May 01, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE MAY 1ST, 2024 MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.

WITH THE MINUTES. CLERK, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL.

COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

SABELLICO, HERE.

COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

HERE. COMMISSIONER MEENES.

I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.

COMMISSIONER MEENES.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MERZ.

HERE. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

HERE. FOR THE RECORD, COMMISSIONER STINE IS ABSENT AND CHAIR KAMENJARIN PRESENT.

ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COMMISSIONER STINE.

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

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.

THE NEXT ITEM FOR APPROVAL IS THE MINUTES OF THE.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 17TH? SEEING NONE.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I MOVE TO APPROVE.

WE HAVE A SECOND. COMMISSIONER MEENES.

I'LL SECOND GREAT MOTION TO APPROVE HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MEENES.

ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE. THE MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF SIX ZERO, WITH COMMISSIONER STINE ABSENT.

MINUTES. CLERK. ARE THERE ANY SLIPS FOR SPEAKERS? CHAIR. THERE IS NOT.

OKAY. VERY GOOD.

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

REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS MUST BE TURNED IN TO 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 MINUTES CLERK WILL CALL THE NAMES OF THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN THE ORDER THE REQUEST TO SPEAK ARE RECEIVED.

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

SINCE THERE ARE NONE, LET'S MOVE ON.

IF EVERYONE WILL DIRECT 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 PRESENTATION.

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.

AFTER ALL, THOSE WANTING TO SPEAK HAVE DONE SO, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE CLOSED.

THE APPLICANT AND STAFF WILL THEN 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.

[1. CDP 2023-0052/V 2023-0009 (DEV2023-0135) NORMANDY BEACH HOME (LOT 38)]

FIRST, HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER MERZ? YES, I VISITED THE SITE.

GREAT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MEENES.

I VISITED THE SITE AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

I LOOKED IT UP ON GOOGLE MAPS AND ALSO RECEIVED THE HISTORIC REPORT.

OKAY. ANY OTHER EX PAR TE? GREAT. I TOO HAVE VISITED THE SITE.

[00:05:02]

THANK YOU. CITY PLANNER ERIC LARDY.

THE FIRST ITEM TONIGHT IS THE NORMANDY BEACH HOME PROJECT FOR LOT 38.

IT IS A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND REQUEST FOR VARIANCE.

THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED ON HALF OF A CURRENT PARCEL.

THE SECOND ITEM WILL BE THE OTHER HALF OF THIS PARCEL TONIGHT THIS IS ON LOT 38.

COMPRISES THE WESTERN HALF OF 260 NORMANDY LANE.

IT IS A PROJECT SITE OF JUST OVER 2500FT² IN THE R THREE ZONE, AND LOCATED IN THE MELLOW TWO SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

IT IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY.

THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OF 2939FT² AS A FOUR BEDROOM HOME, THREE STORIES WITH BALCONIES ON THE SECOND AND THIRD STORY.

THE PROJECT INCLUDES A VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACK FRONT YARD SETBACK TO TEN FEET, WHICH TYPICAL 20 IS THE STANDARD, AND A REDUCED REAR YARD SETBACK OF FIVE FEET.

HERE'S A FRONT RENDERING OF OR FRONT ELEVATION OF THE HOME, AS WELL AS A RENDERING FROM THE APPLICANT.

THE PROJECT IS REQUESTING THE VARIANCE DUE TO THE PRIMARILY DUE TO THE LOT SIZE, WHICH IS 2500FT², WHICH IS ABOUT HALF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THIS ZONE.

AND STAFF, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS FOUND THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE VARIANCE REQUEST OR TO APPROVE A VARIANCE REQUEST.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THE COMMISSION ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND MINOR VARIANCE.

GREAT. THANK YOU FOR THE MATERIALS.

COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? GREAT. I'M SORRY.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

DUE TO THE REDUCED SETBACKS, ARE ADUS BEING PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT? THERE ARE NO ADS PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT.

OKAY. WAS NORMANDY AN ALLEY AT ONE POINT OCEAN STREET? NOTHING IN THE RECORDS I LOOKED UP INDICATED THAT IT WAS EVER CONSIDERED AN ALLEY.

SO IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A STREET AND WHAT ARE OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR SIDEWALKS ON THESE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND STREETS WITH UTILITY BURYING AND STUFF LIKE THAT? DO WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS ON THAT? I BELIEVE THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DID NOT APPLY SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS, NOR ARE THERE OTHER PROPERTIES ON NORMANDY STREET THAT INSTALLED SIDEWALKS.

DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, THERE'S A SIDEWALK.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.

AND THERE'S SIGNIFICANT UTILITIES BEING INDICATED.

AND EVEN A ON THE SITE PLAN, IT ACTUALLY INDICATES A TRANSFORMER BOX BETWEEN THE TWO UNITS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. SO I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR THIS.

BUT ON THE SITE PLAN A 1.1, THERE'S A TRANSFORMER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DRIVEWAY.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE ELECTRICAL SERVICE WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADED WITH A NEW BOX, AND THAT BOX WILL STRADDLE THE LINE BETWEEN LOT 38 AND LOT 39, WHICH IS ITEM THE NEXT ITEM TONIGHT? OKAY.

AND. THERE ARE LOTS OF SMALL LOTS IN THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO AREA. SO WHY IS THIS ONE PARTICULARLY UNIQUE AS IT'S BEING PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER? EVEN THOUGH IT'S A LEGAL LOT.

WE HAVE LOTS OF SUBSTANDARD LEGAL LOTS IN OUR COMMUNITY, SO WHY IS IT UNIQUE? SO THE MINIMUM LOT STANDARD FOR THE ZONE I BELIEVE IS 5000FT².

THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR THE ZONE WOULD REFLECT THE EXPECTED DEVELOPMENT OF A LOT THAT MEETS THAT MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF A LOT IN THE R3 ZONE WAS CREATED TODAY.

SO FOR LOTS THAT ARE SUBSTANDARD, ESPECIALLY HALF LOT SIZE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE FOR A PROJECT.

[00:10:04]

BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER LOTS AROUND CARLSBAD, ESPECIALLY ON TYLER STREET THAT HAVE THE SAME CONDITION.

SO WHY IS IT UNIQUE? I'LL JUMP IN HERE ON, ON THIS ONE.

AND THEN I WANT TO GO BACK TO ONE OF YOUR EARLIER QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING SOMETHING UP.

ONE OF THE THINGS WHEN WE DO, WHEN WE DO A VARIANCE IS WE LOOK AT WHAT IS SORT OF THE PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED FOR VARIANCES IN AN AREA.

THIS IS SIMILAR TO A PROJECT THAT WAS BEFORE YOU ABOUT A YEAR AGO, WHERE WE HAVE LOOKED AND DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF PROJECTS AND IRREGULAR LOTS AND SMALL LOTS IN THIS AREA.

WE HAVE HISTORICALLY GRANTED VARIANCES TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE LOTS AND AND THANK YOU, PLANNER VAN LEEUWEN.

WE DID AN ASSESSMENT AND ON THIS SLIDE NOW IS A SHOWING OF WHAT ARE THE VARIANCES THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THIS AREA.

PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE SMALL LOTS AND THE HISTORICALLY WHEN THESE LOTS WERE CREATED WAS SMALLER THAN THE STANDARD.

WE ALSO HAVE TO BALANCE THAT WITH MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS USE OF PROPERTIES THAT'S ALLOWED.

PROPOSED WITH WHAT THE ZONING AND DESIGNATIONS ARE ON THESE SITES.

SO THAT IS, THAT'S PART OF OUR ANALYSIS.

GOING BACK TO THE NORMANDY LANE STREET.

SO THE DEVELOPER WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENTER INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH IS THE STANDARD FOR THESE STREETS.

