Aug 21, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting

[00:00:02]

GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 21ST, 2024 MINUTES.

[CALL TO ORDER]

COMMISSIONER DANNA.

HERE. COMMISSIONER MERZ.

HERE. CHAIR KAMENJARIN IS ABSENT.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER STINE HERE, AND VICE CHAIR MEENES.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER, WOULD YOU PROVIDE US THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE THIS EVENING? THANK YOU. READY TO BEGIN.

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

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

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 17TH, 2024 MEETING.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

YES. THANK YOU.

SO ON THE FIRST PAGE, ON THE VERY LAST PARAGRAPH, THE FIFTH LINE DOWN, IT SAYS HE IS WORKING WITH JONATHAN FRANKEL.

I'D LIKE TO STRIKE WITH JONATHAN FRANKEL AND ADD AFTER PROJECT MANAGER ON A PROJECT FOR WHICH JONATHAN FRANKEL IS THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, COMMISSIONER DANNA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IN THAT REGARD, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES? YES, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, AS CORRECTED.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER MERZ.

SECOND. WE HAVE A VOTE.

COMMISSIONER DANA. DID YOU LOCK IT? WE HAVE A VOTE, AND IT CARRIES WITH SIX VOTING.

YES. AND COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN ABSENT.

THANK YOU. THE FOLLOWING THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT. WE ARE REQUIRED TO REQUEST TO SPEAK.

EXCUSE ME. WE WILL REQUIRE A REQUEST TO SPEAKING FORM TO ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS.

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

THIS ALLOWS THE SPEAKER TIME TO MANAGE IN A MORE EFFECTIVE 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 MUST IDENTIFY THE GROUP, AND AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE MEETING, AT WHICH TIME THE PRESENTATION IS BEING MADE TO SPEAK.

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

THE MINUTES CLERK WILL CALL THE NAMES OF THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN THE ORDER THE REQUESTS ARE RECEIVED.

THE BROWN ACT REQUIRES 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 IN THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.

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

NO ACTION WILL OCCUR ON THESE ITEMS. WE ASK THAT YOU REFRAIN FROM CLAPPING DURING THE BUSINESS SECTION OF THE MEETING, STARTING WITH THE NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS.

THIS WILL HELP MAKE THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS AND CONDUCTING AN EFFICIENT MANNER.

IN THIS CHAMBERS IS A PLACE WHERE POINTS OF VIEWS ARE WELCOMED AND RESPECTED.

THE MINUTES. CLERK DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS? NO, VICE CHAIR, WE DO NOT.

OKAY. SEEING NONE WE WILL PROCEED ON.

I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DIRECT EVERYONE HERE AT THE MEETING THIS EVENING.

THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN AND REVIEW THE PROCEDURES OF THE COMMISSION WILL BE FOLLOWED IN THIS EVENING'S PUBLIC HEARINGS AS FOLLOWS.

[00:05:09]

STAFF WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.

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

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

THEY WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL THEN BE OPENED.

TIME LIMIT IS THREE MINUTES ALLOTTED TO EACH SPEAKER.

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

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

THE COMMISSIONERS WILL THEN DISCUSS THE ITEMS AND THEN VOTE ON THAT.

PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CLOSED AT THAT TIME.

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

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

[1. EIR 2022-0005 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION, (PUD 2021-0003) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - THREE ON GARFIELD]

YEAH, I'M AWARE OF THE LOCATION.

HAVE BEEN BY IT SEVERAL TIMES.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER DANNA.

YES. THANK YOU.

THIS PROJECT WAS INITIALLY ASSIGNED TO ME WHEN I WAS WORKING FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AS A PLANNER, AND I DID REVIEW THE PLANS, AND I DID. I WAS INVOLVED IN THE BEGINNING OF THE EIR PROCESS.

SO FOR THAT REASON, TO AVOID ANY PERCEPTION OF IMPROPRIETY.

I WILL RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS PROJECT.

COMMISSIONER MERZ. YES, I VISITED THE SITE.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

WE ACTUALLY STUDIED THIS PROJECT.

THE CONDOS IN ARCHITECTURE SCHOOL WHEN I WAS IN ARCHITECTURE SCHOOL.

SO IT'S A VERY FAMOUS AND PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT BUILDING, AND WE ALSO I WAS ALSO INVOLVED AS THE EX-OFFICIO PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.

SO I WAS INVOLVED IN ALL OF THE MEETINGS THAT THIS PROJECT WAS PRESENTED INCLUDING THE MEETING THAT REVIEWED THE HISTORIC REPORT.

SO, COMMISSIONER STINE, I HAVE WALKED THE SITE.

I ALSO WALKED THE SITE AS WELL.

OKAY, WITH THAT IN MIND, GIVEN THAT WE HAVE ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS RECUSING THEMSELVES, ANOTHER COMMISSIONER IS ABSENT THIS EVENING.

I'M GOING TO ASK THE APPLICANT A QUESTION HERE IN REGARD TO THE COMMISSION HAS HISTORICALLY EXTENDED APPLICANTS THE COURTESY OF REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE, SO THEIR MATTER MAY BE HEARD BY A FULL COMMISSION THIS EVENING.

AS I SAID, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN IS ABSENT.

COMMISSIONER DANNA HAS RECUSED HIMSELF.

THEREFORE, IF YOU REQUEST A CONTINUANCE, THE COMMISSION IS NOT OBLIGATED TO GRANT THAT REQUEST.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE THIS EVENING? WOULD YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE? WOULD YOU PROVIDE YOUR NAME, PLEASE? YES. GOOD EVENING MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

WAYNE BRECHTEL, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, RENEE WALES, WHO'S ALSO PRESENT, AND HER ARCHITECT, JOHN BERRY.

WE'RE PREPARED TO PROCEED FORWARD.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

THEREFORE, GIVEN THAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO CONTINUE, I WILL PROCEED ON WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.

