MEETINGS.

THEY WILL BE IN PERSON. THEY'RE USUALLY VIRTUAL, BUT WE'RE HAVING IN-PERSON MEETINGS IN LA THIS WEEK.

I SIT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE, WHERE THE LEAGUE OF CITIES TAKES UP ALL EVERYTHING THAT IS PRIORITY FOR CITIES IN THAT ISSUE AREA. WE HAVE A STAFF MEMBER WHO IS IN COMMUNITY SERVICES AND REPRESENTS CARLSBAD IN THAT ONE.

WE HAVE A STAFF MEMBER WHO IS IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, AND WE HAVE ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER WHO IS ON TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC WORKS.

SO, OF THE EIGHT POLICY COMMITTEES, WE HAVE REPRESENTATION.

CARLSBAD IS REPRESENTATION ON FOUR OF THEM, WHICH IS A LOT, SO THAT WE GET TO WEIGH IN AND SHARE CITY OF CARLSBAD PERSPECTIVE ON THOSE, AND THEN BRING THAT INFORMATION BACK TO THE CITY AND TO OUR LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE.

SO, I THOUGHT THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO MENTION.

ABSOLUTELY. SO, JUST TO BROADLY CATEGORIZE SOME OF THE CURRENT BILLS, WE ARE SEEING PROPOSALS PUTTING CONSTRAINTS ON CITIES FOR HOW WE CHARGE DEVELOPMENT FEES AND COLLECT THOSE FEES.

AND WHEN WE COLLECT THOSE FEES, WE'RE SEEING BROADER AUTHORITY FOR REQUESTING APPEALS TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AND THEN KIND OF AN EXPANSION OR EXTENSION OF WHEN THE BUILDER'S REMEDY WOULD COME INTO PLAY FOR DEVELOPERS IN CITIES.

AND SO, A LOT TO KEEP TRACK OF, AND WE'RE WATCHING THOSE CLOSELY.

OKAY, THIS IS DEFINITELY MY SLIDE CITY FUNDING REQUEST.

SO ALONG WITH OUR LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, WE ALSO LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT AREAS WHERE WE COULD USE FUNDING THAT WE KNOW THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE AVAILABLE FUNDING.

SO FOR EXAMPLE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT, RIGHT.

WE KNEW THAT IT HAD CERTAIN BUCKETS AND WE WORKED WITH OUR LOBBYISTS, WE WORKED WITH OUR STAFF, AND WE LOOKED FOR PLACES WHERE WE COULD PLUG IN TO POSSIBLY GET FEDERAL MONIES FOR OUR PROJECTS, AND SAME FOR STATE.

SO WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT WHERE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PRIORITIZE CERTAIN PROJECTS.

AND THE COUNCIL DID APPROVE SOME AREAS WHERE WE HAVE PRIORITIES.

LAST YEAR WE DID RECEIVE WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN RECEIVING SOME MONIES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS THROUGH ASSEMBLY MEMBER BERNER'S OFFICE.

SHE REALLY FOUGHT FOR US TO GET THOSE.

THAT'S $350,000 IN STATE STREET PARKING LOT, EV CHARGERS AND THEN SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL.

WE WERE ABLE TO SECURE $850,000 OF FUNDING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH CONGRESSMAN LEVIN.

SO, WE'RE GRATEFUL TO OUR REPRESENTATIVES FOR FIGHTING FOR US, FOR INCLUDING US IN THEIR BUDGET REQUESTS.

AND WE HAVE MORE.

SO, THE REST OF THE BULLET POINTS ON THIS SLIDE RELATE TO PROJECTS WHERE WE COULD REALLY USE SOME ASSISTANCE TO COMPLETE THESE PROJECTS, AND WE ARE LOOKING FOR WHERE THEY MIGHT PLUG IN WITH THE FUNDING THAT IS OUT THERE AVAILABLE.

SO, WE'VE FLOATED THESE WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVES.

THEY'RE HELPING US FIND THE BEST PLACES WHERE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SECURE THAT FUNDING.

BUT YOU'LL SEE SOME HERE.

THEY'RE ALL OVER THE CITY AND SOME OF THEM ARE CITYWIDE.

YOU MIGHT SEE SOME HERE THAT RELATE TO YOUR WORK OR YOUR INTERESTS OR WHERE YOU LIVE.

AND WE'RE WORKING ON ALL OF THEM.

SO, WE JUST WANTED TO SHARE THIS WITH YOU IN DECEMBER OR JANUARY IS WHEN WE DO.

WE USUALLY DO IT IN JANUARY, BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS YEAR WE DID THIS PROCESS OF THE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND FUNDING REQUESTS IN DECEMBER, SO WE WERE READY TO GET A HEAD START FOR JANUARY WHEN THE BILLS STARTED COMING OUT.

[00:30:02]

AND YOU MAY HAVE SEEN RECENTLY, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS JUST GOTTEN THROUGH THEIR FY 24 APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS AND HAS BEEN FINALIZING THE VARIOUS APPROPRIATIONS BILLS.

THEY'RE ALSO KICKING OFF THE FY 25 PROCESS RIGHT NOW.

AND SO, WE HAVE A MEETING LATER THIS WEEK WITH CONGRESSMAN LEVIN'S OFFICE TO DISCUSS SOME OF THESE NEEDS FOR THE CITY AND SEE WHERE WE HAVE ALIGNMENT THAT WE WANT TO SUBMIT THOSE PROPOSALS TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THEIR SUPPORT.

THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.

WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU BOTH.

IT'S NICE TO SEE LEGISLATION AS INTERESTING ON THE LOCAL LEVEL.

IT'S TOO BAD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CATCH ON.

ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS WANT TO ASK ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OR RAISE COMMENTS? YES. THANK YOU.

EXCELLENT PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

AND TO BE ABLE TO GET A LITTLE BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS THAT YOU GO THROUGH.

QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU IN REGARD TO THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING REQUESTS.

SO, THE QUESTION I HAVE IN THAT REGARD IS WHAT AREAS OF FOCUS THOSE PARTICULAR GRANTS ARE AND HOW LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR 2024, FOR EXAMPLE, I'M SURE THERE'S GRANTS DESIGNATED FOR EITHER, YOU KNOW YOU KNOW, SAFETY ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY VERSUS SOMETHING ELSE.

COULD YOU GIVE US A GENERAL BACKGROUND OF WHAT THOSE ARE? I'LL START AND THEN HAND IT OVER TO MR. HABER. BUT THESE ARE NOT THE TRADITIONAL GRANTS.

WE'RE NOT MAKING APPLICATIONS.

THESE ARE MEMBER REQUESTS.

SO, WE'RE ASKING FOR A BUDGET ALLOCATION FROM THE STATE OR FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, FROM BUDGET BILLS.

SO, WE ARE NOT APPLYING FOR THEM.

THESE ARE PART OF THE BUDGET PACKAGE.

THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

YEAH, I'LL JUST ADD TO THAT.

WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF GRANT APPLICATIONS THAT WE DO SUBMIT EVERY YEAR.

RIGHT? WHEN AS THOSE OPPORTUNITIES COME UP AS I MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE A CONTRACT GRANT WRITER THAT KEEPS US APPRIZED AS THOSE NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ARE RELEASED WE GET A BULLETIN ON THE OPPORTUNITY, KIND OF WHAT THE CONSTRAINTS OF THAT OPPORTUNITY ARE, AND WE FIND THE OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN OUR NEEDS THAT THAT MATCH THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND APPLY WHERE IT MAKES SENSE AND WHERE WE THINK WE CAN BE COMPETITIVE.

IN THESE REQUESTS OF OUR MEMBERS YES.

THE STATE PARTICULARLY THOSE ARE FAIRLY UNCONSTRAINED.

THOSE ARE LINE-ITEM BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS THAT DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE SPECIFIC USE RESTRICTIONS TIED TO THEM OTHER THAN WHAT WE ASK FOR AND WHAT THEY AWARD.

ONE CONSTRAINT IS TIME RELATED.

THEY WANT TO SEE THAT WE CAN SPEND THE MONEY IN A IN A SHORT, RELATIVELY SHORT TIME FRAME.

SO MAYBE A FEW YEARS TO RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF THE DOLLARS THAT THEY'RE APPROPRIATING ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, THE FUNDING CAN BE APPROVED THROUGH.

WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIMARILY IS THE COMMUNITY PROJECTS FUNDING REQUEST IS KIND OF A REPLACEMENT FOR EARMARKS.

AND THOSE ARE TIED SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPROPRIATIONS BILLS.

AND THERE ARE GUIDELINES RELEASED EVERY YEAR BY THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES THAT TALK ABOUT SPECIFICALLY WHAT TYPES OF USES FUNDS WITHIN THOSE BILLS CAN BE USED FOR. AND SO THAT'S THAT PROCESS OF KIND OF FINDING THE ALIGNMENT FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE'S PRIORITIES, THE CITY'S PRIORITIES, AND WORKING WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE FUNDING LIMITATIONS.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE.

THANK YOU FOR AN EXCELLENT REPORT, VERY DETAILED ON THE PROCEDURES AND PROCESS.

I HAVE AS A LAND USE BODY AND INTEREST IN PLANNING AND ZONING.

I PICKED UP, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO ONE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE IN TERMS OF SUPPORT FOR MEASURES IN LOCAL LAND AND LOCAL LAND USE CONSISTENT WITH HOME RULE AND POLICE POWERS.

MAKE AN OBSERVATION.

I'M SEEING YEAR BY YEAR BY YEAR, OUR DISCRETION AS LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN TERMS OF REVIEWING PROJECT APPLICATIONS, MAKING DECISIONS ON THEM.

IT SEEMS TO BE TIGHTENING EVERY YEAR, DRIP BY DRIP BY DRIP.

AND I KNOW YOU'RE MAKING AN EFFORT, BUT KIND OF GIVE.

WOULD YOU GIVE US KIND OF A SENSE ON THE RECEPTION THAT YOU GET WHEN YOU TALK TO OUR STATE SENATORS, WHEN YOU TALK TO OUR ASSEMBLY PEOPLE ABOUT HOME RULE AND BEING ABLE TO PRESERVE OUR DISCRETION, ARE THEY GIVING US THE COLD SHOULDER? WHAT'S GOING ON THERE? WELL, AGAIN, I'LL START AND THEN HAND IT OVER TO MR. HABER FOR ANYTHING THAT I FORGOT.

A LOT OF OUR LEGISLATORS PREVIOUSLY SERVED IN LOCAL ELECTED OFFICE.

[00:35:01]

SLIGHTLY MORE THAN 50% DID.

AND HAVING WORKED AT THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES AND NOW BEING VERY INVOLVED, I SIT ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE LEAGUE OF CITIES FOR THE STATE.

THIS IS OUR MAIN TOPIC.

THIS IS WHAT WE TALK ABOUT.

THE MISSION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IS TO PROTECT LOCAL CONTROL AND TO EDUCATE AND ADVOCATE FOR CITIES.

SO WE WORK ON THIS ALL THE TIME.

WE ARE IN MANY MEETINGS, NOT JUST WITH CARLSBAD LOBBYISTS, BUT ALSO WITH OTHER GROUPS OF CITIES WHERE WE'RE TALKING TO LEGISLATORS AND DOING OUR BEST TO ADVOCATE, TO PERSUADE, TO CAJOLE AND TO TO REMIND THEM WHERE THEY CAME FROM AND TO REMIND THEM THAT NOT ALL CITIES ARE THE SAME AND WE CAN'T ALL BE PAINTED WITH THE SAME BROAD BRUSH.

SOMETIMES WE ARE EFFECTIVE, SOMETIMES WE ARE ABLE TO FIND COMPROMISES OR TO GET THEM TO BACK DOWN.

BUT WE HAVE NOT BEEN 100% SUCCESSFUL, WHICH YOU ALL HAVE.

YOU HAVE ALL SEEN.

WE CONTINUE TO NOT GIVE UP THE FIGHT.

WE ARE STILL WORKING ON IT.

AND I AND THIS IS PART OF THE REASON, PART OF MY INSPIRATION FOR BECOMING MORE INVOLVED WITH LEAGUE OF CITIES AS A BOARD MEMBER AND DOING IT AS MUCH AS I POSSIBLY CAN, BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE SOME VERY CLEAR EXAMPLES OF WHERE STATE LEGISLATION DOESN'T WORK OUT THE WAY THAT THEY HAD PLANNED FOR IT TO.

AND I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE THAT WE DID HAVE LEGISLATION THAT RELATED TO HOMELESSNESS AND HEALTH HOW WE WOULD TIE IN OUR HOMELESS SERVICES WITH OUR ARENA NUMBERS AND WHERE WE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE A REPORT WHEN REPORTING OUT ON OUR, ON OUR PLAN TO MEET OUR READING ARENA NUMBERS, WHAT WE WOULD DO TO ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS.

AND WE ARE ALSO DIFFERENT.

THERE CAN'T BE A COOKIE CUTTER FORM THAT THAT EVERYBODY YOU KNOW, SHARES.

WE CAN'T ALL CONVERT A MOTEL INTO A, YOU KNOW, LOW-INCOME HOUSING.

SO, YOU KNOW, TO SHOW THAT EVERY COMMUNITY IS DIFFERENT WAS THE POINT OF MANY OF OUR ADVOCACY MEETINGS, AND WE WERE ABLE TO PAUSE THAT BILL FOR A WHILE.

LET'S, YOU KNOW, I HOPE IT'S NOT COMING BACK, BUT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO SHARE OUR STORIES AND TALK ABOUT WHAT IT'S LIKE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

I DO FEEL WHEN LEGISLATORS LEAVE THEIR LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND MOVE UP TO SACRAMENTO, SOMETHING HAPPENS.

THEY CHANGE, THEY CHANGE, AND WE TRY TO REMIND THEM OF WHERE THEY CAME FROM AND REMIND THEM OF THE LOCAL ISSUES ALL THE TIME.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING THIS WORK.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE ANYTHING THERE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

MRS. LAFFERTY? THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

TWO QUESTIONS.

AND IT GOES BACK TO YOUR SLIDE SHOW.

YOU TALKED ABOUT CONTRACT GRANT WRITER.

HOW OUR CITY PRIORITIES INCLUDE CULTURAL RESOURCES AND WANT TO PRESERVE COMMUNITY CHARACTER.

AND SUCCESSFULLY THE TRANSITION FROM HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MOVING FROM THE LIBRARY.

ONCE THE 1991 REPEAL OF THE HISTORIC LIST WAS TAKEN AWAY.

TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOW THERE.

AND THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN REALLY EFFECTIVE AT ADOPTING MILLS ACT LEGISLATION AND NEW YOU KNOW, OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE HISTORIC PRESERVATION, WHICH AFTER 91, IT ALL STOPPED.

SO WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT.

THE QUESTION I HAVE IS IN THE PROCESS OF CREATING INCENTIVES, NUMBER ONE, TO PRESERVE THE 13 ORIGINAL REMAINING HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROPERTIES AND POSSIBLY CREATE INCENTIVES TO BE ABLE TO AGAIN, HELP OUR CULTURAL RESOURCE OPPORTUNITIES AND, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO HAVE OUR WHAT COULD BE POSSIBLY DEFINED AS SOME OF THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER.

RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF UPFRONT COSTS TO THE MILLS ACT DESIGNATION PROGRAM.

AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE ARE ANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE LEGISLATIVE COMPONENT THAT WOULD ALLOW HOMEOWNERS TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE LEEWAY BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE GRANT OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF AND THAT HASN'T DIDN'T SHOW UP ON YOUR LIST THAT I SAW.

SO, I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT THAT.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PIECES OF LEGISLATION INTRODUCED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.

AND WE HAVE WE RELY ON MULTIPLE SOURCES TO HELP US IDENTIFY WHICH ONES FIT WITHIN OUR LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM.

THAT INCLUDES THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES.

[00:40:01]

AND BECAUSE I KNOW JASON IS IN TOUCH WITH EVERY DEPARTMENT, ASKING THEM WHAT LEGISLATION THEY ARE WATCHING AND CARE ABOUT IN THEIR FIELD, BUT ALSO LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, AND OUR CONTRACT LOBBYISTS.

SO, WE HAVE LOTS OF PEOPLE LOOKING OUT FOR US.

WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE NOTE OF MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE DONE OUR DEEPEST SCAN ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING LEGISLATION IN THAT AREA.

WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT IT FOR FUTURE YEAR AS SOMETHING THAT WE YOU KNOW, SPONSOR OR SUGGEST TO LEGISLATORS.

I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE ALL VERY INTERESTED IN.

AND THAT'S WHY THIS COUNCIL SUPPORTED THE MILLS ACT HERE IN THE CITY.

SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE'D BE INTERESTED IN FOR SURE.

GREAT. YEAH.

AND I WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S MORE OPPORTUNITIES.

AND I'M HAPPY TO HELP IN ANY WAY.

AND I KNOW THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION WOULD BE VERY ADMIRABLE, AND, YOU KNOW, VERY, VERY EXCITED TO BE ABLE TO GET SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS THAT ACTUALLY HAS A MILLS ACT, YOU KNOW, OPPORTUNITY TO IT.

SO SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE HAS TO DO WITH THE RAILROAD TRENCH.

I KNOW THAT COUNCIL APPROVED MOVING FORWARD WITH AN EIR, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF ANY FUNDING OR LEGISLATIVE ACTION.

I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN IN DEL MAR'S, YOU KNOW, THE CONVERSATION HAS BEEN IN DEL MAR'S IN THE PAPERS QUITE OFTEN ABOUT THEIR TRENCH.

BUT I WONDERED ABOUT OUR TRENCH AND IF THAT'S MOVING FORWARD AND IF WE'RE SECURING FUNDING FOR THAT AS WELL.

WELL, THEY'RE REALLY DIFFERENT.

SO, I WOULDN'T COMPARE US WITH DEL MAR, WHERE THE, YOU KNOW, SLOPE IS FALLING DOWN.