AND SO IF AT SUCH TIME THERE'S A CITY PROJECT TO ADD A SIDEWALK FOR THE STREET, THEN THAT THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THAT.

AND THEN THERE'S CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN UTILITIES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE UNDERGROUND AND CERTAIN THINGS, BUT THAT'S TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED IN OUR CODE WITH A SUBDIVISION. AND THERE'S NOT A SUBDIVISION TIED TO THIS PROJECT.

OKAY. GO BACK.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN, THERE'S NO SUBDIVISION TIED TO THIS ONE.

THIS IS BEING SPLIT INTO TWO LOTS THAT ACTUALLY ALREADY EXISTED AS TWO LOTS, BUT.

THERE'S NOT A SUBDIVISION UNDER THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS.

IT'S ALREADY TWO LOTS BECAUSE OF HOW THEY WERE CREATED.

PRIOR TO THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT.

AND IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS SEEMS TO BE A VERY COMMON PRACTICE WHERE WE ELIMINATE ALL OPPORTUNITY FOR SIDEWALKS.

IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT THE PLAN FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? THERE ARE CERTAIN STREETS THAT ARE DESIGNATED AS ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS AND A PLAN I DO NOT BELIEVE, OR I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS STREET IS ONE OF THOSE, BUT IT IS TYPICAL IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS.

AND IN THAT CASE, INSTEAD OF REQUIRING PROJECT FRONTAGE, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO GO INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR IF THERE'S SOME FUTURE PROJECT.

I DON'T KNOW IF ENGINEERING OR THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON THAT.

SO IS THIS.

SO WE'RE NOT SURE IF THIS IS AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET.

IT LIKELY WOULD BE I WE'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT WITH THE APPROVED ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS.

IT WOULD BE REALLY IMPORTANT TO KNOW IF IT WAS OR WASN'T, AND IF THIS WAS OR WASN'T REALLY A WARRANTED OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT'S SEEMS TO ME VERY PROLIFIC.

THE VARIANCES THAT ARE BEING GRANTED IN THESE IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DON'T GET GRANTED IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO PUT SIDEWALKS IN.

SO I AM VERY CONCERNED, AND THIS IS A VERY NARROW STREET.

WHAT'S THE STREET DIMENSION WITH? IT'S NOT EVEN AS BIG AS OCEAN, RIGHT? BELIEVE WE HAVE A, BELIEVE WE HAVE A 20 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.

SO THAT'S BARELY A CAR.

YEAH. SO.

OKAY. THANKS.

COMMISSIONER MEENES.

MR. LARDY, COULD YOU KIND OF EXPAND FOR US JUST A LITTLE BIT IN REGARD TO THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THIS, THESE THIS AREA WAS I GUESS YOU COULD SUBDIVIDED BACK IN THE 1920S.

SO THINGS WERE MUCH DIFFERENT BACK IN THOSE DAYS.

SO LOOKING AT THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, WHICH OF COURSE WAS ADOPTED MANY YEARS AFTERWARDS AS TO THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND HOW IT IS AND IS NOT APPLIED TO A AREA DATING BACK TO THE 1920S.

[00:15:05]

YEAH, SURE. SO BEFORE THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT WAS ENACTED, PROPERTY OWNERS TOOK VARIOUS KIND OF CREATIVE WAYS OF CREATING DIFFERENT PARCELS.

IN THIS CASE, THEY DID RECORD A PARCEL MAP IN 1924.

THAT'S THE GRANVILLE, I THINK IT'S CALLED.

YEAH. GRANVILLE PARK WAS THE NAME OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP.

BUT AS THE SUBDIVISION MAP WAS CREATED, THEY ENACTED WAYS FOR CITIES TO TRY TO BRING THESE NON-CONFORMING LOTS INTO COMPLIANCE.

ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT WAS AVAILABLE WAS TO PROVIDE A NOTICE AND A HEARING TO OWNERS OF PROPERTIES THAT HAD THESE KIND OF NON-CONFORMING LOTS THAT WERE TOO SMALL AND TO MERGE THE LOTS.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS EVER DONE HERE OR IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

BUT THERE IS A PROCEDURE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR THAT.

BUT I THINK MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE GOVERNMENT CODE PROVIDES A MECHANISM TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, EVEN IF IT WAS A LOT THAT WAS CREATED BEFORE THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT WAS ENACTED.

AND THAT IS BY RECORDING A FINAL MAP OR A PARCEL MAP.

AND THAT CONSTITUTES WHAT'S CALLED A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, WHICH IS A WAY OF VERIFYING THAT A PROPERTY COMPLIES WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, EVEN IF IT WAS NOT CREATED BY THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT.

AND THAT WAS WHAT THEY DID HERE.

GREAT. GREAT EXPLANATION.

COULD YOU EXPAND JUST A LITTLE BIT? SO WAS IT AT THAT TIME, WAS THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD OF NORMANDY OCEAN? WAS THAT AREA I GUESS YOU COULD SAY DECIDED UPON AT THAT TIME AND THE THE LEGAL LOTS WERE THEN MADE LEGAL AT THAT TIME OR HOW WHAT'S THE PROCESS? ARE YOU ASKING IF THEY WERE ALL KIND OF, OF THIS SIZE? AT ONE TIME, CORRECT OR, IT WAS A LOT BY LOT BY DEVELOPMENT OF EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT SEPARATELY.

I'M NOT SURE IF OUR PLANNER REMEMBERS KIND OF WHAT THE GRANVILLE MAP OR GRANVILLE PARK MAP LOOKED LIKE.

MY I LOOKED AT IT AND I REMEMBER IT KIND OF ENCOMPASSING THIS WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A NUMBER OF SMALL PARCELS.

AND THAT WAS FROM 1924.

BUT I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW, SO I COULDN'T.

OKAY. THAT'S THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

COULD WE FIND OUT IF THIS IS AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET? BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, AND I'M GLAD COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY BROUGHT IT UP.

I MEAN, I SUSPECT THAT IT IS ALSO.

BUT I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE CERTAINTY ON THAT AND CLARITY IF WE NEED TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS FOR THAT.

I THINK WE HAVE A PRETTY LIGHT AGENDA TONIGHT.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT.

YEAH. IF IT PLEASES THE CHAIR, I'D RECOMMEND WE TAKE A BRIEF FIVE MINUTE RECESS.

YOU MAY NOTICE THAT THE THE CITY DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER GELDER IS NOT HERE, SO WE MAY NEED TO GO RESEARCH THAT FOR A SECOND.

WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO THIS TONIGHT OR.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? YES.

OKAY. LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.

IS THAT ADEQUATE? ALL RIGHT.

FOR FIVE MINUTES.

WOULD YOU START? I THINK JUST START. LET'S LET'S START AGAIN.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

SO WE DID RESEARCH AND CONFIRM THAT THIS IS AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET, WHICH IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE RECENT PROJECTS APPROVED ON THIS STREET.

SO AGAIN THE CONDITION NUMBER 18 ON PAGE 11 OF YOUR REPORT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO ENTER INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? GOOD. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, SIR.

KEVIN DUNN, 1245 GOLD FLOWER ROAD HERE IN CARLSBAD.

I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HIT ON A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE MAYBE BEEN BROUGHT UP.

FIRST IS, EVEN THOUGH THIS PROJECT WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH, WE DID VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE TO HAVE A COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETING ON SITE IN JANUARY.

WE FOLLOWED THE PROTOCOL THAT THE CITY WOULD TYPICALLY REQUIRE BY MAILING OUT WITHIN A 600 FOOT RADIUS RADIUS IN DECEMBER AND ON JANUARY, THE SATURDAY MORNING, JANUARY 13TH, DID HAVE A MEETING ON SITE.

WE HAD 12 COMMUNITY MEMBERS SHOW UP TO THE MEETING.

