[00:00:08] GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO THE JUNE 5TH MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION. [CALL TO ORDER] WOULD THE MINUTES CLERK, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. HERE. COMMISSIONER PETER MERZ IS ABSENT. COMMISSIONER ROY MEENES. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ALICIA LAFFERTY. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER JOSEPH STINE. HERE. CHAIR KAMENJARIN. HERE. FIVE COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT WITH COMMISSIONER MERZ ABSENT. PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED THIS EVENING BY COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 15TH MEETING. [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THAT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING? YES. COMMISSIONER STINE. YES. I JUST FOUND A TYPO ON PAGE TWO IN THE MIDDLE. THE WORD I THINK SHOULD BE UNTIL CITY PLANNER MARTY ADDED THAT THIS ITEM DID NOT COME TO THE PLANNING'S ATTENTION, AND IT SHOULD BE UNTIL RECENTLY. THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE I WOULD REQUEST. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS OR REVISIONS? OKAY. SEEING NONE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, AS CORRECTED. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. OH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MAY 15TH. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. THANK YOU. MOTION TO APPROVE HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER MEENES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. PLEASE VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES. 3 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER MERZ ABSENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT. [PUBLIC COMMENT] WE WILL REQUIRE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM FROM ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS. REQUESTS TO SPEAK FORMS MUST BE TURNED IN TO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING. SO IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK AND YOU HAVEN'T TURNED IN THE FORM, PLEASE DO SO NOW. RETURNING THE REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS BEFORE BEGINNING 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 SPEAKER. GROUP TIMES 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 A TOTAL OF TEN MINUTES, UNLESS THAT TIME IS CHANGED BY THE CHAIRPERSON. THE MINUTES CLERK WILL CALL THE NAMES OF THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN THE ORDER THE REQUESTS TO SPEAK ARE RECEIVED. THE BROWN ACT ALLOWS ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. PLEASE TREAT OTHERS WITH COURTESY, CIVILITY AND RESPECT. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY PROVIDING COMMENTS AS PROVIDED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE AGENDA. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED, UP TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES ONLY IN THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. ALL OTHER NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD AT THE END OF THE MEETING. IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT NO ACTION CAN OCCUR ON THESE ITEMS. WE ASK THAT YOU REFRAIN FROM CLAPPING DURING THE BUSINESS SECTION OF THE MEETING, STARTING WITH NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS WILL HELP MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS CAN BE CONDUCTED EFFICIENTLY, AND THAT THIS CHAMBER IS A PLACE WHERE ALL POINTS OF VIEW ARE WELCOME AND RESPECTED. MINUTES CLERK DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS? YES WE DO. AND HOW MANY DO WE HAVE? [00:05:02] FIVE. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO CALL THE FIRST? SURE. 2 OR 3 IN THE ORDER RECEIVED. OKAY. ROSEANNE BENTLEY. THIS IS A NON AGENDA. NO, THIS IS NON AGENDA MA'AM. YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. OKAY. KRIS WRIGHT. AS MISS WRIGHT APPROACHES THE AGENDA TO HELP, PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES TO HELP SPEAKERS KEEP WITH THE ALLOTTED TIME. OUR MINUTE CLERK WILL START THE TIMER. THE GREEN LIGHT MEANS SPEAK. YELLOW MEANS YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE REMAINING. AND RED MEANS YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED. SINCE ITEMS BROUGHT UNDER THE PUBLIC COMMENT ARE NOT LISTED ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, THE COMMISSION IS PREVENTED BY LAW FROM DISCUSSING OR TAKING ACTION ON THOSE ITEMS. BEFORE YOU BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. CLEARLY STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE WAIT FOR THAT ITEM TO BE OPEN FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MY NAME IS KRISTINE WRIGHT 4902 VIA AREQUIPA CARLSBAD. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. TODAY YOU HAVE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE TO THE DEVELOPER TULLY INTERESTS LLC, WHO SENT IN A LATE REQUEST YESTERDAY TO POSTPONE THE MEETING. THIS REQUEST STATED THAT DUE TO LACK OF A FULL SEVEN COMMISSIONERS, WITH ONE RESIGNATION AND ONE ABSENCE, DESPITE A FULL QUORUM NOW OF FIVE COMMISSIONERS, THEY WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE THE DELIBERATION UNTIL A FULL SEVEN MEMBERS ARE SEATED. I DID CALL THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TODAY, AND THE APPOINTMENT OF THE NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 25TH AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. SINCE THIS LAST MINUTE REQUEST IS A HUGE INCONVENIENCE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC, I WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO GRANT THE REQUEST BY THE DEVELOPER TO A DATE AFTER JUNE 25TH, OR AFTER THE VACANT PLANNING COMMISSIONERS SPOT IS FILLED, WHERE THERE WOULD BE NO VACANCIES. I'D ALSO LIKE TO REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION TODAY THAT THEY REMAND THE CITY PLANNERS CEQA DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION BACK TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND REOPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. THIS IS AN UNCOMMON REQUEST, BUT MANY OF US BELIEVE THAT THE NOTIFICATION PERIOD OF THE PUBLIC WAS NOT HANDLED PROPERLY. THERE ARE MANY ERRORS ON THE VARIOUS REPORTS, SPECIFICALLY THE TRAFFIC REPORT WHERE THE VMT ANALYSIS WAS DONE INCORRECTLY. WE ASKED THAT THE ANALYSIS BE CORRECTED AND THE PUBLIC HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMMENT, GIVEN THAT THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS WAS FLAWED. I AM ON THAT LIST AND NEVER RECEIVED ANY NOTIFICATION FOR EXAMPLE. THE REOPENING OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE WOULD ALLOW A FAIR TREATMENT TO THE PUBLIC AND GRANT THE DEVELOPER HIS REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK THANK YOU, MA'AM. MR. LARDY, I KNOW YOU WANT TO COMMENT. YES. THANK YOU. AS THE MINUTES CLERK IS CALLING THE NEXT NAMES, WE WANT TO JUST REITERATE THAT THIS IS FOR NON AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT. SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS WERE RELATED TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. AND SO ANY NON AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE DURING THIS TIME. I'LL CALL THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS. AND IF YOU COULD COME TO THE PODIUM AND THEN THE BALANCE LINE UP UNDER THE CLOCK OVER THERE WOULD BE HELPFUL. STEVE LINKE. GENE ISBELL. MARTIN DANNER. CAN I MAKE A POINT OF ORDER BEFORE I START AN INQUIRY? THAT DECISION IS FINAL AND IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. SO ANYTHING THAT A RESIDENT WANTS TO SAY ABOUT THE CEQA EXEMPTION IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. THEREFORE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT IN THE NON AGENDA. THAT IS RELATED TO THE PROJECT. AND SO WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IT BE LIMITED TO JUST THE NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS ITEM IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. IT'S UNDERLINED ALL CAPS. IT'S NOT IN BOLD. NO, NO EXCLAMATION POINT. BUT IT SAYS THIS IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. SO THIS IS RELEVANT. PLEASE GO AHEAD AND MAKE COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. I HOPE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE LETTER I SUBMITTED ON