MR. LARDY, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THE ITEM? YES. I'M HERE TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION FOR THE THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT IS ASSOCIATE PLANNER VAN LEEUWEN.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

SENIOR PLANNER LARDY.

YES, THE PROJECT FOR TONIGHT IS THE THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT.

THIS PROJECT LOCATION IS A 0.16 ACRE PARCEL ON THE CORNER OF GARFIELD AND BEACH, ABOUT A BLOCK AND A HALF FROM THE COAST.

IT IS CURRENTLY A BUILT SITE WITH THREE EXISTING CONDO UNITS.

THE TOPOGRAPHY IS A SLOPED PHOTOGRAPHY TOPOGRAPHY AWAY FROM GARFIELD STREET, AND IT IS ADJACENT TO THE EAST FROM MAGEE PARK. THE PROJECT SITE IS PART OF THE R-15 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CATEGORY, AND IS ZONED R-3 FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

[00:10:03]

THIS IS ALSO A LOCATION WHERE THE COASTAL THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT COULD BE APPEALED TO COASTAL COMMISSION.

IN TERMS OF THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION, THE PROJECT DOES PROPOSE TO DEMO THE EXISTING CONDO COMPLEX AND CONSTRUCT A NEW CONDO TRIPLEX WITH TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS, APPROXIMATELY 1700 SQUARE FEET EACH.

EACH WOULD HAVE A PRIVATE THIRD FLOOR BALCONY ATTACHED, TWO CAR GARAGE, AND ONE VISITOR SPACE, AND AS THE PARKING IS ACCESSED FROM BEACH AVENUE.

THE ACTIONS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD IS TO FIRST CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

THE FINAL AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND THE APPROVAL OF ENTITLEMENTS INCLUDES A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, NONCONFORMING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND MINOR SUBDIVISION.

EXCUSE ME, AND STAFF WILL JUST SAY UP FRONT THAT WE STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROJECT CAN MEET ALL OF THE FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE ENTITLEMENTS, AND THIS PRESENTATION WILL BE MAINLY FOCUSED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PORTION OF THIS APPROVAL.

OF COURSE, STAFF IS HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THOSE ENTITLEMENTS, TERMS OF THE TIMELINE FOR THIS PROJECT.

THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED IN 2021, AND THERE WAS AN EARLY PUBLIC NOTICE IN 2021.

PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED TOWARDS THE END OF 2021.

BRINGING UP THE NOTORIETY OF THE STRUCTURE AND A NEED FOR AN EIR WAS ESTABLISHED IN EARLY 2022.

IN NOVEMBER OF 2022, THE EIR NOTICE OF OPERATION WENT OUT AND A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD STARTED IN OCTOBER OF 2023 AND FINISHED ON DECEMBER 14TH, 2023, AND A FINAL EIR DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED IN MARCH OF 2024.

THE EIR INITIALLY IDENTIFIED THREE AREAS FOR POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, INCLUDING ESTHETICS, HISTORICAL, CULTURAL AND TRIBAL IMPACTS, AND LAND USE PLANNING IMPACTS. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DID FIND THAT THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, AND THAT IMPACT IS THE DEMOLITION OF A HISTORIC RESOURCE AS CONSIDERED UNDER CEQA . ALL OTHER IMPACTS THAT WERE POTENTIAL WERE FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT, EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES.

THE BUILDING THE HISTORIC RESOURCE IN QUESTION HERE IS THE VICTOR CONDO.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT IN 1982 BY TED SMITH AND KATHLEEN MCCORMICK.

POSTMODERN DESIGN REFERRED TO AS A BLEND OF STYLE, AND THIS WAS HIS FIRST DESIGN TYPE IN CARLSBAD.

THE PRIMARY MOST SIGNIFICANT CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURE IS THE FALSE FRONT, WHERE THE INITIAL FACADE OF THE BUILDING SITS APART FROM THE MAIN BUILDING, ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF OR SO. IT IS RECOGNIZED IN ARCHITECTURAL PUBLICATIONS IN THE 80S AND SINCE THEN.

HOWEVER, IT IS NOT CURRENTLY LISTED AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR LOCALLY.

I'LL GO BACK REAL QUICK AND THAT THIS RAISED THE FIRST QUESTION, I THINK, FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, WHICH IS NORMALLY A HISTORIC STRUCTURE, THE FIRST KIND OF HURDLE IS THAT THE STRUCTURE IS OVER 50 YEARS OLD, AND THAT IS TYPICAL, BUT NOT ALWAYS TRUE, THAT IS A QUALIFICATION AND ALSO QUESTIONING, WELL, IF IT'S NOT ON A HISTORIC REGISTRY, IS IT A HISTORIC RESOURCE AND SO WE'LL GO IN TO TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT HERE.

THE CEQA GUIDELINES OR CEQA STATE CODE DOES GIVE KIND OF THREE CATEGORIES OF HISTORIC RESOURCE.

FIRST IS A HISTORIC RESOURCE LISTED OR DETERMINED TO BE ELIGIBLE BY THE STATE HISTORIC RESOURCE COMMISSION FOR LISTING IN THE CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL REGISTRY OR CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES, OR A RESOURCE INCLUDED IN A LOCAL REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES, OR IDENTIFIED AS SIGNIFICANT IN A HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY.

WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT IS NOT ON ANY EXISTING LIST AT THE TIME.

SO THAT IS THE STATE AND LOCAL KIND OF QUALIFICATIONS.

THE THIRD IS A STATEMENT THAT SAYS ANY OBJECT BUILDING STRUCTURE OR OTHER SIMILAR, WHICH A LEAD AGENCY DETERMINES TO BE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT, AND GENERALLY A RESOURCE SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE LEAD AGENCY TO BE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT IF THE RESOURCES MEET THE CRITERIA FOR LISTING ON THE CALIFORNIA HISTORIC REGISTRY. THERE ARE FOUR CRITERIA ESSENTIALLY FOR THAT HISTORIC REGISTRY.

