Jun 19, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting

[00:00:01]

GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO THE JUNE 19TH MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE MINUTES.

[CALL TO ORDER]

PLEASE STAND FOR THE.

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

ALLEGIANCE].

THE NEXT ITEM FOR APPROVAL IS FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FOR THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5TH MEETING.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

I'LL MAKE A MOVE.

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING AND CAN WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

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

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. SHALL WE REVOTE? NO, I JUST NEED COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY TO LOCK IN.

THERE WE GO.

THE MOTION CARRIES 5 TO 1.

FIVE ZERO, WITH COMMISSIONER MERZ ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE WAS ABSENT.

THANK YOU. THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT.

[PUBLIC COMMENT]

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

SO IF ANY OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE OR THE [INAUDIBLE] ARE BEYOND MY VISUAL SIGHT WANT TO SPEAK, YOU SHOULD FILL OUT, COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND FILL OUT A FORM NOW WITH THE MINUTES CLERK.

IF YOU COULD COME UP AND SPEAK WITH CYNTHIA, SHE CAN HELP YOU.

PLEASE AGAIN REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS MUST BE TURNED INTO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING.

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

ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES.

UNLESS THAT 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 FOR THE GROUP 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 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 THIS AGENDA.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED, UP TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES 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 NON-AGENDA ITEMS. WE ASK THAT YOU REFRAIN FROM CLAPPING DURING THE BUSINESS SECTION OF THE MEETING, STARTING WITH NON-AGENDA PUBLIC ITEMS. THIS WILL HELP MAKE SURE THE PEOPLE'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 ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS?

[00:05:05]

AND HOW MANY DO WE HAVE? FIVE. ALL RIGHT.

WOULD YOU WOULD YOU READ THE FIRST COUPLE AND THEY CAN LINE UP ON BY THE PODIUM.

ROSEANNE BENTLEY WILL SPEAK FIRST AS THE SPEAKERS ARE COMING TO THE PODIUM AGAIN.

PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES.

BRETT SCHWARZENBACH, IF YOU COULD LINE UP UNDER THE CLOCK.

MARTIN DANNER TO HELP SPEAKERS KEEP WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME, OUR MINUTES CLERK WILL START THE TIMER.

THE GREEN LIGHT MEANS SPEAK.

YELLOW LIGHT MEANS YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE REMAINING AND RED MEANS YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

SINCE ITEMS BROUGHT UP 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.

IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE WAIT FOR THAT ITEM TO BE OPENED FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

[INAUDIBLE]. CORRECT.

CONTINUE. CAN YOU TURN IT BACK TO THREE MINUTES? THANK YOU. I'M ROSEANNE BENTLEY, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT IN THE TWO WEEKS SINCE YOUR PREVIOUS DEBACLE OF A MEETING, YOU LEARNED ABOUT THE MEANING OF JUNE 19TH AND WHY IT'S AN IMPORTANT DATE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND RESPECT.

IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW, JUNETEENTH COMMEMORATES THE EMANCIPATION OF ENSLAVED PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.

IT WAS FIRST CELEBRATED IN TEXAS IN 1865, WHEN ENSLAVED PEOPLE WERE DECLARED FREE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE 1862 EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.

NO BANKS ARE OPEN TODAY.

NO MAIL IS DELIVERED AND NOW YOU'VE BEEN EDUCATED SINCE I FELT AS IF I WAS INVOLVED IN SOME SORT OF DUPLICITY LAST TIME TO STOP THE PUBLIC FROM SPEAKING FREELY.

I PLAN TO DO IT NOW.

THIS CARLSBAD PLAZA PROJECT IS AS FLAWED AS ANOTHER I'M REMINDED OF THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A TOTAL FIASCO HAD THE PUBLIC NOT GOTTEN INVOLVED.

DO YOU RECALL THE CARUSO MALL TRAVESTY OF 2015? OH, I CERTAINLY DO.

WE'RE JUST AS PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO COMPLETELY DESTROY ANY CHARACTER OF CARLSBAD AS A COASTAL CITY, WHICH IN REALITY SEEMS TO BE YOURS AND THE DEVELOPER'S OVERARCHING GOAL, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY MIND BOGGLING TO ME.

MY OBSERVATION IS THAT SOME OF YOU ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE THE VOICE OF THE DEVELOPERS, WITH ZERO CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN CARLSBAD, AND THAT IS NOT OKAY.

THERE HAS BEEN INADEQUATE DUE DILIGENCE, ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT REGARDING THE MANY NEGATIVE HEALTH, SAFETY AND OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACTS OF THIS PROJECT.

WHERE IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY? I DON'T SEE IT.

I'LL HAVE MORE COMMENTS LATER.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MARTIN [INAUDIBLE].

BEFORE WE HAVE THE NEXT SPEAKER LET'S REFRAIN FROM CLAPPING.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT, YOU CAN RAISE YOUR HANDS.

WHATEVER. [INAUDIBLE] LET'S CONTINUE IN THE GUISE OF CIVILITY.

FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK ALL THE CITIZENS WHO'VE COME OUT TODAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

IT MEANS SO MUCH.

HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MARTIN DANNER, AND I'M A LONG TIME CARLSBAD RESIDENT.

I AM NOT A LAND USE ACTIVIST BY NATURE, BUT I FEEL COMPELLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS VERY IMPORTANT HEARING.

BEFORE WE GET STARTED, THOUGH, I'D LIKE TO REMIND YOU OF THE PREAMBLE TO THE CARLSBAD CITY CHARTER, THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT THAT DEFINES OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND WHY IT EXISTS.

QUOTE, WE, THE PEOPLE OF CARLSBAD, ARE SINCERELY COMMITTED TO THE BELIEF THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE CLOSEST AFFINITY TO THE PEOPLE GOVERNED.

UNQUOTE. NOW, THAT'S MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM.

YOUR CITIZENS, YOUR RESIDENTS, NOT OUT OF TOWN, SPECIAL INTERESTS LOOKING TO HAVE THEIR WAY FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL GAIN.

NOW, BACK TO THE CHARTER, QUOTE, THE ECONOMIC FISCAL INDEPENDENCE OF OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT WILL BETTER SERVE AND PROMOTE THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF ALL OUR CITIZENS. CLOSE QUOTE.

PLEASE ALWAYS KEEP THESE IN MIND WHEN ACTING AS OUR CITY PLANNER AND OUR CITY.

[00:10:01]

YOUR AUTHORITY DERIVES FROM THE CITY CHARTER.

YOUR JOB IS TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF ALL THE CITIZENS OF THIS BEAUTIFUL CITY AND TO KEEP OUR GOVERNMENT FISCALLY INDEPENDENT OF SPECIAL INTERESTS.

IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT YOU HONOR THE INTENT OF THE CITY CHARTER HERE TODAY.

NOW, ON JUNE 12TH, SEVERAL SEVEN DAYS AGO, I SENT YOU ALL A REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF TODAY'S HEARING.

I MADE THIS REQUEST ON THE BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF CARLSBAD, BECAUSE WE HAVE STARTED WORKING WITH A HIGHLY QUALIFIED EXPERT WHO IS REVIEWING THIS PROJECT AND INTENDS TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT MERITS THE JUDICIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

HOWEVER, HE CANNOT BE HERE TODAY AND HE NEEDS AT LEAST TWO WEEKS TO PREPARE.

I MIGHT MENTION THIS EXPERT IS A RETIRED CITY CARLSBAD CITY ENGINEER WITH DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD.

OUR REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 7506, WHICH STATES THAT AT ANY TIME THAT IT APPEARS THAT AN INADEQUATE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO AFFORD JUDICIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER BEFORE THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, A CONTINUATION OF SAID HEARING MAY BE ORDERED TO AFFORD THE APPLICANT, THE PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC AND THE CITY STAFF ADEQUATE TIME TO ASSEMBLE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS CONSIDERATION.

NOW NOTE THAT THAT RESOLUTION DOES INCLUDE THE PUBLIC, AND THAT OUR REQUEST IS TO ASSEMBLE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRES JUDICIOUS CONSIDERATION ON YOUR PART.

IT IS LATER COME TO OUR ATTENTION.

WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE TIME TO FINISH THIS.

I GUESS I DIDN'T TALK FAST ENOUGH, BUT I JUST WANT TO WRAP UP BY SAYING, I URGE YOU TO APPROVE OUR REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE.

THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE AFFORDED THE SAME COURTESY AND PROCEDURE THAT WAS AFFORDED THE DEVELOPER AT THE LAST MEETING.

YOU OWE IT TO THE CITIZENS YOU REPRESENT.

THANK YOU.

WOO HOO! KRIS WRIGHT AND STEVE LINCOLN. [INAUDIBLE].

COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS KRIS WRIGHT.

I SPOKE AT THE MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO WHEN THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE.

DUE TO THE LACK OF A FULL SEVEN MEMBER COMMISSION.

I SPOKE ABOUT THE PROCESS, NOT THE PROJECT UNDER THE NON-AGENDA COMMENT PERIOD, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME THAT THE PUBLIC COULD SPEAK TO THE CONTINUANCE.

WHEN I SPOKE, I SUPPORTED THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE, GIVEN THEIR EXCUSE THAT ONLY FIVE MEMBERS.

YET A FULL QUORUM WAS PRESENT ON JUNE 5TH.

TODAY I'D LIKE TO TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC'S IN ITS REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE UNTIL A DATE SPECIFIC JULY 17TH, FOR THE REASONS AS FOLLOWS.

ONE, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE APPOINTED A COMMISSIONER FOR THE VACANT SEAT ON THE JUNE 24TH COMMISSION.

THIS SUPPORTS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A FULL SEVEN MEMBER COMMISSION.

TWO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 7506 THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED.

SECTION THREE C CONTINUATION STATES AT ANY TIME THAT IT APPEARS TO THE CHAIRPERSON OR A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION THROUGH THE CHAIRPERSON, THAT INADEQUATE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO AFFORD JUDICIOUS CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER BEFORE THE COMMISSION AT ANY TIME OF A PUBLIC HEARING, OR FOR OTHER JUST CAUSE.

A CONTINUATION OF SAID HEARING MAY BE ORDERED TO AFFORD THE APPLICANT, THE PUBLIC OR THE CITY STAFF ADEQUATE TIME TO ASSEMBLE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION, UNQUOTE.

REASONS REQUESTED BY THE PUBLIC SEEM TO CLOSELY ALIGN WITH THIS RESOLUTION.

THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WILL BE PROVIDED.

THREE, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE OUTREACH TO THE PUBLIC.