MONDAY FOR THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE MIXED USE PROJECT, WHERE I DETAILED THE FATAL FLAWS IN THE DEVELOPER'S VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS THAT LED TO THE CEQA EXEMPTION. THE PROJECT IS OUTSIDE OF THE ONE HALF MILE DISTANCE TO CARLSBAD VILLAGE STATION. [00:10:01] THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE EXEMPTION, AND THE CLAIM THAT THE PROJECT WILL RESULT IN A NET REDUCTION OF OVER 20,000 DAILY VEHICLE MILES IS ABSURD. IN REALITY, IT WILL LEAD TO A NET AREA WIDE INCREASE OF ABOUT 20,000 TO 40,000 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, ALSO MAKING IT INELIGIBLE FOR THE EXEMPTION. STAFF SHOULD PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CEQA EXEMPTION WAS WRONGLY GRANTED AND THE DEVELOPER SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR SUBMITTING INCORRECT INFORMATION. AND I'D LIKE TO EXTEND AN INVITATION TO EACH OF YOU COMMISSIONERS. EMAIL ME SO THAT WE CAN SET UP A ZOOM MEETING WHERE I CAN WALK YOU THROUGH ALL OF THIS, AND YOU CAN CHALLENGE ME WITH QUESTIONS. I'M THE FORMER VICE CHAIR OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION IN CARLSBAD AND THE THE VMT ANALYSIS IS ABSURD. MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS S P L I N K E AT GMAIL.COM. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU SO WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS. ONE OF YOUR PRIMARY ROLES AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS IS TO CREATE SORRY IS TO RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT AND USE THAT INPUT AND YOUR OWN JUDGMENT TO REVIEW PLANNING STAFF DECISIONS IN THIS PUBLIC FORUM. BUT THE CITY HAS DELEGATED TO THE CITY PLANNER THE UNILATERAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE THESE VERY CONSEQUENTIAL CEQA DETERMINATIONS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WITH NO OVERSIGHT EVEN ON COMPLEX PROJECTS LIKE THIS ONE. THE ONLY WAY FOR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, OR EVEN YOU AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, TO CHALLENGE THESE DECISIONS, IS TO DEVELOP AN ENTIRE WRITTEN APPEAL, LIKELY REQUIRING THE HIRING OF AN EXPENSIVE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT AND FILING A $900 APPEAL FEE, ALL WITHIN TEN DAYS OF A NOTICE BEING POSTED WITH THE NOTICING SYSTEM THAT HAS NOT BEEN VERY RELIABLE. THIS PROCESS IS BROKEN. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND YOUR SERVICE ON IT? WHEN STAFF HAS ALREADY MADE SOME OF THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS BEFORE YOU EVEN SEE THE PROJECT, AND THEN IMPLY AND IMPOSE SEVERE LIMITS ON YOUR POWER TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN ACCEPTING THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. USE WHAT POWER YOU HAVE TO REQUIRE RELEVANT CHANGES AND ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO THESE PROJECTS, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT PART OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. AND I KNOW YOU CAN'T TAKE ANY ACTION ON WHAT I'M SAYING NOW, BUT I'M RECOMMENDING THAT DURING YOUR COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AT THE END OF THE MEETING, ASK FOR AN ITEM TO BE ADDED TO A FUTURE AGENDA TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY CHANGE THE CEQA DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW MORE REASONABLE PUBLIC REVIEW ON LARGER, COMPLEX PROJECTS LIKE THIS, RATHER THAN HAVING THE CITY PLANNER HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THESE UNILATERAL DECISIONS. AGAIN, MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS SPLINKE@GMAIL.COM AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM EACH OF YOU SO I CAN GO OVER THIS IN MORE DETAIL. THANK YOU. GENE. MY COMMENTS WERE FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE, NOT FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS. OKAY. THANK YOU. MARTIN DANNER. GOOD AFTERNOON, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS MARTIN DANNER, AND I LIVE AT 1826 MAGNOLIA AVENUE. AND IT'S COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE AGENDA ITEM HERE TODAY, THE ONE AND ONLY AGENDA ITEM. AND I JUST WANTED TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU NOT GRANT A CONTINUANCE OF TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM, BECAUSE THERE IS A QUORUM AVAILABLE TODAY, AND THERE REALLY IS NO REASONABLE REASON TO GRANT THAT REQUEST. ALSO, GIVEN THE INTENT OF THE REQUEST, WHICH STATED THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE IT BECAUSE THERE'S A SEAT VACANT AND A MEMBER ABSENT. THAT WE SHOULD NOT ACTUALLY ADDRESS. IF YOU DECIDE TO GRANT IT, THAT WE SHOULD NOT ADDRESS THIS ITEM UNTIL THE VACANT SEAT HAS BEEN FILLED, AND UNTIL ALL MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE PRESENT. IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO ASK FOR THAT, THEN YOU PROBABLY SHOULD NOT BE WILLING TO GRANT THIS CONTINUANCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. [1. SDP 2023-0014 (DEV2023-0078) CARLSBAD VILLAGE MIXED USE: Adoption of a resolution recommending approval of a Site Development Plan, SDP 2023-0014, to demolish five existing commercial structures and consolidate four parcels of land into two parcels; and construct a mixed-use development consisting of 13,800 square feet of neighborhood-serving commercial within two one-story buildings, 218 multiple-family residential apartment units within two five-story buildings, and a five-story above grade parking structure on a 4.12-acre property located at 945-1065 Carlsbad Village Drive in the northwest quadrant of the city, the Village & Barrio Master Plan, and Local Facilities Management zone. A] MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER ONE? POINT OF ORDER BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? AND MAYBE IT'D BE APPROPRIATE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WOULD READ THIS INTO THE SCRIPT. THANK YOU. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS HISTORICALLY EXTENDED APPLICANTS THE COURTESY OF REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE SO THEIR MATTER MIGHT BE HEARD BY A FULL COMMISSION. THIS EVENING TWO COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE ABSENT. IF THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A CONTINUANCE, THE COMMISSION IS NOT OBLIGED TO REQUEST THE CONTINUANCE. [00:15:01] APPLICANT DO YOU WISH TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OR PROCEED WITH THE HEARING TONIGHT? GOOD EVENING, CHAIR KAMENJARIN. WE DO IN FACT REQUEST A CONTINUANCE AS STATED IN THE LETTER PROVIDED YESTERDAY. AND WHAT ARE THE REASONS THAT YOU WANT A CONTINUANCE? AS STATED IN THE LETTER WE FEEL WE WE HOPE THAT WE CAN HAVE A HEARING ON THIS MATTER WHEN THE COMMISSION WHEN WE DO NOT HAVE ABSENCES ON THE COMMISSION. AND SO WE WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD GET A HEARING AND CONSIDERATION FROM ALL CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. AND WHAT IS YOUR NAME, SIR? MY NAME IS JONATHAN FRANKEL. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THEY'D LIKE TO ASK MR. FRANKEL REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE? YES, MISS LAFFERTY. HOW ARE YOU RELATED TO THE PROJECT? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY I SERVE AS THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THIS PROJECT. FOR WHAT COMPANY? ON BEHALF OF TULLY INTERESTS, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. COME ON. I'M SORRY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ASK, MISS LAFFERTY? COMMISSIONER STINE. YES, SIR. WOULD YOU COME UP TO THE PODIUM AGAIN? I WANT A LITTLE ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION. IS THERE SOME SENSE THAT. I MEAN, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM HERE TONIGHT. WE PRESENTLY HAVE SIX MEMBERS OF A SEVEN MEMBER COMMISSION. OKAY. WE BECAUSE THERE'S ONE VACANT SEAT RIGHT NOW, IS THERE. DO YOU DO YOU FEEL IN SOME WAY THAT THE FIVE OF US WERE A QUORUM, CANNOT GIVE YOU DUE PROCESS AND FAIRLY HEAR THIS MATTER THAT WE NEED AN ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WHO'S ONCE ABSENT IN ORDER FOR YOU TO GET A FAIR HEARING. TELL ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT YOUR YOUR RATIONALE. NO, SIR. WE FULLY EXPECT WE WOULD RECEIVE DUE PROCESS IN A FAIR HEARING THIS EVENING. HOWEVER, WE'VE