ONE IS THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH AN EVENT THAT MAY HAVE HAD SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE BROAD PATTERN OF CALIFORNIA HISTORY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE, OR IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WITH THE LIVES OF THE PERSON OF PERSONS IMPORTANT IN THE OF THE PAST.

SO THAT WOULD BE HISTORIC EVENT OR HISTORIC PERSON AND THAT WAS NOT WHY THIS BUILDING IS CONSIDERED A HISTORIC RESOURCE.

THE THIRD AND FOURTH ARE EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE PERIOD, REIGN OR REGION, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION, OR REPRESENTS THE WORK OF AN

[00:15:04]

THIS SECTION GOES ON TO KIND OF REESTABLISH THIS, TO SAY THAT THE FACT THAT A RESOURCE IS NOT LISTED OR DETERMINED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES, OR NOT INCLUDED IN A LOCAL REGISTRY, DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE LEAD AGENCY FROM DETERMINING THAT THE RESOURCE MAY BE AN HISTORICAL RESOURCE. KEY TO THAT IS THAT DETERMINING OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCE IS BASICALLY HAPPENING NOW.

SO THE IN ACCEPTING THE EIR, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ALSO ACCEPTING THE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS BY THE HISTORIC CONSULTANT, WHICH STAFF AGREES WITH THAT THE THAT DETERMINATION THAT IT WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

THAT'S JUST IMPORTANT BECAUSE IN THE OTHER CATEGORIES, IT'S ALREADY ON THE LIST.

IT'S MANDATORY. YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER A HISTORIC RESOURCE.

THERE IS SOME DISCRETION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO NOT TO SAY, DISAGREE, BUT ANALYZE THAT.

AGAIN, STAFF DOES NOT HAVE ANY QUESTION WITH THE ANALYSIS, BUT WE FELT IT IMPORTANT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION KNOW THAT THEY ARE ALSO BASICALLY DETERMINING OR AGREEING WITH THE HISTORIC ANALYSIS OF THE EIR AND JUST TO WRAP UP THAT THIS IS A SEGMENT FROM THE HISTORIC ANALYSIS, I THINK BEST KIND OF ENCAPSULATES THIS AND EXPLAINS THE 50 YEAR ISSUE, AND THAT IS THAT THE VICTOR CONDO WAS NOT ONLY THE SUBJECT OF ARTICLES IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, BUT APPEARED IN MULTIPLE PUBLICATIONS, INCLUDING TWO INTERNATIONAL PERIODICALS AND EXHIBIT EXHIBITION CURATED TO CAPTURE THE NEW MOVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA, CHOSE TED SMITH AS ONE OF THE THREE ARCHITECTS TO REPRESENT SAN DIEGO, AND CHOSE VICTOR CONDO AS ONE OF THE BUILDINGS WHICH BEST REPRESENTED HIS WORK, AND THE VICTOR CONDO IMMEDIATELY BECAME A SIGNIFICANT EXAMPLE OF THE POSTMODERN STYLE, AND ANOTHER TEN YEARS WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED THAT. SO AGAIN, THE ANALYSIS BY ASM AFFILIATES WAS THAT THIS WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED A HISTORIC RESOURCE UNDER CEQA. IN TERMS OF APPROVING THE FINAL EIR.

THE FINAL EIR HAS A NUMBER OF COMPONENTS.

FIRST IS THE DRAFT EIR THAT WAS DRAFTED AND THE.

ALSO THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PROVIDED FOR THE DRAFT EIR FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND THE MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND VERY KEY TO THESE IS THE FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.

THIS IS NECESSARY ANYTIME A SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT THAT WOULD BE CREATED BY A PROJECT IS TO BE STILL APPROVED THROUGH CEQA THAT THE FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BE MADE.

IN TERMS OF THOSE OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, THERE ARE A LIST OF THEM IN THE DOCUMENT, AND WE'LL GO OVER A COUPLE HERE.

THE OVERRIDING SOME OF THE OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT WILL CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUMS THAT FULLY COMPLY WITH THE CITY CODES AND REGULATIONS.

THE CURRENT BUILDING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY THAT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY VIOLATIONS ARE PRESENT ON SITE, AND AFTER THE PROJECT'S IMPLEMENTATION, THERE WOULD BE REDUCED RISK TO LIFE AND PROPERTY.

ALSO, THE PROJECT PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE THE BUILDING, WHICH IS DOCUMENTED TO BE IN POOR CONDITION AND IMPROVE THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVER TIME, AND SO WITH THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADOPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, INCLUDING THE CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND ADOPT A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION, APPROVING PLAN, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, NONCONFORMING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND MINOR SUBDIVISION BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN, AND STAFF IS HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU, MR. VAN LEEUWEN.

APPRECIATE THAT. COMMISSIONERS, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER MERZ.

YES, THANK YOU, MR. VAN LEEUWEN.

I WAS TRYING TO CATCH WHAT YOU SAID.

THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT HOW DURING IT WAS WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW TO AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE CONSULTANT'S ASSERTATION OF IT BEING HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT THAT YOU KIND OF WENT THROUGH.

I WAS TRYING TO CATCH ALL THAT.

IF YOU COULD JUST COVER THAT PIECE AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY.

SURE. SO IF THIS PROJECT WAS BEING ANALYZED BY THROUGH CEQA AND IT WAS ON THE CALIFORNIA HISTORIC LIST, I'D BASICALLY BE THE END OF THE EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S ON THE LIST.

[00:20:01]

IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED SUCH, BUT THERE IS ALSO THAT CATEGORY THREE WHERE BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT LISTED DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT ISN'T A HISTORIC RESOURCE, AND THROUGH THE ANALYSIS OF CEQA THAT CAN BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH QUALIFIED CONSULTANTS AND OTHERWISE ESTABLISHING THAT IT WOULD, UNDER THEIR OPINION AND THEIR EXPERTISE, MEET THOSE QUALIFICATIONS TO BE ELIGIBLE AND LISTED, BUT HAS NOT DONE SO YET, BUT AGAIN IT BECAUSE THAT ISN'T HASN'T BEEN DONE BY THE STATE HISTORIC RESOURCE COMMISSION.