[00:20:02]

THERE WAS NO QUESTION OR REQUEST OF SIDEWALK.

IN FACT, I WOULD SAY MOST PEOPLE LIKE THE CHARM.

I WOULD, I WOULD CALL IT OF NORMANDY LANE.

IT'S SORT OF A TUCKED IN LITTLE STREET OVER THERE THAT THERE'S NO PARKING AND IS PRETTY.

IT IS 20FT NARROW.

SO WE DID HAVE THE QUESTION OF PARKING COME UP AND WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE GOING TO DO ADUS.

THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT IF WE DID DO ADUS, HOW WOULD WE PARK THAT? BUT WE ARE NOT DOING ADUS.

AND SO THAT SEEMED TO MAKE THAT PARTICULAR PERSON SATISFIED, THAT BEING THAT WE HAVE A 2 CAR GARAGE AS WELL AS A TWO CAR DRIVEWAY. THE OTHER QUESTIONS WERE VERY TOP LEVEL.

PRETTY BASIC. HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE YOU TO BUILD THE HOUSES? HOW TALL WILL THEY BE? WILL THEY HAVE DECKS STUFF LIKE THAT THERE, AS FAR AS I KNOW AND PLANNER VAN LEEUWEN COULD SPEAK TO THIS.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE HAD ANY OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT THIS ENTIRE TIME.

AND THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, CHALLENGING.

THESE ARE LEGAL, NONCONFORMING, SUBSTANDARD LOTS.

SO 50 BY 50, WHEN YOU IF YOU WERE NOT GRANTED VARIANCES AND YOU HAD A 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A TEN FOOT REAR REAR YARD SETBACK, THAT LEAVES YOU WITH 20FT.

THE MINIMUM STANDARD OR DEPTH OF PARKING IN GARAGE IS 20FT.

BY THE TIME YOU FRAME IN YOUR WALLS, YOU'VE GOT LESS THAN 20FT.

SO IF YOU WERE HELD TO THE SETBACKS, YOU WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO BUILD A CONFORMING GARAGE PROVIDING AT LEAST 20FT OF DEPTH.

AND THAT'S PART OF THE REQUEST OF THE OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK.

AND THEN AS YOU CAN, AS YOU SAW FROM THE MAP THAT PLANNER VAN LEEUWEN HAD UP THERE IS A NUMBER OF VARIANCES THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN ON NORMANDY AND IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS FOR SOME OF THESE SMALLER, SUBSTANDARD LOTS.

SO YOU KNOW, OTHER THAN THAT, I'VE GOT QUESTIONS OR I'M HERE FOR QUESTIONS IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU SIR. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THIS APPLICANT? LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

SO YOU'RE DEMOING AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT DOES HAVE CONFORMING SETBACKS RIGHT NOW.

ACTUALLY IT DOESN'T.

THERE IS A DETACHED WHAT ONCE WAS A GARAGE THAT HAS NOW BEEN CONVERTED TO A UNIT THAT IS ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACKS ON, I WOULD SAY, THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

IN IN TODAY'S CALIFORNIA CODE, THAT'S PROBABLY ACCEPTABLE WITH THE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS WE HAVE.

AND THE AND BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE SIDEWALK ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU AND YOU'RE A BLOCK AWAY FROM A SCHOOL, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY KIND OF CONCERN.

IT WASN'T A CONCERN AFTER OUR PUBLIC MEETING.

WE AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, THERE THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF SIDEWALK.

NOBODY WHO LIVES ON THE STREET THAT WAS THERE REQUESTED TO HAVE A SIDEWALK PUT IN.

AND IT WAS NOT REQUIRED BY US FROM STAFF.

AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FIRST FLOOR PLAN.

BECAUSE IT DOES LOOK LIKE YOU'RE CREATING AN ADU ON THE FIRST FLOOR WITH THE BEDROOM AND THE BATHROOM BEING OVERSIZE AND THE LARGE CLOSET.

AND A LARGE FOYER.

SO WHY AREN'T YOU PERMITTING IT AS AN ADU? I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS THE RIGHT DESIGN.

I JUST DIDN'T THINK IT WAS, WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS THE RIGHT DESIGN OR CHOICE FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.

YES, THERE IS A GROUND FLOOR BEDROOM WE HAVE FOUND IN THE PROJECTS WE'VE DONE ON THREE STORY PROJECTS THAT THE END BUYER OWNER IF YOU CAN GET A GROUND FLOOR BEDROOM AND BATHROOM, IT'S APPEALING, IT'S ATTRACTIVE.

IT COULD BE USED AS AN OFFICE.

IT COULD BE MULTI-GENERATIONAL.

WHEN GRANDMA OR GRANDPA COME TO LIVE, THEY COULD.

THEY COULD STAY THERE.

THERE'S NO PLUMBING FOR ANY KITCHEN.

YOU KNOW, ANY TYPE OF SETUP LIKE THAT DOWNSTAIRS, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE GROUND FLOOR BEDROOMS AND BATHROOMS. AND IN TERMS OF THE SIZE OF THE CLOSET, I THINK, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE.

PEOPLE LIKE CLOSETS.

IT'S THE PENSIONS THAT WE USED.

SO IT'S NOT THE INTENT TO HAVE AN ADU IN THIS PROJECT.

IS THIS AREA AVAILABLE?

[00:25:01]

IS THIS A AREA ZONED FOR VACATION RENTALS? THIS AREA IS IN THE COASTAL ZONE SO IT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR A VACATION.

VACATION RENTALS I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE APPLICANT'S BUSINESS PLAN.

WELL, IT MAY NOT BE THE APPLICANT'S BUSINESS PLAN, BUT IT MAY POSSIBLY BE THE NEW OWNER'S BUSINESS PLAN BECAUSE THIS IS CLEARLY HAS A SEPARATE ENTRANCE AND CLEARLY COULD BE THAT USE.

SO SO I THINK.

THERE'S SOME ISSUES.

AND I'M ALSO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SUGGESTING AND THIS PLAN THAT THERE'S A TEN FOOT SETBACK, BUT REALLY YOU'RE HAVING COLUMNS WITHIN A TWO FOOT.

SO ACTUALLY THE SETBACK AND THE FRONT YARD IS ONLY EIGHT FEET.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

BUT THAT'S ALLOWED.

SO WHEN YOU YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE A VARIANCE RIGHT.

IT'S ALLOWED WITH IF THE IF THE SETBACK ONCE THE SETBACK IS SET OR WHATEVER YOUR SETBACK IS DETERMINED TO BE.

IN THIS CASE WE'RE ASKING FOR A TEN FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE.

YOU CAN THEN HAVE ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS OF UP TO TWO FEET INTO THOSE SETBACKS DECKS, COLUMNS, ROOF, EAVES, ETC..

WHAT ABOUT STAIRS? I'M NOT SURE IF STAIRS CAN.

ERIC, I DON'T KNOW IF ONLY CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE STAIRS ARE ALLOWED TO PROJECT.

BUT IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THIS IS PROJECTING ANY STAIRS OR ANYTHING BEYOND THOSE TWO COLUMNS.

YEAH. OKAY.

THANKS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT FROM ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

MINUTES CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? CHAIR. WE DO NOT.

I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY, WE DO NOT.

ALL RIGHT. WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO? WOULD THE APPLICANT, LIKE, EXCUSE ME, WITH STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OR COMMENTS MADE BY THE APPLICANT.

NOT AT THIS TIME, NO.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE.

LET'S OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

ANY COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN APPROVE THIS ITEM AND THE NEXT ITEM TOGETHER? OR DO WE HAVE TO HEAR A WHOLE PRESENTATION ON THE NEXT ITEM? YEAH, THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS, AND THEY ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

SO WE DO HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE DO HAVE AN ABBREVIATED PRESENTATION FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

THERE'S ONLY MINOR NUANCE DIFFERENCES.