WE COULD OFFER TO TAKE THEIR MONEY IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO USE IT.

THAT'S ALL. WELL, WE HAVE TO STOP THE TRAINS IN DEL MAR SOMETIMES WHEN THEY'RE SLIDES.

AND IN SAN CLEMENTE, YOU'VE SEEN IT'S A VERY SERIOUS SITUATION WHERE WE CANNOT RUN THE TRANSPORTATION.

THROUGH THE LOW SAN CORRIDOR.

RIGHT. IT'S A VERY KEY AREA FOR OUR ECONOMY AS WELL AS FOR COMMUTERS.

SO, IN CARLSBAD, WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME SITUATION IN THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME EROSION ISSUE.

OURS IS A SAFETY ISSUE WITH AT GRADE CROSSINGS THAT ARE VERY DANGEROUS.

AND WE WOULD LIKE TO LOWER THE TRACKS BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY ISSUES.

I THINK PART OF THE REASON THAT THE COUNCIL AND THE LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE ARE SO INTERESTED IN PRIORITIZING LOWERING THE RAILROAD TRACKS IS THE SAFETY ISSUE.

BUT ALSO RIGHT NOW, WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE MONEY THAT IS AVAILABLE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT NOW IS THE TIME FOR THAT FUNDING FOR US. THE COUNCIL PUT IN $5 MILLION TOWARDS OUR STUDY TO GET THE BALL ROLLING AGAIN BECAUSE IT WAS ROLLING AND THEN IT STOPPED.

AND THIS CURRENT MAKEUP OF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO PUSH IT FORWARD AGAIN.

SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THAT, BUT WE CONTINUE TO TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS.

I REMEMBER WHEN SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION PETE BUTTIGIEG WAS HERE AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT WITH HIM, AND CONGRESSMAN LEVIN'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES.

WE ARE WE ARE KIND OF COMPETING WITH OTHER AREAS THAT HAVE MAYBE A MORE EMOTIONAL STORY BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO STOP THE TRAIN LIKE, THEY CAN'T EVEN GO THROUGH BECAUSE THE TRACKS ARE FALLING OFF.

SO, WE HAVE TO CONTINUE PUSHING FORWARD AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET IN THAT PRIORITY.

MAYBE WE'RE NUMBER THREE.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN THE TOP THE TOP FEW THAT ARE PRIORITIZED BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY ISSUES.

MR. HABER, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? JUST TO BUILD ON COUNCIL MEMBERS ACOSTA'S COMMENT ABOUT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROPRIATING $5 MILLION THAT OCCURRED LAST YEAR.

THE INTENTION IS THAT THAT WILL SERVE AS A 20% LOCAL MATCH FOR PURSUING FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES.

AND WE KNOW THAT THERE AT LEAST IN THE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THERE WAS A RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION FUNDING OPPORTUNITY.

WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT BEING RELEASED AGAIN IN THE COMING MONTHS.

AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A THREE-PARTY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, SANDAG AND NCTD FOR ALL THREE OF OUR AGENCIES TO GO PURSUE THOSE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES TOGETHER.

WE THINK WE'LL HAVE A MORE COMPELLING APPLICATION AND WANT TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THOSE AGENCIES AS WELL TO, TO A LARGE DEGREE WITH THAT PROJECT.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A PROJECT THAT'S VERY IMPACTFUL TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, BUT LARGELY OUT OF OUR CONTROL IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S AN NCTD RIGHT OF WAY AND A SANDAG PROJECT ULTIMATELY, IF IT GETS BUILT.

SO, WE HAVE TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THOSE AGENCIES TO ADVANCE THAT INTEREST.

APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

AND YEAH, LIKE I SAY, I DIDN'T SHOW UP ON YOUR LIST AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY IF THERE WAS SOMETHING HAPPENING WITH IT BECAUSE YOU DID APPROVE THE.

[00:45:02]

SO NO.

AND I GUESS THE ONLY OTHER PART OF THAT WOULD BE THAT AGAIN, IF YOU IT REALLY AFFECTS OUR VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, APPROVE THESE THINGS.

AND THAT TRENCHING COULD EITHER INCLUDE MORE SPACE IN OUR VILLAGE AND BARRIO DOWN TO TAMARACK, OR IT COULD KIND OF TAKE AWAY FROM IT.

SO, I THINK HAVING AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THAT'S MOVING AND HOW IT'S MOVING, AND KIND OF A TIME FRAME WOULD HELP THE DEVELOPMENT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, AND I SEE THAT MR. HABER PULLED UP THE SLIDE. I DIDN'T WALK THROUGH EVERY BULLET POINT, BUT IT IS THE FIFTH OR SIXTH AND THESE ARE NOT IN PRIORITY ORDER.

SO, IT IS ON THE LEFT COLUMN LOWERING THE RAILROAD TRACKS IN THE VILLAGE, DISTRICT ONE.

AND THESE ARE NOT IN ANY ORDER BECAUSE WE WANTED TO MATCH THEM TO THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WERE AVAILABLE FOR FUNDING FOR US.

BUT IT IS ON THE PRIORITY LIST.

IT IS A BIG LIST, I UNDERSTAND.

THANKS. YEAH.

AND JUST TO BUILD ON THAT COMMENT IN TERMS OF THIS LIST, WE RECOGNIZE IT'S A BIG LIST AND IT GIVES US KIND OF A MULTIYEAR OPPORTUNITY.

RIGHT. WE'RE LAYING OUT THE PRIORITIES THAT WE KNOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET FUNDING FOR ALL OF THESE IN YEAR ONE.

BUT WE'RE SET UP AND WE'RE STARTING THE CONVERSATION WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVES SO THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF OUR NEEDS.

DO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS PRESENTATION? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD GET A COPY OF THE POWERPOINT? YEAH, I WOULD LOVE IT IF I COULD GET A COPY.

IF YOU COULD FORWARD IT TO MR. LARDY AND WHOEVER, DID IT.

I WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE SLIDE LIFE CYCLE OF LEGISLATION.

THAT'S EXCELLENT.

YOU KNOW, IF THEY STILL TEACH CIVICS IN OUR SCHOOLS, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE A HANDOUT FOR ALL OF THEM.

SERIOUSLY? I WISH I COULD TAKE CREDIT.

I CAN'T RECALL WHERE I STOLE IT FROM, BUT IT'S NOT MINE.

IT WAS EXCELLENT. THANK YOU BOTH.

THANK YOU. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, THERE WAS ALSO NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU.

I'D LIKE TO NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.

[2. POULTER PROPERTIES MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PUD 2022-0004/SDP 2023-0030/CDP 2022-0049/MS 2022- 0006 (DEV2021-0091)]

YES, YES, I VISITED THE SITE.

OKAY. MR. MEENES.

YES. I ALSO VISITED THE SITE.

MRS. LAFFERTY. I WALK BY THE SITE WEEKLY.

COMMISSIONER HÜBNER, ANY? I DROVE BY THE SITE, OKAY.

AND I ALSO HAVE DRIVEN BY THE SITE.

MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? ABSOLUTELY. THIS ITEM IS THE POULTRY PROPERTIES MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CONDITIONAL AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. HERE TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION IS EDWARD VALENZUELA ASSOCIATE PLANNER.

CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

GOOD AFTERNOON. THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU TODAY IS LOCATED AT 3900 GARFIELD STREET ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GARFIELD AND TAMARACK AVENUE, WITHIN THE CITY'S COASTAL ZONE.

THIS SITE IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MULTIPLE, OR RDM, AND IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE.

THE APPLICANT WHO IS HERE TODAY AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IS YOUR CONSIDERATION.

AND APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING ONE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND A DETACHED ONE CAR GARAGE.

AND IN ITS PLACE.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

THE NEW RESIDENTS WILL BE PLACED OVER TWO SEPARATE TWO CAR GARAGES, TOTALING 1052FT².

BOTH THE NEW RESIDENTS AND THE REMAINING RESIDENTS WILL BE CONVERTED INTO DETACHED CONDOMINIUMS. AND PROVIDING THE REQUIRED TWO CAR GARAGE FOR EACH UNIT WILL BRING THE PROPERTY INTO CONFORMANCE FOR A SITE THAT CURRENTLY HAS ONE GARAGE PARKING SPACE.

[00:50:06]

ARCHITECTURALLY, THIS NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME REFLECTS A MID-CENTURY MODERN DESIGN.

TO COMPLEMENT THE EXISTING DESIGN OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT WILL REMAIN ON SITE.

PRIMARY BUILDING MATERIALS CONSIST OF A STUCCO AND A SMOOTH FINISH.

VERTICAL WOOD SIDING.

AND SINGLE SCORE CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS.

A THIRD LEVEL BALCONY IS ENCLOSED BY TEMPERED GLASS GUARDRAIL.

THE EXISTING RESIDENCE HAS A HEIGHT OF 15FT NINE INCHES AND CONTAINS A FORMERLY CONTAINED A GARAGE THAT HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO A ROOM AND BATHROOM YEARS AFTER IT WAS BUILT.

THE NEW RESIDENCE HAS A HEIGHT OF 30FT AND THREE STORIES.

THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE.

THE RESIDENCE INCLUDES A BUTTERFLY ROOF AND A BALCONY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF COASTAL VIEWS.

THE PROJECT WAS ANALYZED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ALL REQUIRED CITY CODES, POLICIES AND STANDARDS, AND THAT THE STAFF REPORT AND RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU CONTAIN ALL THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT APPROVAL.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLAN, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER STINE. YES, BRIEFLY.

HAS STAFF RECEIVED ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT, AND IF SO, WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THE OPPOSITION? YES, I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A RESIDENT, A PROPERTY OWNER WHO OWNS A CONDOMINIUM ABOUT TWO PROPERTIES DOWN ALONG TAMARACK AVENUE.

SHE COMPLAINED THAT HER VIEW WAS GOING TO BE OBSTRUCTED BY THE NEW RESIDENCE.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE ANY VIEW PROTECTION ORDINANCE THAT WE CAN IMPLEMENT TO PROTECT HER VIEW.

DID YOU ADVISE HER OF THAT? YES. OKAY.

HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY OTHER OPPOSITION OTHER THAN THE ONE PHONE CALL ON A VIEW? OBSTRUCTION. OBSTRUCTION ISSUE? NO THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YES, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

THANK YOU. THE EXISTING HOME.

I DID ACTUALLY RECEIVE A COPY OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REPORT.

BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS BUILT IN THE 1940S, 50S SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND THE EXISTING HOME AT THE TOP OF THE HILL ON GARFIELD IS GOING TO REMAIN.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

THERE'S GOING TO BE MINOR WORK DONE ON IT AS WELL.

YES. THEY'RE GOING TO ADD VERTICAL SIDING TO COMPLEMENT THE NEW BUILDING THAT WILL BE ON SITE.

SO, BUT THERE'S NO REAL RESTORATION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.

NO. OKAY.

AND THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS BECAUSE OF THE TWO CAR GARAGES RIGHT NOW, THERE'S ONLY ONE CURB CUT ON TAMARACK.

WITH TWO WELL, BASICALLY FOUR CARS, RIGHT? IS. YES.

SO, WHAT'S THE CURB CUT GOING TO LOOK LIKE? BECAUSE DON'T WE HAVE SOME TYPE OF MINIMUM STANDARD FOR HOW BIG A CURB CUT CAN BE ON ONE SIDE OF A STREET ON ONE PROPERTY? YES.

I'M GOING TO DEFER TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER, JASON GELDART.

THANKS.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

I'M JASON GELDERT, ENGINEERING MANAGER.

YES, WE DO HAVE A STANDARD FOR CURB CUTS.

IT'S A MAXIMUM.

IT'S THE MINIMUM OF 30FT OR 40% OF THE FRONTAGE ON THE STREET.

IN THIS CASE, THEY CAN GO TO THE MAXIMUM OF 30FT.

TYPICALLY WE LOOK AT HOW THAT WILL AFFECT THE STREET AND PARKING AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND TRY TO NEGOTIATE THAT DOWN.

BUT IN THIS CASE, THERE'S NO PARKING ON TAMARACK, SO THERE WON'T BE ANY DISRUPTION.

A LOT OF PEOPLE WALK THERE THOUGH.

SO THAT'S.

YEAH. SO, WE DID WE DID ACCOUNT FOR THAT AND HAVE PUT IN A CONDITION TO HAVE THE SIDEWALK A LITTLE BIT WIDER ALONG THE DRIVEWAY.

[00:55:08]

YES. IT'S, IT'S GREATER THAN THE ACCESSIBILITY STANDARD.

SO, ITS FLATTER IS WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING.

NO, IT'S WIDER AND IT IT'LL BE THE, IT'LL MAKE, IT'LL MEET THE CROSS SLOPE AND IT'LL BE WIDER THAN THE MINIMUM STANDARD.

SO, IT'S ONE OPENING 30FT AS OPPOSED TO 216 OR, YOU KNOW, 15FT OPENINGS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE.

CORRECT. OKAY.

OKAY. THANKS.

COMMISSIONER MEENES. JASON, A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU IN REGARD TO PUBLIC AND DIDN'T WANT YOU TO GET AWAY IN REGARD TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ON GARFIELD IS THE REQUIREMENT ALSO FOR CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK? YES. THOSE WHEN A MAP IS PROCESSED OR IT'S A REQUIREMENT OF ANY MAP IS FRONTAGE AND FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO MEET STANDARDS. WE WORKED WITH TRANSPORTATION AND LOOKED AT WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE.

AND THOSE ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANS.

WHAT ABOUT UNDERGROUNDING OF PARDON? UNDERGROUNDING ANY, ANY UNDERGROUNDING IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE FRONTAGE IS NOT LONG ENOUGH.

BUT THEY DO HAVE TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT THAT THEY WOULD BE PART OF A DISTRICT FOR UNDERGROUNDING IF THAT EVER COMES UP.

GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? AND WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? THE APPLICANT IS HERE, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE ANY PLANS TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.

THEY ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS THOUGH.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

WELL, WE'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

ARE THERE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS ON THIS MATTER? NO THERE'S NOT.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? I'M USUALLY PRETTY FLEXIBLE.

OKAY. YES, SIR.

IF YOU WANT TO COME UP, THAT WOULD BE FINE.

AND, SIR, WE'D ASK THAT AFTER YOU GIVE YOUR THREE-MINUTE TESTIMONY, YOU FILL OUT A SPEAKER SLIP FOR OUR RECORD.

ABSOLUTELY. YES.

MY NAME IS PATRICK COFFEY.

I LIVE ON I HAVE PROPERTIES ON TAMARACK.

I'M SORRY. BEFORE YOU BEGIN, SIR, I HAVE TO READ SOMETHING INTO THE RECORD.

CERTAINLY. LET ME EXPLAIN THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS.

TO HELP SPEAKERS STAY WITHIN THE THREE-MINUTE LIMIT, THE MINUTES CLERK WILL ACTIVATE A LIGHTED TIMER.

A GREEN LIGHT MEANS YOU HAVE AN OPEN MIC.

AFTER THREE MINUTES, YOUR MICROPHONE WILL BE CLOSED AGAIN.

PLEASE, IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU MAY BEGIN.

OKAY. MY NAME IS PATRICK COFFEY.

I LIVE AT 167 TAMARACK AVENUE, AND I GENERALLY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL.

HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WHEN WE SUBMITTED A PLAN ABOUT A YEAR AGO FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THOSE THE LOTS THAT WE CURRENTLY OWN THERE ON TAMARACK, I WAS INFORMED THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE THE CITY ORIGINALLY A 20-FOOT EASEMENT.

AND NOW THEN IT WAS CHANGED AFTER WE PUSHED BACK A LITTLE BIT TO A TEN-FOOT EASEMENT ON.

SO, WE'RE ON THE SAME SIDE OF TAMARACK AS THIS PROPERTY.

AND SO, I WAS JUST WONDERING WHY IT WASN'T APPLIED CONSISTENTLY TO THIS PROPERTY AS WELL.

THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? NO. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

STAFF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT, OR COULD YOU RESPOND? YES. I'M GOING TO DEFER TO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING MANAGER AGAIN.

GOOD EVENING AGAIN.

THAT THE LOCATION OF MR. COFFEY'S PROPERTY WAS DOWN NEAR CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.

AND FOR A TIME, THERE WERE SOME PLANS FOR WIDENING AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND A ROUNDABOUT AND SOME OTHER THINGS.

AND OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION HAD HAD RELAYED TO US THAT THEY WANTED THAT RIGHT OF WAY.

THEN THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT IT AND THEN THAT, AND THEN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

ASK BECAME LESS AND I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT WE ENDED UP WITH, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER PART OF THE TAMARACK.

THIS IS QUITE A QUITE A WAYS AWAY.

AND UP THERE, THERE ARE NO PLANS AND FOR ANY WIDENING AND THE RIGHT OF WAY THERE IS SUFFICIENT ACCORDING TO OUR TRANSPORTATION

[01:00:08]

DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? GOOD. SEEING NONE.

LET'S OPEN ANY COMMISSION DISCUSSION WITH ANY COMMISSIONERS.

LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM.

COMMISSIONER STINE. YES.

I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.

I THINK WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS REASONABLE.

IT'S PROPERLY CONDITIONED.

IN TERMS OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THERE'S ALWAYS TWO ISSUES INVOLVED.

IT WOULD BE ACCESS TO THE BEACH.

AND I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD AFFECT IN ANY WAY ANY ACCESS TO THE BEACH IN TERMS OF VIEWS.

WE DID HAVE, APPARENTLY, ONE MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY WHO CALLED IN AND TALKED ABOUT A VIEW OBSTRUCTION.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR, I THINK FOR THE COASTAL PERMIT PURPOSES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OBSTRUCTIONS OR COMPROMISE FROM A PUBLIC LAND SUCH AS A PARK.

WE DO NOT.