IT IS SOMETHING THAT WITH THIS ACTION YOU ARE AGREEING WITH BECAUSE THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY OTHER BODY THAT HAS AGREED WITH THAT ANALYSIS, ESSENTIALLY.

OKAY, AND THEN ALSO, TOO, UNDER THE COULD YOU SUMMARIZE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED ON THIS ONE? SURE, AND WHILE HE'S PULLING THAT UP, I'LL JUST ALSO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE DO HAVE THE CONSULTANT THAT PREPARED THE EIR, AS WELL AS THE CONSULTANT THAT PREPARED THE HISTORIC REPORT AVAILABLE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, IF THERE'S QUESTIONS FOR THEM.

THANK YOU. I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T HAVE A SLIDE FOR THE MITIGATION MEASURES, BUT THE FIRST WOULD BE DOCUMENTATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE DEMOLITION PERMIT.

THE VICTOR CONDO BUILDING WOULD BE THOROUGHLY DOCUMENTED, PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION AND OTHERWISE.

THERE WOULD BE AN INTERPRETATION WHERE, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE DEMOLITION PERMIT, THE PROJECT APPLICANT, IN COORDINATION WITH THE SUBJECT, WITH AND SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE CITY PLANNER, SHALL DEVELOP AN INTERPRETIVE OPPORTUNITY THAT WOULD COMMUNICATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VICTOR CONDO TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, AND THIS WOULD BE A PERMANENT PLAQUE OR SIGN OR SOME GENERAL INFORMATION AT THE SITE WITH THAT, AS WELL AS POTENTIALLY ARCHITECTURAL SALVAGE, WHICH WOULD BE THAT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE DEMOLITION PERMIT THE REMOVAL OF THE CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURE, THAT FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING, THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONSULT WITH THE CITY, PLANNING TO SEE WHETHER, IF ANY, SUCH FEATURE COULD BE SALVAGED.

YEAH, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE PART.

SO THAT WAS THE POINT YOU MADE.

SO WHAT I ENVISION, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, WOULD BE IF WE WERE APPROVED AND GO FORWARD IN THE PROJECT WAS DONE, THEN THERE WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF, I'M ASSUMING SOME TYPE OF PLAQUE OR PICTURE PLAQUE SHOWING THE ORIGINAL VICTOR CONDO WITH SOME OF THE INFORMATION WITH KIND OF LIKE A PHOTOGRAPH OR SOMETHING IN A HARD PLAQUE MOUNTED OUTSIDE.

THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M ENVISIONING.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY, AND AGAIN, THOSE MITIGATION MEASURES DO NOT OBVIOUSLY MITIGATE BELOW THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AND UNAVOIDABLE, BUT WOULD STILL BE APPLIED TO THE PROJECT OR TO THE OVERALL PROJECT. SO IT WOULD BE REQUIRED.

OKAY. SO TO CONFIRM THAT IS A REQUIREMENT.

SO THERE WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF LIKE YOU KNOW AGAIN IS THAT DO I UNDERSTAND THAT ABOUT, RIGHT, LIKE SOME TYPE OF LIKE YOU KNOW WHEN YOU WALK ALONG HERE'S THE VICTOR CONDO RIGHT UP ABOUT WHAT IT'S ABOUT WITH A PICTURE IN SOME TYPE OF HARD PLAQUE ON THE PROPERTY WHERE PEOPLE WALK BY, THEY SEE IT AND THEN THEY UNDERSTAND THEY CAN READ THAT.

IS THAT KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE? ESSENTIALLY, CORRECT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE CLARIFYING? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

THANK YOU. I WOULD I DID PARTICIPATE IN THE TWO HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AT LEAST TWO HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEETINGS THAT THIS PROJECT WAS REVIEWED, AND THE I UNDERSTAND THAT THE HISTORIANS HAD AN ACTUAL SERIES OF FINDINGS THAT ARE NOT PART OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT.

COULD THAT BE ELABORATED? THE PLAQUE WASN'T THE OPTION.

THERE WERE THREE OTHER OPTIONS.

MR. LARDY. YEAH, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY TO WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE CONSULTANT HAS ANYTHING IF THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO COME UP TO, BUT THESE ARE ULTIMATELY THE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT EIR THAT WENT OUT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS RELATED TO SUGGESTING ANY OTHER MITIGATION MEASURES OR THE IMPACT OF THESE ALTERNATIVES AND CONSIDERATIONS THEN.

OKAY. TO DO AN EIR THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO CREATE ALTERNATIVES, AND SO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD REDUCE THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE, AND FOR SOME YEARS THAT'S MORE THAN THREE FOR THIS EIR THERE

[00:25:04]

THOSE WERE INCLUDED FOR ANALYSIS, AND THOSE ARE ALTERNATIVES THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IF THEY CHOSE, COULD ADOPT REALLY EITHER THE RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR THE PARTIAL REHABILITATION OPTION THAT DOES REDUCE TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

AS WE LOOKED AT THAT, AS WE LOOKED AT EIR, AS IT'S A DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT AND A PROCESS THAT SHOWS WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE.

WE THINK EITHER IS ADOPTABLE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER THE RULES AND REGULATIONS.

WE ONLY BROUGHT FORWARD THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

SO IF THAT WAS THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION TO DIRECT US TO ADOPT ONE OF THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES, WE WOULD ASK YOU TO REMAND THAT BACK TO STAFF SO THAT WE COULD UPDATE THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND RETURN WITH A DOCUMENT THAT WAS CERTIFIABLE.

CERTIFIABLE IS THE TECHNICAL TERM FOR APPROVING A SECRET DOCUMENT.

GOT IT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE HISTORIANS, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE, AND WHAT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WERE AND WHAT YOUR FINDINGS WERE, BECAUSE THEY WERE VERY SIGNIFICANT AT THE NOVEMBER 30TH MEETING REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VICTOR CONDO.