APPARENTLY, ONLY A COUPLE OF MEMBERS ONLY MARKETING MEETINGS WERE HELD BY THE CARLSBAD VISIT VILLAGE ASSOCIATION AND THE CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

PUBLIC INPUT WAS NOT COLLECTED AND INCLUDED AT ANY OUTREACH EFFORTS.

IN MY OWN EFFORTS TO FIND ANY OUTREACH, THE APPLICANT'S FACEBOOK PAGE WAS BLANK AND THEIR WEBSITE WAS HARD TO FIND.

SIMPLY PUBLISHING A WEBSITE IS NOT PUBLIC OUTREACH.

I DID A SEARCH ONLINE, BUT NO NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC ARE CONCERNING.

THE PROJECT CAME UP.

I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE REQUEST TO CONTINUE THIS PROCEEDING TO A DATE CERTAIN FOR JULY 17TH, IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO DO PROPER OUTREACH TO THE PUBLIC, TO HAVE A FULL SEVEN MEMBER COMMISSION, AND TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC TO ADEQUATELY RESEARCH THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

STEVE LINCOLN. GOOD EVENING COMMISSION.

I SUBMITTED A VERY DETAILED LETTER OUTLINING ALL OF THE MANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE DEVELOPER'S PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAM.

I HOPE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT.

IT INCLUDED AN EMAIL FROM MR. GOFF, THE PLANNER IN CHARGE, TO MR. LARDY, THE CITY PLANNER, THAT BASICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE DEVELOPER HAD DONE NOTHING FOR THE ACTUAL OUTREACH OTHER THAN JUST THE WEBSITE.

[00:15:07]

I WAS A TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FROM 2019 TO 2023, AND I SERVED AS THEIR VOTING MEMBER ON THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE COMMITTEE FOR A YEAR ALONGSIDE MR. STINE AND WHEN THAT CONCLUDED, I WAS ASKED BY AN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP TO TESTIFY IN A SUPERIOR COURT LAWSUIT ALLEGING THAT CARLSBAD HAD NOT ADEQUATELY ENFORCED THE VOTER APPROVED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND THAT TRIAL FOCUSED ON TRAFFIC, OPEN SPACE AND PARKS AND AFTER CAREFULLY WEIGHING ALL THE TESTIMONY THE JUDGE WROTE ON TRAFFIC, THE CITY, QUOTE, THE CITY HAS IN PRACTICE TAKEN THE POSITION THAT IF ROADS AND INTERSECTIONS BECOME TOO CONGESTED TO MEET GROWTH MANAGEMENT, THEN THEY CAN MODIFY THE STANDARD OR CHOOSE TO EXEMPT ANY STREET THAT DOESN'T MEET IT.

THE COURT DOUBTS THAT THIS IS WHAT THE CITIZENS HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY VOTED TO APPROVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ON OPEN SPACE, THE JUDGE CONCLUDED, QUOTE, SIMILAR TO TRAFFIC, THE CITY CAN CLAIM COMPLIANCE ONLY BECAUSE IT HAS EXEMPTED 17 OF ITS 25 ZONES FROM THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD.

THE COURT DOUBTS THAT THIS IS WHAT THE VOTERS HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY ENACTED GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND FINALLY, ON PARKS, THE JUDGE STATED, QUOTE, THE CITY CLAIMS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD, BUT THE CITY'S COMPLIANCE HE PUT IN QUOTES IS ACHIEVED, IF AT ALL, ONLY THROUGH USE OF QUESTIONABLE DEFINITIONS OF PARK ACREAGE THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD NOT CONSIDER TO EVEN BE PARKS.

IN ADDITION, THE JUDGE WENT ON TO SAY THE CITY ASSERTS THAT IT IS ALLOWED TO TREAT PLANNED FUTURE PARKS TOWARD THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD, EVEN THOUGH THE SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE IS FAR OFF INTO THE FUTURE.

FROM THE COURT'S PERSPECTIVE, THIS ALSO APPEARS TO BE A QUESTIONABLE MANIPULATION OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD.

THE JUDGE CONCLUDED, QUOTE, THE COURT BELIEVES THAT THE CITY IS NOT ADHERING TO THE SPIRIT OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

FROM THE COURT'S PERSPECTIVE, THE CITY HAS IMPLEMENTED A PURPORTED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT IS LARGELY AN ILLUSION BECAUSE THE CITY SIMPLY CHANGES THE PLAN OR EXEMPTS ITSELF FROM COMPLIANCE WHENEVER IT CANNOT COMPLY.

ULTIMATELY, UNFORTUNATELY, THE CITY'S ATTORNEYS SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT LANGUAGE THAT VOTERS APPROVED BACK IN 1986 WAS VAGUE ENOUGH TO ALLOW ALL OF THESE DISCRETIONARY CHANGES AND RULED IN FAVOR OF THE CITY.

BUT IS THIS REALLY A VICTORY FOR THE RESIDENTS? NOW, WHEN I TESTIFY LATER ABOUT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE, I WANT YOU TO KEEP IN MIND THE JUDGE'S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE CITY'S QUESTIONABLE MANIPULATIONS OF MEASUREMENTS AND STANDARDS THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD NOT CONSIDER VALID TO CREATE AN ILLUSION OF CONFORMANCE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT'S GOING TO APPLY TO THE VMT PORTION OF THE DEVELOPER'S APPLICATION.

THANK YOU.

[INAUDIBLE], CLERK.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKER SLIPS FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS? NO. CHAIR THERE'S NOT. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. AS YOU ALL KNOW TWO WEEKS AGO, WE HELD A HEARING.

[1. SDP 2023-0014 (DEV2023-0078) - CARLSBAD VILLAGE MIXED USE]

THERE WAS DISCUSSION AND VOTE AMONG MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.

IT WAS VOTED 3 TO 2 TO CONTINUE.

TONIGHT WE ARE HERE AT MY SUGGESTION THAT THE COMMISSION DISCUSS THE APPLICATION FOR A CONTINUANCE FROM THE RESIDENTS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? ANY PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? YES. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

PERSONALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT WAS DEFINED BY CHRIS WRIGHT REGARDING THE AND MR. DANNER REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ALSO UNDERSTANDING, AND I'D LIKE TO ASK THE ATTORNEY SPECIFICALLY TO PULL UP THE 7506 RESOLUTION PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION TO TELL US IF THERE IS A VALID.

REASON FOR CONTINUANCE BASED ON THAT PARTICULAR RESOLUTION.

IN WHAT ORDER DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, YOU WANT TO ASK? ASK THE RESIDENTS FIRST.

WHAT DO WE DO THAT? WELL, THEY ALREADY SAID THAT.

THEY ALREADY SAID THAT THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION COMING.

I THOUGHT YOU ASKED IF THERE WAS.

YOU WANT MORE SPECIFICS? I'D LIKE MORE SPECIFICS ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION COMING, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN TALK ABOUT THAT YET.

YEAH, I WOULD AGREE.

AND THEN THE OTHER.

DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? OH, YEAH.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

YEAH. AS I SAID, THE COMMISSIONER IS A HIGHLY QUALIFIED EXPERT.

RETIRED CITY ENGINEER.

DECADES WITH THE CITY.

UNFORTUNATELY, HE CAN'T BE HERE TODAY AND HE HASN'T HAD ADEQUATE TIME TO REVIEW THE PROJECT.

[00:20:03]

HE'S HIGHLIGHTED PAST CONCERNS ABOUT FIRE HAZARDS AND INCOMPATIBILITY OF A GAS STATION WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AND HE'S ALSO WORKING ON SOME INNOVATIVE IDEAS TO CREATE A WIN-WIN SITUATION FOR ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED THE APPLICANT, THE PUBLIC AND THE CITY.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO IN TERM I HAVE A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS.

I'LL START WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RESOLUTION THAT YOU REFERENCED AND ULTIMATELY IT IS UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU FEEL THAT A CONTINUATION IS WARRANTED.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RESOLUTION SAYS THAT AT ANY TIME IT APPEARS TO THE CHAIRPERSON OR A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION THROUGH THE CHAIRPERSON, THAT INADEQUATE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO AFFORD JUDICIOUS CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER BEFORE THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, OR FOR OTHER JUST CAUSE.

A CONTINUATION OF SAID HEARING MAY BE ORDERED TO AFFORD THE APPLICANT, THE PUBLIC OR CITY STAFF ADEQUATE TIME TO ASSEMBLE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.

THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS FOR YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER.

FIRST OF ALL, SOME OF THE COMMENTARY I'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC RELATES TO SEQUA, AND I WANT TO BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT CEQA IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ULTIMATELY DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO WEIGH IN ON THE CITY PLANNERS DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT WAS EXEMPT FROM CEQA.

THE MUNICIPAL CODE GRANTS AUTHORITY TO THE CITY PLANNER.

THAT DECISION IS FINAL, AND THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER OR REOPEN THAT DECISION, SO REQUESTS TO AFFORD THE PUBLIC ADDITIONAL TIME TO PRESENT EVIDENCE RELATED TO CEQA REALLY SHOULD NOT BE RELEVANT TO THIS COMMISSION'S DELIBERATIONS. SECONDLY, THE STATE HAS IMPOSED A NUMBER OF NEW LAWS THAT RESTRICT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO CONDITION, DENY AND EVEN DELAY DECISIONS ON HOUSING PROJECTS.

THERE ARE TIMELINES IN WHICH WE NEED TO MEET IN ORDER TO APPROVE OR DENY THIS PROJECT, ONE OF WHICH IS THE FIVE HEARING LIMIT THERE.

THIS ITEM NEEDS TO BE DECIDED ONE WAY, EITHER APPROVAL OR DENIAL.

WITHIN FIVE HEARINGS.

CONTINUATIONS COUNT TOWARDS THE FIVE WE HAVE ALREADY HAD ONE.

IF WE CONTINUE, THIS WILL BE A SECOND.

ULTIMATELY, THIS BODY IS ONLY PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, SO CITY COUNCIL WILL NEED AT LEAST ONE.

ONCE YOU GET INTO THE HEARING ITSELF, YOU MAY FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED AT THAT TIME IS INSUFFICIENT AT THAT POINT AND THAT YOU WANT TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AND THAT ONCE YOU GET INTO THE HEARING, YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED A CONDITION, A CONTINUANCE.

THOSE WILL ALL COUNT TOWARDS THE TOTAL OF FIVE AND AGAIN, THE CITY COUNCIL COULD BE IN THAT SAME POSITION WHERE ONCE THEY GET TO THE DECISION, THEY'RE CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE.

THEY COULD FEEL LIKE THEY NEED ADDITIONAL MEETING.

SO IF WE RUN DOWN THAT FIVE HERE, IT LEAVES THE CITY COUNCIL WITH LESS OPPORTUNITY FOR CONTINUANCES LATER.