SOME CITIES DO.

BUT CARLSBAD DOES NOT PROTECT PRIVATE VIEWS FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY.

SO, I'M SORRY IF THIS WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ON THE LADY WHO CALLED IN AND TALKED TO STAFF, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S GROUNDS FOR IN ANY WAY DENYING THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

SO, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.

I DON'T SEE ANY REAL ISSUES.

AND AGAIN, OTHER THAN THAT ONE CALL, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY OBJECTION TO IT.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE.

COMMISSIONER. YES.

YEAH. I ALSO SUPPORT THE PROJECT.

I WAS IMPRESSED, TOO, WITH THE DESIGN OF WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE DEMOLITION OF THE GARAGE AND THE SMALL HOUSE AND HOW THEY COMBINED GARAGE GARAGES FOR BOTH UNDERNEATH.

I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING DESIGN.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY, VERY WELL DESIGNED.

AND I SUPPORT THE PROJECT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION? MAYBE I JUMPED THE GUN A LITTLE BIT, BUT YES, I MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT.

OKAY. I'LL SECOND.

THANK YOU. A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER STINE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MEENES ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.

PLEASE VOTE.

THE MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF SIX ZERO, WITH COMMISSIONER SABELLICO ABSENT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'LL NOW CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AGENDA ITEM.

I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.

COMMISSIONER. YES.

THANK YOU CHAIR. I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF ON THIS ITEM.

I HAD THE APPLICANT, OR THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY WAS LONG TERM TENANT OF A PROJECT I'VE KNOWN FOR MANY YEARS.

SO, IT'LL BE NECESSARY TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. SIR. I'LL NOW OPEN

[3. CDP 2023-0016/V 2023-0002 BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL]

FIRST, ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS THEY SHOULD MENTION.

WHEN THIS ITEM WAS BROUGHT TO US LAST MONTH, I DID REVIEW THE SITE AND LOOKED AT THE SITE EXTENSIVELY.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

GOOGLE MAPS.

OKAY, COMMISSIONER STINE.

NO EX PARTE.

I HAVE DRIVEN BY AND LOOKED AS BEST I COULD AT THIS SITE.

MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? SURE. HERE TO GIVE OUR STAFF PRESENTATION FOR THE BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL VARIANCE IS ASSOCIATE PLANNER VAN LUAN.

THANK YOU. ERIC. YES.

TONIGHT, THE ITEM BEFORE US IS THE BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL.

AND THIS IS A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ON BEGONIA COURT.

[01:05:06]

THIS IS 93939 BEGONIA COURT.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S A PIE SHAPED PLOT THAT CONTAINS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.

AND IT DOES HAVE A SLOPE UPHILL PERIMETER SLOPE AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

FOR A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE PROPERTY AND 2015 OR 2016 RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION BEGAN ON THE PROPERTY.

THE WORK WAS UNPERMITTED AND INCLUDED GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS.

IN 2018, A CODE CASE WAS OPENED FOR THAT CONSTRUCTION, AND IN FEBRUARY OF 2019, A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT TO THE OWNERS TO INFORM THEM THAT THEY WERE LIKELY VIOLATING PERMITTING AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

IN JUNE OF 2019, A FINAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT AND WORK WAS STOPPED THEREAFTER.

IN JUNE OF 2020, THE AN APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE AND ON RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WAS DENIED AT CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 23RD, 2021.

WITH THAT DENIAL COMES A YEAR OF PREJUDICE, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN'T RESUBMIT FOR THE SAME PROJECT.

THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT REMEDIATING THE OR FIXING THE CODE-BASED ISSUE.

AND PART OF THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY WAS TO ALLOW FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO SUBMIT FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND POST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ONE MORE TIME.

A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY OF THE AERIALS HERE IN 2014.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE HOUSE HAS A PATIO AND POOL IN THE BACKGROUND, AND THE SLOPE IS IN ITS PRE-CONSTRUCTION FORM 2017, YOU CAN SEE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AT LEAST ONE RETAINING WALL.

AND BY TODAY WE'RE MANY RETAINING WALLS UP TO THREE LEVELS OF TEARING OF RETAINING WALLS.

AND THE APPLICANT REQUEST DOES INCLUDE THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR THE GRADING OF THE SLOPE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RETAINING WALLS AND A VARIANCE FROM THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.

AND THIS VARIANCE WOULD SPECIFICALLY ALLOW FOR RETAINING WALLS BEYOND THE LIMIT OF SIX FEET FROM THE TOE OF SLOPE, WHERE SIX FEET IS THE STANDARD LIMIT.

SPECIFICALLY, THE LANGUAGE ASKED FOR A VARIANCE FROM R THAT RETAINING WALLS ON OR INTO AN UPHILL PERIMETER MANUFACTURED SLOPE SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF SIX VERTICAL FEET, AS MEASURED FROM THE EXISTING GRADE AT THE TOE OF SLOPE.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED SOME JUSTIFICATION OR VARIANCE.

FINDINGS THAT NEED TO BE MADE ARE VERY SPECIFIC, ESPECIALLY FINDING ONE AND TWO.

AND THAT'S WHAT STAFF'S PRESENTATION WILL MAINLY CONCENTRATE ON.

SPECIFICALLY FINDING ONE FOR A VARIANCE IS THAT BECAUSE OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE APPLICABLE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, INCLUDING SIZE, SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHY, LOCATION OR SURROUNDINGS, THAT THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE DEPRIVES SUCH PROPERTY OF PRIVILEGES, PRIVILEGES ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY, AND UNDER IDENTICAL ZONING.

CLASSIFICATION. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING JUSTIFICATION FOR TO MAKE FINDING ONE OF THE VARIANCES.

THAT JUSTIFICATION INCLUDES THE STATEMENT THAT CONSTRAINTS DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF TYPICAL USAGE AFFORDED TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY AND CREATES A MAINTENANCE BURDEN.

THE APPLICANT ALSO PROVIDED A SURVEY OF PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEIR SURVEY FOUND THAT 47% OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SLOPED COMPARED TO 22% OF THE PROPERTY ON SIMILARLY SLOPED LOTS.

76% OF WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER THE REAR YARD AREA IS SLOPED OR SIMILAR.

LOTS ARE ABOUT 44%, AND THAT THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE SLOPE IS ABOUT 28FT, AND THE AVERAGE FOR THE REST OF THOSE SIMILARLY SLOPED LOTS ARE 18FT. ALSO, THIS SLOPE IS ABOUT 67%.

AND AGAIN, THAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR WHY IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN AND STATED AS UNSTABLE.

STAFF DOES NOT AGREE WITH THIS JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING FINDING ONE SPECIFICALLY THAT THE PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE.

THEIR SURVEY FOUND THAT ALSO FOUND THAT THIS IS THE SECOND LARGEST LOT, AND THE LOT STILL HAS AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF USABLE LOT AREA.

THE LOT IS PIE SHAPED, WHICH IS WIDER IN THE REAR.

SO NATURALLY, THE AMOUNT OF SLOPE IN THE REAR OF THE LOT WILL BE A LARGER PERCENTAGE THAN A RECTILINEAR LOT.

THERE IS A NEAR NEARBY LOT THAT ARE TWO THAT IS TWO PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AT 943 BEGONIA.

AND THAT PROPERTY HAS IS ABOUT 16,500FT², WITH A 44% OF THEIR LOT AS REAR SLOPE, WHERE THE SUBJECT LOT IS ABOUT

[01:10:09]

SO AGAIN, A COMPARABLE LOT.

WHICH KIND OF IS AN EXAMPLE OF IT NOT MEETING THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE QUALIFICATION.

SO, HERE'S A PORTION OF THAT SURVEY PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE 939 LOT AND THE 949 LOT ARE SIMILAR.

ADDITIONALLY, STAFF DOES NOT AGREE THAT THE SLOPE DEPRIVES THE PROPERTY OF PRIVILEGES ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE FOR LOT SIZE IS ABOUT 9500FT².

THE SLOPED AREA ON THIS PROPERTY IS ABOUT 7500FT².

IF YOU TOOK THAT AMOUNT OF SLOPED AREA COMPLETELY OFF OF THE PROPERTY, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE A LOT OF 9500FT².

SO, IT IS ON AVERAGE, AGAIN WITHOUT THE SLOPE AS THE REST OF THE LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

ALSO, IT'S STAFF'S INTERPRETATION THAT A MAINTENANCE BURDEN IS NOT A LOSS OF PRIVILEGE.

VARIANCE FINDING NUMBER TWO IS THAT THE VARIANCE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A GRANT, A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE INCONSISTENT WITH THE LIMITATIONS UPON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY AND ZONE IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

THE JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT IS THAT NO OTHER LOTS HAVE AS GREAT OF AN ELEVATION DIFFERENCE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN ADJACENT PROPERTIES, OR THE EXTENSIVE PERCENTAGE OF LOT AREA COVERED BY SLOPE, STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE SIX-FOOT RETAINING WALL HEIGHT LIMIT.

THIS ALLOWS THE OWNER'S ABILITY TO BUILD STANDARD REAR YARD IMPROVEMENTS.

STAFF AGAIN DOES NOT AGREE WITH THIS RATIONALE FOR THE FINDING.

THERE IS AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF USABLE LOT AREA, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AMOUNT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR PROPERTIES.

CREATING MORE USABLE AREA THROUGH THE TERRACING WOULD EXCEED THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE, NOT BRING THEM TO EQUAL AND THAT THE EXISTING REAR YARD IMPROVEMENTS WHICH INCLUDE A NORMAL SIZE POOL OR AVERAGE SIZE POOL FOR THE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS ABOUT 1000 SQUARE FOOT PATIO ARE TYPICAL REAR-GUARD IMPROVEMENTS. THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED STANDARD REAR YARD IMPROVEMENTS AND TO ALLOW FOR MORE AREA FOR REAR YARD ENJOYMENT WOULD BE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.

AGAIN. HERE IS A CURRENT PHOTO SHOWING THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS THE POOL AND THE PATIO EXISTED BEFORE, AND ANY RETAINING WALLS WERE INSTALLED.

I SHOULD SAY THE RETAINING WALLS IN QUESTION.

THERE ARE SOME MINOR RETAINING WALLS AROUND THE POOL.

STAFF PRIMARILY CONCENTRATED ON FINDING NUMBER ONE AND TWO, AS THOSE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT FINDINGS TO BE MADE.

YOU CAN FIND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS THREE THROUGH FIVE IN THE STAFF REPORT.

STAFF ALSO WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT, YOU KNOW, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WOULD BE NEEDED IF THE WORK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, AS THE VARIANCE IS NEEDED FOR THESE TWO PROJECTS TO MOVE FORWARD. NO ANALYSIS WAS WARRANTED OF THE VARIANCE WITHOUT THE VARIANCE APPROVAL.

THERE ARE SOME OTHER ITEMS THAT RECENTLY CAME UP THROUGH SOME CORRESPONDENCE THAT WAS SUBMITTED YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE THAT WENT INTO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COST OR LIMITED OPTIONS FOR HOW TO REMEDY THE SCENARIO.

THAT STAFF JUST WANTS TO CLARIFY.

THAT'S NOT PART OF THE SCOPE OF A VARIANCE REVIEW.

THE FINANCIAL SITUATION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE BURDEN OF THE REMEDY IS NOT EQUATED TO A FINDING TO SUPPORT A VARIANCE.

THERE WAS ALSO SOME MENTION OF ANOTHER PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR.

THAT WAS A SIMILAR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RETAINING WALLS.

STAFF IS PREPARED TO EXPLAIN WHY THAT WAS DID MEET THE FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE WHERE THIS LOCATION DOES NOT.

AND IT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY COLE'S DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THIS PROJECT.

AND I'M FREE FOR READY FOR ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.

ANY COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ASK ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

YES, COMMISSIONER STINE.

YES. MR. VAN LOON, YOU INDICATED THAT THE CITY ORDINANCE STANDARD IS SIX FEET.

THAT'S MEASURED. EXCUSE ME.

FROM THE TOE OF THE SLOPE.

UPWARD. THAT'S A SIX-FOOT MAXIMUM.

CORRECT. YES.

CORRECT. AND HOW? HOW MUCH OVER THAT SIX-FOOT MAXIMUM IS THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK MY UNDERSTANDING.

IT'S CONSIDERABLY OVER.

IT ISN'T LIKE SEVEN EIGHT FEET.

[01:15:01]

THIS BOTTOM PICTURE IS A SECTION OF ONE OF THE EXISTING YOU KNOW, THE.

FIRST RETAINING WALL AT THE BOTTOM IS APPROXIMATELY SIX FEET JUST UNDER, SO ANYTHING ABOVE AT LEAST THE MIDDLE OF THAT SECOND ONE UP THE HILL IS ALL OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIX-FOOT MAXIMUM.

SO, WOULD THAT BRING US TO ROUGHLY A TOTAL OF WHAT, 20FT, WHAT WE'D BE TALKING ABOUT HERE? WE ARE LOOKING AT ABOUT 18, AT LEAST 18FT INTO THE HILLSIDE.

YES. OKAY. SO, THREE TIMES THE ORDINANCE STANDARD THEN.

RIGHT? APPROXIMATELY. CORRECT.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER HUBNER? SO, MR. VAN LOON, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY.

THERE IS A REMEDY IF THE PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY FOLLOWED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT THE CITY SET FOR THE WALL.

SO, IF THEY IN OTHER WORDS, THIS PROPOSAL YOU'RE SUGGESTING TO NOT APPROVE IT, THE PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES TO BRING IT TO CODE.

YES. THEIR CURRENT APPLICATION INCLUDES A RETROFIT.

IS WHAT THEY WOULD PREFER TO DO, WHICH WOULD INVOLVE SOME ADDITIONAL STABILITY PLACED ON THE RETAINING WALLS AS THEY AREN'T CURRENTLY MEETING STANDARDS OR CAN'T BE VERIFIED TO MEET STANDARDS.

THE OTHER OPTION THAT THE HAS BEEN EXPLORED BY THE APPLICANT IS TO INSTALL AS MY UNDERSTANDING, A SIX FOOT WALL AND TO SUPPORT A 2 TO 1 SLOPE.

WHICH THEY HAVE SAID WOULD REQUIRE A LOT OF OVER EXCAVATION AND TO, TO TO ACHIEVE THAT.

WHERE THAT WHAT STAFF WOULD LIKE TO MAKE CLEAR IS THAT THIS SLOPE IS ACTUALLY NOT A 50% OR IT'S MORE, IT'S A ONE AND A HALF TO ONE SLOPE, A 66%. AND STAFF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WOULD BE FINE WITH THEM.

RETURNING THE SLOPE TO THAT PREVIOUS.

NOT THAT'S NOT TO CURRENT STANDARDS, BUT IT IS WHAT WAS EXISTING BEFORE.

AND IT IS ENGINEERING STAFF'S EVALUATION AT THIS POINT WITH THE INFORMATION WE HAVE THAT THAT WOULD BE LIKELY A LESS COSTLY OPTION.

SO, THERE MIGHT BE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS OF COMBINATION OF RETAINING WALL AND NON-RETAINING WALL, OR JUST RETURNING IT TO THE SLOPE.

SO, STAFF FOR THE CITY IS TRYING TO WORK WITH THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT IN A WAY TO SAY WHAT COULD BE A SOLUTION.

BUT THIS CURRENT PROPOSAL IS NOT THE SOLUTION.

THE CURRENT PROPOSAL WOULD INCLUDE RETENTION OF ALL THE RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE IN PLACE AND RETROFITTING AT LEAST SOME AT THE BOTTOM.

AND STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THAT.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

AND IF I COULD JUST ADD I MEAN WE'RE REQUIRED TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER WHAT WAS SUBMITTED.

WE WOULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT.

IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL APPROVE OUR RECOMMENDATION, WE WOULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON, ON DIFFERENT OPTIONS PRIMARILY WITH ENGINEERING ON WHAT THEY COULD DO WITH THE SITE.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER.

YES. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN GOING ON A WHILE.

HOW LONG? AS THE TIMELINE STATED, THE UNPERMITTED WORK STARTED IN ABOUT 2015 2016, AND IT HAS AT LEAST BEEN ON THE CITY'S RADAR SINCE 2018, 2019.

AND THEN THEY JUST, YOU KNOW, ONCE THE CODE CASE WAS OPENED, THEY HAD AN OPTION OF RETURNING THE SLOPE OR SEEKING A VARIANCE, WHICH THEY DID.

AND IT WAS DENIED.

AND SO, THE REMEDIATION CONTINUES TO BE DRAWN OUT TO TRY TO COME TO A SOLUTION THAT I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEY'S OFFICES. AND PART OF THAT WAS TO ALLOW THEM TO TRY TO SUBMIT THE VARIANCE AGAIN.

SO, IT CONTINUES TO GO ON.

IS CORRECT.

OKAY. SO, LET'S SAY FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE, YOU'RE SUGGESTING 2015.

SO ALMOST TEN YEARS, BUT WITH WHEN.

THE CITY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT.

1819 SO LET'S SAY FIVE YEARS, RIGHT? HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE A SITE? BY ITSELF TO COMPACT.

THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION ABOUT COMPACTION.

IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE PLANNING.

WE'LL DEFER THIS ONE TO JASON GELDART.

I DO BELIEVE I DO BELIEVE IT'S AVAILABLE.

OKAY. GOOD EVENING AGAIN.

[01:20:06]

THE ANSWER WOULD BE SOIL DOES NOT SELF-COMPACT.

IT WILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OVER TIME, BUT TYPICALLY IT NEEDS TO BE COMPACTED WHEN IT'S PLACED.

SO, I GUESS WITH THE RECENT RAINS AND, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE.

IN THE DESCRIPTION THAT WAS GIVEN TO US.

THERE HAS BEEN STORMWATER CONCERNS.

RUNOFF CONCERNS.