OH, SORRY. WELL, WE BRING THEM UP.

YEAH BEFORE YOU, YEAH.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK THEM.

I THINK ASM, WHICHEVER REPRESENTATIVE WOULD BE BEST TO ANSWER IF YOU COULD COME TO THE PODIUM AND WE'LL ASK YOU THE QUESTION.

OBVIOUSLY, I'M MOST INTERESTED IN THE ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE.

WE'RE GOING TO BOTH COME UP BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE.

WELCOME. THANK YOU.

COULD YOU GIVE YOUR NAME, PLEASE? GOOD EVENING.

EACH ONE OF YOU. THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS SHANNON DAVIS. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY FOR ASM AND A CARLSBAD RESIDENT.

I'M LAURA KUNG. I'M THE SENIOR ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN WHO WORKED ON THE REPORT.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

YEAH. SO I KNOW IT WAS A WHILE AGO, BUT I THINK IF I'M RECALLING CORRECTLY NOT ONLY IS THIS A DOCUMENT, THAT IS, THIS IS A BUILDING THAT ACTUALLY QUALIFIES AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE UNDER CEQA, BUT YOU SUGGESTED IT.

IT QUALIFIED AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE, NOT JUST LOCALLY.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, AND WHAT WAS THAT? WHAT WAS THAT RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU GUYS FOUND, OR WHAT WAS THE RESULT THAT YOU FOUND? THE ELIGIBILITY? YEAH. THAT IT WAS ELIGIBLE UNDER IT WOULD BE BECAUSE THE STATE WE WERE DOING STATE AND NATIONAL AT THE SAME TIME.

SO IT WOULD BE C OR THREE ON THE STATE LEVEL ARCHITECTURALLY FOR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE.

SO. BECAUSE ONE OF THE BOOKS YOU WERE USING TO DEFINE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE SHOWED THE VICTOR CONDOS, IN THAT AS AN EXAMPLE OF POSTMODERN ARCHITECTURE.

WAS THE RESULT A NATIONAL, POTENTIALLY NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATION? I THINK ELIGIBILITY ASKING AND GETTING AT IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, IF THAT'S WHAT I'M THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK FOR. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE DID.

DID WE LOOK AT THE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA? WE DID? OKAY, AND SO I THINK WE RECOMMENDED THAT IT WAS ELIGIBLE.

YES, FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST MISCONCEPTIONS OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER IS THAT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT LISTING, THAT YOU HAVE TO BE ELIGIBLE IN A NATIONAL CONTEXT.

SO SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT IN CARLSBAD WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO SOMEBODY IN KANSAS OR NEW YORK.

LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT PROPERTIES CAN ALSO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

I THINK THAT WE FRAMED THAT THIS WAS ELIGIBLE WITHIN A REGIONAL CONTEXT.

SO NOT JUST CARLSBAD, BUT IT WAS A LOCAL CONTEXT OF SIGNIFICANCE, BUT IT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER AS WELL AS THE CALIFORNIA AND CARLSBAD REGISTER, AND SO WHY WOULD IT BE ELIGIBLE FOR NATIONAL? BECAUSE THE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO CALIFORNIA CRITERIA.

IT'S SIMPLY A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION PROCESS, BUT THE CRITERIA, AS I SAID, ARE NEARLY IDENTICAL, AND YOU CAN BE ELIGIBLE EITHER BECAUSE IT'S AN IMPORTANT PROPERTY IN A CITY, ON THE STATE LEVEL OR REGIONAL LEVEL, OR EVEN ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL.

MOST PROPERTIES THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT TO EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY ACTUALLY GET DESIGNATED.

IF THERE'S INTEREST ON A TOTALLY SEPARATE LIST CALLED THE NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS, BUT IN THIS CASE, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT VICTOR CONDOS IS ELIGIBLE WITHIN A LOCAL

[00:30:03]

I THINK NOW THAT I'M REFRESHING OUR MEMORY, WE DID ONLY DO STATE.

YEAH, I WAS THINKING TYPICALLY FOR A REPORT LIKE THIS, WE ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO DO CALIFORNIA REGISTER AND LOCAL REGISTER BECAUSE THIS IS ONLY FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE.

SO IF WE HAVE TO IDENTIFY WHETHER OR NOT A PROPERTY WOULD QUALIFY AS A CEQA HISTORICAL RESOURCE, THAT IS THE ONLY REGISTERS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT.

I THINK WHAT YOU'RE THINKING OF IS WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AFTER WE COMPLETED THIS REPORT.

WE ACTUALLY WERE LOOKING IN THIS BOOK THAT IS MCALLISTER'S GUIDE TO AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE.

IT IS THE BOOK THAT EVERYONE IN OUR PROFESSION USES AS A BENCHMARK.

THIS BUILDING IS, IN FACT, PICTURED IN THAT BOOK, AND WE HADN'T EVEN NOTICED THAT BECAUSE IT WAS ON A SUBSEQUENT PAGE BEYOND THE POSTMODERNISM CHAPTER, BASICALLY. SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE THINKING OF AND RECALLING.

WELL, AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO CLARIFY, BUT I THINK THERE IS ONLY ONE NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HISTORIC BUILDING IN CARLSBAD, AND THAT'S LEO CARRILLO RANCH.

IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS IT ALL CARLSBAD? I THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE DESIGNATED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER, BUT ALSO, AGAIN, FOR THAT BECAUSE OF THEIR LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE.

I WOULD SAY THAT MAYBE VICTOR CONDOS IS THE ONLY BUILDING THAT APPEARS IN THAT BOOK OF THE NATIONAL RETROSPECTIVE OF ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE.

RIGHT. SO SO THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY A PLAQUE ISN'T QUITE THE SAME THING AS TRYING TO PRESERVE A NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BUILDING OF ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE.

SO, YOU KNOW, AND I UNDERSTAND THE PLANS WILL BE DOCUMENTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THIS AND THAT.

YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A MITIGATION MEASURE, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS.

MAYBE, MAYBE IT'S JUST ME CONCERNED WITH THE ARCHITECTURE THAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO OUR COMMUNITY, BECAUSE OUR COMMUNITY IS SAYING THAT IT'S NOT REALLY WORTHY OF OUR COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, AND SO NOW THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY COULD BE AT LEAST STATE RECOGNIZED AND ARCHITECTURALLY AND POTENTIALLY NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED, AND WE'RE TRYING TO DEMOLISH IT.

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN MAKE THE FINDINGS THAT WE'RE GOOD WITH DEMOLISHING THIS.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. YEAH.

WE'RE ASKING QUESTIONS AND CLARIFYING FROM STAFF THIS EVENING RIGHT NOW.

UNDERSTOOD. COULD WE COULD WE ASK? YOU CAN CONTINUE ON WHEN WE GET TO.

WELL, THAT'S THE QUESTION I HAVE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GET BACK TO THE END OF THE FINDINGS HERE OF THE CONCLUSIONS, YOUR LAFFERTY REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS TO, IN GOOD FAITH EFFORT, ESTIMATE THE AND SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS.

RIGHT. SO THAT'S ON PAGE 16 OF 17.

OH, NO 60 OF 128 AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE HERE.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE DO THAT.

LESSEN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IF BY THE EXTENT FEASIBLE, IF WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TEARING DOWN A BUILDING THAT HAS ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE ON STATE, LOCAL AND NATIONAL LEVELS.

I THINK THAT WE'RE PROBABLY NOT THE PEOPLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU, BUT WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT OUR REPORT CONCLUDED THAT IT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR DEMOLITION, AND THEN THE EIR ANALYZES ALTERNATIVES AND TALKS ABOUT MITIGATION BASED ON WHICH ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE CHOSEN. YEAH, AND IF I COULD JUST ADD I THINK THERE'S DIFFERENT ROLES OF HOW WE CAME HERE TO THIS AND ARE PRESENTING THIS.

ASM CREATED THE HISTORIC REPORT, AND WE TYPICALLY RELY ON SPECIALTY CONSULTANTS TO DO ALL SORTS OF THINGS.

TRAFFIC, AIR QUALITY, ALL OF THAT.

THAT WAS THEN FED INTO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THAT STUDIED ALL OF THE AREAS AND WHAT WOULD THE IMPACTS BE? CAN THEY BE MITIGATED? AND IN THIS CASE, OUR RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION IS THAT IT IS A HISTORIC RESOURCE.

IT'S AN ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCE, AND IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A FINDING OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION, AND SO I THINK IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW THAT, EITHER AGREE AND MAKE AN ACTION TO AGREE OR DIRECT US WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BUT THAT'S AT ITS CORE.

WHAT CEQA PROCESS IS, IS TO SHOW WHAT THE IMPACT IS, SHOW WHAT THE FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE, AND THEN THE DECISION MAKERS, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT TO SUPPORT OR NOT, SUPPORT IS PART OF THAT PROCESS.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF OUR OTHER HOUSING PROJECTS, WHERE THE CEQA WASN'T ON THE AGENDA OR THERE THERE WAS OTHER ELIGIBLE DENSITY BONUS, OTHER STATE LAWS

[00:35:08]

I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION REAL QUICK.

SO AND THEN SPEAKING OF THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND OVERRIDING CONDITIONS THE DETERIORATION OF THE BUILDING, DID YOU GUYS TOUR THE BUILDING? YES WE DID.

WE SURVEYED IT, AND SO SOME OF THE FINDINGS HERE IN THIS LET'S SEE.

SO THIS IS 47 OF 128 UNDER THE PROJECT SUMMARY OF THE OBJECTIVES.

IT SAYS THE BECAUSE ALL OF THE FINDINGS IN THE EIR ARE BASED ON THESE TEN OBJECTIVES.

CORRECT. SO IT SEEMS THAT ELIMINATING ONGOING STRUCTURAL DETERIORATION IS A MAINTENANCE ISSUE.

ELIMINATING ROOF DECK LEAKS AND SITE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS IS A MAINTENANCE ISSUE.

DID YOU FIND THAT ANY OF THESE DIDN'T COMPLY, YOU KNOW, OR COULDN'T BE MITIGATED? WE WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THAT PARTICULAR ANALYSIS.

DID YOU FIND WHEN YOU WERE TOURING THE BUILDING, WERE YOU ABLE TO ACCESS IT? YOU KNOW, NORMALLY, I MEAN, OR DID YOU HAVE TO WEAR HARD HATS? WAS IT FALLING DOWN? WAS IT? YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

THESE SEEM LIKE MAINTENANCE ISSUES, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, SO THE ONLY IN THIS PROJECT OBJECTIVE LIST, I'M CONCERNED THAT THE ONLY THINGS THAT ARE BEING REALLY OBJECTIVE IN THIS ARE THE DEMOLISH OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE INCREASE OF THE AMOUNT OF WINDOW AREA, AND THE UPDATE OF THE CONFIGURATION OF THE TRADITIONAL TO CREATE A TRADITIONAL FLOOR PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT IS SORT OF CURIOUS TO ME IN THIS STATEMENT, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THIS THE VICTOR CONDOS WAS AN INNOVATIVE DESIGN FOR ITS TIME, SO THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE TRADITIONAL WHEN WE HAVE THIS THING THAT'S SO SIGNIFICANTLY, HISTORICALLY VALUABLE, SEEMS TO BE A REALLY INTERESTING EVALUATION.

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THE FLOOR PLAN VALUABLE? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, CAN WE MOVE BACK TO THE STAFF ISSUE AND THEN YOU CAN ASK THESE QUESTIONS WHEN WE GET TO THE DISCUSSION AFTER THE PRESENTATION BY THE I WASN'T SURE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO COME BACK.

NO, THEY THEY WILL BE THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN THE AUDIENCE.