OKAY. WELL.

I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THIS PROJECT.

I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

I'M SORRY. DO WE HAVE SOME COMMENTS FIRST? I'M SORRY. LET'S HOLD THAT, IF YOU WILL, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

COMMISSIONER MERZ. YEAH.

SO I APPRECIATE THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT.

THEY DID A VERY GOOD JOB ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS.

IT'S INTERESTING DRIVING ON THAT STREET.

IT'S A VERY NARROW STREET, AND I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO TRY TO PUT A SIDEWALK IN A STREET THAT'S ALREADY SO NARROW.

AND, YOU KNOW, I DROVE IT AND I WAS, YOU KNOW, MY CAR WAS IT WAS IT WAS PRETTY NARROW.

SO I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO ME TO NOT HAVE A SIDEWALK THERE.

BUT LOOKING AT THE PROJECT AND THE WAY IT'S SET UP WITH THE VARIANCES AROUND, I WOULD I WOULD SUPPORT THE PROJECT.

I THINK IT'S VERY NICELY DESIGNED.

COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YEAH, I'M IN LOOKING AT THE AT THE PROJECT AND HOW IT'S DESIGNED AND HOW IT'S UTILIZING THE STRUCTURES OR UTILIZING THE CONSTRAINED SIZE OF THE LOTS, ETC..

I THINK THE DESIGN IS EXCELLENT.

I THINK IT'S CONDUCIVE TO WHAT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF.

I'M FULL SUPPORT OF THE APPROVING THE PROJECT.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

YEAH. THIS INCREASES DENSITY.

THERE'S NO UTILITY CHANGES THAT ARE VISIBLE, OR THE UTILITY CHANGES ARE GOING TO BECOME MORE OF AN OBSTRUCTION THAN A A HELP TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU'RE INCREASING DENSITY, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S FOUR UNITS, NOT TWO.

LIKE WHAT'S BEING SUGGESTED IN THESE TWO PROJECTS.

AND THE PROLIFIC AMOUNT OF VARIANCES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A BLOCK AWAY FROM A SCHOOL, I THINK IS A GROSS PROBLEM THAT WE'RE REALLY IT REALLY NEEDS TO CHANGE.

ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS ARE REALLY HINDERING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF OUR COMMUNITY ESPECIALLY TO OUR STUDENTS AND TO PEOPLE LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS HAS A VERY HIGH POTENTIAL FOR A RENTAL UNIT

[00:30:11]

SO I ACTUALLY THINK THAT WE SHOULD STOP THIS ALTERNATIVE DESIGN ISSUE AND YOU KNOW, HINDER THESE VARIANCES BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE NOT HELPING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BEYOND THE FACT THAT THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO LANDSCAPING AT ALL ON THIS PROJECT.

EVERYTHING IS PAVED.

AND SO WHERE DOES EVERYTHING GO? HOW DOES IT EVEN, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONLY GOING TO GO TO THE STREET.

IT'S ONLY GOING TO RUN OFF TO THE OTHER NEIGHBORS.

IT'S REALLY PROBLEMATIC.

AND I DON'T SEE A BETTER SOLUTION.

I DON'T SEE THIS DESIGN CREATING A BETTER SOLUTION THAN WHAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW.

SO I HAVE A REAL ISSUE WITH THIS.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION? I WILL MOVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, AND COMMISSIONER, I WILL.

OH. I'M SORRY. I'LL SECOND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER SABELLICO AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MEENES ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.

PLEASE VOTE.

THE MOTION IS CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 1.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY IS DISSENTING, AND COMMISSIONER STINE IS ABSENT.

WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU. STAFF.

LET'S MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.

[2. CDP 2023-0054/V 2023-0010 (DEV2023-0135) - NORMANDY BEACH HOME (LOT 39)]

SO WE HAVE A COMPLETE RECORD.

I VISITED THE SITE AND PEEKED OVER THE WALL AND SAW THE EMPTY SWIMMING POOL, BUT I GUESS I WAS THE LAST ITEM.

WELL, NO, THIS WOULD BE THIS ONE.

YEAH, IT'S THE ONE ON THE LEFT. YEAH, YEAH.

SO, OKAY. YES.

I VISITED THE SITE AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. AND ALL THE SAME FROM PREVIOUSLY.

AND I HAVE THE SAME COMMENTS FROM, FROM PREVIOUSLY.

I'M SORRY.

MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS THIS ITEM? YES. GIVING OUR STAFF PRESENTATION IS ASSOCIATE PLANNER VAN LEEUWEN.

I THINK YOU AGAIN.

YES. THIS IS THE NORMANDY BEACH HOME FOR LOT 39.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST.

THIS APPLICATION IS FOR THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY OF 260 NORMANDY LANE.

SO JUST UNDER 2500FT² IN OUR THREE ZONE AND IN THE MELLOW TWO SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IS SUBJECT TO BEACH AREA OVERLAY.

SILVER THE LAST ITEM, BUT IN REVERSE OR MIRROR IMAGE.

IT IS A 22 THOUSAND 939 SQUARE FOOT HOME.

FOUR BEDROOMS. AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR A TEN FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A FIVE FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE THE GARAGE.

SIMILAR AS THE LAST ONE.

WE HAVE A ELEVATION AND A RENDERING PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

AND BASED ON STAFF'S REVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND ITS CONSISTENCY WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AS WELL AS GENERAL PLAN AND REQUIREMENTS FOR A VARIANCE FINDING STAFF DOES RECOMMEND ADOPTING A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND MINOR VARIANCE.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY NEW OR ADDITIONAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YEAH, I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A QUESTION AS SUCH, BUT I DO WANT TO CLARIFY WITHIN THE EXHIBIT NUMBER THREE IN THE PROJECT ITSELF AND AND EXHIBIT NUMBER THREE, THERE IS A STATEMENT WHICH I THINK MAKES IT EXTREMELY CLEAR AS TO THE THE VARIANCE AND HOW THE CITY IS VIEWING THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE.

AND ON PAGE 21, IT INDICATES THE LAST TWO HOMES TO BE DEVELOPED IN NORMANDY LANE.

221223 NORMANDY LANE, COMPLETED IN 2020.

WERE GRANTED APPROVAL OF A MINOR VARIANCE FOR REDUCED FRONT LOT, TEN FOOT MINIMUM AND REAR LOT SETBACKS.

THE CONCLUSION WAS STRICT APPLICATION OF THE R-3 ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE PROJECT SITE WOULD DEPRIVE THE PROPERTY SITE OF DEVELOPMENT

[00:35:01]

I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR THAT TO BE ON THE RECORD.

YEAH, THANK THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT TO OUR ATTENTION.

COMMISSIONER MERZ.

YES, THANK YOU, MR. LUNA. COULD YOU PULL THAT AERIAL UP AGAIN? I JUST WANT TO SEE THAT OF THE.

YEAH. NO, JUST THE AERIAL.

THE AERIAL ON YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU SHOWED THE GAIN EXISTING.

RIGHT. THE AERIAL..

OF THE LOTS..

OF THE LOTS. YEAH. RIGHT THERE.

OKAY. YEAH. SO THERE WE GO.

BECAUSE IT WAS INTERESTING.

SO WE TALKED THAT'S THAT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALLY THINK ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE WHEN I DROVE DOWN THE STREET THERE, BUT.

MOST OF THE OTHER BECAUSE I KNOW IT CAME COMMISSIONER COMMENTS IN THE LAST ONE, THERE'S A MIRROR IMAGE.

THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT NO LANDSCAPE.

IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANY OF THOSE OTHER THAN THE ONE THAT THE SUBJECT TO LOTS WE'RE LOOKING AT.

THE OTHER ONES DON'T APPEAR TO HAVE ANY LANDSCAPING EITHER, FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A QUESTION THAT CAME UP.