IN. HAVE YOU INSPECTED THIS SITE? I WENT OUT TO THE SITE, I THINK IN AROUND 2018, IN, IN THE BEGINNING AND WERE THERE STORM WATER CONCERNS WITH THAT CONFIGURATION.

DID IT IMPROVE ANYTHING? I GUESS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT.

I DON'T KNOW, I JUST, WHEN I WENT OUT THERE, THERE WERE THE LOWER WALL WAS CONSTRUCTED AND THE AND A COUPLE CUTS WERE MADE FOR THE NEXT WALLS UP, BUT IT WASN'T CONSTRUCTED AT THE TIME WHEN I WENT OUT.

AND SO, I DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

OKAY, OKAY.

AND THERE'S NO PERMITTING.

SO, WE'RE NOT 100% SURE THAT THIS WAS EVER IT, YOU KNOW, THAT IT EVER MET STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS BASED ON WHAT OUR STANDARDS ARE AND WHAT OUR RETAINING WALL STANDARDS ARE.

IS THAT CORRECT? DRAINAGE? WELL, THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

STORM WATER MEANING RUNOFF, RUNOFF DURING CONSTRUCTION, BMPS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS IN PLACE THERE.

AND THEN AFTER OUR DRAINAGE, HOW THE DRAINAGE WORKS.

WE DON'T KNOW EITHER.

AND THAT'S CORRECT.

WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PLANS OR ANYTHING TO EVALUATE.

OKAY. AND THE OTHER THING WITH STORMWATER IS MAINTENANCE, RIGHT.

SO TYPICALLY, WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING A RETAINING WALL IN.

I WAS LOOKING AT THE B7 RETAINING WALL.

HANDOUT. THAT'S THROUGH THE BUILDING DIVISION.

AND THERE IS A LOT OF STRUCTURAL INFORMATION, BUT THERE IS, THEY'RE ALSO INCLUDED IN THAT DRAINAGE INFORMATION THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT. OR IS IT ALL STRUCTURAL? DO YOU GUYS GET INVOLVED WITH THE ENGINEERING OF THIS HANDOUT OF THE RETAINING WALLS.

SO YEAH, THAT'S A REGIONAL STANDARD.

IT'S ONLY FOR THE STRUCTURAL PORTION OF IT.

AND THEN WHEN THAT'S ADDED TO A PLAN, WE LOOK AT THE DRAINAGE.

AND IF IT NEEDS A A SWALE BEHIND IT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

KNOWING THAT RETAINING WALLS AREN'T THE ONLY WAY TO ATTENUATE DRAINAGE OR TO MITIGATE IT, THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT.

SO THERE'S OTHER THINGS TO DO.

AND RETAINING WALL IS NOT THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD THAT WOULD HELP.

YEAH. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.

I THINK THAT THIS IS JUST A CONCERN ONLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE CONCERN RIGHT NOW IS HOW DOES IT THE PERMANENCE OF IT.

BECAUSE IT'S BEEN THERE FOR TEN YEARS.

AND I'M SURE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE'LL HEAR FROM THE OWNER.

BUT ALSO, IF IT'S MITIGATED SOME ISSUES.

SO THAT'S REALLY MY CONCERN IS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T REALLY JUDGE THIS ON COST.

AND THAT SEEMS TO BE COMING UP A LOT.

BUT WE CAN'T JUDGE THIS ON COST.

WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO JUDGE IT ON SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE.

AND IF IT'S BECOME.

A BIT. IF IT'S NOT SAFE.

THE RAINS MAY HAVE, YOU KNOW, MADE IT LESS SAFE.

AND IF IT'S A MAINTENANCE ISSUE, IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THESE WALLS AND IS THAT A CONSIDERATION? I DON'T KNOW.

SO, AT THIS POINT IF I HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL LET YOU KNOW.

THANKS. YEAH.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE POINT, THOUGH, THAT REGARDLESS OF THE VARIANCE, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SUBMIT SOMETHING.

AND IF THE VARIANCE WERE GRANTED FOR SOME REASON, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT PLANS FOR THE WALLS.

AND THERE'S A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF WORK TO BRING THOSE UP TO STANDARDS.

THERE WERE THERE ARE ISSUES WITH THE WALLS, THE WAY THEY'RE CONSTRUCTED.

AND THAT, I GUESS, IS MY OTHER QUESTION TO YOU.

THE MATH ISN'T ADDING UP TO ME.

THE EXISTING STANDARD THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS 50 OR 56%, ONE AND ONE AND A HALF.

RIGHT. AND I'M SORRY.

THE EXISTING HILLSIDE RESTORATION.

RIGHT. OUR ENGINEERING STANDARDS.

[01:25:01]

OKAY. BUT WE DO HAVE ALLOWANCES FOR A ONE AND A HALF TO ONE OR STEEPER, DEPENDING ON IF THE ENGINEERS AND EVERYBODY CAN SHOW THAT IT'LL BE STABLE.

AND IF IT NEEDS TO BE, IT'D BE LIKE A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW A STEEPER SLOPE.

WE RARELY DO IN THIS CASE.

WE WOULD BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE, AND THAT'S WHAT FITS ON THE SITE.

BUT ONE AND A HALF TO ONE IS STILL 56%, AND THE EXISTING SLOPE WAS AROUND 67%.

YOU KNOW THERE ARE ENGINEERS HERE ALSO AND I JUST DON'T REMEMBER THE ORIGINAL AND THEY COULD PROBABLY ANSWER THE ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHY QUESTION FOR YOU. I'M JUST TRYING TO, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME RECALLING.

NO, I UNDERSTAND AND I'M NOT I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE GO FROM 67% DOWN TO 56%, HOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO LOSE OR ENCROACH ON THE EXISTING SITE.

OH, IF WE IF WE GO TO A 2 TO 1 SLOPE.

CORRECT. THERE WOULD BE A WALL AT THE BOTTOM THAT WOULD RAISE THE TOW SLOPE.

THAT WAY YOU COULD ANGLE YOU COULD ANGLE THE SLOPE BACK.

SO, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO HAVE A RETAINING WALL SOMEPLACE, SOMEWHERE TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT TO MEET OUR HILLSIDE STANDARDS.

IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK.

YEAH. NO, THEY DON'T NEED A WALL TO MEET THE HILLSIDE STANDARD.

THEY NEED A WALL TO MEET THE 2 TO 1.

OKAY. AND THAT WALL COULD FIT WITHIN THE HILLSIDE STANDARD POTENTIALLY.

BUT WE AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DETAILS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T SEE ANY PLANS YET.

OKAY. WELL, AND IF I COULD JUST SAY THANKS.

SHOULD THE COMMISSION WISH TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE REQUEST, THEY IT WOULD NEED TO BE REMANDED BACK TO US TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO REVISE FINDINGS AND EVERYTHING THERE.

SHOULD THEY NOT.

WE WOULD WORK WITH THEM TO PREPARE PLANS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO, THE CONTROLLING STANDARD THAT THE VARIANCE IS BEING ASKED FOR IS A ZONING ORDINANCE STANDARD, NOT AN ENGINEERING ONE THAT LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF GRADING INTO A SLOPE.

AND THAT WAS OUR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

THAT'S THEIR INTENT IS TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF GRADING INTO THE SLOPE.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MEENES.

SO, MY NEXT QUESTION IS THIS CAME TO US, WHAT, 3 OR 3 YEARS AGO, I GUESS APPROXIMATELY INITIALLY WITH THE WITH THE VARIANCE AND WAS DENIED.

AND SO SUBSEQUENT TO THAT FROM THEN UNTIL NOW, HAS THE APPLICANT COME TO THE CITY AND DISCUSSED WITH STAFF HOW BEST TO BE ABLE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE? IT APPEARS TO ME, AFTER LOOKING AT THIS REQUEST, THAT THERE HAPPENS TO BE I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THEY'RE COMING UP WITH OTHER WAYS IN WHICH THEY WANT TO CONTINUE ON WITH THE VARIANCE.

JASON. SO, I THINK I MISSPOKE, OR I DIDN'T SAY IT RIGHT.

WE DID.

WE DID. WE HAVEN'T SEEN PLANS FOR THIS WALL AS FAR AS THE WAY IT WAS BUILT.

WE DID SEE PLANS FOR REGRADING OF THE OF THE SLOPE.

AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OPTIONS.

THERE WAS AN OPTION THAT THEY DID BRING IN WITH A WALL.

SO WE DID DISCUSS THOSE.

WE ALSO SAW PLANS FOR THE.

KEEPING THE WALLS BUT STABILIZING THE WALLS.

AND THEIR ENGINEERS ARE HERE TO.

AND THEY COULD DISCUSS ALL THOSE.

THEY CAN DISCUSS BOTH DESIGNS.

SO, THEN I'M SORRY.

SO, JASON THEN IF THAT IS THE CASE.

AND THAT WAS AFTER IT WAS DENIED THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY CAME IN AND YOU HAD LOOKED AT THOSE PLANS.

YES. OKAY.

I THINK I THINK IT WAS AFTER IT WAS DENIED.

RIGHT. SO, WHAT DID YOU CONCLUDE WITH THE APPLICANT IN REGARD TO YOUR INPUT REGARDING HOW THEY COULD COME INTO COMPLIANCE? WAS IT THE SAME AS WHAT WE'RE HEARING RIGHT NOW? WE WERE ON REVIEWING GRADING PLANS FOR THE SLOPE, AND THAT STALLED OUT.

I THINK WE'RE ON OUR WAY AND WE'RE DOING OUR TYPICAL SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW.

AND THEN THAT STOPPED.

AND THEN I THINK WE WENT BACK TO THIS PROCESS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY COMMISSIONERS? HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? OH. DID YOU SIGN UP AS A SPEAKER SLIP? SAW AN OFFER FROM.

WE'LL GET TO THAT, MA'AM.

DURING THE PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS POINT? WOULD THE APPLICANT? IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND WITH THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION NOW?

[01:30:01]

ALL RIGHT. AND BEFORE THEY BEGIN, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD WISH TO SPEAK, IF THEY COULD FILL OUT A SPEAKER SLIP AND TURN IT IN TO CYNTHIA UP HERE.

THANK YOU. YES.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

YES, SIR. GIANNI RIVERA, MY ADDRESS IS 9516 BRAY AVENUE IN SPRING VALLEY.

91977. MY NAME IS GIANNI RIVERA.

I'M THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER FOR FUSION ENGINEERING.

I WAS RETAINED BY THE LICHTMAN'S TO REPRESENT THEM AND SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF FROM.

YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT OF TECHNICAL QUESTIONS GOING, SO HOW'S THE BEST FIT TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS? I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT SINCE 2019 WHEN THE CODE VIOLATION WAS ISSUED.

SO, I GOT INVOLVED AFTER THE FACT.

AND WE'VE DONE A SERIES OF DIFFERENT ANALYSIS.

SO, THANK YOU, MR. LEWIN, FOR GOING OVER ALL THE STATISTICS, THE VARIANCE JUSTIFICATION.

WE HAD A LOT OF FIGURES.

I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON ONE OF ONE POINT TO THAT BEFORE WE GET INTO.

AND I CAN KIND OF MAYBE DISCUSS A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THE QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAD.

AS FAR AS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE VARIANCE AND LOOKING AT HOW THIS PROPERTY IS YOU KNOW, DENIED THE RIGHTS.

WE STUDIED 236 LOTS, A LOT OF LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION.

AND ALTHOUGH THIS WASN'T THE MOST ENCUMBERED LOT, IT WAS AT THAT VERY, VERY UPPER TIER THRESHOLD.

SO OUT OF YOU KNOW, WE MENTIONED THE 47% OF THIS LOT IS ENCUMBERED BY THE PROPERTY COMPARED TO THE AVERAGE, WHICH IS LESS THAN HALF, EVEN LOOKING AT THE NEARBY ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITHIN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, IN THAT CUL DE SAC, ABOUT 3500FT² IS WHAT THE OTHER, THE OTHER LOTS HAVE IN THAT AREA, WHEREAS WE HAVE 2500.

SO STILL A DECENT LOT, BUT WE'RE MUCH LESS THAN THE NORMAL FOR THE EXACT, YOU KNOW, LIKE SIMILAR LOTS THAT ARE, THAT ARE IN THAT AREA.

SO, I DON'T WANT TO KIND OF KEEP GOING ON THE STATISTICS I PUT DOWN, YOU KNOW, THE PAPER RIGHT THERE THAT HAS, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THOSE.

AND MR. VAN LOON WENT OVER A LOT OF THOSE.

BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT OTHER PROJECTS AND, YOU KNOW, EXAMPLES OF PRECEDENTS FOR THIS, AND THEN ALSO GO INTO THE CONSTRUCTION OPTIONS AND FEASIBILITY OF HOW WE ADDRESS THAT, BECAUSE THAT IS THAT IS A BIG COMPONENT OF IT.

OBVIOUSLY, FINANCIAL IS NOT A REASON OR A PURE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE VARIANCE.

BUT IT IS A REALITY IN THIS.

AND I'D LIKE TO KIND OF JUST SPEAK TO THE LOGISTICS OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE VARIOUS OPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSED.

SO, FIRST OF ALL, THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ALLOWS ONE SIX FOOT RETAINING WALL WHEREAS THIS ONE, IT DIDN'T INSTALL FOUR TIMES THAT IN A SINGULAR WALL.

IT INSTALLED MULTIPLE TIERED RETAINING WALLS GOING UP THE HILLSIDE.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE GRAPHIC, IT BASICALLY FOLLOWS JUST THAT EXISTING SLOPE.

SOME IMPORTANT NOTES TO TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT HISTORICALLY 1.5 TO 1 SLOPES WERE VERY COMMONPLACE IN THIS SITUATION.

IT WAS A CUT SLOPE. SO IT'S CUTTING INTO NATIVE GROUND AT A 67% INCLINATION.

EVEN TODAY YOU WOULD NOT SEE, YOU MAY SEE A 1.5 TO 1 CUT SLOPE IN NATIVE GROUND AGAIN WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER RECORDS RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT YOU DON'T SEE FILL SLOPES DIRT ADDED ON THAT.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO KIND OF MAKE THAT DISTINGUISHING DISTINGUISHING FACT ON THIS ONE.

THERE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS AS FAR AS RETROFITTING, RESTORING THE SLOPE TO ITS TO ITS EXISTING GRADE.

OKAY. THE CHALLENGE IS, IS THAT THE SLOPE HAS BEEN DISTURBED AND YOU CAN'T CREATE A NEW FILL SLOPE AT THAT INCLINATION AT 67%, BECAUSE THE STANDARD OF CARE IS 50%.

SO NO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER IS GOING TO SIGN OFF ON A 67% SLOPE WITHOUT REINFORCEMENT.

IN ORDER TO INSTALL THAT REINFORCEMENT, YOU'RE CUTTING BACK INTO THE HILLSIDE AND YOU'RE LAYING A HORIZONTAL GRID FABRIC TO ADD ADDITIONAL STABILITY.

THAT REQUIRES EXTENSIVE EXCAVATION OF MATERIAL ON THIS PROJECT.

UNFORTUNATELY. ALSO, ONE OF THE CONSTRAINTS IS WE HAVE VERY LIMITED AREA TO WORK WITH, VERY LIMITED SIDE YARD ACCESS.

SO, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY TAKING ALL THAT MATERIAL OFF OF THE HILLSIDE, HAULING IT OFF SITE TO A STOCKPILE AREA AND THEN HAVING TO RE IMPORT IT ONCE THE GRID IS, IS IN THERE.

SO, FROM A LOGISTICS STANDPOINT, IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED PROCEDURE.

BUT THAT WOULD BE THE REMEDY IF THE VARIANCE IS DENIED.

AND WE HAD TO RESTORE IT BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL 1.5 TO 1 INCLINATION.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT JUST RIPPING DOWN THE WALLS AND ADDING DIRT AND RUNNING EQUIPMENT OVER IT.

THERE'S A LOT OF IMPLICATIONS AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION WITH THE GRID AND THEN EROSION CONTROL, HOW WE'RE GOING TO THEN STABILIZE THIS DISTURBED SLOPE BACK TO THAT 67% INCLINATION. WE DID SUBMIT PLANS FOR ANOTHER OPTION WHERE WE DID INSTALL A SINGULAR RETAINING WALL AT THE BOTTOM.

BUT BECAUSE THE SLOPE IS SO BIG, IT'S A 38 FOOT TALL SLOPE AT 67%.

SO EVERYBODY KNOWS EVEN A 2 TO 1 SLOPE IS IS RELATIVELY DIFFICULT TO WALK UP TO OR WALK UP FOR MAINTENANCE, YOU KNOW, AND SO FORTH.

WE'RE DEALING WITH ALMOST A 40 FOOT SLOPE AT THAT INCLINATION.

SO EVEN IF WE INSTALLED A SIX FOOT RETAINING WALL AT THE BOTTOM, WE STILL CANNOT ACHIEVE A 2 TO 1 INCLINATION TO CATCH BACK TO ORIGINAL GRADE, WHICH MEANS A PORTION OF THAT SLOPE

[01:35:07]

OKAY. SO, THAT'S ONE OPTION THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE BUT REQUIRES EXTENSIVE GRADING OPERATIONS, DISRUPTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, A LOT OF THE ITEMS THAT.

WE PROVIDE IT IN OUR, YOU KNOW, IN OUR JUSTIFICATION ORIGINALLY, IN ADDITION TO JUST THE PERCENTAGES FOR LOT, YOU KNOW, IN CONFERENCES, YOU KNOW, AND SO FORTH, OUR PREFERRED OPTION IS TO KEEP THE WALLS IN PLACE AND TO REINFORCE THEM WITH SOIL NAILS.

SO BASICALLY, YOU'RE DRILLING AN ANCHOR THROUGH THE FACE OF THE WALL, AND YOU'RE STABILIZING THOSE WALLS SO THAT THEY MEET MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS.

