[00:00:04] >> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE MAY 15TH MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION. [CALL TO ORDER] WOULD THE MINUTES CLERK, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLE. >> COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. >> HERE. >> COMMISSIONER MERZ. >> HERE. >> COMMISSIONER MEENES. >> PRESENT. >> AND LET THE RECORD SHOW COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY IS ABSENT. COMMISSIONER STINE. >> HERE. >> CHAIR KAMENJARIN. >> PRESENT. ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY WHO IS ABSENT. PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED THIS EVENING BY COMMISSIONER PETER MERZ. >> PLEASE BEGIN. >> THE NEXT ITEM IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 1ST MEETING. [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 1ST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING? GOOD. SEEING NONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN NOW A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF THE MAY 1ST, 2024 MEETING. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU. MOTION TO APPROVE HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER MEENES, AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MERZ. ANY DISCUSSION? >> I'LL HAVE TO ABSTAIN, MR. CHAIR, BECAUSE I WAS NOT THERE. >> YES. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE. >> WE DO A VOTE BY A VOICE VOTE. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER MERZ? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER MEENES? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER STINE IS ABSTAINING, AND CHAIR KAMENJARIN? >> YES. THE COMMISSIONER CARRIES BY A VOTE OF FOUR, ZERO WITH ONE ABSTENTION OF COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY DUE TO THE ABSENCE. THANK YOU. THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT. [PUBLIC COMMENT] 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 THAT TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON. SPEAKERS MAY NOT GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANOTHER PERSON, 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 10 MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS CHANGED BY THE CHAIRPERSON, AND THE MINUTES CLERK WILL CALL THE NAMES OF THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN THE ORDER OF THE REQUEST TO SPEAK ARE RECEIVED. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS? >> YES. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SLIP, TIM MORGAN. >> PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES, SIR. TO HELP SPEAKERS WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME, OUR MINUTES CLERK WILL START THE TIMER. THE GREEN LIGHT MEANS SPEAK, YELLOW MEANS YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE REMAINING, AND RED MEANS YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. SINCE ITEMS BROUGHT UP UNDER THE PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION ARE NOT LISTED ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, THE COMMISSION IS PREVENTED BY LAW FROM DISCUSSING OR TAKING ACTION ON THESE ITEMS. BEFORE YOU BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. CLEARLY STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON ANOTHER ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE WAIT FOR THAT ITEM TO BE OPENED. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. ERIC. PLANNING COMMISSION, GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS TIM MORGAN. I LIVE ON VALLEY STREET ACROSS THE STREET FROM VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL FIELD. IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS OR MONTHS FROM NOW, YOU'LL BE RECEIVING AND REVIEWING THE CARLSBAD SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANS TO ADD A FOUL BALL NET ON VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL FIELD. [00:05:04] I COME HERE TONIGHT REPRESENTING MY NEIGHBORS ON VALLEY AND TAMARACK, WHICH SURROUNDS THE FIELD. I COME HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE FACTS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I RECENTLY CAME TOGETHER AND COMPLETED A THREE-QUESTION SURVEY. SURVEY QUESTION NUMBER 1, HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT? HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY DOOR HANGERS, COMMUNICATION ABOUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANS FOR THE FOUL BALL NET? EVERY SINGLE HOUSEHOLD BEEN THERE SINCE '60S, '70S, '80S, LONG TIME, OLD NEIGHBORHOOD, SAID NO. EVEN THE TWO NEIGHBORS WHO ARE REQUESTING PROTECTION FROM THE LACROSSE BALLS DID NOT RECEIVE ANY DOOR HANGERS OR ANY FORM OF COMMUNICATION. SURVEY QUESTION 2, DO YOU SUPPORT THE CURRENT PROPOSED PLAN FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT? AGAIN, EVERY SINGLE NEIGHBOR SAID, NO, WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE CURRENT PLAN. AGAIN, EVEN THE TWO NEIGHBORS WHO RODE INTO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR YEARS, DO NOT WANT THE CURRENT PLAN. IMPORTANT NOTE, WE ALL WANT SOME CHANGE, BUT WE DO NOT WANT THE CURRENT PLAN WHICH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS PLANNING. FINAL QUESTION. WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, PARKS AND REC, THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS? MAJORITY OF NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, PARKS AND REC, AND THE CITY TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. I'M FRIENDS WITH THE TWO NEIGHBORS WHO WANT THE PROTECTION. WE TALK ABOUT THIS MATTER FREQUENTLY AND WANT TO WORK TOGETHER FOR AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION. I ASK YOU, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ERIC, MR. MURRAY. WHEN THE PROPOSED PLAN COMES ACROSS YOUR DESK, WE ASK YOU TO REJECT THE CURRENT FOUL BALL NET AND LET US WORK TOGETHER FOR THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION. WE ARE THE SAME NEIGHBORS WHO WORKED TOGETHER IN A TOWN HALL FASHION WITH TOM FRANK AND CAME UP WITH SPEED BUMPS ON TAMARACK TO HELP SPEEDING. WE CAN DO THE SAME HERE ON VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL FIELD, WHICH IS WORK TOGETHER AS ONE CARLSBAD. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. IF EVERYONE WILL DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN, [1. ZCA 2024-0001, LCPA 2024-0020 (PUB 2024-0005) 2024 ZONE CLEAN UP] I WILL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES THE COMMISSION WILL BE FOLLOWING FOR THIS EVENING'S PUBLIC HEARING. 