I JUST WANT TO IT'S HELPFUL TO SEE THAT, BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THAT WHEN I DROVE DOWN THE STREET.

BUT I KNOW THAT CAME UP IN COMMENTS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SEE THAT ON THE AERIAL.

SO THANK YOU. SO I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION.

I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF SEE THAT AGAIN.

SO THANK YOU. STAFF WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT THERE ACTUALLY IS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT REQUIRES THAT THE FRONT YARD, THE PAVED AREA BE CONSISTENT WITH A CERTAIN PARKING STANDARD THAT WE USE AND THAT THE REST OF THE AREA WOULD BE LANDSCAPED.

SO ABOUT 30% OF THE FRONT YARD WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE PAVED AND THEN SOME FORM OF LANDSCAPING FOR THE REST.

SO THAT WOULD BE A CHANGE BETWEEN WHAT YOU SEE NOW AND FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT.

HOWEVER, THE, THE ARCHITECTURAL OR THE RENDERINGS YOU SHOWED DIDN'T SEEM TO ALL BE A HARDSCAPE WITHOUT IN THERE.

YEAH. THE I MEAN, THE RENDERINGS ARE OFTEN MOSTLY THERE TO SHOWCASE THE BUILDING.

SO, YEAH, THE THERE AT LEAST WOULD BE IN THE MINIMUM A CHANGE OF HARDSCAPE PATTERN OR A HARDSCAPE MATERIAL SO THAT IT'S CLEAR TO AT LEAST WHERE YOU CAN PARK AND WHERE YOU CAN'T.

OKAY. GOOD. THANKS. IT'S JUST INTERESTING, SINCE THIS IS MIRROR AND SOME OF THE COMMENTS, THE OTHER ONES ARE ALSO TRANSFER THIS ONE.

SO GIVE US A CHANCE TO KIND OF ABSORB THOSE AND THEN LOOK AS WE GO.

THIS ONE THANK YOU. AND ONE THING I WOULD JUST ADD I KNOW WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT ADUS AND IT'S NOT PROPOSED HERE.

IF IN THE FUTURE AN ADU WAS PROPOSED, THIS IS IN THE AREA THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REPLACE ANY PARKING IMPACTED BY AN ADU.

THERE'S A STRIP AROUND THE COASTAL.

SO THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS IN THE FUTURE AGAINST FUTURE ADU DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. PLEASE DESCRIBE THAT FURTHER.

SURE. SO WHEN WE PROPOSED OUR AMENDMENTS TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE LATEST STATE LAWS, WHEN THEY WENT TO COASTAL COMMISSION, COASTAL COMMISSION HAD A PROPOSED MODIFICATION THAT IN CERTAIN AREAS, ESSENTIALLY A COUPLE OF BLOCKS CLOSEST TO THE COAST AS WELL AS IN THE SOUTHERN AREA A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AROUND THE LAGOON BECAUSE OF THE ACCESS TO THE COAST AND THE COASTAL ACT REQUIREMENTS, REPLACEMENT PARKING WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR ADUS.

SO THAT AREA IS TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN AREAS OUTSIDE OF THAT WHERE GENERALLY SPEAKING, ADUS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REPLACE OR PROPOSE PARKING.

BUT EVEN IF THEY DID HAVE AN ADU PROPOSED ON THIS SITE, WOULDN'T THERE STILL BE ADEQUATE PARKING BECAUSE IT'S ALL PAVED? WE WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO COMPLY WITH THESE.

THIS CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS, WHICH REQUIRES ONLY A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE FRONT YARD, BE USED FOR PARKING.

AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO DIAGRAM THAT ON THE SITE.

THEY ALSO LIKELY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO A FULL GARAGE CONVERSION, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THEY'RE MEETING SOME OF THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

FOR THEIR REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

DO ANY ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? THANK YOU.

WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AGAIN? NO. ALL RIGHT.

I RECEIVED A NOD OF THE HEAD THAT HE'S NOT.

WE'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

MINUTES CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO? CHAIR, WE DO NOT.

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

LET'S REOPEN OR LET'S OPEN ANY COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

[00:40:01]

THIS IS BEING PROPOSED BY A DEVELOPER AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE MAP ACT SUBDIVISION GRANVILLE.

THAT WAS THAT CLAIMS TO HAVE NON-CONFORMING LOTS ARE SUPPOSED TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE OR SHOW COMPLIANCE.

SO IT SEEMS REALLY IRONIC TO ME THAT A DEVELOPER WOULD ACTUALLY PROPOSE NON-COMPLIANT VARIANCES AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CONFIGURATION IS SUCH THAT IT'S REALLY EASY TO GET A AT LEAST A VACATION RENTAL IN THIS HOUSE BASED ON THE FLOOR PLANNING.

SO I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD PRECEDENT TO CONTINUE.

YES, THERE'S A LOT OF THESE AROUND THAT I ALSO THINK ARE NOT GOOD PRECEDENT, ESPECIALLY NEXT TO A SCHOOL.

I THINK THIS IS REALLY PROBLEMATIC.

BUT, ALL THE REST OF THE COMMENTS APPLY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER MERZ. YEAH, I GUESS THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY, JUST WITH THE SCHOOL YOU KNOW, THE ARMY, NAVY ACADEMY, JUST THE NATURE OF THE STREET AND ITS ORIENTATION, IT DOESN'T REALLY STRIKE ME AS HAVING ANY IMPACT ON THE SCHOOL JUST BECAUSE IT'S OFF TO THE SIDE.

I CAN'T SEE HOW ANYONE WHO WOULD GO TO THE SCHOOL OR WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SCHOOL HAVING A REASON TO BE ON THAT STREET, SO I DON'T TO ME, I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T SHARE THAT SAME CONCERN.

SO THAT'S JUST MY INPUT ON IT.

SO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

THANK YOU. I'LL SECOND.

OKAY. A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY.

BY COMMISSIONER MEENES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MERZ ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.

PLEASE VOTE.

THE MOTION ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO CARRIES BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ONE.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY IS DISSENTING, AND COMMISSIONER STINE IS ABSENT.

WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU STAFF.

JUST. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

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

[3. SDP 2023-0009/CDP 2023-0017 – MAPLE DUPLEX]

DO WE HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER MERZ.

YES, I VISITED THE SITE.

OKAY. AND COMMISSIONER MEENES.

I ALSO VISITED THE SITE.

RIGHT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

I VISITED THIS SITE.

I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DID LOOK IT UP ON GOOGLE MAPS AND RECEIVED THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REPORT, THE VERY GOOD HISTORIC PRESERVATION REPORT.

THANK YOU. I ALSO VISITED THE SITE.

MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER THREE? YES. HERE TO GIVE OUR STAFF PRESENTATION ON THIS PROJECT IS ASSOCIATE PLANNER IZAGUIRRE.

THANK YOU, CITY PLANNER ERIC LARDY.

AND GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MAPLE DUPLEX.

THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 147 AND 149 MAPLE AVENUE, BETWEEN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND GARFIELD STREET.

THE PROPERTY CONTAINS AN EXISTING ONE STORY DUPLEX AND DETACHED GARAGE.

THE 0.13 ACRE PROPERTY HAS A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL R 23, WHICH ALLOWS 15 TO 23 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

THE SITE IS ZONED R3.

AND IS WITHIN THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE.

THE PROJECT IS A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING DUPLEX AND GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT AN 11,047 SQUARE FOOT, THREE STORY DUPLEX WITH SUBTERRANEAN PARKING AND 630 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED STORAGE.

THE ATTACHED STORAGE WILL BE CONVERTED INTO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.

[00:45:04]

THE PARKING SPACES WILL BE ACCESSED VIA A VEHICLE TURNTABLE WITH A TURNING SURFACE.

SURFACE CIRCUMFERENCE OF 16FT, FOUR INCHES.