THERE'S A FACTOR OF SAFETY THAT'S REQUIRED APART OF CODES.

AND THESE WALLS DID NOT MEET THAT THAT FULL FACTOR SAFETY, THAT 1.5 THRESHOLD.

SO, THESE WALLS WOULD HAVE TO BE REINFORCED IN PLACE.

BUT THAT IS OUR PREFERRED OPTION.

THIS IS JUST ENGINEER TALKING.

I'D RATHER PIN THESE WALLS AND HAVE THEM REINFORCED IN PLACE, THEN TRY TO REMOVE THESE AND POTENTIALLY JEOPARDIZE THE HILLSIDE.

THERE IS AN EXISTING RESIDENCE THAT'S UPGRADIENT FROM US BEHIND THE HOUSE.

WE DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING HAPPEN TO THAT.

THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A DEBATE BETWEEN ME, CIVIL ENGINEER, OUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND THE CITY STAFF AS FAR AS THE EXTENSIVENESS OF HOW MUCH THAT SLOPE WOULD NEED TO BE REMEDIATED TO ACHIEVE THE 67% SLOPE, RESPECTFULLY, WE'RE THE ONES THAT ARE THE CIVIL ENGINEERS, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, A RECORD THAT OUR NAME AND OUR LICENSE IS GOING ON THIS.

AND EVEN THE CITY'S STATEMENT IS SAYING THEY MAY BE ABLE TO BE REMEDIATED BECAUSE IT'S A VERY IT'S A VERY LOOSE, YOU KNOW, SITUATION WHERE WE JUST DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE CAUSE THE SLOPE TO BECOME UNSTABLE.

OR TO YOUR POINT MISS LAFFERTY, YOU KNOW, WE SEE EROSION AND SO FORTH.

I IN THE, IN THE LIMITED TIME THAT I HAVE LEFT, I DID WANT TO ALSO POINT OUT I BELIEVE THAT YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE RESIDENCE ON TWAIN AVENUE.

IT IS A VERY SIMILAR PROJECT.

IT'S A CORNER LOT. THAT ALSO WAS A CODE VIOLATION PROJECT WHERE THEY DID BASICALLY THE EXACT SAME THING, INSTALLED A SERIES OF RETAINING WALLS WITHOUT A PERMIT CODE COMPLIANCE.

MY UNDERSTANDING AND READING THE STAFF REPORT IS THAT THOSE WALLS ALSO DID NOT MEET CODE MINIMUMS. HOWEVER, THE ENGINEER, I BELIEVE ON THAT ONE DID NOT RECOMMEND ANY REMEDIATION, SO THEY DID NOT DO THE SOIL NAILS.

AND I THINK MAYBE THE DISTINGUISHING FACTOR THERE IS THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE A RESIDENCE UP ABOVE IT.

SO, IF THE SLOPE HAD ISSUES, IT WASN'T LIKE CATASTROPHIC WHERE YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE IS COMING DOWN.

NEVERTHELESS, THOSE WALLS AS SUBMITTED WOULD NOT MEET CODE REQUIREMENTS IF YOU WERE SUBMITTING THEM FOR THE FIRST TIME.

SO SIMILAR, SIMILAR TO OUR SITUATION.

THE DISTINGUISHING FACTOR BETWEEN OUR PROJECT AND THEIR PROJECT IS THAT THAT PROJECT INVOLVED WHAT'S CALLED A CUTBACK SLOPE.

SO, THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER WAS ORIGINALLY GOING TO DO A DAYLIGHT CUT WHERE THEIR PAD WAS GOING TO EXTEND ALL THE WAY OUT, AND IT WAS GOING TO BE A VIEW LOT.

HOWEVER, THERE WERE SOME BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS WHERE THERE WAS A CANYON BEHIND IT THAT THEY WANTED TO PRESERVE.

SO INSTEAD OF HAVING THIS NICE FLAT LOT, WHAT THEY ENDED UP WITH WAS A SPIKE IN THE BACK RIGHT THERE.

SO, YOU HAD A HILL GO UP AND THEN A HILL GOES RIGHT BACK DOWN AGAIN TO PRESERVE YOU KNOW, THE HILLSIDE BLUFFS OR THE OTHER FEATURES THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO I THINK THAT WAS REALLY THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN OUR TWO PROJECTS.

THE RESIDENTS ALSO HAD A VERY SIZABLE BACKYARD.

IN FACT, THEIR BACKYARD SIZE WAS OVER 3000FT², WHICH IS MORE THAN WHAT OUR PROJECT WAS.

SO, AND THEY'RE ON A CORNER LOT HUGE LOT VERY SAME, YOU KNOW, VERY SIMILAR SITUATION.

I WOULD ARGUE I DO SUPPORT FOR THE RESIDENTS TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO TERRACE THEIR BACKYARD AND GET SOME MORE USABLE AREA OUT OF IT.

I DON'T HOLD ANY PREJUDICE AGAINST THAT.

BUT I ALSO FEEL THAT WE HAVE THE SAME JUSTIFICATION, AND WE HIT THIS BASICALLY EVERY SINGLE SAME POINT OF JUSTIFICATION AS THAT PROJECT DID IN IN OUR VARIANCE APPLICATION, ON TOP OF THE RETROFIT OPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION.

WITH REGARDS TO THE CUTBACK SLOPE, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT REALLY ISN'T A REALLY DEFINING ITEM TO BE DISTINGUISHED BECAUSE THE HOMEOWNER THAT CAME IN THERE AND BOUGHT THE LOT, THEY WEREN'T THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER.

THEY HAVE NO IDEA THAT THAT ORIGINALLY WAS GOING TO BE A CUTBACK SLOPE.

THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY COMING IN AND THEY SAW SLOPE RIGHT THERE.

AND THEN THEY LOOKED AND SAID, HEY, I'D LIKE TO TERRACE THESE WALLS, OR I'D LIKE TO TERRACE THE HILLSIDE AND, AND, AND GAIN, YOU KNOW, MORE USABLE SPACE.

THEY ACTUALLY EVEN IN FACT WERE APPROVED FOR A DECK ON THEIR UP YARD OR UPHILL SLOPE AS WELL.

SO, I DON'T FEEL THAT THAT'S A REASON WHY THIS PROJECT WOULDN'T RECEIVE SUPPORT VERSUS WHY THAT PROJECT DID RECEIVE SUPPORT.

SO WITH THAT SAID, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY, YOU KNOW, FOLLOW UP TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OR, YOU KNOW, FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE PROJECT FROM MY STANDPOINT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS.

MR. COMMISSIONER STINE FIRST.

YES. MR.

[01:40:01]

IT WAS DURING THE PANDEMIC.

SO IT WAS A VIRTUAL MEETING, AND THE MR. LICHTMAN WAS TOOK THE FLOOR.

UNFORTUNATELY, HE WAS NOT REALLY PRIVY TO, YOU KNOW, TIMELINES, YOU KNOW, AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.

AND WE A PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'RE COMING BACK AT THIS IS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE WE WERE ABLE TO REALLY GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR CASE.

AND IN THAT TIME, FOLLOWING THAT INITIAL YOU KNOW, DENIAL, WE DID PROVIDE THE CITY WITH ADDITIONAL PLANS TO GO OVER THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

SO MR. LICHTMAN HAS SPENT CONSIDERABLE RESOURCES JUST STUDYING ALL THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT OPTIONS, INCLUDING PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR RETROFITTING OF THE WALLS.

WE'RE TALKING ON THE ORDERS OF TENS AND TENS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO TO DO THAT, BECAUSE IT'S HE UNDERSTANDS THAT IT IS A MASSIVE UNDERTAKING TO TO DO BASICALLY TO RESTORE THE HILLSIDE AS WHAT THE CITY IS REQUESTING IF THE VARIANCE IS DENIED.

MR. RIVERA, IS THE PROJECT BEFORE US TODAY IN ANY WAY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE THAT WE REVIEWED IN DECEMBER OF 2020? AND IF SO, HOW IS IT DIFFERENT? NO IT'S NOT.

IT'S THE SAME THING. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S IT WAS PREVIOUSLY TERRORIST.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S IT'S IN THE SAME CONDITION THAT IT WAS WHEN WE REVIEWED IT IN 2020.

YES, SIR. OKAY. AND SO YOU'RE NOT ADDING ANYTHING TO SAY IF WE APPROVE A VARIANCE, WE'LL DO SUCH AND SUCH.

AND IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S THE SAME THING THAT WE SAW BEFORE.

THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? YES, COMMISSIONER. LAFFERTY.

BESIDES RESTORING THE SLOPE.

THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND ISN'T.

AS EASY AS IT SOUNDS, I GUESS IS THE BEST WAY TO PUT IT.

IS THERE A DESIGN? AND HAVE YOU PROPOSED A DESIGN THAT ACTUALLY.

CAN DO.

OR HAVE A SIMILAR CONFIGURATION, A SHORTER CONFIGURATION.

SOMEHOW THAT DOESN'T.

REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

THERE'S NO IS THERE NO WAY YOU CAN KEEP SOME OF THE RETAINING WALLS WITHOUT HAVING A VARIANCE? THERE IS. ONE OF THE DESIGNS THAT WE PRESENTED WAS A SINGULAR SIX FOOT RETAINING WALL AT THE BOTTOM, BUT THE RESULTING SLOPE INCLINATION WAS STILL IN EXCESS OF 2 TO 1, SO WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO DO THAT REINFORCED GRID ZONE AND NOT JUST ENTAILS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF, OF, OF EARTH MOVEMENT FROM THE BACKYARD IMPORTING AND OR EXPORTING DIRT. SO AND THAT'S THE THE DESIGN HERE WITH THE SOIL NAILS? NO, MA'AM. THE SOIL NAIL WALL IS THE RETROFITTING LIKE, THINK OF IT LIKE YOU'RE HANGING LIKE A PICTURE FRAME, AND YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT SOIL NAIL DESIGN IS RETROFITTERS STABILIZING AND RETROFITTING THOSE EXISTING RETAINING WALLS, KEEPING THEM ALL IN PLACE.

YEAH. SO. SO, I GUESS, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THE YOU CAN'T JUST STABILIZE THE BOTTOM WALL AND THEN REMOVE THE OTHER ONES BECAUSE THE SLOPE IS STILL IN EXCESS. SO YOU THEORETICALLY YOU COULD STABILIZE THE BOTTOM WALL, BUT THEN YOU'D HAVE TO REMEDIATE THE SLOPE THAT'S ABOVE IT.

AT THAT POINT, IT'S ALMOST THE SAME AS IF JUST TEARING THEM ALL DOWN AND THEN REBUILDING THE ONE WALL AND THEN REINFORCING THE SLOPE AS YOU GO UP.

SO THAT TURNS INTO IT'S PROBABLY SIMILAR SCOPE.

WELL, AND I GUESS THE SINCE YOU CAME IN AFTER THERE WERE TWO SORT OF RED FLAGS AND SO MAYBE THE OWNER CAN ACTUALLY RESPOND TO THIS. BUT IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WAS A CONTINUAL MAINTENANCE ISSUE BECAUSE THIS SLOPE WAS SO STEEP.

IS THAT AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO THE OWNER ABOUT.

YEAH. AGAIN. ONCE, ONCE I WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT, IT WAS IT WAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED.

AND THE OTHER THING WOULD BE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.

WOULD ANY OF THESE PROPOSALS HELP THAT SITUATION ABATE THAT SITUATION.

WHAT? WHAT WOULD WE DO TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE CITY STANDARDS WITH STORM WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION AND LONG? YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY LONG TERM MAINTENANCE IS WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED WITH.

YEAH. SO PART OF THE CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU HAVE AN OVERSTEEPENED SLOPE THAT'S AT THAT 67, ALL SLOPES ARE GOING TO HAVE SOIL LOSS THROUGHOUT THE THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THEIR LIFE.

THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN OVERSTEEPENED SLOPE THAT DOESN'T MEET, YOU KNOW, CURRENT STANDARDS OF CARE, YOU'RE GOING TO EXPERIENCE ADDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, SOIL LOSS.

THERE ARE MITIGATING THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO.

EXCUSE ME, AS FAR AS ADDING CONTINUAL EROSION CONTROL, KIND OF LIKE THE SIMILAR TO THE MEASURES THAT WE INSTALLED DURING CONSTRUCTION.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STORM WATER.

THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT THERE'S THERE'S DURING CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER BMPS LIKE EROSION CONTROL.

AND THEN THERE'S POST CONSTRUCTION, WHICH DOESN'T APPLY ON THIS PROJECT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT INTRODUCING ANY ADDITIONAL PERVIOUS AREAS THAT REQUIRE TREATMENT PER SE.

[01:45:06]

SO WE ALSO PART OF THE REASONS WHY WE PREFER THE SOIL OPTION IS TO JUST MITIGATE OR JUST AVOID GROUND DISTURBANCE.

WE WANT TO KEEP THE WALLS IN PLACE, STABILIZE THEM IN PLACE AND NOT DISTURB THE SOIL.

YES, SIR. MAY MAY I HAVE THE FLOOR? IT'S UP TO THE CHAIR.

BUT IF YOU DO, YOU WOULD NEED TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD.

YES, PLEASE DO SO, SIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS DANNY COHEN.

I WORK WITH JESSE BALDWIN CONSTRUCTION.

WE ARE A GENERAL CONTRACTOR HERE IN CARLSBAD.

WE HAVE OUR OFFICE IN CARLSBAD.

WE'VE BEEN ASKED BY THE MR. LICHTMAN. TO LOOK AT THE PROJECT AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH HIM.

AND AT THIS POINT, WE WOULD BE DOING THE REPAIRS THAT ARE NECESSARY, WHETHER IT IS A GRADING REPAIR OR WHETHER IT IS A STABILIZATION REPAIR.

THAT IS AT THIS POINT, THE PREFERRED OPTION.

TRYING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION REGARDING STORM WATER, ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE AND WE WE CAN DO EITHER OF THESE TYPES OF REPAIRS.

WE DO GRADING PROJECTS.

WE DO SOIL NAIL WALLS.

THAT IS WHAT WE DO.

SO EITHER WAY, I THINK HOPEFULLY WE'RE GOING TO DO THE WORK.

BUT FROM A THE ASPECT OF ADDRESSING STORMWATER, IF YOU TAKE ON THIS AS A GRADING PROJECT, WHICH IS WHAT IS BEING RECOMMENDED, TRYING TO REBUILD THE SLOPE TO ITS ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION, YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME IN UNSTACK EVERY WALL THAT'S THERE, HAUL OFF EVERY BLOCK, AND THEN EXCAVATE INTO THE EXISTING SLOPE.

TAKE ALL THAT DIRT, GET IT OUT OF THE REAR YARD TO THE FRONT OTHER STOCK, PILE IT IN THE STREET.

DEAL WITH THE THE ISSUE OF HAULING ALL THAT SOIL OFFSITE, THE ISSUE OF DUST, THE ISSUE OF STORMWATER, THE ISSUE OF TRYING TO KEEP ALL THAT SOIL MAINTAINED.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT BMPS TO REDUCE ANY, ANY OF THAT SOIL BEING WASHED INTO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS A CONCERN.

YOU'D HAVE TO EXCAVATE A GOOD 10 TO 15FT BACK INTO THE SLOPE TO ALLOW YOU TO PUT IN AN ADEQUATE LENGTH OF GEOGRID FOR THE SLOPE REINFORCEMENT, AS MR. RIVERA HAS DESCRIBED, AND THEN BRING SOIL BACK IN AGAIN.

YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE SOIL COMING IN FROM OFFSITE, EITHER STOCKPILING, STOCKPILING IT IN THE STREET, IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND THEN BRINGING IT BACK WITH SMALL EQUIPMENT BECAUSE YOU HAVE VERY NARROW SIDE YARDS.

YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE LARGE EQUIPMENT.

SO YOU'D BE BRINGING DIRT BACK AND FORTH.

SO THERE ARE ALL THOSE ISSUES OF STORMWATER DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AFTER IT'S BUILT.

IT REALLY ISN'T THAT BIG AN ISSUE.

YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A BETTER CONDITION WITH THE WALLS THERE, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A SERIES OF STEPS, AS WATER HITS THAT SLOPE, THE FLOW IS SLOWED DOWN BECAUSE YOU HAVE FLAT, FLAT STEPS VERSUS A TWO TO 1 OR 1 AND A HALF TO ONE SLOPE WHERE THE WATER WILL SHEET OFF MORE QUICKLY.

SO AT LEAST, AND MAYBE MR. BURKE CAN COMMENT ON THAT.

ALSO, HAVING THE STEP CONFIGURATION ALLOWS FOR STORMWATER TO BE SLOWED DOWN AS RAINWATER HITS THAT SLOPE WITH LEAVING THOSE IN PLACE.

WE JUST COME IN, DRILL A SERIES OF SOIL NAILS.

WE COME THROUGH THE FACE OF THE WALL, DRILL ANCHORS INTO THE THE FACE OF THE WALL, PUT IN A FACING ON THE WALL SO THERE'S NO DISTURBANCE.

THERE'S NO HAULING ON AND OFF OF HUNDREDS OF YARDS OF DIRT GOING IN AND OUT OF THE SIDE YARDS WITH A NOISE, THE DUST DISTURBING THE NEIGHBORS.

WE DRILL THE ANCHORS IN.

WE PUT A CHAKRI FACING ON.

IT ALLOWS THE WALLS TO REACH THEIR REQUIRED LEVEL OF STABILITY, WHICH WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEERS.

THOUGH I AM AN ENGINEER AS WELL, I'M HERE AS A CONTRACTOR.

AND THEN YOU JUST LEAVE EVERYTHING IN PLACE AND THERE'S JUST SOME DRILLING AND SOME SHOCK READING AND YOU'RE GOOD TO GO.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS CLEAR WHAT THE DIFFERENT PROCESSES ENTAILED.