SPENT MANY YEARS WORKING ON THIS PROJECT. IN OUR VIEW, IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PROJECT TO US, TO OUR COMPANY, TO OUR TEAM, AND WE SIMPLY WOULD REQUEST THAT THE ALL CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WOULD BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN AND DISCUSS AND DELIBERATE ON THIS PROJECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO GRANT THIS REQUESTED CONTINUANCE? I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER STINE. AND THIS IS NOT A MOTION. I'D LIKE YOU READ SOMETHING FROM STAFF, BUT I WOULD LIKE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, AS TO WHETHER WE SHOULD GRANT A CONTINUANCE. WOULD YOU KIND OF WEIGH IN ON THIS, MR. LARDY. SURE. SO OUR UNDERSTANDING AND MOST OF THAT SCRIPT WAS PRECEDENTS THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR A LONG TIME FOR THE COMMISSION IS THAT IF THERE IS 1 OR 2 MEMBERS MISSING, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE READ AND OFFER TO THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE. ONE OF OUR MAIN PRIORITIES IS TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS DUE PROCESS. AND SO WE IT'S PART OF OUR EVALUATION OF A PROJECT AND SCHEDULING. WE EVALUATE DUE PROCESS AS WELL AS OUR HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT REQUIREMENTS TO CONCLUDE HOUSING PROJECTS. SO IT REALLY IS UP TO THE COMMISSION WHETHER THEY WANT TO GRANT THAT CONTINUANCE WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IF THERE WAS A CONTINUANCE GRANTED, THAT IT BE GRANTED A DATE CERTAIN TO JUNE 19TH, WHICH IS THE NEXT MEETING, WE EXPECT THE SIX SITTING MEMBERS TO ATTEND. OKAY. BUT KIND OF UP OR DOWN IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WE GRANT THE CONTINUANCE. AND IN DOING SO, GRANT IT FOR TWO WEEKS FOR THE 19TH. IS THAT THE RECOMMENDATION? THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT STAFF CAN MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S UP TO THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION. OKAY. AND WE HEARD THE APPLICANT WEIGH IN THAT HE BELIEVES HE CAN GET DUE PROCESS TONIGHT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ONE SITTING COMMISSIONER WHO IS NOT HERE. THEY WEIGHED IN ALREADY ON THAT ISSUE. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. THIS IS SOMETHING PERSONALLY, I DON'T HAVE A STRONG FEELINGS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT MY COLLEAGUES FEEL ABOUT THIS. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER MEENES. YES? I'D LIKE TO ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY IF SHE HAS ANY COMMENTS IN REGARD TO HISTORICAL WAYS IN WHICH SITUATIONS LIKE THIS HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PAST, EITHER ON THE COUNCIL LEVEL OR ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL, AS TO PRECEDENT AND CASE LAW, IF THERE IS ANY. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY INSTANCES IN WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS DENIED A REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE. SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO PRIOR INSTANCES WHERE A REQUEST HAS BEEN DENIED. I'LL DEFER TO OUR CITY PLANNER ON WHETHER OR NOT HE REMEMBERS ANY OTHERS SITUATIONS WHERE A REQUEST HAS BEEN DENIED. SO IN TERMS OF PRECEDENT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE HAVE BEEN ANY RECENT, AT LEAST INSTANCES OF A REQUEST BEING DENIED. [00:20:07] AND AGAIN, TO JUST KIND OF ECHO MR. LARDY'S COMMENTS, IT WOULD BE A DECISION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION DUE PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS, THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE EXTENSION FOR TWO WEEKS AND AS ALSO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. SO. [LAUGHTER] SO IF A CONTINUATION IS GRANTED. IS THERE A SLOT THAT THEY DEFINITELY WILL GO INTO THE JUNE 19TH MEETING IS ARE WE IS THAT. YES. ERIC. OUR RECOMMENDATION, IF THE CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED, WOULD BE TO CONTINUE IT TO DATE CERTAIN ON JUNE 19TH. THERE ARE TWO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS THAT WE EXPECT WOULD BE NOT CONTROVERSIAL THAT NIGHT IF