THE TURNTABLE WILL BE OPERATED VIA REMOTE AND WALL CONTROL PANELS, AND WILL PROVIDE AND BE POWERED BY AN ELECTRIC MOTOR.

THE TURNTABLE HAS BUILT IN SAFETY MECHANISMS THAT DETECT IF A WHEEL IS OFF THE TURNING SURFACE, OR IF THE TURNING OF THE TABLE WOULD RESULT IN A COLLISION OF ANY SORT.

THE DEGREE OF SOPHISTICATION FOR CONTROLS SUCH AS PREDETERMINED STOP POINTS AND SMART HOME INTEGRATION, AS WELL AS THE TOP PANEL MATERIAL TYPE, WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE OWNER DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.

THE DUPLEX WILL BE THREE STORIES, WITH AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF 2020 NINE FEET AND 11 INCHES.

THE PROJECT WILL NOT OBSTRUCT VIEWS OF THE COASTLINE AS SEEN FROM PUBLIC LANDS OR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, NOR OTHERWISE DAMAGE THE VISUAL BEAUTY OF THE COASTAL ZONE.

THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN IS CHARACTERIZED AS A BEECH FARMHOUSE.

DESIGN MATERIALS INCLUDE CEMENT BASED BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING, HORIZONTAL SIDING, EXPOSED WOOD TRIM, ASPHALT SHINGLES, AND METAL RAILINGS. THE PROJECT WAS ANALYZED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ALL REQUIRED CITY CODES, POLICIES, AND STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE R 23 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE, THE MULTIPLE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND THE MELLOW TWO SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT APPROVAL CAN BE FOUND IN THE STAFF REPORT AND RESOLUTION.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE RESOLUTION, APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MAPLE DUPLEX.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, THE ARCHITECT IS ALSO HERE AND ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

QUESTIONS OF STAFF, COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YEAH. LAUREN, COULD YOU FIRST OF ALL, WANT THE TURNTABLE FOR THE PARKING? SUBTERRANEAN IS IS WHAT, ONE OF A COUPLE APPLICATIONS THAT COULD BE USED.

BUT WITH THE DEVELOPER SUGGESTING AND DECIDING TO UTILIZE THAT TURNTABLE CONCEPT, COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY VERSUS HAVING IT, NOT HAVING IT AT ALL, GIVEN THE CONFIGURATION OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE DOWN BELOW? YES. SO WHEN THE THE PROJECT WAS FIRST SUBMITTED, WE AS STAFF HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD PULL INTO AND OUT OF THESE PARKING SPACE SPACES.

EACH PARKING SPACE REQUIRES 24FT BACK UP.

AND THEY NEEDED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY COULD TURN WITHIN THE SPACE.

THEY, THEY DO HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF SPACE, ESPECIALLY ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE WHERE THAT RIGHT NEXT TO THE, THE DRIVEWAY RAMP.

SO THIS IS A SOLUTION THEY CAME UP WITH.

I'M SURE THE APPLICANT CAN ALSO WEIGH IN ON HOW THEY CAME TO THAT DECISION AS WELL.

SO THEY REALLY HAD NO CHOICE GIVEN THE CONFIGURATION OF THE SUBTERRANEAN PARKING, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE 24 FOOT BACKUP. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. I MEAN, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH OTHER CREATIVE SOLUTIONS.

I KNOW SOME PLACES IN THE VILLAGE ARE ALSO PROPOSING CAR LIFTS AS WELL.

THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION.

BUT THIS WAS THE BEST OPTION FOR THE DESIGN THEY ALREADY HAD.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THE HISTORIC REPORT TALKED ABOUT TWO PREVIOUSLY UNRECORDED BUILDINGS.

THAT. WERE ARE NOT TECHNICALLY VISIBLE, BUT ARE PART OF A PREHISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE.

CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THE PROCESS IS TO MITIGATE THAT? SO THE ONLY TWO BUILDINGS THAT I'M AWARE OF ARE OTHER THAN THE DETACHED GARAGE WOULD BE.

THEY HAVE SOME SMALL SHEDS THAT I BELIEVE ARE UNDER THE REQUIREMENT SIZE FOR A PERMIT, WHICH IS MAYBE WHY WE DON'T HAVE MORE RECORD ON THAT.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? NO. IN THE HISTORIC REPORT, IT TALKS ABOUT TWO PREVIOUSLY UNRECORDED BUILDINGS THAT WERE PREHISTORIC, THAT WERE FOUND ON THE

[00:50:10]

REQUIRED. AND DURING THE, DURING THAT PROCESS, CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT PROCESS A LITTLE BIT MORE? YES. SO PRIOR TO GETTING THEIR GRADING PERMIT, THEY HAVE TO ENTER INTO A PRE EXCAVATION AGREEMENT WITH, WITH AN ARCHEOLOGIST.

THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT AGREEMENT TO US.

AND THEN THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE ON SITE DURING ALL EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES TO DO MONITORING.

AND SO WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DO UNCOVER THESE UNRECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL BUILDINGS? IT WILL DEPEND ON EXACTLY WHAT THEY FIND.

IT'S PRETTY TYPICAL TO HAVE A MONITORING STANDARD.

IF THEY DO FIND IT, WE'LL HAVE TO EVALUATE IT AND DISCUSS WITH OUR ARCHITECT IF THERE'S ANY SORT OF MITIGATION REQUIRED FOR IT BEFORE THEY PROCEED WITH WITH FULL CONSTRUCTION. SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, HOW DOES THAT GET PRESERVED? DOES IT GET PRESERVED? DOES IT GET BURIED? WHAT HAPPENS? IT'LL IT'LL REALLY DEPEND ON WHAT THEY FIND.

I MEAN, TYPICALLY IT'S TYPICALLY THERE'S SOME SORT OF THING FOUND.

BUT IT COULD BE JUNK AND IT'S DOCUMENTED AND IT'S SO I GUESS THE MITIGATION COULD RANGE FROM DOCUMENTATION TO REMOVAL.

IF THERE'S CERTAIN OTHER THINGS FOUND, SUCH AS HUMAN REMAINS THERE'S OTHER PROCEDURES THAT GO ON WHICH DOES HAPPEN.

AND THEN IF THERE'S ANYTHING TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES, SIGNIFICANT THERE'S CERTAIN PROCEDURES HAVING TO DO WITH WORKING WITH THE, THE TRIBES THAT HISTORICALLY WERE IN CITY OF CARLSBAD.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS POINT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? THANK YOU. IF YOU WOULD, SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU'LL HAVE UP TO TEN MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.

YEAH. MY NAME IS TYLER VAN STREIT.

I'M WITH JLC ARCHITECTURE.

I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

ADDRESS WOULD BE 337 SOUTH CEDROS, SOLANA BEACH.

THAT'S OUR OFFICE ADDRESS.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER IN TERMS OF A FORMAL APPLICATION.

I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH LAUREN.

I THINK HER REPORT IS IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND CLEAR, BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? I HAVE. I HAVE JUST ONE OF CURIOSITY.

I'M FASCINATED WITH THIS VEHICLE TURNTABLE.

IT'S VERY SLICK.

YES. AND I THINK MOST OF US ARE.

HOW HOW COMMON IS THAT IN NORTH COUNTY? IN NORTH COUNTY, IT'S NOT VERY COMMON.

YOU GO FEELS STEREOTYPICAL.

YOU GO, YOU GO UP TO LA AND IT'S MUCH MORE COMMON.

ONE OF THE MOST COMMON APPLICATIONS IS EXPENSIVE HOMES ON THE 101 WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE ROOM TO TURN AROUND OR BACK UP.

IT'S SURPRISINGLY NOT THAT EXPENSIVE.

THE UNIT ITSELF IS AROUND 40,000 NOW THAT'S NOT INSTALLED.