GREAT. THANK YOU. SIR, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

YEAH. I AGAIN FOR MR. RIVERA. YES, MA'AM.

OH, ACTUALLY, IT'S FOR THE OWNER.

IN THE WRITE UP THAT CAME TO US ON FEBRUARY 21ST, 2024, IT GAVE THE LENGTHY DESCRIPTION OF THE BACKGROUND FEASIBILITY ARGUMENTS, AND IT TALKED ABOUT FRIENDS AND WORKERS FROM MY LANDSCAPE BUSINESS.

CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THAT WAS? AND IF YOU ARE A PARTICIPANT IN A LANDSCAPE BUSINESS WHY DIDN'T WE GET PERMITS IN THE FIRST PLACE? OKAY. NUMBER ONE, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE INCEPTION OF THIS, THIS THIS WHOLE PROJECT.

CAN YOU STATE CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? FOR THE RECORD, RENEE LITCHMAN 939 BEGONIA COURT CARLSBAD.

THANK YOU. GO ON.

YEAH. THE LANDSCAPING BUSINESS THAT I RAN WAS A VERY SMALL BUSINESS KIND OF A DIY THING THAT GREW FROM THERE FOR A WHILE, AND I GOT INTO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.

[01:50:06]

BUT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PROJECT WAS NOT IT WAS BASED IN A TRAGEDY.

I HAD THE LOVE OF MY LIFE HAD JUST PASSED AWAY IN 2014.

AND I WAS REALLY JUST LOOKING FOR A PROJECT THAT WOULD BE HARD WORK AND PUT MY HEAD DOWN AND DEAL WITH THE GRIEF.

WE DID SOME RESEARCH INTO WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.

AND THAT WAS THROUGH REALLY THROUGH THE FRIENDSHIP HELP THAT I HAD.

THIS IS THE FIRST HOME THAT I EVER OWNED.

I HAD NEVER BEEN THROUGH THE CIVIC PROCESS LIKE THIS.

AND HE HAD GOTTEN BACK TO ME AND SAID, WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE WE CAN BUILD FOUR FOOT RETAINING WALLS WITHOUT BEING REQUIRED TO HAVE A PERMIT.

WE RAN AWAY WITH THAT.

I WAS NOT IN A GREAT RATIONAL STATE OF MIND FOR AT LEAST THE ENTIRE YEAR.

AND THE HARD WORK WAS GREAT FOR ME.

SO WE DID.

AND ALSO TO GO BACK TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT STORMWATER DRAINAGE ISSUES.

WE WERE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH, WITH WATER PRIOR TO THIS QUITE A BIT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND IT'S EXACERBATED BY IRRIGATION THAT'S DONE ABOVE US. THEY HAVE A LARGE GRASS YARD.

THAT IRRIGATION WAS LEADING TO A LARGE POOLS OF WATER IN THE FRONT YARD AND ALSO IN THE STREET.

AND WE WERE DURING I FORGET WHAT YEAR IT WAS WHEN WE STARTED TO SEE SOME RATHER EXTREME DROUGHT CONDITIONS.

AND WE WERE BEING RECOMMENDED TO RATION WATER.

AND I WAS REPORTED BY ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS AS BEING WATER IRRESPONSIBLE.

AND WE WERE NOT ACTUALLY, THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.

IT WAS BECAUSE OF THIS DRAINAGE CIRCUMSTANCE.

SINCE WE BUILT THE WALLS, WE DON'T SEE THOSE PUDDLES ANYMORE.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT THAT ISSUE TO THAT DEGREE.

BUT YEAH, THAT THAT IS BASICALLY HOW THE PROJECT BEGAN.

SO THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, I WAS A VERY SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, HAD HELPED FROM MY MOTHER TO EVEN PURCHASE THE HOME IN THE FIRST PLACE AND DID SOMETHING THAT WAS UNWISE AND NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT. BUT I, YOU KNOW, I WAS IN A PARTICULAR STATE OF MIND AT THE TIME.

APPRECIATE THE DESCRIPTION OF THAT.

THANK YOU. YES, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOEGER.

I CAN'T BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.

I JUST WANT TO PULL IT UP A LITTLE BIT.

SO THE WAY I SEE THIS AND SEE IF I GET IT RIGHT IS YOU HAVE A COMPETING IDEA WITH THE REMEDY THAT THE CITY WOULD PROBABLY WOULD, WOULD SAY IS TO CODE YOUR IDEA.

THE PITCH YOU'RE MAKING TODAY IS THAT IT'S IT'S MUCH EASIER TO DO WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ALL THE EXCAVATION.

THAT'S COMPLICATED.

AND YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT IT WOULD ALSO BE CHEAPER.

I'D HAVE TO. I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO THE CONTRACTOR.

THE LETTER WE GOT HERE, I'M.

I'M JUST RESPONDING.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALSO BE CHEAPER.

YES. IT'S MORE OF A LOGISTIC.

THE SOIL NAIL WALL BY BY ANY MEANS IS NOT A CHEAP FIX.

SO YOU PRESENTED THIS IN 2020 OR IT WAS PRESENTED IN 2000.

SO THREE YEARS YOU'VE BEEN OPERATING ON A SEPARATE PLAN.

FROM WHAT? FROM THE CITY.

IS THAT FAIR? A SEPARATE PLAN, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE YOU'RE SUPPORTING A PLAN THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY IN CONCERT WITH THE CITY PLAN.

IT IS A PROPOSAL THAT YOU'RE INITIATING BASED ON YOUR EXPERTISE.

CORRECT. WE SUBMITTED THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS.

THE MOST LIKELY OPTION THAT IS TO CODE.

IS THAT? SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING OR NOT? NO. OKAY.

NO, BECAUSE IT'S JUST THE MOST INVASIVE TO THE HILLSIDE.

OKAY. SO YOU DO NOT HAVE AN OPTION THAT IS TO CODE.

WE DO. WE HAVE TWO STATS.

SORRY OKAY. I'M NOT RECOMMENDING THE THE TWO OPTIONS THAT TECHNICALLY WOULD MEET THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ARE NOT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF WHAT WE WOULD DO FOR THIS PROJECT. YOU DO HAVE ONE TWO CODE, BUT IT IS, IN YOUR MIND COMPLICATED.

LOTS OF EXCAVATION.

NOT AS EFFECTIVE.

CORRECT? OKAY. YES.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

MEENES. YEAH, COMMISSIONER.

PROBABLY WHEN ASKED ABOUT 80% OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK, BUT I FOR CLARITY AND, JASON, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO COME UP HERE AND ANSWER THIS QUESTION, WHICH WILL PIGGYBACK ON.

OUR OTHER COMMISSIONER.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE THEY DID SUBMIT A COUPLE PLANS SUBSEQUENT TO 2020 WHEN THIS CAME TO US INITIALLY. IS THAT CORRECT?

[01:55:01]

I THINK IT WAS.

I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS BEFORE OR AFTER THE THE WHEN WE CAME TO FOR THE VARIANCE.

OKAY. I THINK IT WAS AFTER.

BUT DO YOU RECALL I DON'T RECALL.

OKAY. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT IS IT HAS IF THOSE PLANS CAME IN AFTER IT CAME AND IT WAS DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GIVEN IT WAS DENIED, THEY CAME BACK WITH PLANS TO MITIGATE.

THE ISSUE.

YES. OKAY.

AND THE CITY, IN REVIEWING THOSE PLANS, DID YOU COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE APPLICANT ON HOW THEY COULD MITIGATE? AND NOW THEY'RE CHOOSING NOT TO GO WITH CITY RECOMMENDATION AND COMING UP WITH THEIR OWN PLAN TO DO SO.

TYPICALLY WE DON'T RECOMMEND WE IF IF WE REVIEW THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT'S THE ENGINEER OF WORKS DESIGN AND WE JUST MAKE SURE IT MEETS REQUIREMENTS OR MEETS STANDARDS OR MEETS INDUSTRY STANDARDS, ANYTHING.

AND WE DO DO A PLAN CHECK TO MAKE SURE AS BEST WE CAN TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS ALL ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.

OCCASIONALLY WE WILL MEET WITH THE AND ACTUALLY IT'S MORE OFTEN NOW THAT WE'LL MEET WITH THE ENGINEER TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE.

SOLUTIONS, SO I WOULDN'T CALL IT A RECOMMENDATION, BUT I'D CALL LIKE WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THAT.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO IF I COULD TAKE THIS CHANCE HERE TO SAY THAT.

SO MR. RIVERA IS SAYING THAT THE ONE AND A HALF TO ONE REPAIR THEY CAN'T REALLY SUPPORT AS AN ENGINEER, IT WOULD IT'D BE TOO DIFFICULT AND IT WOULD BE IT WOULD CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN SOLVE AND AND GRADING WOULD. IT COULD.

IT COULD BE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE, I GUESS, IS WHAT HE'S SAYING.

AND THEN AND AS FAR AS THE 2 TO 1 THEY CAN'T FIT A 2 TO 1 IN WITH A WITH A SIX FOOT WALL IS WHAT HE'S SAYING.

BUT A 2 TO 1 WOULD BE OKAY.

THEY JUST CAN'T DO IT WITH A SIX FOOT WALL.

WHAT WE'RE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS AN ALL OR NOTHING APPROACH.

THERE'S ANOTHER APPROACH IS THAT THERE COULD BE A VARIANCE ALLOWED, BUT FOR A SINGULAR TALLER WALL THAT WOULD ALLOW THE 2 TO 1 SLOPE, I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP THAT IT'S NOT AN ALL OR NOTHING CASE.

OKAY. PARTICULARLY SO IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN HOW MANY FEET ARE WE SPEAKING OF BEYOND SIX FEET, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT IS, MR. RIVERA. PROBABLY I'M NOT.

WE WEREN'T REALLY PREPARED FOR THAT.

I'M NOT SURE IF MR. RIVERA KNOWS OFF THE TOP OF HIS HEAD EITHER.

OR IT COULD.

IT COULD BE SOMETHING WHERE MINIMALISTICALLY YOU COULD GET THE 2 TO 1 SLOPE FOR THE REPAIR.

SO IF IT'S IF IT'S A SINGULAR 6 FOOT OR 7 FOOT WALL OR MAYBE TWO TERRACED WALLS AND THAT'S IT.

AND THEN YOU GO UP FROM THERE, A TERRACED WALL WITH A SLOPE IN BETWEEN AND ANOTHER WALL, AND THEN AND THEN BUILD THE 2 TO 1.

IT'S SOME MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD WORK, BUT THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS POSSIBLE.

THOSE OTHER OPTIONS WOULD REQUIRE VARIANCE.

I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD WORK WITH WITH PLANNING, BUT THOSE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED.

WELL, ERIC.

THANK YOU. SURE.

SO I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE STUDIED WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIANCE FINDINGS.

WE STILL WOULD LIKELY HAVE SOME CHALLENGES, GIVEN THE FINDINGS THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE, BECAUSE SPECIFIC ENGINEERING DIFFICULTY AND COST IS NOT A FINDING WE'RE LOOKING AT.

IS THIS A PRIVILEGE GRANTED TO SOMEONE ELSE? AND PART OF OUR CONCERN WITH THE VARIANCE IS IF THIS VARIANCE IS GRANTED WOULD ANYBODY WITH THE LARGEST SLOPE BACKYARD IN A SUBDIVISION COME IN AND BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS? SO I THINK WE ARE SENSITIVE TO THE SITUATION AND HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE HAD SO MANY CONVERSATIONS AND ULTIMATELY, AS TIME HAD PASSED, ALLOWED A SECOND CHANCE AT THE VARIANCE.

BUT ULTIMATELY, WHEN WE STUDIED ALL THE FACTS AND INFORMATION WE STILL DON'T SEE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THE FINDINGS.

AND THAT'S WHY OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS PERMIT IS, IS STILL DENIAL.

THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

DO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OR MAY WE NOW GO TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY? MAY I1I HAVE ONE LAST WORD.

ALL RIGHT. BRIEFLY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY STUDY THAT OPTION, BUT APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE YARD WOULD BE ABOUT A SIX FOOT WALL.

AND THEN IT WOULD IT WOULD TAPER UP TO PROBABLY ABOUT A NINE OR A TEN FOOT WALL AT THE MOST CONSTRAINED PORTION IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT 2 TO 1.

THAT 2 TO 1 SLOPE.

AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU KNOW, FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT, AND WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT STABILITY AND PRACTICALITY ON CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT THE THE SOLE FOCUS OR REASONING WHY

[02:00:08]

WE FEEL THAT BASED ON THE PERCENTAGES AND THE SIMILARITIES TO THE HOM RESIDENCE THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY STAFF, WE FEEL THAT WE ARE THE IDENTICAL PROJECT.

WE DON'T FEEL THAT THE CUTBACK SLOPE NATURE OF THAT SLOPE DISTINGUISHES THAT PROJECT IN ANY WAY FROM OUR FROM OUR PROJECT.

SO I JUST APPRECIATE EVERYONE TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD.

WILL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

HOW MANY SPEAKER SLIPS DO WE HAVE? WE HAVE THREE. ALL RIGHT.

AND YOU WANT TO CALL THEM IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY'VE BEEN SUBMITTED? YES, SIR. STEPHEN JOHNSON.

AS AS THE FIRST SPEAKER COMES UP TO THE PODIUM.

WHAT'S BETTER FOR YOU? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN BE HEARD BY THE MICROPHONE STAND FOR THREE MINUTES.

OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT, LET ME JUST SAY, SIR WHILE YOU'RE GETTING COMFORTABLE THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURE, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES, AS WILL THE OTHER SPEAKERS, TO MAKE COMMENTS TO HELP YOU STAY WITHIN YOUR LIMITS.

THE MINUTE CLERK WILL ACTIVATE A LIGHTED TIMER.

YOU'LL HAVE A GREEN LIGHT.

AND WHEN THE RED LIGHT GOES ON, THAT MEANS YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. CAN YOU MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A MICROPHONE THAT'S ON, SIR? YES, I DO, ALL RIGHT.

YOU WANT TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, SIR? STEFAN JOHNSON, 927 BEGONIA COURT CARLSBAD.

THANK YOU. I'VE.

BEEN A RESIDENCE FOR CARLSBAD FOR 50 YEARS, AND I'VE KNOWN MR. LICHTMAN FOR SOME 15 OF IT.

AND I WATCHED HIS BACKYARD DEVELOPED INTO A PIECE OF ART.

I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY BEAUTIFUL IN THE PROCESS.

I TOOK A NOTE OF THE MATERIALS BEING DELIVERED AND USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.

RENEE LICHTMAN HAS USED THE BEST MATERIALS MAN HAS TO OFFER TODAY, INCLUDING THE PACKING BASE AND THE SUPPORT MATERIAL HOLDING THE STRUCTURE TO THE EARTH.

I DO AGREE WITH HE'S GOT THE RIGHT PEOPLE WITH THE SOLUTION TO PIN IT, IF THAT'S WHAT IT CALLS FOR.

WE CAN PUT ADDITIONAL PINS INTO THE MOUNTAIN AND STABILIZE IT, MR. LARDY. THE SLOPE AND THE WEIGHT PER TIER ARE ALL WELL WITHIN THE INABILITY TO SURVIVE A LARGE EARTHQUAKE.

I'VE SINCE INVESTIGATED OTHER STRUCTURES IN CARLSBAD AS TO THE ANGLE, THE SLOPE, THE SIZING OF EACH TIER, AND THE MATERIALS USED IN THE TYPE OF APPLICATION.

YOU CAN FIND DOZENS OF EXAMPLES OF HOUSES BEING ONLINE WITH A SIMILAR SLOPE AS PART OF THE PICTURE MOSAIC OFFERED FOR HOUSES THAT ARE FOR SALE.

I AGREE WITH THE THIRD PARTY CIVIL ENGINEERS AND THE PARTY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CONCLUSIONS THAT THE WALL IS WELL BUILT.

MY PERSONAL ANALYSIS OF OTHER SIMILAR PROJECTS IN THIS CITY THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED WERE NOT BUILT, AS WELL AS MR. LICHTMAN'S STRUCTURE, AS FAR AS THE UNDERLYING PINNING MATERIAL AND THE SUPPORT BASE.

MOST ALL PROJECTS INVOLVED AN INTERLOCKING BRICKS COMMONLY USED TODAY HAVE SIMILAR SLOPE ANGLES.

THIS IS MY PROBLEM.

THE CITY SHOULD NOT MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE INVESTING SO MUCH IN HIS CITY.

IT'D BE UNJUST FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO IMPOSE SUCH AN EXTREME PENALTY AND BURDENSOME REQUIREMENTS AS TO CAUSE MR. LICHTMAN TO LOSE HIS HOUSE.

IT WOULD BE UNJUST FOR THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO ARGUE THAT THIS SOLUTION IS THE ONLY SOLUTION, KNOWING IT WILL CAUSE CATASTROPHIC FINANCIAL DESTRUCTION.

WHEN IN FACT THE WALL IS SOUND.

THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

I SHOULD SAY HERE THAT.

THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

I HAVE NOT ARE NOT STRANGERS.

NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS OVER THE PAST SUBSEQUENT HAS FORCED A RELATIONSHIP WITH ME AND THE CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SOME THREE GENERATIONS AGO.

I THINK I'VE KNOWN THEM ALL.

THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS MANEUVERED THE FORCE OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST MR. LICHTMAN TO SUCH AN EXTREME THAT IT APPEARS NOT TO BE MUCH OF A CODE VIOLATION PROBLEM FOR THE PERSONAL PROBLEM BETWEEN MR. LICHTMAN AND THE CODE OFFICERS.

THANK YOU, SIR.

CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS WHOSE JOB IT IS TO KEEP US SAFE, AGREE.

THE WALL WAS BUILT CORRECTLY WITH SAFETY IN MIND AND ONLY A SMALL MODIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED.