CONTINUED TO THAT DATE, THIS ITEM WOULD BE THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA. AND BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT THAT COMMISSIONER, IF COMMISSIONER MERZ IS HERE AND WE HAVE THE FULL WOULD BE 6 , WE WOULDN'T WE WOULD NOT HAVE SEVEN. IS THAT CORRECT? WE DO NOT. RIGHT. SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS, IS SIX ACCEPTABLE AND DO WE DEFER AGAIN YOU KNOW A CONTINUANCE AGAIN. SO YOU KNOW HOW DOES THAT WORK. ANY LAND USE ACTION ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION REQUIRES FOUR VOTES AFFIRMATIVE OR IN OPPOSITION TO MOVE FORWARD. THE ONE SIMILAR CASE THAT WE HAD RECENTLY WAS THE POINSETTIA CELL SITE, WHERE THERE WAS FOUR COMMISSIONERS. IN THAT CASE, THE APPLICANT DID NOT REQUEST TO CONTINUE, BUT IF YOU RECALL, IT WAS ESSENTIALLY A 2, 2 VOTE, AND THAT APPLICATION DID END UP BEING A CONTINUANCE BECAUSE OF THE COMMISSION. SO ANY TIME WE ARE DOWN TO 4 OR 5 COMMISSIONERS, THAT HISTORICALLY IS WHEN THIS HAS BEEN READ INTO THE RECORD AND ASKED THE APPLICANT IF THEY WOULD LIKE A CONTINUANCE. SO. ANTICIPATING THE JUNE 19TH MEETING THAT THERE WILL BE SIX OF US, IS THERE? DOES THE APPLICANT THEN HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO DEFER BECAUSE IT'S NOT SEVEN? NO. THOUGH OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORY IS ANY TIME THAT IT'S BELOW SIX MEMBERS BECAUSE THAT PROVIDES A BETTER OPPORTUNITY. OKAY, SO UNLESS SOMEONE IS UNEXPECTEDLY ABSENT ON JUNE 19TH, THIS WILL BE HEARD. I MEAN, ULTIMATELY IT WOULD BE UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHETHER IT'S HEARD TONIGHT OR CONTINUED TO ANOTHER NIGHT. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. LET ME RESPOND. GREAT QUESTION, BECAUSE THAT'S BEEN IN MY MIND. IN FACT, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT, MR. FRENKEL, COULD YOU COME BACK UP TO THE PODIUM? MY QUESTION TO YOU, SIR, IS SHOULD WE GRANT THIS CONTINUANCE TO A DATE CERTAIN. AND WE ONLY HAVE SIX MEMBERS BECAUSE THE SEVENTH HAS YET TO BE APPOINTED. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU AND YOUR CLIENT WOULD DO? WE WOULD BE COMFORTABLE PROCEEDING ON JUNE 19TH WITH SIX MEMBERS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM ANY OF OUR COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER STINE, DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. SO REGARDLESS, YOU ONLY NEED FOUR FOR AN APPROVAL, CORRECT OR A DENIAL. YES, IT WOULD TAKE FOUR VOTES AND THE AFFIRMATIVE OR DENIAL FOR THE PROJECT. OKAY, SO. IF WE HAVE A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE, WHICH IS RARE, AND THEY WANT TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, SHOULD WE ALLOW THAT NOW AND THEN CONTINUE THE REST OF THE HEARING ANOTHER TIME? THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DO. YOU WOULD HAVE TO CLOSE IT AND CONTINUE AFTER, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE DONE. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO HAVE THE SIXTH COMMISSIONER PARTICIPATE AT AN ULTIMATE HEARING, THEY WOULD NEED TO VERBALLY STATE THAT THEY HAVE LISTENED TO THE TESTIMONY AT THAT HEARING, AND I BELIEVE THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS IN THAT RESPECT RELATED TO THE POINSETTIA CELL SITE. YEAH, WE HAD TO DO THAT BEFORE. SO I WOULD ASK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IF THAT WAS AN OPTION TO YOU TO BE ABLE TO HEAR THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, BECAUSE [00:25:04] THESE ARE RECORDED SESSIONS, SO THEY ARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE TO BE ABLE TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS AFTERWARDS. AND THEN WE DON'T GET YOU OUT MAYBE A SECOND TIME, OR MAYBE WE DO GET YOU OUT A SECOND TIME, BUT AT LEAST WE COULD MAYBE HAVE A LITTLE CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO WORK, BUT WHAT DO THE COMMISSIONERS THINK? LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION. AND AS YOU'RE STARTING YOUR DISCUSSION AND THINK ABOUT IT, FEEL FREE TO PROCEED. WE ULTIMATELY WOULD ALSO WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY HAD AN OPINION ON THIS. BEFORE YOU DO MAKE A VOTE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MEENES. YEAH, THIS