BUT WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE COST OF UNDERGROUND PARKING PER SQUARE FOOT, IT'S A REALLY EFFECTIVE USE OF SPACE.

AND AND FRANKLY, IT MAKES THE DRIVING PARKING EXPERIENCE FAR BETTER.

BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE WERE DEALING WITH ON THIS LOT.

IT'S ONLY 50FT WIDE.

BY THE TIME YOU BUILD YOUR WALLS.

YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH SPACE DOWN THERE.

AND I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO NOT ONLY HELP GET THE CARS OFF THE STREET, BUT IT HELPS JUST THE DAILY EXPERIENCE OF PARKING.

HOW LARGE? HOW LARGE A VEHICLE COULD THIS TURNTABLE ACCOMMODATE? THIS ONE IS BIG.

ANY ANY VEHICLE YOU CAN FIT DOWN THERE EFFECTIVELY.

I THINK THE TURNING OR THE THE DIAMETER OR WHEEL.

THE WHEEL DISTANCE WAS 16FT.

IF YOU HAVE A WHEEL TO WHEEL DISTANCE OF 16, YOUR VEHICLE IS ACTUALLY BIGGER THAN MOST VEHICLES WE DRIVE.

SO THERE'S ROOM TO GET ON THERE AND HAVE ROOM.

SO BECAUSE YOUR, YOUR NOSE AND TAIL CAN, CAN HANG OFF OF THE OPERABLE PORTION.

WELL, THIS ONE TO ACCOMMODATE AN RV, WOULD IT?

[00:55:01]

CLASS B LIKE YOUR CAMPER VAN STUFF.

THOSE THOSE WOULD FIT, AND THOSE WOULD BE MORE DICTATED BY THE CEILING HEIGHT DOWN THERE.

LIKE, IF YOU'VE GOT A, YOU KNOW, FAMILY SPRINTER VAN, MAYBE IT DEPENDS ON THE HEIGHT, THOUGH.

WE'VE GOT, WE NEED TO DIAL IT IN WITH OUR STRUCTURAL DESIGN.

BUT WE'VE GOT SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF TEN FOOT CLEAR NOMINALLY.

BUT THAT DEPENDS ON BEAM AND STRUCTURAL LAYOUT OF THE DECK LEVEL.

WELL. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THIS APPLICANT BY THE COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.

WE'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

MINUTES. CLERK. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS? CHAIR. WE DO NOT.

GREAT. ALL RIGHT.

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

LET'S HAVE LET'S OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

ANY COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM OTHER THAN THE TURNTABLE? I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER MERZ.

I LIKE THE PROJECT. AND ACTUALLY, I WAS.

IT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT TURNTABLE ON THAT IS REALLY COOL, SO I LIKE IT.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD DESIGN AND REALLY UTILIZES THE SITE, SO IT'S VERY INTERESTING SITE.

SO YEAH, I SUPPORT IT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED.

AGREED. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? I. EXCUSE ME, I MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

HOW ABOUT A SECOND? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MERZ.

A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER SABELLICO AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MERZ ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.

PLEASE VOTE.

THE MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO, WITH COMMISSIONER STINE ABSENT.

WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT.

[4. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN]

MR. DO YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? YES. THANK YOU. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

SO THE THE LAST ITEM IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, BUT WE STILL WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE OR APPROVE WITH MODIFICATIONS ON THIS ITEM.

IT IS THE ANNUAL PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM.

IT COVERS THE FISCAL YEAR WE ARE CURRENTLY IN, WHICH IS THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1ST OF LAST YEAR THROUGH JUNE 30TH OF THIS YEAR.

SO SOME OF THE ITEMS IN IT ARE SORT OF PROJECTIONS OF WHAT WE ANTICIPATE THROUGH THE REST OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

THERE'S TWO MAIN PORTIONS OF THIS REPORT, ONE OF IT REPORTING ON THIS FISCAL YEAR.

AND THEN THE SECOND ATTACHMENT TO THE RESOLUTION IS REPORTING ON THINGS THAT WE ANTICIPATE THAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

SO THE YEAR PERIOD STARTING JULY 1ST, 2024.

THERE WERE SEVERAL PROJECTS THAT ACTUALLY MANY PROJECTS THAT WERE COMPLETED LAST FISCAL YEAR AS ANTICIPATED.

AND SO THEY WERE REPORTED AS COMPLETED AND REMOVED.

THERE WERE ALSO MANY PROJECTS THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION THAT WERE NOT IN THE WORK PROGRAM THAT I ADDED A NEW SECTION ON, JUST BECAUSE I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU WERE AWARE OF ALL THE HARD WORK YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS YEAR? THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS PROJECTED FOR NEXT YEAR.

THE PRIVATE APPLICATIONS COULD OR COULD NOT MOVE FORWARD, DEPENDING ON REALLY HOW THE APPLICANTS MOVE FORWARD.

I DID INCLUDE IN THE WORK PROGRAM THE DIRECTION FROM THE MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO LOOKING TO REVIEW WITH STATE LAWS ON OPTIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL CARE FACILITIES. BUT WE WOULD BE OPEN TO ANY CHANGES OR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.

I DO ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS BROUGHT UP DURING BRIEFING BUT THE COMMISSION NO LONGER SERVES ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

SO I WOULD ASK THAT IN THE MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM THAT THEY INCLUDE REMOVING OF THAT ITEM.

ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. LARDY BY ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

A GOOD EXAMPLE. SORRY.

A GOOD EXAMPLE WAS THE LAST PROJECT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, WHICH AND MR.

[01:00:01]

ACCORDING TO CEQA, ARE BEING UPDATED.

AND I WAS HOPING THAT THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD THAT TO THE AGENDA BECAUSE THE SCHEDULE THEY'VE MENTIONED ARE THEY'RE WORKING ON IT NOW, AND THEY'VE MENTIONED THAT IT WOULD COME TO A REVIEW.

AND SINCE ESPECIALLY HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS PART OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCES UNDER CEQA IT I THINK IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT ELEMENT.

GIVEN THAT OUR MILLS ACT HAS STALLED AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT NEXT OPPORTUNITIES FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN OUR COMMUNITY.

SO I WAS HOPING MAYBE THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THE WORK PLAN, AND IF I COULD JUST PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT ON THAT.

SO THE THE CITY IS AUTHORIZED TO ADOPT CEQA GUIDELINES THAT HELP US IN IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

THE CITY HAS TRIBAL, CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES GUIDELINES.

THEY WERE ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND AFTER A SERIES OF HEARINGS AND WORKSHOPS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 2016 2017 ERA, WE HAVE JUST KICKED OFF A CONSULTANT EFFORT TO UPDATE THOSE GUIDELINES. AND WE'RE STILL REFINING OUR SCHEDULE.

BUT BECAUSE THEY THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION, WE WOULD TAKE THEM TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO PRESENT ON.

SO THAT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION.

SO IF IT IS THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD SUPPORT ADDING TO THE WORK PROGRAM.

IN A MOTION.

IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING, MR. LARDY, THAT THIS MAY BE COMPREHENSIVE, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY TOTALLY INCLUSIVE OF WHAT WE WILL STUDY IN THE NEXT YEAR? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

WE DO OUR BEST TO ANTICIPATE WHAT WE THINK WILL HAPPEN.

THERE WILL LIKELY BE MANY PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT ON THIS THAT WILL CONTINUE TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION OVER THE NEXT YEAR.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY DOES THIS WORK? PLAN TO DETERMINE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S BUDGET? IT DOES NOT THAT THAT IS DECIDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THROUGH THEIR BUDGET PROCESS, WHICH I BELIEVE IS KICKING OFF SHORTLY.