TO SATISFY THE CODE.

THANK YOU SIR. YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED.

NEXT SPEAKER.

[02:05:01]

GOOD EVENING. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR? YES. CHAIRMAN KAMENJARIN AND HONORABLE COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS JACK PHELPS.

I LIVE AT 956 WINNSBORO COURT IN THE AVIARA COMMUNITY.

I LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, PROXIMITY WITH THIS PROPERTY HERE.

I DID PREPARE A WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR YOU.

I THINK YOU HAVE IN THE RECORD AS WELL.

WHY ARE WE HERE? THIS WAS FOUR YEARS AGO.

OKAY. WITH THIS, I'M GOING TO TAKE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TRADE THAT YOU JUST HEARD.

THIS IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED ME ECONOMICALLY AND PERSONALLY.

THIS STRUCTURE IS WHAT IT HAS.

IT'S REDUCED THE PRIVACY OF MY PROPERTY, VISUAL IN BOTH NOISE.

THEY'VE BEEN USING THIS PROPERTY AS AN AIRBNB.

THE THE PICTURES HERE, I PUT THEM IN MINE AS WELL.

THIS IS NOT A RETAINING WALL.

THIS IS AN OBSERVATION DECK.

HOW MANY RETAINING WALLS HAVE STAIRS AND SEATING AREAS? IT WAS DESIGNED TO ELEVATE THEIR VIEW.

I APPRECIATE IT TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE THEIR VALUE AS WELL AS THEIR RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.

WE CAN'T ENJOY OUR BACKYARD EXPERIENCE, WHICH WE'VE INVESTED MORE THAN $75,000 INTO.

WE CAN'T EVEN OPEN OUR WINDOWS TO ENJOY THE NATURAL AIR CONDITIONING OF CARLSBAD WEATHER THAT WE HAVE.

MY WIFE IS HERE WHEN MR. LICHTMAN WAS CONSTRUCTING THIS.

IT'S A CANYON.

CASUAL CONVERSATIONS COME DOWN INTO OUR BACKYARD.

I WELCOME ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO COME TO OUR PROPERTY TO OBSERVE THIS.

DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, HIS LITTLE CREW THAT YOU HEARD THERE ASKED ABOUT THE PERMITTING.

MY WIFE FINALLY SHOWED UP HERE TODAY.

SHE CAN TELL YOU.

HE SAID NOBODY WAS GOING TO MAKE HIM REMOVE THIS WALL.

HE DIDN'T FALL FOR THE OKEY DOKEY IN 2020.

DON'T FALL FOR IT AGAIN.

HE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THIS STRUCTURE THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE PROPER PERMITTING PRICE PROCESS AT THE TIME.

YOU'VE HEARD OF SOLUTIONS HERE TO FIX THIS WITH A SINGLE WALL OR A TEARING WALL, BUT THIS MONSTROSITY IS HERE.

WE THOUGHT WE BOUGHT THE AMERICAN DREAM AND OUR RETIREMENT HOME HERE.

THIS HAS BEEN A NIGHTMARE.

PLEASE END IT FOR US.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR LINDA CRONIN.

GOOD EVENING. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE, MA'AM? I'M LINDA CRANE, AND I'M ON LILY PLACE.

I'M DIRECTLY UPHILL.

AND THEN ONE LOT TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

FIRST A LITTLE HISTORY AND THEN A LITTLE RISK ASSESSMENT.

OKAY. THE TRACT WAS BUILT IN AROUND 1978.

MY PARENTS MOVED INTO MY CURRENT RESIDENCE IN AROUND 1985.

AND WHEN THEY LEFT THE HOUSE FOR RETIREMENT, BILL, I MOVED INTO IT IN AROUND 2012.

IN THAT ENTIRE TIME, THAT HILL HAS BEEN STABLE.

I ASSUME IT'S THE DEVELOPERS PLANTED STANDS OF ACACIA SHRUBS ON THE TOP PART OF THE HILL.

THERE'S A NETWORK OF 40 YEAR OLD ROOTS THAT GO DOWN DEEP, THAT STABILIZE THAT HILL.

THE VEGETATION ON THE HILL IS SOLID, SO THE SOIL DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE TOO MUCH OF AN EROSION PROBLEM BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS PRETTY WELL COVERED AND SECURE.

LET'S SEE HERE.

WHEN I SAW THE WHEN, WHEN THE CITY'S PROPOSAL WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION IN TERMS OF HOW TO MITIGATE THE UNPERMITTED WALL CONSTRUCTION DOWNHILL, FRANKLY, MY HAIR KIND OF STOOD ON END.

THE HILL IS STABLE DESPITE THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS OF EXTREME STORMY WEATHER.

AND IN SUMMARY, I WOULD SAY THAT THE LESS YOU DIG INTO THE TOE OF THAT SLOPE, THE LESS LIKELY IT IS THAT THE UPPER HILLSIDE WILL COME TUMBLING DOWN, WHICH WOULD IMPACT ME AND MY NEIGHBORS UPHILL.

IT WOULD MAKE ME HAPPIEST IF YOU WOULD GRANT A VARIANCE TO FIND SOMETHING LESS THAN EXCAVATING THAT HILLSIDE, REMOVING THE VEGETATION, DESTABILIZING THE UPPER PART OF THE HILL.

I THINK THAT'S A HIGHER RISK THAN WHAT THE OWNER'S ENGINEERS ARE SUGGESTING.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A CHICKEN AND EGG PROBLEM HERE IN TERMS OF DID THEY GET A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO HAVE A PLAN, OR DO YOU NEED A PLAN TO HAVE A VARIANCE?

[02:10:10]

MY LAST ONE, I WAS ON A STEEPER, LONGER SLOPE THAN THEIRS.

AND BELIEVE ME, I UNDERSTAND THAT HILLS MOVE.

A COUPLE OF HOUSES AGO, I BUILT WALLS THAT WERE PINNED.

I'VE DONE A LOT OF THIS CONSTRUCTION MYSELF.

I'VE SEEN SOME ENGINEERS MAKE SOME VERY STRANGE MISTAKES, JUST LIKE HOMEOWNERS HAVE SOMETIMES.

SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW FROM AN UPHILL STANDPOINT, TO ME, THE LESS RISK.

THANK YOU MA'AM.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? NO. LET'S CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANYTHING THAT THEY'VE HEARD? NO THANK YOU.

WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED? NO, NOT THIS TIME. IT'S STILL AVAILABLE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR EITHER THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? COMMISSIONER MEENES FIRST.

YES. QUESTION FOR STAFF.

THE APPLICANT ENGINEER HAD MADE COMMENTS AROUND ABOUT.

AND WE ALSO HAVE INFORMATION IN REGARD TO THE HARM PROPERTY FOR AND THEY USE THAT AS A COMPARISON PURPOSE.

COULD YOU PROVIDE FOR ME AND OR THE COMMISSION A COMPARISON AND WHAT DIFFERENTIATES ONE PROPERTY FROM THE OTHER? YES, I THINK I DO HAVE.

SO THIS SLIDE ESSENTIALLY COMPARES THE TWO PROPERTIES.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY ARE SIMILAR IN SHAPE AND SOMEWHAT SIMILAR IN SIZE.

THE HOMES PROPERTY ON THE LEFT THE AREA IN RED IS THE SLOPE.

THAT SLOPE, AS THE APPLICANT CORRECTLY STATED, WAS CREATED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HOLDING UP A RIDGE LINE.

THE MAJORITY OF SLOPES IN, IN TRACTS IN CARLSBAD ARE EITHER BETWEEN PROPERTY, TWO PROPERTY LINES OR A PROPERTY AND A PROPERTY, A HOUSE PAD AND HOUSE PAD, OR A PROPERTY IN A STREET.

SO THIS IS UNIQUE, A SCENARIO.

RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

THE REASON THAT WAS CREATED WAS THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION.

THERE WAS A MAP APPROVED BY THE CITY THAT INCLUDED MY UNDERSTANDING.

THAT WOULD HAVE INCLUDED BASICALLY FLATTENING THIS PROPERTY SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE GATHERED A VIEW.

AND THE REASON WHY KNOWING.

AND THEN SO THE COASTAL COMMISSION REQUESTED OR MADE THEM PUT THE HILLSIDE BACK, BUT THEY DID NOT ADJUST THE TRACT AT THAT TIME.

ONCE THAT REQUIREMENT FROM COASTAL CAME UP, THE RESULT WAS THAT THIS SLOPE ENDED UP VERY CLOSE TO THE BACK DOOR, ESSENTIALLY, OF THIS PROPERTY.

THAT MEASUREMENT THERE IS ABOUT 16FT.

AND THAT IS ALREADY WITH A FOUR FOOT RETAINING WALL HOLDING UP A 2 TO 1 SLOPE.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF THAT RETAINING WALL WASN'T THERE, YOU GO ANOTHER EIGHT FEET TOWARDS ESSENTIALLY YOU WALK OUT THE BACK SLIDER AND YOU WOULD SEE THE TOE SLOPE ABOUT EIGHT FEET FROM YOUR BACK DOOR.

STAFF DID FIND THAT THAT WAS NOT ONLY A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE FOR HOW THAT WAS CREATED, BUT WAS A LOSS OF PRIVILEGE IN THE USE OF THEIR BACKYARD.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT.

I BELIEVE THERE MIGHT BE A MINOR RETAINING WALL THAT WAS IN PLACE.

IN THE UPPER AREA, BUT THEY DO ALREADY.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THE HOMES WAS TRYING TO DO WAS TO PUSH THE SLOPE BACK A LITTLE BIT TO PUT IN A POOL.

AS WELL AS TO CREATE SOME ADDITIONAL SPACE.

THE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALREADY HAS ABOUT 1000 SQUARE FOOT FLAT PATIO AREA THAT'S THE TOP HALF OF THEIR BACKYARD HIGHLIGHTED THERE.

AND THEN A POOL THAT WAS INSTALLED IN LATE 90S.

IT'S ALSO PROBABLY WORTH NOTING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALSO HAD A 400 SQUARE FOOT ROOM ADDITION, WHICH IS EVERYTHING BELOW THAT YELLOW DOTTED LINE.

SO THIS PROPERTY HAD AFTER IT WAS CREATED AND A HOUSE WAS BUILT, THE OPPORTUNITY TO INSTALL A POOL, OPPORTUNITY TO PUT IN 1000 SQUARE FOOT PATIO.

THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A 400 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION, WHERE THE PROPERTY ON THE LEFT WOULD HAVE HAD THE ROOM FOR THE 400 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION, BUT WOULD LEFT VERY LITTLE ROOM FOR POOL OR PATIO. SO WHEN WE COMPARE SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES, WHILE SOME OF THE NUMBERS OF PERCENTAGE OF PROPERTY ARE TAKEN UP, IT'S REALLY THE LOSS OF PRIVILEGE THAT NEEDS TO BE FOUND IN FINDING ONE.

THAT STAFF WAS NOT COMFORTABLE MAKING FOR THIS PROJECT.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME THAT SO THEY'RE NOT COMPARABLE, BECAUSE THE LOSS OF PRIVILEGE IN THE HOME CASE IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN IN THE SUBJECT

[02:15:10]

THANK YOU. COME ON.

COMMISSIONER STINE. YES.

COMMISSIONER MEENES BASICALLY STOLE MY THUNDER.

BUT I JUST WANT TO KIND OF CLARIFY THIS FOR MYSELF.

ARE WE SAYING, IS STAFF SAYING THAT THE DISTINCTION, ONE OF THE DISTINGUISHING FACTORS IS THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY BEFORE US ALREADY HAS SUBSTANTIAL AMENITIES BETWEEN THE BACK WALL OF THE HOUSE AND THE SLOPE.

IT HAS A POOL. IT HAS A PATIO WHERE THE HOME RESIDENCE WAS SO TIGHTLY CONSTRAINED THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS.

AND THAT BASICALLY IS JUST SUCH A NARROW STRIP.

IT LOOKS TO ME I CAN'T READ THE THE FOOTAGE.

IT'S SUCH A NARROW AREA THAT THEY BASICALLY THEIR BACK DOOR WAS ESSENTIALLY UP AGAINST THE SLOPE.

IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? I THINK THE BEST WAY TO SAY IT IS, IS THAT THE RETAINING WALL THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE HOMS RESIDENCE WAS INSTALLED BY THE THE DEVELOPER, SO THAT THEY COULD CREATE SOME SPACE.

AGAIN, WITHOUT THAT WALL, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD ABOUT EIGHT FEET.

WHERE THIS PROPERTY HAD DOESN'T REALLY HOLD UP ANY OF THE WALL TO CREATE MORE PATIO AND ALREADY HAS ENOUGH PATIO OR.

OKAY, SO IN ONE CASE THEY HAD A CHANCE TO USABLE SPACE AND THEY'VE USED IT FOR AMENITIES.

THAT'S GREAT. A POOL AND A PATIO.

AND IN THE HOMS CASE, THEY REALLY DIDN'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE IT'S SO TIGHTLY CONSTRAINED.

THEY HAD A LESS OPPORTUNITY THAN THIS OPPORTUNITY.

YOU COULD HAVE PUT IN A POOL OR A BIG PATIO AT ALL IN THE HOMS CASE.

IS THAT RIGHT? THAT WAS THE PART OF THE FINDINGS.

YES. THANK YOU.

MR. RIVERA, YOU'RE AWARE THAT THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY HAS BEEN CLOSED.

SORRY. NOW I WILL ALLOW YOU TO SPEAK BRIEFLY, BUT.

THIS CAN'T THIS BACK AND FORTH.

THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY WAS CLOSED.

JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND.

I JUST WANTED TO ADD SOME CLARIFYING BECAUSE I FEEL THAT CLARIFICATION IS NECESSARY WITH, WITH REGARDS TO THOSE STATEMENTS.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HOME RESIDENTS AND YOU LOOK AT THAT DIMENSION FROM THE BACK OF THE HOUSE TO THAT RETAINING WALL, THAT WAS A DEVELOPER INSTALLED RETAINING WALL, THAT WALL DID NOT GET MOVED BACK FURTHER.

OKAY. SO THE VARIANCE AND THE RETAINING WALLS THAT WERE INSTALLED DID NOT CREATE MORE USABLE YARD DIRECTLY BEHIND THE RESIDENCE.

THEY CONTINUED THE WALL DOWN TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CREATE MORE ROOM RIGHT THERE.

BUT EVEN THAT WALL IS AT YOUR NORMAL, LIKE SIX FEET TALL.

SO AT THE BOTTOM IT'S THE SAME EXACT SITUATION AS OURS.

WE HAVE A WALL ON THE BOTTOM.

THE FACT THAT THEY TERRACED THE WALLS GOING BACK UP IS IRREGARDLESS OF THE POOL AND EVERYTHING AT THE BOTTOM THEY HAD OVER, THEY HAVE OVER 3000FT² OF USABLE YARD AREA ALONG THIS, ALONG THE BACK AND THE SIDE RIGHT THERE BEFORE THEY INSTALLED THOSE RETAINING WALLS.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A FAIR ASSESSMENT TO SAY THAT THEY INSTALLED THESE WALLS, BECAUSE IF THEY WERE CONSTRAINED ON PROPERTY, THEY ALREADY HAD THAT PROPERTY TO BEGIN WITH.

AND THEY INSTALLED TERRACE WALLS GOING UP THE HILL.

THAT WAS AN ADDITION TO THE DEVELOPER INSTALLED RETAINING WALLS THAT CREATED THEM, THAT USABLE SPACE.

I THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I'M SORRY. DID I INTERRUPT YOU, SIR? I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T WANT.

I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T WANT TO GO BACK AND FORTH.

I JUST WANT ONE CLARIFICATION ON THE HOMS. MR. RIVERA IS NOT INCORRECT THAT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A SIMILAR LOCATION FOR THE WALL THAT WAS APPROVED WITH THE VARIANCE.

THAT WALL ALSO ESSENTIALLY CONTINUED STRAIGHT.

AND SO IT'S THE LOWER PORTION OF THAT RED AREA, AND THAT IS WHERE THE POOL IS CURRENTLY.

SO IT'S THE LOWER HALF THAT CREATED MORE ROOM FOR THE POOL.

AND THEN THE TERRACING CREATED A LITTLE MORE USABLE SPACE, WHICH WAS ALSO PART OF THE FINDING.

WAS THAT THE ALTHOUGH THE.

THE POSITION OF THE INITIAL WALL IS THE SAME SIMILAR AS THE ONE THAT WAS PUT IN.

THERE WAS ALSO THE FINDING THAT FOR THEIR DECK ESSENTIALLY THAT THEY WERE COULD HAVE ADDITIONAL USABLE SPACE WITH THAT DECK.

NOT JUST THAT. THE WALLS GOT TO MOVE BACK OR MOVE UP.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? LET'S THEN MOVE ON TO AN OPEN COMMUNITY.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

WELL, THEN COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM.

COMMISSIONER STINE. I'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A SHOT AT THIS.

THIS IS A FAIRLY COMPLICATED ISSUE WITH AN EXTENSIVE HISTORY.

[02:20:05]

ONE IS PROCEDURAL AND ONE LOOKING AT THE TECHNICAL MERITS OF THE VARIANCE APPLICATION.

IN TERMS OF PROCEDURAL.

WE'RE BASICALLY REVIEWING OLD WINE AND NEW BOTTLES BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY THE THIRD TIME THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT HAS COME TO THE CITY FOR A VARIANCE HEARING.

THE COMMISSION HEARD IT IN DECEMBER OF 2020.

IT WENT TO THE COUNCIL IN MAY.

EXCUSE ME IN FEBRUARY OF 2021.

SAME THING. COMMISSION DENIED IT.

I BELIEVE IT WAS SIX ZERO.

WENT TO THE COUNCIL.

IT DENIED IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VOTE WAS AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL.