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 10 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 WILL WANTING TO SPEAK HAVE DONE SO, 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 PUBLIC 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. I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1. FIRST, HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS HAD ANY EX-PARTE CONVERSATIONS ON THIS ITEM? WELL, I SEE NONE. MR. LARDI, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? >> YES. THANK YOU. HERE TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1 IS ASSISTANT PLANNER NICOLE MORROW AND SENIOR PLANNER SCOTT DONNELL. >> GOOD EVENING, CHAIR KAMENJARIN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS NICOLE MORROW, AND I WILL BE PRESENTING ALONGSIDE SENIOR PLANNER, SCOTT DONNELL, THE AGENDA ITEM FOR THIS EVENING, WHICH IS THE 2024 ZONE CODE CLEAN UP. DURING TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION, WE WILL REVIEW THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM, THE CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WERE SELECTED. AN OVERVIEW OF EACH PROPOSED AMENDMENT, AS WELL AS STAFF'S NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATION. THIS ITEM IS A CITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE. BEGINNING IN 2021, STAFF WERE DIRECTED TO PERIODICALLY REVIEW THE CITY'S CODE TO MAINTAIN ITS CLARITY, CONSISTENCY, AND ALIGNMENT WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION IS THE SECOND SET OF AMENDMENTS TO BE PROPOSED TO THE COMMISSION AS PART OF THIS RECURRING WORK PLAN ITEM. [00:10:01] THE INAUGURAL ZONE CODE CLEAN UP WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN JUNE OF 2022, AND THE AMENDMENTS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER OF THAT YEAR. THE ZONE CODE CLEAN UP CONSISTS OF A VARIETY OF MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, AIMED AT ADDRESSING ERRORS AND INCONSISTENCIES STAFF HAVE IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE COURSE OF DAILY OPERATIONS. MOST OF THE AMENDMENTS, IF NOT BASED ON A NEW STATE OR CITY POLICY, ARE BASED ON LANGUAGE FROM EXISTING CODE SECTIONS AND PREVIOUS CITY PLANNER DETERMINATIONS. WHEN CONSIDERING WHICH ITEMS TO INCLUDE IN THE CLEANUP, STAFF PREPARED A SET OF CRITERIA FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING A NARROW AND FOCUSED PROJECT SCOPE. IN ORDER FOR AN AMENDMENT TO HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CLEANUP, IT FIRST MUST HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE CONSISTENCY WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AS WELL AS COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. ADDITIONALLY, ALL AMENDMENTS WERE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CEQA AND NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. AMENDMENTS THAT WERE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLEANUP WERE THEN REQUIRED TO ALIGN WITH ONE OF TWO CRITERIA TYPES. AMENDMENTS THAT ALIGN WITH THE CORRECTIONS AND UPDATES CRITERIA, ADDRESS MINOR ERRORS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE CODE, SUCH AS NEW REFERENCES TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT CODE. AMENDMENTS THAT ALIGN WITH THE CLARIFICATION CRITERIA, ADDRESS CODE SECTIONS WHICH STAFF HAVE IDENTIFIED AS BEING UNCLEAR OR DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT CONSISTENTLY, SUCH AS THE CITY'S HABITAT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. THE 2024 ZONE CODE CLEAN UP INCLUDES 16 TOTAL AMENDMENTS. THE AMENDMENTS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN ARE THOSE WHICH WERE INCLUDED UNDER THE CORRECTIONS AND UPDATES CRITERIA OF THE CLEANUP. LATER IN THE PRESENTATION, WE WILL REVIEW EACH AMENDMENT AND PROVIDE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES INCLUDED IN EACH. SIMILARLY, THE AMENDMENTS NOW DISPLAYED ON THE SCREEN INCLUDE THOSE WHICH WERE INCLUDED UNDER THE CLARIFICATIONS CRITERIA OF THE CLEANUP. THE ZONE CODE CLEAN UP INCLUDES OF THE 16 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, THREE AMENDMENTS TO CODES TITLES OUTSIDE OF TITLE 21, THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. THESE ITEMS ARE INCLUDED IN TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION, AND IN THE STAFF REPORT AS INFORMATIONAL ITEMS SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE PURVIEW OVER CODE SECTIONS OUTSIDE OF TITLE 21. THESE ITEMS WILL BE PRESENTED AND VOTED ON AT A LATER CITY COUNCIL HEARING. NOW THAT THE COMMISSION AND HEARING ATTENDEES HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE INTRODUCED TO THE AMENDMENTS, WE WILL NOW REVIEW EACH OF THE 13 AMENDMENTS THAT ARE WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW AND WILL BE VOTED UPON THIS EVENING. STAFF WILL FIRST INTRODUCE THE TITLE OF THE AMENDMENT WITH A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE CHANGES BEFORE TRANSITIONING TO A SLIDE CONTAINING THE PROPOSED STRIKEOUT UNDERLINE LANGUAGE. AMENDMENT 1, REMOVED FOOTNOTE, DELETES AN OUTDATED FOOTNOTE, WHICH WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE LANGUAGE UPDATES FROM THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AMENDMENT OF 2023. THE SCREEN NOW SHOWS THE STRIKEOUT UNDERLINE LANGUAGE CHANGES. THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS INDICATE CODE LANGUAGE, WHICH IS PENDING COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL. ITEMS FROM THE TABLE HAVE BEEN REMOVED AS WELL AS FOOTNOTE NUMBER 2. AMENDMENT 2 REMOVED ITEM B DELETES AN INCOMPLETE REFERENCE TO ITEM B, WHICH WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CODE LANGUAGE WHEN IT WAS FIRST INTRODUCED WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM EFFECTIVE CERTIFICATION IN 1996. THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN NOW SHOWS THE REMOVAL OF A AND B FROM ITEM A SUBSECTION 3. AMENDMENT 3, NOTICE OF RESTRICTION DELETES THE CITY'S OWNER-OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 976, WHICH WAS ADOPTED ON JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR. THE CITY CAN NO LONGER REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO SIGN A NOTICE OF RESTRICTION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ADU BUILDING PERMITS. THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN NOW SHOWS THAT ITEM E