BECAUSE THE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE IT SAID THAT ONLY ON THIS HERE WERE TWO MEMBERS THAT WERE ABLE TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER ACADEMY, AND IN THE PAST WE HAVE HAD ALL MEMBERS AVAILABLE ABLE TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACADEMY. SO THAT'S A CONCERN THAT I HAVE IN THE BUDGETING THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE'RE NOT GETTING THE UNDERSTANDING OF AND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, SINCE THE STATE LAWS ARE CHANGING SO QUICKLY.

WITH REGARD TO PLANNING COMMISSION I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S A FACTOR THAT WE SHOULD BE ALSO LOOKING AT.

I PUT THAT IN THERE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE TRAVEL TRAINING FOR, FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GET CREDIT FOR THE COMMISSIONERS THAT THAT HAVE BEEN GOING.

IF THE CITY COUNCIL WERE TO MAKE A DECISION TO CHANGE THAT THEN WE COULD WE COULD UPDATE THAT IN THE WORK PROGRAM.

I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND MAKING A REQUEST OF THE BUDGET AS AS PART OF THIS ACTION.

BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BY ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? YES, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY AGAIN.

THANK YOU. THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE TAKEN OFF THE LIST, THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN, THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN, AND THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN.

OH, AND THE YEAH, SO THAT AT LEAST THE TOP THREE ITEMS ON THE LIST, WE DISCUSSED IN BRIEFING THAT THEY'RE ON A TWO YEAR CLEANUP PART, PER THE ZONING CODE.

CLEANUP. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE.

REFERENCED IN THIS TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, DEAD AND GONE.

IT'S JUST GOING TO BE.

PART OF THE ANNUAL ALTERNATE YEAR CLEANUP AS OPPOSED TO.

THE ANNUAL CLEANUP OR ANNUAL WORK PLAN.

THAT CERTAINLY WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW.

THE REASON I DIDN'T INCLUDE IT IS BECAUSE BASED ON THE BEST PRACTICES THAT WE UNDERSTAND FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, YOU NEED TO WAIT A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO SEE HOW THINGS ARE GOING. SO WHAT'S INCLUDED IN IN OUR DEPARTMENT WORK PROGRAM IS SEMIANNUAL OR EVERY OTHER YEAR UPDATES TO THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN

[01:05:06]

AND SO THAT'S ACTUALLY WHY THAT'S NOT ON THERE, BECAUSE THAT IS GOING TO BE HAPPENING THIS FISCAL YEAR.

AND NOT IN THE NEXT YEAR.

SO I DIDN'T PUT THAT ONE ON THERE.

IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO ADD MORE OF A GENERAL STATEMENT OF KIND OF MONITORING AND KEEPING CODES CURRENT THEN I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S PURVIEW.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? HAVE ANY COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. I WOULD SUGGEST WE MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, AND THE ONLY SUGGESTION I WOULD MAKE THE DELETION WOULD BE ON PAGE TEN. LAST SET OF BULLETS.

OMIT THE FACT THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD SERVE ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.

ANY COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR TO ADOPT? COMMISSIONER MERZ. YEAH, I MOVE THE RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT IT WITH THE CHANGE ON REMOVING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTICIPATION.

AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER OETTINGER.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION MADE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER FOUR BY MR. COMMISSIONER MERZ AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

MAY WE HAVE A VOTE? THE MOTION PASSES ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, 5 TO 0, 5 TO 1.

COMMISSIONER SABELLICO IS ABSTAINED AND COMMISSIONER STINE IS ABSENT.

THANK YOU. THIS WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS WILL CLOSE THE AGENDA.

ITEM NUMBER FOUR. ALL RIGHT.

LET'S GO ON TO REPORTS.

[Additional Item]

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, DO YOU HAVE A REPORT YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE? YES. IN SEEING THE TENTATIVE SCHEDULE JULY 17TH IS THE, THREE WHAT IS IT? THREE ON GARFIELD IS GOING TO COME BACK.

THE VICTOR CONDOS, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE MAGEE HOUSE AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION WROTE A REALLY OR RECEIVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION A REALLY THOROUGH AND VERY EXTENSIVE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REPORT, WHICH I HOPE COULD BE SHARED PRIOR TO THIS, PRIOR TO THEIR NEXT MEETING, WHICH WILL BE NEXT WEEK ON THE MAY 11TH.

BECAUSE AFTER THAT, WE'RE NOT SURE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MEET IN THIS BEFORE THE ACTUAL JULY 17TH.

SO I WAS HOPING THAT STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO FORWARD THE VICTOR CONDOS HISTORIC PRESERVATION REPORT FOR YOUR FOR YOUR USE IN THIS NEXT JULY 17TH MEETING.

BECAUSE IT'S VERY THOROUGH.

AND IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN TOO MANY OF THESE HISTORIC REPORTS THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION HAS, YOU KNOW, REVIEWED IT THOROUGHLY AND MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT I THINK COULD BE PERTINENT TO THAT JULY 17TH REVIEW OF THE PROJECT.

SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAN FORWARD TO THE REST OF THE COMMISSION? WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. THE DRAFT EIR CONTAINS THAT HISTORIC REPORT.

AND SO JUST WITHOUT GETTING INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT THERE WAS A DRAFT EIR THAT WENT OUT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW.

THERE WERE COMMENTS RECEIVED UPON THAT.

WE WERE WORKING WITH OUR CONSULTANT TEAM TO RESPOND TO THOSE COMMENTS AND PREPARE ALL THE FINAL DOCUMENTS.

AND SO THE FINAL EIR WILL ULTIMATELY COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH ALL THOSE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES.

BUT AND WE WILL SHARE THAT IN ADVANCE OF THE JULY 17TH MEETING.

HOPEFULLY OUR GOAL IS TO SHARE IT ACTUALLY WELL IN ADVANCE SO THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ADDITIONAL TIME WITH IT.

IN THE MEANTIME, WE CAN SHARE THE DRAFT EIR LINKS IMMEDIATELY.

COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

[01:10:02]

IT'S A IT'S BEEN EVERY WEDNESDAY FOR THE LAST SIX WEDNESDAYS, AND I'M LATE TO IT TODAY.

SO I'M EXCITED TO GO AND SEE ALL THE DEMONSTRATIONS FROM THE, THE.

THE BOMB SQUAD AND THE SWAT TEAM, AND IT'S GOING TO BE VERY FUN.

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT FOR ANY COMMISSIONERS OR ANY CITIZENS WHO WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT.

ALSO, I CAN NOW SHARE PUBLICLY REASON WHY I ABSTAINED ON THE WORK PLAN WAS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN NOMINATED TO THE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD.

I'M CURRENTLY WORKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE COUNTY COUNCIL TO DETERMINE IF I WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO CONTINUE SERVING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER ON THAT AT THE MOMENT, BUT THIS COULD BE MY LAST MEETING.

WE'LL SEE. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I'VE ALSO ATTENDED ONE OF THE POLICE ACADEMY TRAININGS, AND IT WAS GREAT.

I PARTICULARLY LIKE PLAYING WITH THE TASER GUN.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS? COMMENTS FROM THE CITY PLANNER.

[PLANNER REPORT]

THERE'S A LOT OF CONTENT. SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD ENOUGH TIME TO GO THROUGH THAT.

BUT WE DON'T EXPECT ANY, ANY CONTROVERSY RELATED TO IT.

AND THEN THE JUNE 5TH IS THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE MIXED USE PROJECT WHICH IS THE CURRENT LOCATION OF SMART AND FINAL.

SO WE'LL KEEP THAT ON ITS OWN MEETING.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ITEMS, AND WE MAY GET A COUPLE MORE FOR JUNE 19TH.

AND THEN WE'RE PROPOSING TO CANCEL THE JULY 3RD MEETING DUE TO THE HOLIDAY WEEK.

THANK YOU. IS THERE A REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY? NONE FROM ME. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THIS COMMISSION MEETING STANDS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.