OKAY. SO WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS WE'RE ASKING STAFF, BUT I'D STILL LIKE THEM TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

WHY DON'T WE HAVE THEM COME BACK UP TO THE PODIUM AFTER WE HAVE THE APPLICANT PROVIDE HIS PRESENTATION, AND THEN WE CAN WE CAN MOVE ON FROM THERE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER QUESTION FOR STAFF FOR CLARIFICATION, AND IT WAS FOR THE LADIES TOO NOW THAT THEY'VE SAID, WELL, JUST WAIT TILL WE GET TO THAT POINT.

OKAY. WE CAN DO THAT.

WITH REGARD TO COMPARING THE BUILDING THAT'S THERE NOW WITH THE PROPOSED BUILDING, IF WE APPROVE THIS PROJECT.

MR. VAN LEEUWEN, IS THERE A HEIGHT DIFFERENCE, AND IF SO, WHAT IS IT BETWEEN WHAT'S THERE NOW AND WHAT WOULD BE BUILT IF WE APPROVED THIS PROJECT? SO, YEAH, THIS ELEVATION, THIS WILL BE THE FRONT ELEVATION, AND IT DOES SHOW THE CURRENT VICTOR CONDO BUILDING OUTLINED IN DOTTED LINE.

SO I'M LOOKING AT IT.

I BELIEVE WE ABOUT THREE FEET TOO TALL IS OR THREE FEET TALLER, APPROXIMATELY.

THE EXISTING CONDO BUILDING IS TO THE ONE PROPOSED.

OKAY. SO THE PROPOSED ONE WOULD BE THREE FEET SHORTER THAN WHAT'S, AND I GUESS I SHOULD ALSO CLARIFY IN THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE, YOU CAN GO UP TO 30FT HIGH IF YOU HAVE A ROOF PITCH ONLY 24FT IF 24-25FT IF IT'S A FLAT ROOF.

SO IT'S A FLAT ROOF STRUCTURE.

SO TECHNICALLY THIS STRUCTURE IS 5FT OR 7FT OVER THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR A FLAT ROOF STRUCTURE.

SO THE STRUCTURE THAT'S PROPOSED DOES HAVE A PITCHED ROOF.

SO THE AMOUNT OF HEIGHT DIFFERENCE IS IS LARGER ON THE EDGES OF THE BUILDING THAN THE CENTER, BUT OVERALL HEIGHT IS A DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT THREE FEET.

OKAY. THIS THE PROPOSAL IS THREE FEET SHORTER THAN THE PRESENT STRUCTURE.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

SO IF ANYTHING, IN TERMS OF VIEW, THIS COULD IN A SMALL WAY ENHANCE THE VIEW OF LOOKING WESTWARD TOWARD THE OCEAN.

CORRECT, AND AGAIN, MORE SO EVEN ON THE EDGES OF THE BUILDING.

[00:40:02]

YES.

THERE WE GO. OKAY.

THE HISTORIC FEATURE, IS IT LIMITED TO THAT FALSE FRONT OR IS THERE ANYTHING BEHIND THAT FALSE FRONT IN THE IN THE CENTRAL PART OF THE BUILDING THAT'S OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE? I COULD PROBABLY PARAPHRASE, BUT YES, THERE ARE OTHER ASPECTS OF THIS BUILDING THAT ADD TO THE HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THE BUILDING. AGAIN, THIS BLEND OF STYLE ON PURPOSE TOOK DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF DIFFERENT STYLES.

AGAIN, I'M NOT AN ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSIONAL SO THAT WE HAVE LIKE THE GLASS, THE ROUNDED GLASS.

I THINK THOSE ARE STAIRWAYS RIGHT BEHIND THE FALSE FRONT.

THAT IS ALSO CONSIDERED CONTRIBUTING TO THE OVERALL BLEND OF POSTMODERN STYLE.

THERE'S SOME SIGNIFICANCE ABOUT THE STAIR, THE HANDRAILS TO THE STAIRS.

ALSO THE LIGHT CHIMNEYS, I BELIEVE, IS SOMETHING THAT IS OF NOTE, WHICH IS THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE THE WHITE PART OF THE BUILDING HAS CHIMNEYS, BUT THOSE AREN'T CHIMNEYS.

THEY'RE ACTUALLY USED FOR LIGHT PASSAGE.

SO THERE ARE OTHER ASPECTS, BUT JUST TO LOOK AT THE BUILDING, IT'S CLEAR THAT THE MAIN ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST OF THE BUILDING IS THAT FALSE FRONT, WITH STAFF DEEMED THE BUILDING OF ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE IF THAT FALSE FRONT WAS NOT THERE, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT CALL. I'M SORRY.

YOU JUST DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

I WOULD NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

OKAY, THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH.

WELL, I WOULD JUST SAY, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN DIRECTLY ANSWER THAT, BUT I THINK THE EIR IS THAT IT WAS EVALUATED.

ONE OF THE REASONS THE PARTIAL REHABILITATION OPTION DID REDUCE THE IMPACTS TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANCE IS BECAUSE IT DID RETAIN THAT FRONT, IT DID NOT RETAIN ALL THE OTHER ARCHITECTURAL ITEMS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, MITIGATION MEASURE ONE DOCUMENTATION WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE INTERIOR FEATURES FOR SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT KYLE DESCRIBED. IF THAT ALTERNATIVE WAS TO BE APPROVED AND BUILT, BUT THERE WOULD STILL BE AN IMPACT BECAUSE IT TAKES OUT SOME OF THOSE FACETS.

SO I GUESS IT'S A LONG WAY OF SAYING IT IS THAT FRONT IS TRULY THE MAIN FEATURE THAT, OKAY, THAT WOULD BE DEMOLISHED AND THAT'S THE MAIN ASPECT OF THIS BUILDING THAT'S CONSIDERED OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE? YES. OKAY, AND THE OTHER ONES I SEE BEHIND THERE THE WINDOWS AND SO FORTH, THAT KIND OF THAT THERE'S REFERENCE THAT THOSE ARE SOMEHOW OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE IN THE BIGGER CONTEXT.