SECONDLY, WITH REGARD TO THE TIMELINES, GENERALLY, WE ARE LIMITED IN HOW MUCH TIME WE CAN TAKE TO APPROVE OR DENY A PROJECT. WE ARE RUNNING UP AGAINST THOSE TIMELINES.

SO ADDITIONAL CONTINUANCES COULD CREATE SOME CHALLENGES [INAUDIBLE]. CAN YOU ANSWER THAT? SO THE STATE SETS OUT A RULE THAT SAYS THAT A APPLICANT APPLICATION FOR A HOUSING PROJECT NEEDS TO BE EITHER APPROVED OR DENIED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF A CEQA EXEMPTION DETERMINATION.

WE ARE ALREADY BEYOND THAT 60 DAY PERIOD.

NOW, IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THAT, THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE.

SO IT'S NOT A HARD DEADLINE, SO TO SPEAK, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A RIGHT UNDER STATE LAWS AGAINST SPEAKING TO THE STATE'S GOAL OF PRESSING CITIES TO EXPEDITIOUSLY APPROVE HOUSING PROJECTS LIKE THIS.

THESE ARE ONE OF THE LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE TO PREVENT AGENCIES FROM DRAGGING OUT THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

[00:25:08]

SO ONE MORE TIME.

ALL RIGHT. SO CEQA, THIS IS UNDER CEQA.

THIS THE PROJECT.

AM I? GO AHEAD.

SO IN REGARDS TO CEQA, THERE'S BEEN SOME INPUT FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHERE THEY'RE ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO VEHICLE, MILES TRAVELED.

THAT GOES TO CEQA, WHICH IS NOT BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE CEQA EXEMPTION AND THE SEQUEL EXEMPTION IS IN THE THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF CEQA IS IN THE CITY PLANNERS PURVIEW.

CORRECT AND THE CITY PLANNER HAS APPROVED THE PROJECT.

THE CITY PLANNER HAS APPROVED THE EXEMPTION.

YOU ARE DECIDING ON OR MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROJECT.

SO THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT FUNCTIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER STINE YES.

CLARIFICATION FROM CITY ATTORNEY.

ISN'T THERE A WINDOW A NUMBER OF DAYS AFTER THE DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION THAT AN APPLICANT CAN APPEAL THAT? AND IF SO, HOW MANY DAYS? AND IS THAT SHIP SAILED? CORRECT. THERE IS A TEN DAY WINDOW OF TIME AFTER A DECISION IS MADE ON AN EXEMPTION THAT NOTICE IS GIVEN, IT'S POSTED ONLINE AS WELL AS SENT OUT TO A NUMBER OF PERSONS, PEOPLE WHO HAVE REQUESTED INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT, AS WELL AS OTHER NOTICES OF EXEMPTIONS OR NOTICES OF DETERMINATIONS, RATHER AND IN THIS CASE, NO APPEAL WAS FILED.

SO THE TEN DAY APPEAL PERIOD HAS LAPSED AND THE DECISION IS FINAL.

SO AND THE CEQA NOTICE OF EXEMPTION WAS ON FEBRUARY 29TH.

AM I RIGHT ON THAT? YES. OKAY.

SO IT'D BE TEN DAYS AFTER THAT.

THAT WOULD TAKE US INTO EARLY FEBRUARY.

REALLY FEBRUARY 10TH.

CORRECT. SO WE'RE MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD.

MARCH 10TH. EXCUSE ME. MARCH.

I'M SORRY. MARCH. WE'RE MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD FROM THERE.

OKAY. YES. I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION, AND I, WITH THE CHAIR'S INDULGENCE, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE APPLICANT'S OPINION ON THAT, WHETHER THE APPLICANT WOULD AGREE TO A ANOTHER CONTINUANCE OR WANTS TO PROCEED.

TONIGHT. I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ON THIS ISSUE.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. AGAIN, I'M JONATHAN FRENKEL ON BEHALF OF OWNER AND APPLICANT [INAUDIBLE] INTERESTS.

WE ARE HERE AND READY TO PROCEED, WE WISH TO PROCEED THIS EVENING.

JUST A FEW THINGS AND I, OUR TEAM, WE WERE NOT CLEAR ON THE CLAIM OF INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION AND WHAT THAT MEANS.

THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE HEARD THIS EVENING WITH RESPECT TO TRAFFIC, INFRASTRUCTURE AND FIRE ALL HAVE BEEN COMPREHENSIVELY STUDIED AND IS IN THE RECORD AND IS IN THE PACKAGE BEFORE YOU. SO WE SEE NO BASIS BASED ON INFRASTRUCTURE, TRAFFIC, FIRE, ETC.

TO CONTINUE THE MEETING.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND WE ARE READY TO PROCEED THIS EVENING.

OKAY. SO YOU WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSION PROCEED AND DENY THE CONTINUANCE.

AM I RIGHT, SIR? YES, SIR.

THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

GIVEN THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS PROJECT AND TEN DAYS TO REVIEW IT WITH NO COMMENTS AND WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE WHERE A SIMILAR SITUATION HAPPENED, WHERE THEY HAVE HAD TO WALK BACK AN EXEMPTION FROM THE PLANNER.

SO I'M AND SINCE IT'S WAY PAST THE MARCH 10TH DEADLINE YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE SHOULD DEFINITELY, WITH THIS ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE HERE AT LEAST TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO PRESENT. THE DEVELOPER SPECIFICALLY BURNED THROUGH THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WHEN WE WERE ALL READY TO HEAR THE PROJECT AND WERE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE PUBLIC.

SO I THINK THE PUBLIC SHOULD SPEAK ON THIS AND I THINK THAT I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT OUR DILIGENCE WOULDN'T BE SERVED IF WE DO NOT TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PUBLIC IS CONCERNED WITH SPECIFICALLY.

[00:30:04]

COMMISSIONER. MEENES.

YES, I HAVE TO SAY, TOO, THAT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD PROCEED ON WITH THE HEARING THIS EVENING AND HAVE THE PUBLIC BE ABLE TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS.

POINT OF ORDER. GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU. I'M SORRY MY BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY AND I WANTED TO JUST MAKE A COMMENT AFTER ALL THIS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION TWO WEEKS AGO MET AND WE'RE READY TO GO.

AND IT WAS AFTER THAT, A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE THE LIMIT OF AFTER THE CEQA LIMIT.

SO WE'RE ALREADY AFTER THAT CEQA LIMIT ANYWAY AND SO WE'RE ASKING TO CONTINUE IT BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE IMPORTANT INFORMATION.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY ASKED WHAT IT WAS AND ONE OF MY MAIN POINTS IS THAT THERE WAS NO OUTREACH TO THE PUBLIC.

IN FACT, I WAS ON THE LIST TO BE NOTIFIED TO BE TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THIS WITHIN TEN DAYS AND I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED.

I'M VERY ACTIVE IN THE CITY AND I COMMENT ALL THE TIME ON THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, SO I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED AND IF I'M NOT NOTIFIED THEN I DON'T THINK I MEAN, I DON'T THINK ANYONE COMMENTED.

SO THAT WAS MY REASONING.

MAINLY WE NEED TO HAVE PUBLIC OUTREACH, WHICH IS PART OF THE LAW IN CARLSBAD.

THERE HAS TO BE ADEQUATE PUBLIC OUTREACH AND IN MY COMMENT TONIGHT, I INDICATED THAT I HAD SEARCHED EVERYWHERE FOR ANY PUBLIC OUTFIT. THERE WAS ONLY TWO MEETINGS THAT I'M AWARE OF, AND THEY WERE PRIVATELY PRIVATE MEETINGS WITH MEMBER ONLY COMMITTEES, AND THERE WAS NO OUTREACH TO THE PUBLIC AND I WANTED TO GIVE THE DEVELOPER TIME TO HOW DO I SAY THE TO GIVE THEM TIME TO CREATE A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC OUTREACH SO THAT THE PUBLIC COULD GET INVOLVED AND HAVE THIS GO FORWARD LEGITIMATELY WITHIN OUR CARLSBAD LAW? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. LAST MEETING, I VOTED TO NOT CONTINUE IT.

SINCE THEN, I'VE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF LETTERS AND EMAILS FROM MY FELLOW RESIDENTS, AND I'VE GIVEN THIS A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT.

OUT OF RECIPROCITY AND CONSIDERING THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT, I WOULD SUGGEST TONIGHT THAT WE DO CONTINUE THIS.

GIVE THE RESIDENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT WHAT THEY HAVE AVAILABLE.

I THINK IT'S TOO IMPORTANT NOT TO FURTHER I RECEIVED SOME DISTURBING LETTERS AND EMAILS.

ACCUSING MYSELF AND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS OF BEING UNDER THE THUMB OR IN THE BACK POCKET OF AN OUT OF COUNTY DEVELOPER.

YOU KNOW, THESE ARE WONDERFUL PEOPLE.

THEY ARE DEDICATED, EXPERIENCED AND INTEGRITY AND OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION, BUT I CAN TELL YOU, THEY ALL LOVE THE CITY.

I MEAN, I CAN GIVE YOU PERSONAL ANECDOTES ABOUT WHAT MY FAMILY AND I HAVE DONE FOR THE CITY, BUT TO ACCUSE US OF BIAS TO ME IS OFFENSIVE.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE CONTINUE THIS BECAUSE OF THESE VARIOUS ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED.

COMMISSIONER MERZ.

YEAH. THANK YOU AND I'D LIKE TO MENTION, TOO, JUST IN MY YEARS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ONE THING THAT HAS BECOME VERY CLEAR TO ME IN MANY YEARS ON THAT, THAT THERE'S ALWAYS A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC.

SOMETIMES DECISIONS ARE MADE THAT ARE FAVORABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND SOMETIMES UNFAVORABLE, BUT THE PUBLIC'S ALWAYS RESPECTED.

AND I'D JUST LIKE TO VOICE MY RESPECT AND SUPPORT FOR OUR CHAIR THAT THE MEETINGS BE HELD WITH RESPECT.

HE ASKED THAT PEOPLE DON'T CLAP, [INAUDIBLE] AND THAT'S IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN GOOD DECORUM AND RESPECT FOR ALL PEOPLE HERE AND SO I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY RESPECT FOR THAT AND SUPPORT FOR YOUR COMMENTS EARLIER.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

OKAY, SO CAN I ASK A QUESTION? IF THE PUBLIC'S INFORMATION COMES FORWARD IS IF WE WERE TO CONTINUE TO JULY 17TH AND THE PUBLIC INFORMATION COMES FORWARD, SHOULDN'T THE PUBLIC INFORMATION BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY PLANNERS DEPARTMENT RATHER THAN AIRED IN THE NEXT MEETING? SO IT'S INCORPORATED INTO THE DECISION OF THE CITY PLANNER, SO IT FITS THE WHOLE CEQA GO AHEAD.

IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE INFORMATION THEY'RE PRESENTING IS.

[00:35:01]

SO IT WOULDN'T BE REOPENED BASED ON NEW INFORMATION PRESENTED AT THIS POINT.

OKAY. I'M SORRY.

I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.

WHAT? WAS THERE A QUESTION FROM THE AUDIENCE? GO AHEAD. IF THERE'S A QUESTION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT.

[INAUDIBLE].

SORRY. I DON'T MEAN TO.

I DON'T WANT TO, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW THIS FORWARD.

IF THE IF THIS IS INFORMATION RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC PATTERNS OR WHATEVER IS THAT INFORMATION THEN JUST AIRED OUT IN A MEETING AND PERHAPS WOULDN'T BE RELEVANT, IT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE ACTED ON ANYWAYS BECAUSE OF THE EXEMPTION? OR IS THE PROCESS FOR THIS INFORMATION TO GO FIRST TO THE CITY PLANNER? YOU MAY WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS AS WELL, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE CAN'T ACCEPT OR DO ANYTHING WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT'S RELEVANT TO .

THERE ARE SOME FACTORS WITHIN THE THE PROJECT ITSELF THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT THAT RELATE TO TRAFFIC.

BUT AS IT RELATES TO CEQA, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING MORE WE CAN DO EITHER.

AS THE CITY PLANNER OR AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH INFORMATION THAT'S RELEVANT TO CEQA.

AND I'LL JUST ADD WE CHECKED OUR RECORDS ON THE POSTING.

THE CEQA NOTICE WAS POSTED ON FEBRUARY 29TH.

WE SENT IT OUT TO ALL OF THOSE THAT ARE SIGNED UP TO RECEIVE EMAILS ON THE CEQA NOTICE, AND HAVE CONFIRMED THAT IT DID GO TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS.

WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT LEAVES OUR SYSTEM, BUT OUR SYSTEM DID WORK AS WE EXPECT IT TO AND I'LL JUST ADD THAT THE CEQA DETERMINATION PROCESS IS SET BY CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE. IT'S BEEN OUR PROCESS FOR SINCE 2001.

SO THAT'S NOT A NEW PROCESS.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED FOR QUITE SOME TIME IN CARLSBAD.

ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONER STINE CLARIFICATION FROM CITY ATTORNEY ON THAT AND PERHAPS CITY PLANNER.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE WINDOW ON CEQA, BECAUSE OF THE EXEMPTION HAS CLOSED AND MADE THAT VERY CLEAR.

BUT THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A CAVEAT IN YOUR REMARKS.

I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE CAREFULLY.

YOU SAID IF TRAFFIC ISSUES RELATE TO THE PROJECT, PUT CEQA ASIDE FOR A MINUTE.

THAT'S DONE.

SHIP HAS SAILED.

BUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING RELATING TO TRAFFIC THAT IS PERHAPS RELATE TO A FINDING OR SOMETHING ELSE, MIGHT UNDERSTAND THAT COULD BE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION, AND THE COMMISSION COULD WEIGH IN ON THAT INFORMATION.

YES. ONE OF THE FINDINGS FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATES TO WHETHER OR NOT THE STREET SYSTEM SERVING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ADEQUATE TO PROPERLY HANDLE ALL TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE.

I WILL CAVEAT THAT BY SAYING THAT STATE LAW AGAIN APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT, AND IN ORDER TO DENY THE PROJECT OR CONDITION IT IN A WAY THAT WOULD REDUCE DENSITY OR MAKE IT NOT PENCIL OUT FINANCIALLY.

YOU HAVE TO MAKE CERTAIN FINDINGS THAT ARE GENERALLY RELATED TO HEALTH AND SAFETY.

SO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT IN AND OF ITSELF WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO DENY THE PROJECT AND LET ME CLARIFY THAT UNLESS THERE WERE, WE MADE A FINDING THAT COMPROMISES PUBLIC SAFETY IN SOME WAY.

RIGHT. THAT COULD BE AN EXCEPTION IF BIG IF WE MADE SUCH A FINDING, BIG IF AND WE CAN ONCE WE GET INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING, I CAN TALK ABOUT THE FINDING AND THE LEVEL OF DETAIL BECAUSE IT'S A VERY HIGH STANDARD.

BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, BIG.

IF YES.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WILL PENCIL FISCALLY? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT ACTUALLY THAT THEY, THE DEVELOPER, ACTUALLY CAN AFFORD TO BUILD THIS PROJECT.

HOW ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND, WE CANNOT CONDITION IT IN A SUCH A WAY THAT WOULD MAKE IT FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE.

CAN WE ASK FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT? NO CEQA'S.

THERE WAS AN EXEMPTION.

BUT THE QUESTION, I GUESS, IS WE ARE LOOKING FOR THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

[00:40:05]

THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BECAUSE OF THE SAME CEQA EXEMPTION.

SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THIS IS.

ALSO ABLE TO HAVE.

IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES, CAN IT HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT? DUE TO THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT THAT THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ON THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? CITY COUNCIL HAS ESTABLISHED THE PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING CEQA AND MAKING AN EXEMPTION DETERMINATION.

IF THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THEY COULD DO THAT, BUT IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT.

I ASK WHO GAVE THE EXEMPTION? MA'AM. I'M SORRY.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS FOR THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE TONIGHT.

WE CAN'T OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC TO THIS EXTENT TO TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION FROM ANY OF OUR COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO CONTINUE.

COMMISSIONER MERZ.

YEAH, WELL, IT CERTAINLY RESPECT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.

I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST I WOULD SUPPORT CONTINUATION ALSO.

OKAY. MAY I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY I MOVE TO SUPPORT A CONTINUANCE FOR THE THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT UNTIL THE JANUARY 17TH. JULY 17TH.

JANUARY 17TH.

HOW'S THAT? JULY 17TH MEETING.

THANK YOU. 17TH, I BELIEVE AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER MERZ? OKAY. A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MERZ TO CONTINUE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE UNTIL. JULY 17TH.

MAY WE HAVE A VOTE? OKAY, A MOTION.

A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND VOTED UPON.

THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS AGENDA.

ITEM NUMBER ONE PASSES FIVE TO ONE WITH COMMISSIONER MEENES SAYING NO.

YEAH. LET'S HAVE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AND FOR ALL OF YOU WHO CAME TONIGHT, I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT.

I'M SORRY WE CAN'T DECIDE UNTIL THE 17TH.

[INAUDIBLE]. WELCOME BACK.

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

[2. SDP 2024-0010/CDP 2023-0011 – TIMM RESIDENCE]

OKAY. LET'S START. COMMISSIONER MERZ.

YES. I VISITED THE SITE.

I DROVE BY AND VISITED THE SITE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YES. I DROVE BY THE SITE AND VIEWED THE SITE FROM THREE SIDES.

THANK YOU AND COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

THANK YOU. I DROVE BY THE SITE AND THOUGHT I WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I HAD NEVER BEEN IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE, SO.

KIND OF FASCINATING TO SEE WHAT WAS OVER THERE.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE I DROVE BY THE SITE.

I, TOO, HAVE DRIVEN BY THE SITE.

MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER TWO? YES. HERE TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION IS ASSOCIATE PLANNER YZAGUIRRE AND JOINING HER FOR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IS LAND DEVELOPMENT MANAGER GELDART.

THANK YOU, ERIC, AND GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

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

THE 0.47 ACRE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 314 DATE AVENUE AND HAS A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL R-8, WHICH ALLOWS FOR 4 TO 8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

THE SITE IS ZONED RDM FOR RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MULTIPLE AND IS WITHIN THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE.

THE PROPERTY CONTAINS AN EXISTING ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DETACHED GARAGE, WORKSHOP, AND SHED.

A HISTORIC RESOURCE ANALYSIS PREPARED BY SOUTH ENVIRONMENTAL LLC WAS PROVIDED FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON SITE, AND CONCLUDED THAT THE STRUCTURES DO NOT QUALIFY AS HISTORIC

[00:45:08]

THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON SITE AND CONSTRUCT THREE NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH ATTACHED PARKING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A NEW DRIVEWAY APPROACH AND A PAVER WALKWAY WITH LANDSCAPING ALONG DATE AVENUE FRONTAGE TO MATCH THE PAVERS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE WEST.

UNIT ONE, LOCATED AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT, WILL CONTAIN THREE BEDROOMS, THREE BATHS AND WILL BE 4064FT² AND 28FT 10 FOOT TEN INCHES TALL. THIS UNIT WILL HAVE HAVE A BASEMENT LEVEL WHICH WILL INCLUDE A THREE CAR GARAGE AND STORAGE.

UNIT TWO, LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT JUST NORTH OF THE PROPOSED POOL AND SPA, WILL BE 680FT² AND 21FT TEN INCHES TALL, AND WILL CONSIST OF ONE BEDROOM AND ONE BATHROOM.

THIS WILL BE LOCATED ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF A PROPOSED 875 SQUARE FOOT POOL PATIO.

THE STRUCTURE WILL ALSO CONTAIN AN ATTACHED POOL BATH.

UNIT THREE, LOCATED IN THE REAR OF THE LOT, WILL BE 16FT EIGHT INCHES TALL AND 260FT².

THIS UNIT IS PROPOSED AS A STUDIO AND WILL BE ATTACHED TO A ONE CAR GARAGE AND A TWO CAR GARAGE.

THE PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A PARKING MODIFICATION PURSUANT TO CMC SECTION 2144 040, WHICH ALLOWS THE DECISION MAKER TO MODIFY THE REQUIRED PARKING STANDARDS, WHERE IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT ADEQUATE PARKING WILL BE PROVIDED AND THE MODIFICATION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE SITE.

DESIGN AND CIRCULATION.

PARKING IS REQUIRED AT A RATIO OF TWO GARAGE SPACES PER UNIT.

THE PROJECT PROPOSES A THREE CAR GARAGE FOR UNIT ONE, A TWO CAR GARAGE FOR UNIT TWO, AND A ONE CAR GARAGE FOR UNIT THREE.

THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED ON THE SITE PLAN THAT SUFFICIENT PARKING EXISTS ON SITE FOR ALL THREE UNITS.

THE THREE CAR GARAGE FOR UNIT ONE PROVIDES AN EXTRA COVERED SPACE, AND THE APPROXIMATELY 218 FOOT LONG PROPOSED DRIVEWAY WILL PROVIDE AMPLE ROOM FOR OFF STREET PARKING. IN ADDITION, UNIT THREE IS A STUDIO TOTALING 260FT² AND THEREFORE WILL HAVE A LIMITED OCCUPANCY.