SUBSECTION 12 HAS BEEN DELETED. AMENDMENT 4, M AND C-M ZONES PERMITTED USES ADDRESSES AN INCONSISTENCY IN THE CITY'S CODE WITH THE LEVEL OF PERMITTING REQUIRED FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE M INDUSTRIAL AND C-M HEAVY COMMERCIAL ZONES. [00:15:04] THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD PERMIT EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES USES BY RIGHT IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER COMMERCIAL ZONES. THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN NOW SHOWS THAT THE PREVENTING LEVEL FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES HAS BEEN UPDATED FROM A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP TO PERMITTED P. AMENDMENT 5, PERMIT EXPIRATION: UPDATES THE CODE'S LANGUAGE WHICH DICTATES THE LIFESPAN OF CITY-ISSUED PERMITS. THIS UPDATE EXTENDS PERMIT EXPIRATIONS FROM 2-3 YEARS, AND ALSO INCLUDES ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT BETTER DEFINES WHAT ACTIVITIES DETERMINE WHETHER A PERMIT HAS BEEN EXERCISED. THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN NOW SHOWS THAT ITEM A, THE WORD TWO HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH THREE. ITEMS B AND C, AS WELL AS THE RELATED SUBSECTIONS ARE THE LANGUAGE WHICH SPECIFIES WHAT ACTIVITIES DETERMINE WHETHER A PROJECT HAS BEEN EXERCISED. I WILL NOW PASS THE PRESENTATION TO SCOTT TO PRESENT THE REMAINDER OF THE AMENDMENTS. >> THANK YOU, NICOLE, AND GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. AMENDMENT 6, HOME OCCUPATIONS: UPDATES THE CODE LANGUAGE TO BETTER DEFINE THE PERMITTED ACTIVITIES AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS WHICH APPLY TO HOME OCCUPATION USES IN THE ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR R-1 ZONE, AS WELL AS OTHER ZONES WHICH REFER TO THIS CODE SECTION IN THE R-1. THE LANGUAGE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN NOW IS ONLY A SAMPLE INDICATING THE SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES. FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION, STAFF CAN REVISIT THIS AMENDMENT OR ANY ITEM AND PROJECT THE FULL TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT IF THERE IS INTEREST. THE FULL TEXT IS ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE STAFF REPORT PACKAGE AS PART OF EXHIBIT 2. AMENDMENT 7, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT: AMENDS THE CODE BY ADDING A LINE ITEM EXPLICITLY FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS TO THE PERMITTED USES TABLES IN THE ZONE WHERE THIS USE IS ALREADY ALLOWED. THIS AMENDMENT, IF APPROVED, WOULD HELP IMPLEMENT HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM 1.8(A), WHICH PROMPTS THE CITY TO ENCOURAGE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WHERE APPROPRIATE. THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN NOW SHOWS THE PROPOSED LINE ITEM FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS ADDED TO THE C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND C-L LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONES. IN THESE ZONES, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IS ALREADY PERMITTED. MOVING ON TO AMENDMENT 8, THE TABLE ON THIS SLIDE INDICATES THE KEY RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO POULTRY KEEPING THAT ARE SPECIFIED, AND I'M SORRY, I'VE SKIPPED A SLIDE HERE. WITH REGARDS TO THIS SLIDE, AMENDMENT 8 REGARDS THE KEEPING OF POULTRY IN THE R-1 ZONE. ASIDE FROM THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS PERMITTED, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED RELATE TO THE SIZE OF THE SETBACKS FROM THE REQUIRED ENCLOSURE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE ON THIS SLIDE THAT THERE'S DISTINCTIONS THAT THE CITY IS PROPOSING FOR THE R-1 ZONE ONLY REGARDING THE NUMBER OF CHICKENS OR POULTRY IN TERMS OF EITHER FIVE ANIMALS OR LESS OR 6-15 ANIMALS, AND THE DIFFERENCES FOR THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS FOR EACH DIFFERS ONLY IN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. A GREATER SETBACK IS REQUIRED WITH THE GREATER NUMBER OF CHICKENS PROPOSED. IN EACH CASE, HOWEVER, ROOSTERS ARE PROHIBITED, THERE MUST BE AN ENCLOSURE PROVIDED, AND THAT ENCLOSURE MUST BE KEPT CLEAN FOR SANITATION PURPOSES. THE RESTRICTIONS PROPOSED FOR CHICKENS COMBINE EXISTING LANGUAGE FROM THE E-A AND R-A ZONES TO CREATE A COMPREHENSIVE SET OF GUIDELINES FOR PERMITTED POULTRY KEEPING. MOVING ON TO AMENDMENT 9, THIS REGARDS OPEN SPACE, WHICH UPDATES THE NOMENCLATURE, DENOTING OPEN SPACE AS OS WITHOUT A HYPHEN, EVERYWHERE IT APPEARS IN THE CODE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CITY DOCUMENTS. THE NEXT SLIDE HERE SIMPLY SHOWS HOW THAT CHANGE WOULD BE MADE. PRESENTLY OPEN SPACE FEATURES THE HYPHEN. THE PROPOSAL IS TO REPLACE THAT IN TITLE 21 WITHOUT THE HYPHEN. THAT'S A SIMPLE CHANGE THAT'S PROPOSED. MOVING ON TO AMENDMENT 10, REGARDING HABITAT REMOVAL. THIS PROPOSAL AMENDS THE CITY'S HABITAT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROVISIONS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO BETTER DEFINE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR CLEARING ACTIVITIES. THE AMENDMENT ALSO INCLUDES AN UPDATE TO THE CODE, WHICH SPECIFIES WHO THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES ARE FOR RESTORING HABITAT THAT WAS DISTURBED WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION. [00:20:01] THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN NOW SHOWS THE ADDITION OF ITEM C TO SECTION 21.210.030 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH SPECIFIES THE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET PRIOR TO HABITAT REMOVAL. THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN ITEM A, SUBSECTION 2, IS THE SECTION WHICH SPECIFIES THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES FOR HABITAT REMEDIATION. THE NEXT AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT 11 REGARDS HOUSING STANDARDS, AND THIS WOULD AMEND THE CITY'S CODE TO INCORPORATE UPDATED STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE STANDARDS, AND TO BETTER DEFINE TITLE 21 SPECIFICATIONS RELATED TO REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT MIX, SIZE, AND FINISHED QUALITY. AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS ONLY A SAMPLE INDICATING THE SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES. FOR CONTEXT, THIS AMENDMENT PRIMARILY CONSISTS