AND SO WE'RE BACK HERE BASICALLY FOR THE THIRD TIME ON A PROJECT THAT IS IN MY TERM ON THE COMMISSION.

I'VE REALLY NEVER SEEN WHERE A PROJECT HAS COME BACK FOR BASICALLY MULTIPLE REVIEWS.

THE FACT THAT THE FIRST ONE WAS DURING THE COVID PERIOD AND WE WERE ALL DOING THE BEST WE CAN ON ZOOM.

TO ME, THAT DOESN'T CUT THE MUSTARD.

I MEAN, THEY HAD A CHANCE, THEY PRESENTED IT AND OKAY, IT'S COME BACK TO US NOW.

WHEN I ASKED THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY CHANGES SINCE THEN, BASICALLY SAYS, NO, IT'S THE SAME WALL.

THEY'RE FINE TUNING THEIR ARGUMENTS A LITTLE BIT AND MAKING REFERENCE TO THE HARM PROPERTY, BUT IT'S THE SAME WALL THAT WE REVIEWED, ALBEIT ON ZOOM.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN DECEMBER 2020.

AND THE COUNCIL REVIEWED IN FEBRUARY 21ST THE SAME ISSUE.

HAVE THEY MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VARIANCE? AND IT WAS AND COMMISSION SAID NO.

AND IN DECEMBER OF 2020 20 2020 AND COUNCIL SAID NO IN FEBRUARY OF 2021 AND WE'RE BACK BEFORE US AGAIN.

SO I'M REALLY NOT SYMPATHETIC BECAUSE THEY'VE HAD MULTIPLE CHANCES IN MULTIPLE FORUMS ON ZOOM.

AND HERE PERSONALLY TONIGHT, IN TERMS OF THE MERITS OF THIS THING.

AGAIN, WHAT'S BEFORE US IS A VARIANCE.

WHAT'S A VARIANCE? IT'S A WAIVER FROM THE RULES.

AND THE APPLICANT MUST COME BEFORE US WITH EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT BECAUSE SOMETHING PECULIAR ABOUT THE PROPERTY, THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, THE CONTOUR OF THE PROPERTY, THAT THE ORDINARY RULES SHOULD NOT APPLY IN THIS PARTICULAR SENSE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE DENIED PRIVILEGES OF OTHER PROPERTIES.

SO THEY HAVE TO MAKE THE CASE.

AND THEY HAVE THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT IN THIS CASE, THE STANDARD THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS OUR HILLSIDE RESTRICTIONS THAT PLACE A SIX FOOT MAXIMUM IN TERMS OF HEIGHT FOR A RETAINING WALL, SIX FEET.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES OF THIS PARTICULAR WALL, IT EXCEEDS IT SUBSTANTIALLY.

I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING THREE TIMES, WE'RE TALKING 18FT.

SO I GUESS I MIGHT FEEL A LITTLE DIFFERENT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SEVEN FOOT WALL OR AN EIGHT FOOT WALL, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 18FT, IF NOT MORE.

TRUE. IT'S TERRORIST, BUT WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS WAY, WAY BEYOND OUR HILLSIDE REQUIREMENTS AND THE CRIME.

IT'S THERE FOR A PURPOSE.

THEY'RE PRESERVED TO MINIMIZE SLOPE GRADING, PRESERVE ESTHETIC QUALITY.

IT'S NOT JUST ARBITRARY RULES.

THEY'RE THERE FOR A PURPOSE.

SO SO I'M SEEING THIS AS AN APPLICATION TO GO WAY BEYOND THE THE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE FOR THIS.

AND QUITE FRANKLY, I'M NOT SEEING THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT.

I APPRECIATE STAFF AND THE THE APPLICANT MADE THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THE HARM RESIDENTS, I SEE THIS AS AN APPLES AND ORANGES BECAUSE I THINK IN THE HARM CASE, THEY WERE SO TIGHTLY CONSTRAINED THAT LOT THAT THEY COULD NOT, IN ALL PRACTICAL TERMS, ENJOY THEIR BACKYARD, BUT FOR A RETAINING WALL THAT EXCEEDED OUR STANDARDS BECAUSE THERE WAS JUST VERY LITTLE ROOM.

IN THE CASE OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE US, THERE'S A PATIO, THERE'S A SWIMMING POOL.

THEY HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO ENJOY THEIR BACKYARD.

AND THEY'VE DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO PUT A, A TERRACED RETAINING WALL.

ONE OF OUR, ONE OF THE PUBLIC MEMBERS SAID IT'S LIKE AN OBSERVATION DECK WITH STAIRS AND SEATING.

THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I SAW ON THERE.

SO I'M SEEING THAT THEY'VE HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE THEIR CASE.

TWO PREVIOUS TIMES THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO MAKE.

THEY'RE NOT SUBMITTING ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TODAY.

THE PROJECT IS NOT ANY DIFFERENT.

SO AND AND I'M SEEING THIS ON THE FACTS THAT THERE'S I'M NOT SEEING ANY SPECIAL OR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE THAT WOULD JUSTIFY

[02:25:06]

AND THE FINAL POINT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT OUR OUR CITY ENGINEER, ONE OF HIS COMMENTS IS IT SAYS THERE MIGHT BE WAYS TO WORK AROUND THIS THAT THEY HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY.

MAYBE YOU INCREASE THE THE SIZE OF THE RETAINING WALL OR THE OF THE THERE'S MAYBE OPPORTUNITIES BEYOND WHAT SEEMS LIKE TWO VERY DIFFICULT IF NOT PROBLEMATIC FIXES THAT THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT.

SO I DON'T THINK WE'VE RUN OUT OF CREATIVE OPTIONS.

BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS APPLICATION, FOR THIS VARIANCE, IT'S WHAT WE'VE SEEN BEFORE.

AND AND I HAVE TO I HAVE TO SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE APPLICATION.

COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YES. I HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER.

STINE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS A LITTLE DISAPPOINTING IS THAT HAVING TO COME BACK AT THIS POINT IN TIME WITH ASKING AND RE-ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE AND THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO, NO CHANGES MADE TO THEIR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, NO ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER.

OTHER THAN WE'RE COMING BACK TO YOU AGAIN WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE HAD PROPOSED TO YOU IN 2020.

AND SO GIVEN THAT THE CASE AND I REALLY WOULD HAVE TO SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS WELL.

AND COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

THANK YOU.

THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT.

DECISION. IN COMPARING.

THE HAN RESIDENTS, YOU SORT OF HIT IT RIGHT ON THE HEAD.

NOBODY HAD ANY PERMITS.

OKAY, THAT'S THE FIRST.

PROBLEM WE HAD BOTH WITH THE HAN AND WITH THIS, THE ONLY ADVANTAGE THE HAN'S HAD, AND THIS WAS NOT A SELLING POINT FOR ME, WAS THEY DID NOT HAVE.

NEIGHBORS ABOVE THEM.

OKAY. THE ONLY REASON THAT I WOULD SUPPORT THIS IN A MODIFIED FORM, NOT IN THIS FORM, WOULD BE. UNDERSTANDING THE 67% SLOPE.

WASN'T ISN'T THE CURRENT STANDARD.

OKAY. SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT AN IDEAL SITUATION TO MAINTAIN MAINTAIN, BUT NEITHER IS A 50% SLOPE.

NOTHING IS EASY TO MAINTAIN ON THESE LARGE 40 FOOT HILLSIDES.

SO THAT'S MY MAJOR CONCERN, IS THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS ABOVE AND THE CONTINUED MAINTENANCE OF THIS. DEVELOPMENT.

BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE YOUR HILLSIDE.

BUT I ALSO THINK THAT A VARIANCE IS A VERY HARD THING TO TRY TO APPROVE. AND ESPECIALLY.

A VARIANCE.

WITHOUT PERMIT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, UNPERMITTED AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE REALLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE CERTAIN INFORMATION, BUT WE STILL DON'T KNOW IF THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE PROPOSED TO US, EVEN IF THEY ARE PROPOSALS, ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE APPROVED.

SO. SO THAT'S THE OTHER CONUNDRUM WE AS A BOARD HAVE IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WE WE APPRECIATE I MEAN, BEING A LICENSED ARCHITECT, I APPRECIATE LICENSED PROFESSIONALS WORKING ON THESE PROJECTS AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MITIGATE THESE SOLUTIONS.

THESE ARE DIFFICULT PROBLEMS, BUT I DON'T SEE.

SO I DON'T SEE RESTORING THE EXISTING SLOPE AS THE IDEAL SOLUTION EITHER.

I HOPE THAT THE OWNERS CAN COME BACK.

TO THE ENGINEERS WITH THE CITY AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THIS THING, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN OTHER SIMILAR PROPERTIES WITH SIMILAR RETAINING WALLS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY HAD PERMITS OR NOT.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

YOU WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST TO HAVE DONE THIS, BUT OBVIOUSLY YOU GOT CAUGHT.

SO SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST SOLUTION.

AND I AM IN FAVOR OF ADDRESSING THE SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE AND ALSO IN FAVOR OF MINIMIZING THE HILLSIDE DISTURBANCE.

IF WE CAN DO THAT, THEN I WOULD FEEL CONFIDENT YOU COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH A PLAN.

BUT AT THIS POINT, I'M NOT SURE THAT EVEN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW IS GOING TO MINIMIZE HILLSIDE DISTURBANCE OR MAINTAIN SAFETY AND CONTINUED MAINTENANCE OPPORTUNITIES.

SO THEREFORE, I.

I YOU KNOW, STRUGGLE WITH THE IDEA THAT THE MATH STILL ISN'T ADDING UP TO ME.

[02:30:02]

BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THIS CONFIGURATION IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR STANDARDS.

AND WE NEED TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE COMPROMISE.

WE CAN'T DO THAT HERE.

WE CAN'T DESIGN HERE.

THAT'S WHERE YOUR ENGINEERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME AND HELP US.

OKAY. SO THANKS FOR HEARING ME OUT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? YES, COMMISSIONER MEENES.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.

THANK YOU. A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER MEENES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STINE THAT WE ADOPT THE RESOLUTION BEFORE US.

PLEASE VOTE. THE MOTION IS CARRIED BY A VOTE OF.

5 TO 0, WITH COMMISSIONER MERTZ HAVING RECUSED HIMSELF AND COMMISSIONER SABELLICO ABSENT.

THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU, STAFF AND APPLICANTS FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

WHAT WE DO IS GO TALK TO OUR NEIGHBORS WHEN WE.

THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF TONIGHT'S MEETING.

THANK YOU. IS IF WE COULD JUST ASK THAT ANYBODY WHO'S HAVING CONVERSATIONS GO OUTSIDE.

WE DO HAVE SOME REMAINING BUSINESS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.

I JUST HOPE YOU ALL CAN KEEP A FRIENDLY FACE.

AGREED.

THERE ARE STUDENTS THAT WANT SIGNATURES.

WELL, IT'S LIKE YOU NEVER CAN TELL.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONERS. VERY INTERESTING DELIBERATIONS.

BRAVO. I'M PROUD TO BE A PART OF THIS GROUP.

IS THERE A REPORT FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS?

[PLANNER REPORT]

THANK YOU.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION GOT TO MEET ON MARCH 11TH, AND THEY ACTUALLY WERE ABLE TO NOMINATE A SEQUOIA TREE ON CINDY AVENUE AS A HERITAGE TREE.

WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS THAT IT BECOMES KIND OF HISTORICALLY PRESERVED.

SO WE'RE KIND OF EXCITED ABOUT THAT.

THEY DISCUSSED THE PLAQUE PROGRAM FOR THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS THIRD GRADE ART CONTEST.

DRAWING ON THE PAST IS THE THEME, THE ADDITIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND BENEFITS THAT WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ACOSTA TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO, NUMBER ONE, BRING THEIR PROPERTIES FORWARD FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPPORTUNITIES AND HOPEFULLY START THE MILLS ACT PROGRAM.

AND GET SOME PROPERTIES ON THE MILLS ACT AND THEN THE FINANCIAL WORK PLAN.

SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT THEY DISCUSSED AND REALLY INFORMATIVE THAT ALSO THE AGENDA ON MARCH 11TH HAD THE BECAUSE OF THE PLAQUE PROGRAM, HAD THE LIST OF THE 13 PROPERTIES THAT ARE ARE TECHNICALLY OUR BASELINE FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION THAT WERE CONSIDERED NOT REPEALED BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS OF THOSE PROPERTIES CAME TO CITY COUNCIL BEFORE 1991 TO REQUEST THAT THEIR PROPERTIES BE HISTORICALLY PRESERVED.

SO SO THOSE PROPERTIES ARE ON THAT LIST AS WELL.

RIGHT. THANKS. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? EARLIER THIS MONTH COMMISSIONER MERZ AND CITY ATTORNEY FROST ALL ATTENDED THE ACADEMY IN LONG BEACH.

I HAVE THE HANDOUT.

IF ANY OF YOU ARE INTERESTED, IF YOU SEND ME AN EMAIL, I'LL BE HAPPY TO FORWARD IT TO YOU.

I FELT LIKE I WAS TOM BRADY AFTER THE SUPER BOWL WHEN PEOPLE WOULD SEE THAT I WAS FROM THE CITY OF

[02:35:04]

IT MADE ME REAL PROUD TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS COMMISSION.

AND I REALIZED HOW FORTUNATE WE ARE.

WE HAVE AN APPRECIATIVE CITY COUNCIL.

WE'VE GOT AN EXCELLENT STAFF.

WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S MORE THAN JUST SEVEN ACRES, SEVEN MILES OF OCEANFRONT.

PEOPLE WERE ENVIOUS.

THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT OUR SUCCESS WAS.

SO THANK YOU, MR. LARDY. MISS FROST I WAS VERY FORTUNATE TO ATTEND.

THE ONE THING THAT WAS A COMMON DENOMINATOR IS THAT MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY, ESPECIALLY PRIVATELY, WERE CONCERNED THAT THEY DIDN'T GET ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW DOCUMENTS FOR THEIR HEARINGS.

SO THERE WAS ONE MAN WHO SPOKE IN WHICH HE SAID HE'D GOTTEN A COUPLE THOUSAND PAGES OF DOCUMENTS ON A FRIDAY BEFORE THE NEXT WEEK'S HEARING.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO CONSIDER.

ALSO, THE SECOND ITEM I WANT TO SHARE IS THAT YOU MAY RECALL IN JANUARY I SAID THAT I HAD SOME IDEAS FOR CHANGES.

SOME OF YOU HAVE COMMENTED TO ME.

I MET WITH ATTORNEY FROST AND MR. LARDY THIS WEEK.

WE TALKED ABOUT A COUPLE OF THINGS.

THEY INCLUDED.

I'D LIKE EACH OF US TO HAVE A CITY EMAIL ADDRESS.

I THINK THERE'S PRIVACY AND SECURITY ISSUES.

IT SEEMS TO ME TO MAKE TOTAL SENSE.

I ALSO SUGGESTED WE ONLY HAVE SINGLE ITEM.

WE DO NOT HAVE SINGLE ITEM AGENDAS.

FOR OUR HEARINGS, I'D MUCH RATHER HAVE ONE HEARING WITH TWO ITEMS THAN TWO HEARINGS WITH ONE ITEM.

THE THIRD THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WAS I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN OPPORTUNITY THAT.

WE HAVE GREATER TIME IN WHICH TO RECEIVE THE MATERIALS.

IDEALLY, I'D LIKE TO SEE TEN DAYS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S UNFAIR TO THE CITY.

IT'S UNFAIR TO APPLICANTS THAT WE MAY HAVE TO RUSH THROUGH THIS NOW.

PERHAPS SOME OF YOU ARE WILLING TO DEVOTE YOUR TIME NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS, BUT I'D LIKE TO AVOID THE FRIDAY DELIVERY, AND I THINK THAT MR. LOWRY UNDERSTANDS OUR CONCERN ON THAT.

SO IF ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS, WHY DON'T YOU CONTACT MR. LARDY? HE'S VERY RECEPTIVE AND CC ME AND I WILL.

I'LL PURSUE THAT.

THANK YOU. A REPORT FROM THE CITY PLANNER.

SURE. JUST A COUPLE OF HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. FIRST, STARTING WITH CITY COUNCIL ITEMS. LAST NIGHT, THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED THE ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT FOR HOUSING AND ZONING ORDINANCE.

SO THAT'S INFORMATION ANNUALLY IN MARCH EVERY YEAR, WE JUST REPORT ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS CREATED.

IT WAS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

BUT IT DOES HAVE TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEM.

WE HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS IN APRIL GOING TO CITY COUNCIL, THE ON APRIL 9TH, THE LEGOLAND PROJECT 2025 THAT YOU HEARD IN JANUARY IS GOING TO CITY COUNCIL.

AND THEN THE 2022 ZONING CODE CLEANUP AND HOUSING ELEMENT MODIFICATIONS ARE GOING TO COUNCIL.

WHAT OCCURRED WAS, AS THOSE WERE APPROVED BY THE CITY IN 2022, SUBMITTED TO COASTAL COMMISSION, AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION HAS ACTED ON THEM.

THEY HAVE SOME MINOR MODIFICATIONS.

SO THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO RE ADOPT THEM WITH THOSE MODIFICATIONS.

AND THEN ON APRIL 16TH, THE POINSETTIA PARK WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY IS GOING TO CITY COUNCIL.

ON THE APPEAL THAT WAS RECEIVED ON THAT ONE, THAT WAS APRIL 16TH.

APRIL 16TH. YES.

WE ARE GOING TO BE CANCELING THE APRIL 3RD MEETING.

BUT THEN WE DO HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS ON APRIL 17TH INCLUDING NOW THE 2024 ZONING CODE CLEANUP.

THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY?

[CITY ATTORNEY REPORT]

AND IF YOU DO WANT ANY OF THOSE MATERIALS, WE'D BE HAPPY TO DISTRIBUTE THOSE.

GREAT. WE STAND ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.