TO ENSURE ADEQUATE PARKING IS PROVIDED FOR UNIT THREE.

THE PROJECT INCLUDES A CONDITION REQUIRING THE PROPERTY OWNER TO TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN AN UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE FOR UNIT THREE ON SITE, OUTSIDE OF THE FRONT YARD.

SETBACK. THE CITY PLANNER HAS REVIEWED AND CONCURRED WITH THIS REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION, AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE.

RECOMMENDS THAT PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE OF THIS REQUEST AS PART OF THE SCP AND CDP.

HERE ARE THE PROJECT RENDERINGS AS VIEWED FROM DEY AVENUE.

THE MATERIALS INCLUDE DARK GRAY ASPHALT SHINGLES, WHITE HARDIE BOARD HORIZONTAL SIDING AND LIGHT GREEN LIGHT GRAY STONE VENEER WITH DARK STONE CAP.

PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE PROJECT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WAS MAILED ON FEBRUARY 22ND, 2024.

AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WE RECEIVED ONE COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT, AS WELL AS COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION FROM ONE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.

THE COMMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND STAFF IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ISSUES RAISED.

THE PROJECT WAS ANALYZED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ALL REQUIRED CITY CODES, POLICIES, AND STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE R8 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE, THE RDM ZONE, AND THE MELLOW TWO SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

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 FULL 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 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR TEN RESIDENTS.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE AND HAS A PRESENTATION PREPARED.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, AT THIS POINT, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

THANK YOU. IN THE STAFF REPORT, YOU SAY THAT THE PROPERTY IS UNDER DEVELOPED ON PAGE TWO.

IT'S THE FIRST WORD AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT REFERENCES.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A PROJECT THAT'S UNDER DEVELOPED WHEN THIS PROJECT ACTUALLY IS ONLY TAKING 27% OF THE LOT COVERAGE. SO WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF UNDERDEVELOPED? I'M TAKING A LOOK AT THE STAFF REPORT, PAGE TWO.

I DO SEE THAT IT SAYS THAT THERE IS A LARGE UNDEVELOPED BACKYARD LANDSCAPED AREA.

[00:50:05]

YEAH, I THINK THIS WAS JUST IN REFERENCE AT THE BACKYARD.

DOES NOT HAVE ANY STRUCTURES ON IT.

COMMISSIONER MEENES. DID I SEE YOUR HAND? YOU DID. THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR.

I HAVE A QUESTION IN REGARD TO IN REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE, AND REFERENCE WAS MADE IN REGARD TO DRAINAGE.

COULD YOU CLARIFY FOR US AS TO THE DRAINAGE AND WHAT THE CITY'S INVESTIGATION HAS WHAT OCCURRED WITH THAT? GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

JASON GILBERT, ENGINEERING MANAGER FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING.

THIS PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO STRICT WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS.

SO THE PROPERTY WILL BE REQUIRED.

ANY INCREASE IN FLOW FROM THE PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE ATTENUATED.

SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRE AND POST PROJECT WON'T BE A DIFFERENCE IN FLOW AND THAT FLOW WILL GENERALLY FOLLOW THE NATURAL FLOW LINES THAT WERE PRIOR TO THE PROJECT AND THOSE AND THAT OUTLET IS TYPICALLY WILL BE BELOW GRADE OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE TO THE EAST. SO IT'LL BE DOWNSTREAM OF THE RESIDENCE.

ARE YOU MAKING REFERENCE TO A CONTAINMENT SYSTEM? YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

YEAH. SO THERE WILL BE A CONTAINMENT.

THERE WILL BE. IT'LL BE A RETENTION OR A DETENTION.

CORRECT AND BIO FILTRATION SYSTEM.

OKAY AND THAT WILL BE LOCATED IN THE THE LOWEST PART, I GUESS, ASSUMING CLOSE TO WHERE THE GARAGES WILL BE.

CORRECT. IT'S CORRECT.

IT'S ROUGHLY.

IT'S ALONG THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE, DOWN FROM THE ABOUT MIDWAY AND THEN GOING DOWNWARD TOWARD THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.

JASON, COULD YOU ALSO MAKE REFERENCE AS WELL IN REGARD TO YOU? THERE WAS A COMMENT BY THAT PROPERTY OWNER REGARDING DRAINAGE FROM THE STREET AS WELL.

AND THE CITY'S ACTION HISTORICALLY IN REGARD TO THAT COMPLAINT WAS WHAT? WELL, HISTORICALLY, THE COMPLAINT CAME IN THAT THERE WAS CHANGES TO THE TOPOGRAPHY ON THE SUBJECT SITE THAT WAS INVESTIGATED BY THE CITY, INVESTIGATED BY MYSELF ON THE PREVIOUS DIRECTOR AND CODE ENFORCEMENT AT THE TIME.

THERE WASN'T IT WAS FOUND THERE WERE NO CHANGES OF TOPOGRAPHY AND THERE WAS NO EFFECT OF DRAINAGE OR CHANGE OF DRAINAGE PATTERNS THAT AFFECTED THE EASTERLY PROPERTY.

WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE TO BE WAS DRAINAGE FROM THE STREET, FROM OTHER PROPERTIES THAT DRAIN TO THE STREET AND THEN THAT STREET, AND THEN THAT SECTION WOULD FLOW TOWARD BOTH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST.

SINCE THEN MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THERE WAS SOME BERMS OR SOME ASPHALT CURBS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE AND DIRECTED THE WATER FURTHER DOWN THE STREET AND IT PROBABLY CUT DOWN SOME OF THAT DRAINAGE ON THERE, BUT IT WAS FROM THE STREET AND NOT FROM THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND WOULD HE OR SHE LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? PLEASE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE, SIR.

AGAIN. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CLEARLY STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. DON LOONEY, ARCHITECT, OFFICES IN ON HARDING STREET CARLSBAD.

ANTHONY IS GOING TO FROM MY STAFF IS GOING TO MAKE A SHORT PRESENTATION THAT SHOWS.

YEAH. CAN YOU USE THE MICROPHONE, SIR? SURE. STAFF WILL SHOW.

I'M SORRY. MY STAFF WILL SHOW THE COMMISSIONERS WHAT CONDITION THE EXISTING HOME IS AND HOW WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE THAT SITE ON STATE THAT COMES UP TO THE LEVEL OF THE OTHER HOMES THAT ARE ON THAT STREET.

SO I'LL LET ANTHONY TAKE IT FROM HERE.

THANK YOU. EVERYBODY.

MY NAME IS ANTHONY RUIZ WITH DON LOONEY ARCHITECT.

SO THIS FIRST SLIDE HERE SHOWS THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AS IT SITS ON THE SITE.

SOUNDS LIKE MOST OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AS WE'VE DRIVEN BY.

SO THE LOWER IMAGE IS A RENDERING THAT WE PREPARED SHOWING THE PROPOSED THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE AND THE WE COULD SEE THE DRIVEWAY LEADING DOWN TO THE TUCK UNDER GARAGE AND WANTED.

THIS PRESENTATION IS MADE MAINLY TO SHOW THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT AND ITS COMPARABLE NATURE TO THE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON D AVENUE.

SO THIS SLIDE JUST SHOWS THE NEIGHBORING CONDOMINIUMS WITH SIMILAR TUCK UNDER GARAGES AND THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ACROSS STATE AVENUE THAT SHARE

[00:55:08]

I BELIEVE WE'VE SEEN THE SITE PLAN ALREADY, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS JUST TO SHOW THE RESIDENCES AND THE LAYOUT ON THE SITE.

THIS WAS JUST A SECTION OF THE MAIN RESIDENCE, SHOWING THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO REMAIN UNDER THE 30 FOOT MAX HEIGHT LIMIT WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTING GRADE, AND THAT THE GARAGE IS DEFINED AS BASEMENT BECAUSE MAJORITY OF THE EXISTING EXTERIOR OR THE MAJORITY OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS ARE BELOW GRADE.

THIS IS AN AERIAL PERSPECTIVE TO GAIN A BETTER PERSPECTIVE OF THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT AS IT SITS ON THE SITE AS A SINGLE FAMILY PROJECT AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT.

HERE AGAIN, WE HAVE ANOTHER AERIAL PERSPECTIVE OF VIEWING GOING TO THE WEST AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IN COMPARISON TO THE LARGE DEVELOPMENTS OF THE CONDOMINIUMS AND COMPLEXES TO THE WEST ARE, THE SCALE OF OUR PROJECT IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THE NEIGHBORING AND ADJACENT COMMUNITY. THIS RENDERING JUST TO SHOW AN OVERALL SCALE OF THE PROJECT AGAIN AS IT SITS ON THE SITE.

SOME STREET PERSPECTIVES FROM THE AVENUE THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY IN THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION.

HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL RENDERINGS KIND OF SHOWING THE, I GUESS, ARCHITECTURAL MASSES AS THEY RELATE TO THE OPEN COURTYARD AND POOL AREAS.

AGAIN, SHOWING SOME OF THE MATERIALITIES THAT WE WILL BE USING A LOT OF HORIZONTAL SIDING FOR THE EXTERIOR WALLS.

AGAIN, ASPHALT SHINGLES FOR THE ROOFING AND STONE VENEER ACCENTS.

AGAIN, ONE OF THE MAJOR REPORTS THAT WERE REQUIRED THAT WE GET PREPARED WAS THE CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT.

AS LAUREN STATED, THE FINDINGS, THE CONCLUSION, THE SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS WAS THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT CONSIDERED A HISTORICAL RESOURCES RESOURCE PER CEQA GUIDELINES.

SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS THAT WERE FOUND WITHIN THIS REPORT WERE THAT THE EXISTING PROPERTY LACKS INTEGRITY, DESIGN LACKS INTEGRITY OF THE SETTING, INTEGRITY OF MATERIALS, AND INTEGRITY OF WORKMANSHIP AND THE ADDITIONS AND THE NUMEROUS ALTERATIONS PRECLUDE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM FEELING LIKE A 1940S RESIDENCE.

SO THE CHARM OF THE ORIGINAL 1940S RESIDENCE HAS KIND OF BEEN LOST OVER THE ALTERATIONS AND SEVERAL DIFFERENT OWNERS OVER THE PAST YEARS.

HERE ARE SOME OF THE IMAGES OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTS.

FOR THOSE OF YOU, SOME OF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE SITE.

SO, YEAH, A LITTLE BIT RUNDOWN AFTER BEING BUILT SINCE 1940.

THE OTHER PART OF THIS WAS THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT.

SUMMARY OF THEIR FINDINGS WAS THAT NO ARCHEOLOGICAL OR HISTORICAL RESOURCES AS IDENTIFIED FOR CEQA WERE IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE. ALTHOUGH ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WAS THAT A NATIVE AMERICAN MONITOR WOULD BE RETAINED TO MONITOR ANY EXCAVATION OF THE SITE DURING THE PROJECT AND THESE WERE SOME OF AN EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE ARTIFACTS THAT WERE FOUND ON SITE.