OF SIMILAR REPEATED STATEMENTS DIRECTING THE READER TO THE APPLICABLE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION. AMENDMENT 12 OF 13, THIS AMENDMENT REGARDS AGRICULTURAL USES, WHICH WOULD AMEND THE CODE BY ADDING A LINE ITEM FOR AGRICULTURE IN THE E-A, EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL, R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, R-E, RURAL RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, AND FINALLY, THE P-U OR PUBLIC UTILITY ZONE, ALL IN AN EFFORT TO CONSOLIDATE DISTINCT EXISTING AGRICULTURAL USES. THE AMENDMENT ALSO ADDS A DEFINITION FOR AGRICULTURE, AQUACULTURE, AND FLOWER STANDS TO THE CODE AND APPLIES THIS TERMINOLOGY TO THE UPDATED PERMITTED USES TABLES OF THE ZONES WHERE OTHER SIMILAR USES EXIST. SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT, THE LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN AMENDMENT 12 CONSISTS OF IDENTICAL PASSAGES REPEATED THROUGHOUT THE MULTIPLE SECTIONS. THIS IS ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT WE CAN REVISIT AND PROJECT THE FULL TEXT FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION SHOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION DESIRE. THE FINAL AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT 13 REGARDING SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE REVIEW IS THE CODIFICATION OF DEPARTMENT POLICY 35. THIS DEPARTMENT POLICY ESTABLISHES THE GENERAL GUIDELINES, WHICH DIRECT HOW APPLICATIONS FOR CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS ARE EVALUATED. IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND DIRECTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM THE JULY 19TH, 2023 HEARING FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, THIS POLICY IS BEING CODIFIED OR ADDED TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO INCREASE CONSISTENCY AND TRANSPARENCY WHEN REVIEWING APPLICATIONS. ONCE AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS ONLY A SAMPLE INDICATING THE SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES. I'LL NOW TURN THE PRESENTATION TO NICOLE, WHO WILL PROVIDE CONCLUDING INFORMATION, INCLUDING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. >> THANK YOU, SCOTT. THE CITY PLANNER HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS ITEM IS EXEMPT FROM ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS REQUIRED BY CEQA BECAUSE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DO NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR CAUSING A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT. THE CITY PLANNER DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION WAS POSTED ON APRIL 25TH, 2024. NO COMMENTS OR APPEALS WERE RECEIVED DURING THE SUBSEQUENT 10-DAY NOTICING PERIOD. FOLLOWING TONIGHT'S HEARING, STAFF WILL PRESENT THIS ITEM ALONG WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. SHOULD CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, THAT ORDINANCE WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE OUTSIDE THE COASTAL ZONE 30 DAYS AFTER ADOPTION. ONCE THE ITEM HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL, STAFF WILL THEN SUBMIT A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF THE CODE CHANGES PROPOSED TO TITLES 15 AND 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE. BASED ON THE PRESENTATION YOU HAVE HEARD TONIGHT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION VOTE TO APPROVE THE ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO COMPLETE THE PROPOSED CHANGES INCLUDED IN THE 2024 ZONE CODE CLEAN UP. THIS CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION. STAFF IS NOW AVAILABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU BOTH. THERE WAS AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION OF A SOMEWHAT DRY SET OF MATERIALS. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER MEANS. >> THANK YOU. QUESTION FOR YOU. IN REGARD TO THE AMENDMENT NUMBER 11. THERE IS THE SECTION A, AND AM I TO ASSUME THAT SPLITTING OUT [00:25:01] THE VARIOUS EXTREME LOW RENTAL AS WELL AS, OF COURSE, THEN OWNERSHIP BEING A SECONDARY IN THE PAST, I ASSUME THEY WERE TOGETHER, AND SO WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS JUST FROM A CLARITY STANDPOINT, SEPARATING THEM OUT TO MAKE IT MUCH MORE DISTINCT FOR READABILITY. >> YES. COMMISSIONER MEANS, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I BELIEVE THE INTENT OF THAT IS TO DO WHAT YOU JUST SAID. SEPARATE OUT THE DIFFERENT INCOME CATEGORIES, PARTICULARLY BY TENURE, WHETHER IT'S BY RENTER OR BY OWNERSHIP, AND THE PURPOSE IN DOING SO IS BECAUSE EACH COMPONENT OF THAT HAS A DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION TO CITE. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE CHANGE. >> I DIDN'T NOTICE TOO THAT THE LOW INCOME OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL UNITS, THAT CATEGORY WHEN IT SAYS THE PRODUCT OF 30%*70% FOR UNITS THAT ARE RENTAL UNITS VERSUS THE OWNERS, WHICH IS 30%*80% SO THERE IS A DIFFERENTIATION IN THAT REGARD. I ASSUME THAT WAS THE CASE. SECOND QUESTION FOR YOU TOO AS WELL. ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 14, WHICH WAS VENDING. MY QUESTION ON THAT HAPPENS TO BE, CURRENTLY, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE VERBIAGE, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VARIOUS A, B, AND C, AND D, AND PARTICULARLY LOOKING AT C WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT A SIDEWALK VENDOR SHALL NOT VEND ON ANY EXCLUSIVELY RESIDENTIAL STREET FOR LONGER THAN 60 MINUTES AT A TIME. CURRENTLY, PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE, IS THE 60 MINUTES IS A MORE CLARITY BASED UPON STATE LAW OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE THAT GETS INTO THAT DETAIL? BECAUSE I KNOW IN SOME CITIES, VENDING IS VERY CRITICAL AND HAS BEEN VERY CONTROVERSIAL OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS EVEN HERE IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY. IF YOU COULD CLARIFY THAT FORM, I'D APPRECIATE. >> YES, I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY COMMISSIONER, THAT WE ARE NOT UPDATING THE LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN C. THE ONLY CHANGES THAT ARE OCCURRING TO THIS TITLE ARE INCLUDING MOBILE SERVICES IN THOSE VARIOUS LETTERS, AND THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION THAT THESE VARIOUS RULES AND REGULATIONS ALSO APPLY TO MOBILE SERVICES. WE ARE NOT CHANGING THE PROVISIONS AT ALL. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER STINE. >> THANK YOU. MR. DONALD ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 11, I HAD A QUESTION DURING THE BRIEFING CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF THAT CHANGE. COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SUBJECT IS RESTRICTIONS FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, AND WE HAVE A STATE LAW THAT CIVIL CODE 14.7 THAT IMPACTS THAT. WOULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT CHANGE, PLEASE? >> SURE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE. I BELIEVE YOU'RE REFERRING TO PROPOSED TEXT THAT'S SHOWN ON PAGE 24 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PACKET. AMENDMENT 11 IS ALSO PROJECTED ON THE SCREEN HERE. PARTICULARLY, IT'S A STATEMENT THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE ADDED TO SUBSECTION D OF SECTION 201-850-40. IT HAS TO DO WITH FOR PROJECTS THAT FEATURE BOTH INCLUSIONARY AND MARKET RATE UNITS. SPECIFICALLY, THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE WOULD SAY THAT THOSE UNITS MUST BE OF THE SAME TENURE. IN OTHER WORDS, INCLUSIONARY UNITS MUST BE OF THE SAME TENURE AS MARKET RATE UNITS. THE REASON THAT THIS TEXT IS PROPOSED TO BE ADDED IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR ESSENTIALLY THAT IF AN OWNERSHIP MARKET RATE PROJECT IS PROPOSED, THEN THE INCLUSIONARY UNITS IN THAT PROJECT MUST ALSO BE OWNERSHIP. IT'S NOT OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL, IT'S OWNERSHIP AND OWNERSHIP OR RENTAL AND RENTAL. THAT'S WHAT THE TERM TENURE MEANS, AND THAT'S WHY THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION IS CITED AS WELL. WE DO HAVE STAFF HERE FROM OUR HOUSING AND HOMELESS SERVICES DEPARTMENT WHO CAN PROBABLY SHED MORE LIGHT IF YOU WOULD DESIRE. >> MY UNDERSTANDING THEN IF IT'S A UNIT TO BE SOLD, THEN THE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY TO OTHER UNITS TO BE SOLD AND IF IT'S A RENTAL UNIT, THE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS WOULD REQUIRE TO THOSE RENTAL UNITS AS WELL LIKE KIND UNITS, CORRECT? >> YES. >> I THINK THAT CLARIFIES AND I APPRECIATE YOU DOING A LITTLE RESEARCH. I THINK YOU CALLED THE STATE ON THAT AND GOT SOME BACKGROUND ON THAT, AND I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. BUT I WANT TO SHARE THAT SINCE WE DO SO MUCH IN THE WAY OF ACTIONS THAT IMPACT HOUSING AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IS A BIG ISSUE HERE AT GIRLS BD. I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THAT ISSUE, [00:30:02] AND I'M GLAD FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU. DO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU. LET'S OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MISS MINUTES CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE FIRST SPEAKER. >> YES. JOE COLLINS. >> AS OUR FIRST SPEAKER APPROACHES THE PODIUM, LET ME EXPLAIN AGAIN THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY. EACH SPEAKER HAS THREE MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS. TO HELP SPEAKERS STAY WITHIN THE LIMIT, THE MINUTES CLERK WILL ACTIVATE THE LIGHTED TIMER. A GREEN LIGHT MEANS SPEAK, YELLOW MEANS YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE REMAINING, AND BLINKING RED LIGHTS MEAN YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE THIS VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS JOE COLLINS. I LIVE AT 2377 OUTLOOK COURT IN CARLSBAD. I'VE COMMUNICATED WITH A FEW OF THE PEOPLE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND YOU MIGHT KNOW ME OR REMEMBER ME FROM SEVERAL RECENT BITS OF COMMUNICATION REGARDING THE ISSUE THAT I'M BRINGING UP HERE. QUICK SHOUT OUT TO SCOTT, NICOLE, TODORA AND ANDY DE LA TORA FROM THE COMMISSION THAT THEY'VE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB SUPPORTING ME AND ALL OF MY CONCERNS. THEY'RE REALLY KEEPERS, SO GOOD SHOUT OUT TO THEM. GREAT SERVICE. THANK YOU. I REPRESENT A TOTAL OF SEVEN HOMEOWNERS THAT HAVE MADE COMPLAINTS RECENTLY ABOUT A VERY LARGE CHICKEN COOP THAT HAS BEEN BUILT RIGHT ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY. I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE TODAY WAS AN ISSUE THAT BROUGHT UP CHICKENS AND THE QUANTITY OF CHICKENS. NOW, I LIVE IN THE RA ZONE. THAT'S THE AGRICULTURAL ZONE, AND I'LL POINT THAT OUT IN A MINUTE AND NOT IN THE R1 ZONE, WHICH I KNOW THIS IS RELATED TO, SO I JUST WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT. I HOPE THIS IS THE VENUE. I APOLOGIZE. THIS IS NOT THE VENUE TO BRING THIS UP. FIRST, REGARDING THE DECISIONS AROUND CHICKENS IN GENERAL, WHAT I HOPE YOU ALL ARE VERY CAREFUL TO CONSIDER IS THAT SOME CHICKENS CAN BE VERY LOUD. WE LIVE WITH 25 CHICKENS BEHIND US ON A NEW COOP THAT WAS BUILT RECENTLY AND MOVED THERE, 25 AND THEY'RE VERY LOUD, AND WE HAVE SEVEN NEIGHBORS THAT ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS AND FRANKLY, WE'RE NOT GETTING ANYTHING DONE ABOUT IT, SO IT'S A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR US. WE'RE NOT AGAINST CHICKENS. ONE OF OUR ADJACENT NEIGHBORS HAS FOUR CHICKENS, AND I ENJOY THE FREE EGGS. IT'S GREAT. THEY'RE ACTUALLY NEIGHBOR, THE [INAUDIBLE] IS RIGHT NEXT TO ME. THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE AGAINST THAT AT ALL. IT'S WHEN IT'S IN OVERDONE WITH 25 CHICKENS IN A COOP, THEY CAN GET VERY LOUD. YOU CAN GET QUIET CHICKENS, YOU CAN GET LOUD ONES, AND THEY'RE DIFFERENT BREEDS, AND THAT'S WHAT MY NEIGHBOR DID. THEY DID GET THE QUIETER BREED. BUT IT CAN BE VERY DISRUPTIVE. THEY CACKLE FROM EARLY MORNING FROM ABOUT SIX O'CLOCK ALL THE WAY INTO THE AFTERNOON. GOING BACK TO THE R1 DESIGNATION HERE, THE PROPOSAL, SORRY, SCOTT. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR 6-15, I BELIEVE, CHICKENS IN THE 40 FOOT SETBACK. YOU MIGHT BE OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS HERE, DEPENDING ON THE AMOUNT OF NOISE? YOU MIGHT HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CHICKENS, AND THAT CAN MAKE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NOISE. NOT TO MENTION THE RATS THAT SPAWN OUT OF THAT, THE ODORS THAT WE WITH 25 CHICKENS HAVE TO DEAL WITH. IT CAN BE A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE. THE NOISE IS SIGNIFICANT. >> THANK YOU, SIR. WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT? >> MINUTES CLERK, DO WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL SPEAKER? >> WE DO. >> DAVID MCFEETERS. >> IS THAT IT? AGAIN, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> MY NAME IS DAVID MCFEETERS. I LIVE AT 2385 OUTLET COURT, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. I AM A NEIGHBOR OF JOE COLLINS. BY THE WAY, I OWN MY HOME. I ALSO OWN MULTIPLE OTHER PROPERTIES AND HAVE FOR MANY YEARS, I'VE DEALT WITH CITIES AND ALL THE NORMAL PROBLEMS THAT COME WITH HOMEOWNERSHIP. THIS PROBLEM, FOR WHATEVER REASON, SEEMS TO NOT BE ADDRESSED OR TAKEN SERIOUSLY, BUT THESE 25 CHICKENS, IT'S NOT JUST 25 CHICKENS, IT'S THE SMELL AND THE ODOR ON A REGULAR BASIS. IT IS AN EXTREME NOISE WHEN 25 ARE CACKLING AT ALL TIMES, [00:35:01] YOU'RE IN YOUR BACKYARD AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU WANT TO RELAX AND HAVE A GLASS OF WINE. THERE IS NO SILENCE AT ALL. THE RATS THAT ARE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ARE BIGGER THAN ANY RATS YOU HAVE NORMALLY SEEN ELSEWHERE, BUT IT IS A MAJOR PROBLEM. I THINK 25 IS WAY TOO MANY AND I UNDERSTAND THAT CHICKENS DO ONE EGG A DAY. HE'S FEEDING HIS FAMILY, HE'S GOT THREE OR FOUR. THIS IS FINE. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE 25, SHE HAS PEOPLE THERE BUYING CHICKENS, SHE HAS PEOPLE BUYING EGGS, AND WE'VE TRIED TO GO AFTER THAT AND NOTHING'S HAPPENED, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE 25, IT'S A DIFFERENT OPERATION. THE SMELL, THE NOISE. WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED THAT THERE'S A DISCLOSURE ISSUE. WE SELL OUR PROPERTY. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCLOSED. YOU LOOK AT SEVEN PROPERTIES DISCLOSING THAT THERE'S A CHICKEN FARM WITHIN SO MANY FEET. THIS IS A PROBLEM. WE'VE LOST A TON OF EQUITY. IF WE DISCLOSE THAT AND SOMEBODY SHOWS UP AT THE HOUSE LOOKING AT YOUR PROPERTY, BELIEVE ME, THIS IS GOING TO BE MADE AWARE IMMEDIATELY, THE NOISE, THE SMELL, EVERYTHING. WE'D LOVE YOU TO HELP US OUT. BY THE WAY, TO CORRECT JOE'S SITUATION OR HIS COMMENT, THIS IS NOT RECENT. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON SIX YEARS? >> SINCE THE MOVE. >> THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET AND WE'VE HAD YOUR PEOPLE OUT AND THEY ALL SAY, LOOK, SHE DESERVES HER RIGHT TO HAVE THE CHICKENS, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THERE'S EIGHT OTHER PEOPLE BEING PRETTY HEAVILY IMPACTED BY THAT. I'D LOVE YOU GUYS TO THINK ABOUT THIS AND OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES, I THINK [INAUDIBLE] THE OTHERS, THEY ALL HAVE THREE OR FOUR, AND SOMEONE FEEDING THEIR FAMILY, THEY CAN DO THAT EASILY WITH THREE OR FOUR. BUT WITH 25, IT IS EXCESSIVE AND IT'S CAUSING A MAJOR PROBLEM IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE LOVE YOUR HELP AND TO TALK ABOUT IT. IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO US INDIVIDUALLY, WE'D LOVE TO TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD OF PEOPLE THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THIS ONE LADY, AND AGAIN, WE LOVE YOUR HELP. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? >> NO, THERE'S NOT. >> THANK YOU. WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY MR. COLLINS AND MR. MCFEETERS? >> YES. CHAIR, KAMENJARIN I WOULD LIKE TO. I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT WHERE THE ORIGIN OF THIS LANGUAGE IS COMING FROM SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THIS LOOKS QUITE EXTENSIVE. THE LANGUAGE THAT IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS A COMBINATION OF LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE IN THE EA AND THE RA, WHERE THE COMMENTERS CURRENTLY RESIDE. THE INTENT TO DO THIS IS SO THAT WE ARE NOT OVERHAULING POLICY. RATHER, WE ARE INCREASING CONSISTENCY ACROSS ZONES. HOWEVER, TO RESPOND TO THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM OUR RESIDENTS, WE HAVE LIMITED THE NUMBER OF CHICKENS AND INCLUDED LANGUAGE, SPECIFICALLY THE LAST SENTENCE WHERE WE ARE MAKING IT A REQUIREMENT THAT THE COOP IS MAINTAINED UP TO STANDARDS. THE INTENT BEHIND THESE CHANGES IN THE LANGUAGE IS TO PROVIDE US WITH THE ABILITY TO ENACT CODE ENFORCEMENT IN THE CASE WHERE WE HAVE RESIDENTS WHO ARE NOT UP KEEPING THEIR CHICKENS OR WHO ARE MAINTAINING CHICKENS IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES. WE ARE IN THIS WAY RESPONDING TO THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS. AT THIS TIME, WE ARE NOT AMENDING THE RA. THIS WOULD EXCLUSIVELY APPLY TO THE R1 ZONE. HOWEVER, THIS REPRESENTS CONSISTENCY, AND AGAIN, WOULD ALLOW US TO ENFORCE CHICKENS BECAUSE PEOPLE IN THE R1 ZONE ALREADY OWN CHICKENS. THIS ALLOWS US TO HAVE SOMETHING TO POINT BACK TO IN THE CASES WHERE THERE ARE TOO MANY CHICKENS OR THERE ARE COOPS THAT ARE NOT BEING MAINTAINED AND CAUSING DISTRESS AND DISTURBANCES TO THEIR NEIGHBORS. >> IF I COULD JUST ADD ON TO THERE. AS THE FIRST SPEAKER ALLUDED TO, THEY ARE IN AN RA ZONE, THAT IT'S A RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE ZONE. THAT HAS MORE ALLOWANCES IN THE R1, WHICH IS OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT AS PART OF FUTURE ZONING CODE CLEANUPS, WE COULDN'T CONSIDER EITHER MAKING CHANGES TO THAT ZONE OR POTENTIALLY REZONES OF AREAS THAT ARE MORE SINGLE FAMILY IN NATURE. THIS ITEM SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T COME TO PLANNINGS ATTENTION UNTIL RECENTLY, AS WE ARE PROPOSING THESE CHANGES IN THE R1 ZONE, AND PLANNER MURRAY HAS BROUGHT UP THE RA ZONE AND WHAT IS ALLOWED. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE MORE AGRICULTURE TYPE USES ALLOWED IN THIS ZONE. THAT IS THIS AREA HAS BEEN ZONED RA FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. >> THANK YOU, MR. LARDI. ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF? >> QUESTION ON THE RA ZONE. [00:40:02] ALTHOUGH IT'S RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL AS TO THE NUMBER OF CHICKENS, DOES RA ZONE ACTUALLY SPECIFY MAXIMUM NUMBERS? OR IS IT JUST NOT ADDRESSED? >> COMMISSIONER MEENES THERE IS NOT A SPECIFICATION. THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN SHOWS THE ONLY LANGUAGE THAT SPECIFIES ANIMAL KEEPING SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO POULTRY. >> THANK YOU. >> YES. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. >> JUST TRYING TO SORT THIS OUT. SO THE TWO SPEAKERS ARE IN AN AGRICULTURAL ZONE, CORRECT? >> YES, CORRECT. >> THE AMOUNT OF CHICKENS IN AN AGRICULTURAL ZONE ARE NOT LIMITED, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT IN THIS PARTICULAR ZONE OF THE RA. >> RIGHT. THE R1 THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS PUTTING RESTRICTIONS ON THE NUMBER OF CHICKENS? >> YES. >> CORRECT. >> THERE ARE TWO LEVELS OF RESTRICTION. WE DID THIS WITH THE INTENT OF PROVIDING A GRADIENT BETWEEN LOT SIZES IN THE CASE WHERE YOU ARE AN OWNER WHO CANNOT MAKE THE 40 FOOT SETBACK FROM YOUR PROPERTY LINE OR AN ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT ON A PROPERTY LINE, YOU CAN OWN UP TO FIVE CHICKENS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO OWN UP TO 15 CHICKENS, YOU MUST BE ABLE TO MAKE THE 40 FOOT SETBACK. >> SETBACK. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF APPLES TO ORANGES RIGHT NOW VERSUS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH OUR TWO SPEAKERS AND WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED WITH THE AMENDMENT, BECAUSE ONE IS AN AGRICULTURAL ZONE, WHICH THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT DOES NOT GOVERN? >> YES, CORRECT. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER STINE. >> FOLLOWING UP ON THAT ISSUE. MY UNDERSTANDING, WE DON'T HAVE A PROPOSED CHANGE TOWARD ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US TO ADDRESS THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S IN A DIFFERENT ZONE, AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY? >> YES, CORRECT, COMMISSIONER STINE. >> WE COULDN'T IF WE THOUGHT THAT THEY RAISED A LEGITIMATE ISSUE, SAY, WE WANT TO AMEND THE RA ZONE TO 15 CHICKENS, THAT'S NOT BEFORE US, RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. WE DIDN'T NOTICE ANY CHANGES TO THE RA ZONE FOR THIS MATTER. I THINK AT BEST, THE COMMISSION COULD DO IS REFER THIS TO THE STAFF FOR CONSIDERATION IN A FUTURE CLEANUP ITEM. JUST TO REMIND THE COMMISSION, THIS IS PART OF AN ONGOING WORK PROGRAM WHERE OUR GOAL IS TO AMEND THE CODE WITH THESE TYPES OF CLEANUPS AT LEAST EVERY OTHER YEAR. >> PERSONALLY, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR FOR A FUTURE MEETING TAKING A LOOK AT THIS ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAVE A, IS IT A 15 CHICKEN LIMIT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE FOR R1? DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> THEY'RE SAYING THERE'S WELL OVER THAT THERE AND IT'S CAUSING ALL KINDS OF PROBLEMS IN THE NATURE OF NUISANCE ISSUES, SMELL, NOISE, THAT KIND OF THING. I WOULD LIKE TO DO WHAT WE CAN AS A CITY TO ADDRESS THOSE TYPE OF ISSUES WHEREVER PEOPLE HAVE CHICKEN COOPS AND CHICKENS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL. BUT AGAIN, TONIGHT, OUR HANDS ARE TIED BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT ZONE, APPLES AND ORANGES HERE. BUT PERSONALLY AS ONE COMMISSIONER, I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING STAFF LOOK INTO IT AND PERHAPS COMING UP WITH SOME TYPE OF LIMIT NUMBER ON THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS IN THE RA ZONE. >> COMMISSIONER MEENES, DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> SEEING NONE. LET'S OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSION. >> COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE YOU DO THAT DISCUSSION, I JUST WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THERE WASN'T A LETTER DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS POSTED ONLINE FOR THIS ITEM CORRECTING ONE REFERENCE AND AN ATTACHMENT. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> WHO'D LIKE TO OPEN UP DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER STINE. >> I'LL TAKE A BRIEF SHOT AT THIS. THIS IS IN THE CONTEXT OF A CLEAN-UP MATTER. WE DON'T HAVE A BLANK SLATE HERE THAT WE'RE COMING UP WITH RULES FROM SCRATCH. THIS IS A CLEAN-UP PURSUANT TO STATE LAW WHERE STATE LAW IS CONTROLLING AND WE HAVE TO AMEND OUR ORDINANCES ACCORDINGLY, AND IN SOME CASES, PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE CHANGES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, AND WE HAVE TO BUILD CONSISTENCY INTO OUR SYSTEM. IN MY JUDGMENT, TO A LARGE EXTENT, IT'S AN IMPORTANT BUT FAIRLY PRO FORMA EXERCISE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT EXERCISING JUDGMENT FROM SQUARE 1, [00:45:04] WHAT WE'RE DOING IS LOOKING FOR CONSISTENCY, CONFORMITY, AND MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE ORDINANCES THAT MAKE SENSE AND ARE CONSISTENT, AND I'M ALL SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. THE AREAS THAT PERHAPS WE'RE BUILDING IN A LITTLE BIT OF NEW RULES WOULD BE ON THE ANIMAL KEEPING AS THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OF ADDRESS, BUT THEY'RE ADDRESSING IT FOR A DIFFERENT ZONE. OUR AMENDMENT IS FOR R1 AND THEY'RE IN RA ZONE, SO IT'S A LITTLE APPLES AND ORANGES THERE. THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE 13 FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY. BUT THAT'S SIMPLY A PROCESS THAT'S BEEN FOLLOWED BY A CITY POLICY FOR YEARS AND WE'RE MORE FORMALIZING THAT POLICY, SO WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES THAT TRULY HAVE AN IMPACT IN HOW WE CONDUCT OUR AFFAIRS. AS I LOOK THROUGH HERE, MOST OF IT CLERICAL CONSISTENCY CHANGES, NO PROBLEM THERE, WE WANT OUR CODE TO BE CONSISTENT, AND WE'RE NOT BEING ASKED TO REALLY CREATE NEW RULES OUT OF A BLANK SLATE. I'M IN FAVOR. I THINK THE STAFF DID A WONDERFUL JOB IN EXPLAINING THIS. I PARTICULARLY FOCUSED ON THE HOUSING-RELATED ISSUES BECAUSE THESE COME UP, AND STATE LAW, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE OUR ORDINANCES COMPLY WITH THAT. I THINK STAFF'S DONE A FINE JOB, AND I SUPPORT THIS EFFORT. THANK YOU. >> GREAT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER MEENES? >> I'LL MIRROR COMMISSIONER STINE'S COMMENT THAT STAFF DID AN EXCELLENT JOB IN THE CLEANUP. IT SOUNDS AS IF WE'RE LOOKING AT AT LEAST A YEAR TO TWO YEARS AWAY BEFORE WE HAVE ANOTHER CLEANUP, OR IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF HAVING IT SOONER OR PORTIONS THEREOF? >> THE NEXT FORMAL CLEANUP WOULD BE PROGRAMMED INTO OUR WORK PROGRAM FOR 2026. WE ALSO ARE PROGRAMMING, AGAIN, UPDATES TO OUR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, AND SO THAT'S PART OF WHY THE DELAY. HOWEVER, THE REALITY IS BECAUSE OF OUR HOUSING PROGRAMS, WHICH A LOT OF OUR EFFORT IS, WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN UPDATING OUR CODE APPROXIMATELY EVERY YEAR WITH AN ORDINANCE UPDATE LIKE THIS. >> ERIC, I APPRECIATE THAT, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE STATE LAWS THAT ARE COMING DOWN IN REGARD TO HOUSING, IT CHANGES SO RAPIDLY DEPENDING UPON THE VARIOUS BILLS THAT GO OUT OF SACRAMENTO, SO THEREFORE, YES, PROBABLY SOONER THAN LATER. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. SO THEREFORE I DO SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. I THINK IT'S EXCELLENT JOB, I APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOU. THANK YOU. >> GREAT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YES, COMMISSIONER MERZ. >> I ALSO SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU FOR THE WONDERFUL PRESENTATION. >> COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. >> I ALSO SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION, AND THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. >> SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, LET'S HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. COMMISSIONER MEENES. >> I'LL MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> GREAT. A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STINE. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER MEENES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STINE ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1. PLEASE VOTE. THE MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY ABSENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU STAFF. EXCELLENT JOB. WE'LL NOW CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO ITEM 2. [2. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR] MR. LARDI, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? >> SURE, I'LL INTRODUCE THIS ITEM. DUE TO THE RESIGNATION OF THE VICE CHAIR, THERE IS A VACANCY FOR THE POSITION OF VICE CHAIR. THE CITY CLERK IS THE LEAD ON THE REAPPOINTMENT OF THAT SEAT PROCESS, AND THEY'RE UNDERWAY WITH THAT APPOINTMENT. ANYBODY, IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THEY'RE WELCOME TO REACH OUT TO THE CLERK ON THAT PROCESS OR AVAILABILITY. THE WAY THAT WE'VE DONE THE SELECTION OF THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR BEFORE, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU TAKE FIRST A STRAW POLL TO SEE WHO'S INTERESTED PRIOR TO MAKING ANY MOTIONS, BECAUSE ONCE YOU MAKE ANY MOTION, THERE NEEDS TO EITHER BE A SECOND OR NOT, AND THEN A VOTE. [00:50:02] IT'S UP TO THE CHAIR AND THE COMMISSION ON HOW THEY WANT TO PROCEED WITH THIS ITEM. >> THANK YOU, MR. LARDI. I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST, COULD WE HAVE A SHOW OF HANDS WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN FULFILLING THE TERM, AND THIS TERM WOULD END IN DECEMBER? >> WE WOULD REAPPOINT IN JANUARY. >> SO IT'S NOT FOREVER. YES, COMMISSIONER MEENES. >> LET'S DO A VOTE. >> GREAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. I WOULD NOMINATE HIM. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO PUT FORTH THEIR NAME? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER STINE. >> YES. I THINK COMMISSIONER MEENES WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT VICE CHAIR. IT'S HIS SECOND TERM ON THE COMMISSION. HE HAS BEEN CHAIR BEFORE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS DURING THE PANDEMIC, SO HE NEVER GOT TO BE CHAIR WHEN WE WERE DOING A LIVE BROADCAST HERE IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. I THINK IT'S LONG OVERDUE, HE'S LEVEL-HEADED, HE KNOWS THE PROCESS, AND I'M CONVINCED HE'D DO AN EXCELLENT JOB. >> I AGREE. I WOULD SUPPORT THIS ENTIRELY. >> LET ME ADD JUST ONE THING, AND THAT IS MY PHILOSOPHY HAS BEEN SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION, THE NUMBER OF YEARS THAT I HAVE, I'M ALWAYS ONE TO SUPPORT, AND I MENTIONED THAT LAST TIME, THAT WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS, SUPPORT, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THE MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN ON AND HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE A CHAIR OR TO BE A VICE CHAIR, AND TO BE ABLE TO CIRCULATE IT AMONGST US ALL. BEING THAT I HAD BEEN VICE CHAIR ONCE AND CHAIR ONCE BEFORE, I BELIEVE IN DOING THAT. BUT YEAH, GIVEN THE MAKEUP OF THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME, THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES, BUT I THINK THAT GIVEN THE SHORT TIME THAT WE HAVE BETWEEN NOW AND DECEMBER, I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE IF THAT'S WHAT THE OTHER FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? GOOD. LET'S TAKE A PRO FORMA VOTE. >> WE WOULD NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND, AND THEN YOU COULD TAKE AN ACTION. >> I'M SORRY, I WAS JUST TRYING TO CUT SHORT THE PARLIAMENTARY. HOW ABOUT A MOTION? >> I MOVE THAT COMMISSIONER ROY MEENES BE OUR VICE CHAIR. >> GREAT. MAY WE HAVE A SECOND. >> I'LL SECOND. >> GREAT. A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER STINE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HUBINGER ON ITEM NUMBER 2 TO HAVE COMMISSIONER MEENES SERVE AS VICE CHAIR. MAY WE HAVE A VOTE? PLEASE VOTE. WELL, IT'S UNANIMOUS FOR ALL THOSE PRESENT. THE MOTION CARRIES, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY ABSENT. THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS. LET'S MOVE ON TO REPORTS FROM ANY OF OUR COMMISSIONERS FIRST. REPORTS FROM THE CITY PLANNER. [CITY PLANNER REPORT] >> YES. THANK YOU. BRIEF REPORTS. GOING TO THE CITY COUNCIL NEXT WEEK IS THE APPROVAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM, THAT'S AN ITEM THAT THERE IS ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EITHER THE CHAIR OR THE VICE CHAIR TO ATTEND AND PRESENT AND GIVE BRIEF TESTIMONY ON THAT WORK PROGRAM. SO IF THERE'S INTEREST OR ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT AS PART OF THIS MEETING. WE DO HAVE MEETINGS PLANNED FOR BOTH THE JUNE 5TH AND THE JUNE 19TH PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM. WE HAVE THE BEGONIA COURT PROJECT THAT IS GOING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 25TH, AND THEN WE ARE LOOKING AT CANCELING THE JULY 3RD MEETING DUE TO THE HOLIDAY. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY REPORT FROM SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY? >> NONE FROM ME. THANK YOU. >> SEEING NONE, THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION STANDS ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.