IS A REAL QUANDARY BECAUSE I FULLY APPRECIATE THE TURNOUT THAT WE'VE HAD THIS EVENING AND WITH ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE AUDIENCE AND CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROJECT AND WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS AND WANT TO HEAR THE HEARING ITSELF AND ALL THE INFORMATION THAT'S GOING TO BE PROVIDED WHEN THE HEARING IS OR WHEN THE APPLICANT'S PROJECT IS BEING HEARD. BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, I FEEL THAT IF THE COMMISSION IS TO GRANT THE EXTENSION TO THE 19TH, THAT I FEEL THAT IT'S IMPORTANT. AND I KNOW THIS COULD BE A BURDEN ON SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE. AND YOU KNOW, WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK OUT AGAIN ON THE 19TH. BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK CONTINUITY IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND THAT A HEARING THAT HAS ITS FULL CONTEXT IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AT THE TIME AND EVERYONE TO BE HEARD, ALL ITEMS, ALL FINDINGS AND WHATEVER IS ALL IN ONE PACKAGE. AND I THINK FROM THE STANDPOINT OF A HEARING, IT IS I GUESS YOU COULD SAY WITH DUE DILIGENCE, PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANT TO ALL CONCERNED BE IT THE PUBLIC, BE IT THE APPLICANT THAT WE HAVE EVERYTHING DONE AT ONE PARTICULAR HEARING, BOTH FROM THE STANDPOINT OF TESTIMONY AS WELL AS, OF COURSE, DECISION MAKING AND ALL THE INFORMATION. SO THEREFORE I WOULD THINK THAT I THINK THE BEST DECISION AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE OR IF ANOTHER COMMISSIONER FEELS MORE APPROPRIATE AND WANTING TO MAKE A COMMENT. I WOULD GO AHEAD AND GRANT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO MOVE THIS HEARING TILL THE 19TH OF JUNE AND MOVE ON FROM THERE AND HEAR THE ENTIRE PACKAGE AT THAT TIME. COMMISSIONER STINE, YOUR NAME CAME UP ON MY CHART OF SPEAKERS. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY? I SHARE COMMISSIONER MEENES THOUGHTS ON THIS. I AM TOO, I WOULDN'T SAY QUANDARY. I'M A LITTLE TORN ON THIS ONE. ON THE OTHER HAND. ONE HAND WE HAVE A QUORUM HERE. WE HAVE FIVE OF THE SIX OF US. WE'RE READY TO GO. AND THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED HE DOESN'T FEEL THERE'S A LACK OF DUE PROCESS. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LACK OF DUE PROCESS AT ALL FROM HAVING THE FIVE OF US WEIGH IN. SO. AND THEN WE HAVE A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TAKEN TIME OUT OF THEIR SCHEDULES TO BE HERE TONIGHT. SO I'M A LITTLE RELUCTANT TO SEND THEM HOME AND SAY, COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS. [APPLAUSE] BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, OUR ROLE TONIGHT IS THIS IS WE'RE NOT HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON THIS ONE. THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE WE'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. AND WHAT'S COUNCIL LOOKING FOR A FULL AND ROBUST DISCUSSION OF THE PROS AND CONS OF THIS PROJECT. WE KNOW IT'S HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL. SO IF WE HAD ANOTHER COMMISSIONER HERE, COMMISSIONER MEENES, THAT WOULD, I BELIEVE, ADD SOMEWHAT TO OUR DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER MEENES IS VERY THOUGHTFUL. I'M SURE HE'D COME VERY PREPARED. AND SO IN TERMS OF HAVING ANOTHER VOICE HERE TO WEIGH IN ON THESE ISSUES, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. SO IT'S A CLOSE CALL. COMMISSIONER MEENES HAS MADE A MOTION. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SECOND THE MOTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION AND VOTING, ALTHOUGH FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED, I'M A LITTLE BIT TORN ON THIS ONE TOO, AND DON'T HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. COMMISSIONER MEENES, YOU'RE HERE AND YOU'RE NOT MISSING. I KNOW I WAS GOING TO CORRECT. YOU'RE IN TWO PLACES AT ONCE, BUT I'M FINE, I THINK MAKING REFERENCE TO COMMISSIONER MERZ. I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER MERZ. MEENES. THAT'S FINE. I'M SORRY. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. NO, THAT'S THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WAS YOU SAID YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION. ARE YOU? NO I AM MAKING THE MOTION. YOU ARE MAKING THE MOTION. CORRECT. I'M MAKING THE MOTION. I THINK IT'S FAIR TO ALL ALL CONCERNED BY TRAILING AND MOVING THIS ITEM TO THE JUNE 19TH. OKAY. AND THEN I SECOND IT, AND I'M SORRY. CORRECTION. COMMISSIONER MERZ WAS ABSENT. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? [00:30:01] COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. COMPLETELY DISAGREE. YES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? LET'S VOTE. AND THIS IS THE MOTION. CORRECT ME, COMMISSIONER MEENES, IF I MISSTATED THIS IS A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CONTINUE THIS HEARING TO A DATE CERTAIN ON JUNE 19TH. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. ALL RIGHT, SO A YES VOTE SAYS YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE. A NO VOTE MEANS YOU VOTE AGAINST THE CONTINUANCE. OKAY. LET'S VOTE. OH. CAN I DO IT AGAIN? AGAIN? YES. FOR CONTINUANCE. NO FOR NOT CONTINUANCE. CAN WE DO A VOICE VOTE? WE'LL DO A VOICE VOTE. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. YES. COMMISSIONER MEENES. YES. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. NO. COMMISSIONER STINE. YES. AND CHAIR KAMENJARIN. NO. ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TO A DATE CERTAIN PASSES THROUGH THREE VOTES TO YOU SAYING YES, TWO VOTES SAYING NO. THE HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE WILL BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 19TH AT 5 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, LOCATED AT 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE. PROCEED ALL RIGHT. I MISTAKENLY OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. I WANT TO CLOSE IT. YEAH. WHY DON'T WE'LL GO TO COMMITTEE REPORTS. YEAH. IF WE COULD JUST MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT. WE DO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL BUSINESS ITEMS THIS EVENING. IF WE COULD TAKE ANY CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE, PLEASE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BOYCOTT OR SIT IN. OFFICE. I'M GONNA SAY IT AGAIN. NO. THAT'S WHERE WE DON'T WANT TO [INAUDIBLE]. LET ME START. I WOULD PLAY IT. WOULD YOU? COULD YOU PLEASE. JUST BE AWARE THAT. COMMISSIONER, SHALL WE CONTINUE? ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY PLANNING COMMISSIONER REPORTS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. ANYTHING YOU WANT TO, COMMISSIONER REPORT. COMMISSIONER STINE. OKAY, I HAVE NONE. HOW ABOUT CITY PLANNER REPORTS? [CITY PLANNER REPORT] SO WE DO NOW HAVE THREE AGENDA ITEMS FOR JUNE 19TH. THIS ITEM WILL GO FIRST AS THE CONTINUANCE. AND THEN THERE WILL BE TWO OTHER COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROJECTS. WE ALSO WILL HAVE TWO ITEMS AT CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 25TH, THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT. SO THAT'S OUR ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FISCAL YEAR ON THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN STANDARDS. AS WELL AS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BEGONIA VARIANCE REQUEST THAT THIS COMMISSION HEARD WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. [00:35:07] MR. LARDY, MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION REGARDING THE JUNE 19TH HEARING? WOULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AGAIN AT THE OTHER ITEMS, SEE IF PERHAPS THEY MAY BE CONTINUED TO A LATER DATE, CONSIDERING THAT THIS ITEM MAY RUN SEVERAL HOURS? WE WILL CERTAINLY DO THAT AND DISCUSS WITH THE APPLICANTS ON THAT. THE LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THOSE NOTICES ACTUALLY WENT OUT ALREADY, AND SO IT WOULD TAKE AN ACTION TO CONTINUE THOSE ITEMS. BUT IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DISCUSS AND COME WITH INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANTS ON THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY? NONE FROM ME. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DIFFICULT JOB. WELL DONE. WE'RE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.