NOW AS YOU TAKE A LOOK, THEY COULD BE MISTAKEN FOR COMMON BEACH ROCKS, BUT THIS WAS WELL, SOME OF THEIR FINDINGS WERE ON THE PROPERTY AND THAT IS THE TIMM RESIDENCE PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

EXCELLENT. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? BEFORE YOU JUMP INTO IT, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PENULTIMATE SLIDE? WHAT ARE THESE ITEMS? ARE THEY, LOOK LIKE STONES TO ME.

[INAUDIBLE] IF YOU KNOW THEY'RE THE ROCKS THAT I'VE SEEN ON THE BEACH FOR THE LAST 42 YEARS.

BUT THEY SAID THAT THESE HAD HISTORICAL VALUE TO THEM.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS.

ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOROUGH PRESENTATION AND ACTUALLY VERY THOROUGH REPORT, HISTORIC REPORT.

THAT'S IT'S REALLY HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND THAT AND THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE ON YOUR DRAWINGS AND I NUMBER ONE, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY ONE OF THESE ISN'T BEING PERMITTED BY BECAUSE IT'S THREE UNITS.

WHY ONE MIGHT NOT BE PERMITTED THROUGH THE ADU PROCESS.

[01:00:04]

AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS THE GARAGE UNIT.

ALTHOUGH IT'S 16 FOOT TALL, IT'S ONLY SEVEN FOOT WIDE.

SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THAT'S A UNIT? I KNOW IT'S A MINIMUM STANDARD BY THE BUILDING CODE, BUT IT SEEMS A LITTLE NARROW.

GOOD QUESTION AND LAUREN HAS HELPED US NAVIGATE THROUGH THIS VERY PATIENTLY AS A BUILDING IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

IF IT IS NOT CONSIDERED A LIVING UNIT, WE ARE LIMITED TO HEIGHT.

IF WE PUT A LIVING UNIT INTO THAT SPACE, WE CAN INCREASE THE HEIGHT.

THE OWNER HAS A PARTICULAR HOBBY, AND HE NEEDED THAT EXTRA FOOT, FOOT AND A HALF IN HEIGHT AND BECAUSE ORIGINALLY WHEN WE WERE WORKING WITH LAUREN, WE DID NOT HAVE A LIVING UNIT IN THERE, BUT THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY THAT WE WERE ABLE TO NAVIGATE THROUGH THE ZONING IS TO PUT A LIVING UNIT IN, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S SO SMALL.

SO WE COULD INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE DESIGN PROCESS.

LAUREN FOUND THAT IN THE POLICY THAT WE HAD TO PUT A LIVING UNIT IN THERE TO GET THAT HEIGHT, SO THAT'S WHY IT'S THERE.

THAT WE WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THAT OUT BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE USED.

BUT THAT'S WHY IT'S THERE.

OH, WELL, I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION AND I APPRECIATE THE DESIRE TO TRY TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.

BUT WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS, TOO, IN OUR COMMUNITY AND OBVIOUSLY, WHEN YOU HAVE A HALF AN ACRE AND YOU HAVE AN REIGHT ZONE WHERE IT'S HIGHER DENSITY AND WE'RE ONLY GETTING THREE UNITS OUT OF IT, WE HAVE A HOUSING ELEMENT WE'RE TRYING TO MEET.

SO OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO HAVE THESE UNITS AND I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL UNITS THAT ARE DESIGNATED AS HOUSING UNITS ARE LIVABLE UNITS AND A 16 FOOT HIGH, 16 FOOT, EIGHT HIGH CEILING IS VERY COOL, BUT IN SEVEN FEET IS VERY NARROW.

SO I'M JUST WONDERING, CAN IT JUST BE A LITTLE WIDER BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO HAVE THIS FOR OUR COUNTS, FOR OUR NUMBERS TO BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH OUR STATE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE ALSO AND THAT'S A POINT WELL TAKEN.

I KNOW OF IN CARLSBAD, WHERE PEOPLE ARE RENTING 300FT AND PAYING 15 TO $1700 FOR A STUDENT AND SO THIS WORKS REALLY WELL FOR THE TINY HOME APPROACH.

SO WE CAN STILL COUNT THAT AS A LIVING UNIT WITHIN THE CITY'S CHARTER.

SO YOU CAN'T GIVE ME ANOTHER FOOT, MAYBE TWO FEET.

I'D LIKE TO KEEP IT WHERE IT IS FOR NOW.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I JUST HAVE ONE. THIS IS FOR THE ARCHITECT.

WHY IS THIS CALLED A MODERN FARMHOUSE DESIGN? I WAS EXPECTING SOMETHING WITH A SILO AND A BARN.

THIS TO ME IS VERY MODERN LOOKING.

WHERE'S THE FARMHOUSE? COME IN. PRIMARILY FROM THE MATERIALS AND THE SHAPE OF THE MASSING OF THE OF THE BUILDINGS.

THANK YOU. I WOULD LOVE TO DO A SILO.

I REALLY WOULD.

WE'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

MINUTES. CLERK. ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS? YES, THERE'S 4.

WHY DON'T YOU CALL THE FIRST 2 OR 3? PHIL MARTIN.

LINDA BRACKMAN.

OKAY. AGAIN AS OUR FIRST SPEAKER APPROACHES THE PODIUM, LET ME EXPLAIN THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

EACH OF YOU SPEAKERS WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS.

TO HELP SPEAKERS STAY WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT, THE MINUTES CLERK WILL ACTIVATE THE LIGHTED TIMER.

A GREEN LIGHT MEANS SPEAK.

YELLOW MEANS YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT, AND BLINKING RED LIGHT MEANS YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? FOR THE RECORD, SIR? MY NAME IS PHIL MARTIN.

I LIVE AT 327 DATE AVENUE AND THE HOME AND PROPOSAL THIS EVENING.

I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY BUT GOOD THINGS ABOUT IT.

[01:05:01]

THANK YOU.

OH. THANK YOU.

LINDA BROCKMAN.

HI. I LIVE ON DATE STREET.

ALSO, JUST CATTY CORNER TO THE TIMMS, AND THEY REALLY DO NEED TO BUILD A NEW HOUSE BECAUSE.

SO THEIR HOUSE DOESN'T FALL DOWN ON THEM AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT YOU GUYS HAVE A REALLY TOUGH JOB.

I KNOW, AND THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.

BUT THE TIMMS ARE A GREAT FAMILY.

THEY NEED A NEW HOUSE, AND THEY WANT TO BUILD THAT EXTRA HOUSE FOR THEIR CHILDREN WHEN THEY COME TO VISIT, WHEN THEY AFTER THEY GO TO COLLEGE AND MAYBE GET ONE OF THEM TO LIVE THERE WHEN THEY GET MARRIED, YOU KNOW, WOULDN'T THAT BE NICE? AND THEN THEY COULD USE THE OTHER HOUSE, THE OTHER ONE WITH THE SKINNY GARAGE.

I HAVE A SKINNY GARAGE TOO, BUT I CAN ACTUALLY PULL MY SUV INTO IT.

I'M GOOD, BUT IF YOU KNOW HOW TO DRIVE, YOU CAN DO IT BECAUSE WE HAVE A BIG GARAGE AND THEN A SKINNY GARAGE, BUT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT.

I COULD TELL YOU'RE SNAPPY.

SHE IS.

SHE'S SNAPPY. SHE COULD DO IT AND BUT I JUST THINK IT'S GOING TO BE GREAT TO HAVE A NEW PLACE THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT INSTEAD OF WHAT'S THERE NOW.

AND THERE'S SUCH A GOOD FAMILY THAT I WANT THEM TO HAVE WHAT THEY WANT.

THEY DESERVE IT.

YOU KNOW THEY DO, AND I WROTE TO YOU BEFORE.

I'M LINDA. HI.

ANYWAY, SO THANK YOU GUYS, AND I HOPE YOU APPROVE THEIR PROJECT THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE IT'S PERFECT.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

PAUL BRACKMAN, PAULA KOONTZ. IS PAUL GOING TO SPEAK? NO, OKAY.

CAN I PASS THESE OUT TO YOU GUYS? IT'S REALLY. I'VE GOT A REALLY [INAUDIBLE].

MA'AM. IF YOU COULD PASS IT OUT AND THEN GIVE YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE SPEAKERS.

IT'S REALLY CRUDE.

OKAY. I'M A RESIDENT.

I LIVE ON CHINQUAPIN DOWN THERE AND, YES, WE DO HAVE A LOT OF CONDOS DOWN THERE.

I'M SORRY, MA'AM, WOULD YOU START BY SPEAKING YOUR NAME? YES, I'M PAULA KUNTZ AND I LIVE ON CHINQUAPIN, WHICH IS ONE STREET OVER FROM DATE AVENUE, [INAUDIBLE].

YES, THEY'RE ALL DEAD ENDS DOWN THERE, WHICH IS MY POINT.

ON MY VERY CRUDE DRAWING AND IT'S NOT WHAT I, MY HUSBAND AND I DID IS WE WALKED AROUND AND WE COUNTED EVERY SINGLE MAILBOX AND EVERY SINGLE HOUSE THAT HAS ONE ACCESS POINT AND SO THESE ARE JUST RESIDENCES, NOT HOW MANY HOUSES OR HOW MANY CARS, NOT HOW MANY GARAGES.

BUT I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT ON DATE AVENUE, ALSO OLIVE AVENUE AND THE WHOLE GARFIELD DOWN THERE AND CHINQUAPIN THERE IS ONLY ONE ACCESS FOR ALL THOSE THINGS.

THEY'RE ALL DEAD ENDS.

ALL DEAD ENDS.

THERE IS ONE ROAD SEQUOIA, A SMALL, TINY ROAD THAT GOES DOWN AND YOU CAN CONNECT HIGHWAY 101, AND THEN THE REST GOES RIGHT UP GARFIELD TO TAMARAC.

SO WE COUNTED 241 RESIDENCES THAT GO UP TO TAMARAC FROM THAT ACCESS POINT.

ALSO ON GARFIELD, FROM GARFIELD, FROM TAMARAC DOWN, THERE'S ONLY ABOUT 80% OF SIDEWALKS IN THAT AREA.

ALSO, WE HAVE ALL THE SURFERS THAT ARE COMING, ALL THE BEACH GOERS THAT ARE PARKING THERE.

THERE IS A LAGOON WITH A BIG TREE HIKING TRAIL DOWN THERE.

ALL THE PARKING FOR THAT GOES THERE.

THERE'S A GIGANTIC RESTAURANT RIGHT THERE ON TAMARAC, AND ALL THE EMPLOYEES PARK UP THERE ON OUR STREETS.

ALSO, IT IS VERY DANGEROUS.

MY HUSBAND AND I ARE BICYCLISTS, AND IT IS VERY DANGEROUS TO RIDE IN THAT AREA AND WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE SINGLE DWELLINGS THAT BECOME LARGER.

I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU HAVE A NEW HOUSE, RIGHT? AND NOT IN THE FALLING DOWN HOUSE.

BUT I DON'T THINK YOU NEED A 5000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, AND I DON'T THINK YOU NEED ANOTHER HOUSE, PLUS ANOTHER HOUSE, PLUS SWIMMING POOLS.

I MEAN, WE LIVE IN THE DESERT.

THERE'S A SWIMMING POOL THAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN AND A SPA.

[01:10:01]

I'M NOT COMING.

I'M NOT. I'M.

THIS DOESN'T BENEFIT ANYBODY ELSE BUT THE NEIGHBORS, RIGHT? I MEAN THEMSELVES, IT DOESN'T.

WE DON'T GET BENEFITED FROM THIS.

WE ALREADY HAVE A HUGE TRAFFIC PROBLEM DOWN THERE AND I WONDER IF THEY HAVE DONE ANY KIND OF ONE OF THOSE METER THINGS THAT COUNT THE CARS THAT COME DOWN THERE.

HAS THAT BEEN DONE? IT'S A PROBLEM.

THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS THERE THANK YOU MA'AM.

[INAUDIBLE] . ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? NO. THERE'S NOT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. WOULD WITH THE APPLICANT.

LIKE TO RESPOND. I'VE BEEN IN THE CARLSBAD AREA FOR 40 PLUS YEARS AND WHEN I LOOK AT THE VILLAGE AND THE COASTAL AREA, I SEE A VILLAGE OF HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WHERE THAT'S WHY PEOPLE COME TO CARLSBAD.

IF, LAUREN, IF YOU COULD PULL UP ONE OF THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS.

WE HAVE A VERY LARGE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT.

TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT.

SO WE'VE GOT THIS CONDO UNIT HERE.

WE ALSO HAVE THIS UNIT HERE.

ZONING, I BELIEVE, SAID THAT WE COULD PUT EIGHT LIVING UNITS THERE.

SO WE'VE CHOSEN RATHER TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS TO KEEP THE SCALE DOWN TO A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT.

AND THAT'S OUR GOAL, THAT'S WHAT THE NEIGHBORS WANT.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT CARLSBAD IS LOOKING FOR TO MAINTAIN AND IF WE BUILD AN EIGHT UNIT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 3 TO 4 TIMES THE TRAFFIC THAN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE.

THANK YOU. WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED? I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.

SO THEY ARE ZONED OR THEIR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION IS R8, WHICH GIVES THEM 4 TO 8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE WITH 0.47 ACRES.

THAT'S ONE DWELLING UNIT TO A MAXIMUM OF THREE DWELLING UNITS.

SO THEY ARE WITHIN THAT RANGE FOR THEIR DENSITY AND THEN IT ALSO JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET.

SO THE PROJECT IS CONDITIONED TO ENTER INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT IN WHICH THE DEVELOPER AGREES TO A FORMATION OF AN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ON DATE AVENUE IF ONE IS CONTEMPLATED TO BE FORMED IN THE FUTURE.

SO IF IMPROVEMENTS ARE PUSHED IN THE FUTURE, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE MAY REQUIRE.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY FIRST IMPROVEMENTS.

WHAT ARE YOU SPEAKING OF? STREET IMPROVEMENTS, SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

SO THEY ARE, NOT PUTTING IN THE SIDEWALK, CURB OR GUTTER IN THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

THEY'RE ONLY PUTTING, WELL, THEY'RE PUTTING IN A CURB CUT.

THEY'RE PUTTING IN A DRIVEWAY APPROACH THAT INTERSECTS THE CURRENT STREET.

IS THERE ANY KIND OF RIGHT OF WAY THAT THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN AWAY FROM THAT STREET OR ANY KIND OF LIKE PARKING ZONE THAT COULD BE ALLOWED IN FRONT OF THAT HOUSE.

WHAT'S THE POLICY OF IMPROVEMENTS? THE POLICY WAS SET BY COUNCIL AROUND 2001.

THAT REQUIRES AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN, STREETS.

THAT HAS TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET.

IT HAS TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS.

IT'S A TEN STEP PROCESS AND IT'S PRETTY AND THE INTENT, THOUGH, WAS TO IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO INVOKE THE PROCESS, THEY COULD GO THROUGH IT.

OTHERWISE THE STREET, THE DESIRE FROM THE COMMUNITY AT THAT TIME WAS TO LEAVE THE STREETS AS THEY ARE.

GENERALLY, IF THE STREET HAS AREA FOR PARKING, IT'S LEFT THAT WAY OR IF THERE'S LANDSCAPING THAT'S MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, THE ADJACENT OWNER.

[01:15:06]

I THINK 7 OR 16, 15 OR 16.

I DID, I WENT WE TOOK THIS THE COUNCIL TOOK THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL DID NOT WANT TO CHANGE THE POLICY AT THAT TIME.

SO IT'S A POLICY THAT'S IN EFFECT BY COUNCIL, AND THERE HASN'T BEEN A DESIRE TO CHANGE THAT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YEAH, QUICK QUESTION.

WHEN YOU SPEAK OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET, WOULD THAT INCLUDE ALSO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES? IF THAT WERE TO BE DECIDED UPON IN THE FUTURE, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ON THIS SIDE OF THE STREET CURRENTLY.

SO UNDERGROUNDING WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN.

I THINK IT WAS TALKED ABOUT, BUT IT'S NOT.

IF YOU WERE TO UNDERGROUND, THAT COULD BE DONE SEPARATELY.

SO IF THERE WAS UNDERGROUNDING THAT COULD BE DONE AND MAINTAIN THE STREET AS IT IS.

SO YOU JUST PUT IT BACK THE WAY IT WAS.

SO IF YOU HAD TO DIG TRENCHES, YOU JUST PUT THE JUST REPAIR WHAT WAS DISTURBED.

THE APPLICANT WANT TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE? I NOTICED YOU APPROACHED THE PODIUM.

YES. THANK YOU. THE OWNER IS PAYING [INAUDIBLE] TO UNDERGROUND THE POWER RIGHT NOW.

THERE'S A TELEPHONE POLE IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

THERE'S A TRANSFORMER ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT SERVES THE CONDOS THAT ARE JUST DIRECTLY WEST OF US.

SO THE NEW POWER IS GOING TO BE TAKEN FROM THAT TRANSFORMER UNDERGROUND, AND THEN TO SERVICE OUR PANEL AND TO SERVICE OUR HOME.

YEAH. THE REASON WHY I BROUGHT IT UP WAS THAT I SAW THAT ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, WHICH IS THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET, SOME OF THE, I THINK TWO OR MAYBE THREE NEWER HOMES ACROSS THE STREET AND JUST TO THE EAST.

APPEARED TO BE UNDERGROUND.

CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT AND THEN ON THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS.

CURRENTLY, IT'S A VERY RURAL SETTING WHERE THERE ARE REALLY NO FORMAL SIDEWALKS AND CURBS AND GUTTERS AND AS WHAT WAS STATED, THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE OWNERS THAT LIVE ON THAT STREET TO KEEP IT RURAL.

WE'VE GOT SOME ISSUES WITH TRANSIENTS COMING ACROSS.

MY CLIENT HAS TO BOLT, LITERALLY BOLT DOWN THE POTS OF PLANTERS SO THEY AREN'T CARRIED AWAY.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MINIMIZE HERE.

WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE BEACH PARKING.

BECAUSE THAT'S THE SETTING OF DATE STREET.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF APPLICANT OR STAFF? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. I AM SURPRISED WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP A RURAL SETTING WITH BEING OVER 100,000 POPULATION CITY. SO I DO THINK THAT POLICY NEEDS TO BE REEVALUATED.

BUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, I KNOW THAT WE CAN'T SOLVE THIS, ALTHOUGH I KNOW THAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT CONCERN IS VERY REAL, AND THIS STRIKES ME AS THE MAJOR REASON THAT WE ARE HAVING SUCH ISSUES IS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IN THESE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS.

IT'S ALL OVER OCEAN STREET AS WELL.

SO WE REALLY ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE I THINK THIS POLICY NEEDS TO BE REEVALUATED.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, LET'S OPEN UP COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

WOULD ANY COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO FURTHER COMMENT OR DISCUSS THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER STINE.

YES. I SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.

I THINK IT'S A BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED PROJECT.

WE HAVE BEFORE US A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

IT'S GOING TO BE A TREMENDOUS IMPROVEMENT FROM WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW.

I THINK THE PROPOSALS, IN KEEPING WITH THE VERY UPSCALE CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF VERY BEAUTIFUL LARGE, WHETHER IT'S CONDOMINIUMS OR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ON THIS BLOCK.

SO I THINK AND THE HOUSE THAT'S ON THERE NOW, LET'S JUST SAY IT'S SEEN BETTER TIMES.

IT'S AN OLDER HOME.

NO, NOT DISPARAGING AT ALL, BUT IT'S TIME FOR THAT FOR TIME TO PUT SOMETHING MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

NO ISSUE THERE.

THERE'S NO ACCESS ISSUE TO THE BEACH.

THERE'S NO VISUAL ISSUE OF THE BEACH.

IT'S TUCKED BACK AWAYS.

SO I THINK THIS IS IT'S AN EASY YES FOR ME IN TERMS OF THE AREA THAT ONE OF OUR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC POINTED OUT, I WOULD IMAGINE SHE'S

[01:20:04]

THERE ARE TRAFFIC ISSUES IN THAT AREA.

IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THE BEACH AND STREET PARKING TRAFFIC IS AN ISSUE, BUT WE CAN'T SETTLE.

WE CAN'T SADDLE THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT FOR SOLVING THE COMMUNITY PROBLEMS THAT ARE THERE AND AS IT STANDS, THIS IS A LESS DENSE PROJECT THAT COULD BE APPROVED ON THERE.

SO I YES, THERE'S A COMMUNITY PROBLEM, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S UP TO THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.

SO I SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YES, I THINK IT'S A WELL DESIGNED PROJECT.

I THINK HOW THE APPLICANTS I GUESS YOU COULD SAY DECISIONS IN REGARD TO PLACING THE UNITS ON THE LOT.

THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN IS ABSOLUTELY, I THINK, GREAT, GIVEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IT'S IN AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I THINK IT'S WELL DESIGNED AND I APPRECIATE THAT AND I TOTALLY SUPPORT IT AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

[INAUDIBLE], COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

GOOD. I WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE ARCHITECT.

I THINK IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PROJECT.

I SUPPORT WHAT MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE SAID, AND I ECHO COMMISSIONER STINE'S CONCERNS.

YOU KNOW, PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THE DENSITY IS THE PROXIMITY TO THE BEACH.

I MEAN, I WOULD BE ENVIOUS TO LIVE ON THIS STREET, QUITE FRANKLY.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? LET'S HAVE A VOTE.

THANK YOU.

THE MOTION PASSES.

SIX ZERO.

THANK YOU ALL.

CONGRATULATIONS. WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.

[INAUDIBLE].

THANKS FOR THE COMPLIMENT.

[INAUDIBLE].

[3. SDP 2023-0016/CDP 2023-0026 (DEV2022-0190)- PREMIER CADILLAC]

FIRST, IF ANY COMMISSIONERS HAD ANY EX PARTY CONVERSATIONS ON ITEM NUMBER THREE, IT'S THE PREMIER CADILLAC PROJECT.

I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER MERZ.

I DROVE ONTO THE SITE AND [INAUDIBLE] DROVE ON THE SITE.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YES. I DROVE BY THE SITE, GOT OUT OF THE CAR, WALKED THE SITE FROM ALL SIDES, AND WAS ABLE TO OBSERVE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS THE EXISTING.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER? MR. STINE.

I'VE BEEN BY THE SITE PROBABLY 100 TIMES WHEN I'VE BEEN IN THE AREA, AND I WENT BY THERE THE OTHER DAY JUST TO KIND OF GET AN UPDATE AS TO THE PARTICULAR PROJECT IN THE AREA.

SO I'M QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

YEAH, I TOO AM FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

AS THE SON OF A DECADES LONG CADILLAC DRIVER, I WENT INTO THE SHOWROOM, AMONG OTHER THINGS.

MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? YES. HERE TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION IS LAUREN YZAGUIRRE, ASSOCIATE PLANNER.

ITEM THREE ON THE AGENDA TODAY IS A APPLICATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR PREMIER CADILLAC.

THE SITE IS LOCATED AT, 5556 AND 5566 PASEO DEL NORTE, AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF PASEO DEL NORTE AND KAW COUNTRY DRIVE.

THE 3.39 ACRE PROJECT SITE HAS A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, IS ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND IS SUBJECT TO THE CAR COUNTRY CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN.

THE SITE IS THE LOCATION OF THE PREVIOUS HOME AND CAR AUTO DEALERSHIP.

PREMIER CADILLAC IS REQUESTING TO DEMOLISH THE TWO EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGS AND WALL SHOWN ON THE SLIDE.

ALL OTHER STRUCTURES WILL REMAIN.

HERE'S A VIEW OF THOSE TWO BUILDINGS TO BE DEMOLISHED.

AS VIEWED FROM PASEO DEL NORTE AND HERE'S AN ADDITIONAL VIEW.

FURTHER UP ON PASEO DEL NORTE.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 8703 SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY SHOWROOM AND SALES OFFICE ADDITION ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING AUTO PARTS BUILDING FRONTING PASEO DEL NORTE.

A 2096 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE LANE IS PROPOSED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ADDITION.

[01:25:01]

THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN IS CHARACTERIZED AS SPANISH MEDITERRANEAN AND INCLUDES BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN FEATURES SUCH AS RAFTER TAILS, RECESSED WINDOWS CORNICES, SLUMPED STONE VENEER AND BORAL ROOFING.

THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON SITE WILL BE PAINTED OFF WHITE TO MATCH THE PROPOSED ADDITION.

THE PROJECT WAS ANALYZED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ALL REQUIRED CITY CODES, POLICIES, AND STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, THE CAR COUNTRY CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN, THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE, THE MELLOW TWO SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE.

THE PROJECT WILL NOT OBSTRUCT VIEWS FROM THE COASTLINE AS SEEN FROM PUBLIC LANDS OR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS.

A FULL 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 PREMIER CADILLAC AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE.

THEY DO NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT THEY WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON AGENDA ITEM THREE? WONDERFUL. IS THE APPLICANT YOU SAID IS HERE, MA'AM.

YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE OF THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER STINE FIRST.

YES. IF THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD, PLEASE.

WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME, SIR? GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DOUG ANDREASEN.

I'M THE ARCHITECT. WE'RE FROM 17087 ORANGE WAY IN FONTANA AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF I CAN.

THANK YOU, MR. ANDREASEN.

I JUST HAD A QUESTION REGARDING PARKING.

WHEN I'VE BEEN BY THE SITE, I NOTICED THERE ARE A LOT OF PARKED CARS ON CAMINO DEL NORTE AND ON CAR COUNTRY.

A LOT OF OFF SITE PARKING.

WILL THIS PROJECT, IF APPROVED HELP WITH THAT PARKING SITUATION? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE THERE GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES, WHETHER THAT'S FOR STAFF OR VISITORS ON SITE, SO THAT WE CAN KIND OF REDUCE THAT BURDEN? YES, WE DO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEE AND CUSTOMER PARKING SPACES THAT ARE DESIGNATED, INCLUDING EV PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES. SO WE HAVE PLENTY OF ON SITE PARKING AND BUT IS THIS GOING TO INCREASE OR THE NUMBER? IT WILL NOT. NO, IT'S WE'RE TAKING OUT SOME BUILDINGS AND WE'RE ACTUALLY REPLACING SOME BUILDINGS.

SO IT'S ALMOST A NET.

ZERO. THERE'S VERY LITTLE INCREASE.

BUT THERE IS I THINK IT'S NINE SPACES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT WE JUST REDUCE THE DISPLAY PARKING AND YOU KNOW, ACCORDINGLY.

SO IT'S NOT GOING TO INCREASE ANYTHING.

WE ACTUALLY DON'T, AREN'T ALLOWED TO PARK ON THE STREET.

I MEAN, WE DON'T COUNT THAT STREET PARKING FOR OUR REQUIREMENT.

YEAH. I JUST SAW A LOT OF CARS THERE.

I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS FROM THE OUTLET MALL ACROSS THE STREET OR NOT.

SURE. YEAH, I JUST I WAS HOPING THAT MAYBE THE PROJECT WOULD, YOU KNOW, ADD A FEW PARKING SPACES, PERHAPS TO ADDRESS THAT, BUT APPARENTLY NOT.

COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT WHILE HE'S PRESENT? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL NOW OPEN.

THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

MINUTES. CLERK. ARE THERE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS? NO, THERE'S NOT. CHAIR.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? WONDERFUL. LET'S MOVE ON TO COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

ANYONE WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSS THIS? IT'S NOT THAT LATE, FOLKS.

SEE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? I WOULD MOVE APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU. OKAY.

A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER STINE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MERZ ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3.

PLEASE VOTE.

THANK YOU. THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE PASSES 6-0.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE A REPORT FROM ANY COMMISSIONER?

[PLANNING COMMISSIONER REPORT]

[01:30:03]

IF EVERYTHING GOES WELL, THE NEXT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING IS ON JULY 8TH.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONERS HAVE A REPORT.

COMMISSIONER STINE.

YOU LOOK TENTATIVE. NO I DON'T.

OKAY,, COULD I [INAUDIBLE].

COMMISSIONER HUBINGER ASK A QUESTION ON THE JULY 17TH MEETING.

SO THAT IS WHEN WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT WE DEFERRED.

BUT IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA FOR THAT MEETING, OR IS IT CLEAR? YES. WE DO HAVE ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR THAT MEETING, THE THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT, WHICH WAS AN EIR AND A PROJECT WE SHARED, THE EIR, THE DRAFT EIR WITH THE COMMISSION A MONTH OR SO AGO.

WE'LL TALK WITH THAT APPLICANT TO SEE IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD.

THAT DATE TOOK SOME COORDINATION, SO WE'LL HAVE TO SEE WHEN WE CAN COORDINATE WITH THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS OUR CONSULTANTS WHO PREPARED THAT EIR.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TONIGHT, AND I HOPE YOU WEREN'T OFFENDED BY MY SPEAKING ON YOUR BEHALF.

I FOUND IT OFFENSIVE THAT WE WERE BEING ACCUSED OF BIAS AND LACK OF INTEGRITY.

I MEAN, NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

ONE FINAL THING I WOULD WANT TO SAY.

THE CHICK FIL A IS OPEN TOMORROW, FOLKS AND I'M AMAZED.

I'M IMPRESSED HOW QUICKLY THEY MOVED.

IT SEEMS LIKE A MONTH AND A HALF AGO WHEN WE APPROVED THAT.

[INAUDIBLE]. NO, BUT I COULD GO THERE FOR LUNCH.

IS THERE A REPORT FROM THE CITY PLANNER?

[CITY PLANNER REPORT]

THE BEGONIA COURT VARIANCE ITEM WILL BE CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL, AS WELL AS THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 22-23 AND THEN WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THE AUGUST SCHEDULE FOR THE AGENDA ITEMS. WE WOULD EXPECT AT LEAST ONE, IF NOT BOTH OF THOSE HEARINGS WOULD HAVE AGENDA ITEMS. WE'LL LET YOU KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WHICH HEARINGS WILL OCCUR, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'LL BE ASKING US SOON AND A FOLLOW UP THERE AND ON THE AGENDA, ISN'T THE COUNCIL SET TO AN AGENDA ITEM WOULD BE THE SELECTION OF A NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER.

THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YES, THAT THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERING THE APPLICATIONS THAT WERE RECEIVED NEXT WEEK AND SO IF THEY MAKE A DECISION, THEORETICALLY, THAT COMMISSIONER COULD BE WITH US. SO WE'D HAVE A FULL SEVEN MEMBER COMMISSION ON THE 17TH.

RIGHT? AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THEY HAVE SOME PAPERWORK AND SOME TRAININGS TO DO FOR THAT CANDIDATE, BUT THERE WILL BE SEVERAL WEEKS SO WE'D WORK WITH THEM TO GET THEM UP TO SPEED AND ATTEND.

OKAY AND MR. NEU, HAVE YOU BEEN CONSULTED OR HAVE YOU SEEN THE APPLICATIONS OF ANY POTENTIAL COMMISSIONERS? I'VE SEEN THE APPLICATIONS, BUT THE DECISION TO APPOINT THE COMMISSION IS IS REALLY UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

THIS ONE IS BEING APPOINTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ACOSTA.

THANK YOU. IS THERE A REPORT FROM THE SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY? NONE FOR ME, ALTHOUGH MY KIDS ARE VERY EXCITED FOR CHICK FIL A, SO WE MAY BE THERE.

WE'LL FLIP FOR IT.

OKAY. WE STAND ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.