I'M NOT CLEAR. ARE THOSE GOING TO BE RETAINED OR ARE THOSE GOING TO BE IN THE NEW CONDOMINIUM? DOES THAT ALL GO AWAY AS WELL? NOT IN THE CONDOMINIUM. NEW BUILDING IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

THE FULL PROJECT? NONE OF THAT WOULD REMAIN IN THE PARTIAL REHABILITATION ALTERNATIVE.

IT WOULD BE THE FRONT, BUT THE ESSENTIALLY THE THINGS BEHIND THE FACADE WOULD NOT.

I SEE, THANK YOU.

I WILL JUST MENTION I DO HAVE SLIDES FOR THE ALTERNATIVES.

IF THAT'S A DISCUSSION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE STAFF PRESENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO AGAIN DURING THE REQUIRED WITH THE CEQA PROCESS IS TO EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES, AND THIS DID THE ANALYSIS DID EVALUATE THREE ALTERNATIVES.

ONE WAS A NO PROJECT.

SO IF NOTHING HAPPENED.

ONE IS A FULL REHABILITATION OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE, THE HISTORIC RESOURCE AND A PARTIAL.

SO THE NO PROJECT, AND I'M GOING TO BE PRESENTING THIS FROM THE HOW IT'S WRITTEN IN OUR CURRENT DOCUMENT, WHICH AGAIN WOULD BE WRITTEN, BUT AND THE RATIONALE THAT DOCUMENT PROVIDES FOR WHY THOSE OPTIONS WERE NOT SEEN AS SUPERIOR.

SO THE NO PROJECT WOULD NOT ACCOMPLISH ANY OF THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES.

THE STRUCTURAL DETERIORATION AND MOISTURE INTRUSION WOULD REMAIN, AND NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL BUT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WOULD COME OF THAT.

THE FULL REHABILITATION WOULD ONLY ACHIEVE TWO OF THE TEN PROJECT OBJECTIVES.

IT WOULD ADDRESS STRUCTURAL ISSUES AND REPAIR EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THE FOUNDATION WHICH IS IN NEED OF REPAIR, AND RECONSTRUCT OF THE WOOD FRAME FALSE FRONT.

SO AGAIN, IT'S THROUGH OUR ANALYSIS THAT BASICALLY THE ENTIRE FALSE FRONT THAT IS THERE NEEDS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED DUE TO ITS MOISTURE AND ROT. THE COST OF IMPLEMENTATION.

AGAIN, SOME OF THIS IS THE RATIONALE FOR WHY IT WAS NOT TAKEN.

THE COST OF IMPLEMENTING THE REHABILITATION EXCEEDS THE MARKET VALUE FOR THE REHABILITATED STRUCTURE ONCE IT WAS DONE.

[00:45:02]

THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES ARE NOT FULLY MET, SOME PARTIALLY AND SOME NOT AT ALL.

THE DETACHED FACADE WOULD BE AGAIN RECONSTRUCTED, THEN REATTACHED.

IT'S IN A CONDITION OF SUCH EAST ELEVATION REDESIGN FOR T HE EAST ELEVATION WOULD BE REDESIGNED TO REFLECT THE CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES THAT GLASS BLOCK WALL, THE SKYLIGHT CHIMNEYS.

SO THIS PROJECT WOULD AIM TO POTENTIALLY RECREATE, BUT NOT SAVE THOSE OTHER FEATURES A NEGATIVE FINANCIAL IMPACT COMPARED TO THE PROJECT.

IN TERMS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE VALUE OF THE PROJECT WITH A PARTIAL REHAB OR THE PARTIAL REHABILITATION AND THIS WOULD THIS WOULD REDUCE THE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT TO SIGNIFICANT BUT MITIGABLE IMPACT.

SO IT DOESN'T TAKE IT DOWN TO NO IMPACT.

THERE WOULD STILL BE AN IMPACT BECAUSE MOST OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE GONE, BUT IT WOULD BE FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA TAKE IT OFF OF THAT SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE TO SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGATABLE. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

YES. THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

YES. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

WHY WASN'T THIS ALREADY DECLARED A HISTORICAL BUILDING A LONG TIME AGO? IF IT'S SUCH A PRIORITY NOW, WHY WASN'T IT TEN YEARS AGO? SO SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE HAD TO SUBMIT FOR THAT TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE.

I'M NOT TOO FAMILIAR WITH THAT PROCESS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ANY STRUCTURE CAN BE SUBMITTED FOR EVALUATION BY THE CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER CONSENTS TO THAT, THEN IT WOULD END UP ON THE LIST.

IF IT DOESN'T, THEN A DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY WOULD BE ISSUED, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE ON THE LIST BECAUSE THE OWNER WOULDN'T HAVE CONSENTED TO THE LIST, BUT THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED. RIGHT.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ARBITRARY DECISION RIGHT NOW THAT IT COULD BE WOULD HAVE SHOULD HAVE BE ON A POTENTIAL OTHER REGISTERS, BUT NO ONE EVER TOOK THE INITIATIVE TO DO THAT. FOR THE PURPOSES OF CEQA WHEN I SAY IT DOESN'T MATTER, BUT THERE'S JUST A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

YEAH. YEAH, EXACTLY AND THEN ONE OTHER QUESTION.

THE PARTIAL REHABILITATION THAT WILL BE ADDITIONAL COST TO THE PEOPLE THAT OWN IT.

RIGHT? CORRECT.

YEAH. THERE'S NO PLANS DRAWN UP. SO WHEN DO SO REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE THAT OWN IT BECAUSE THEY ARE PROPERTY OWNERS.

HOW LONG HAVE THEY OWNED THAT PROPERTY? DO YOU KNOW.

THE NEXT PHASE WHEN WE'RE CONCLUDED WITH QUESTIONS IS THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.

I'M JUST CURIOUS IF IN THE BASIC PRESENTATION.

I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WILL BE COVERING THAT.

OKAY, COOL. INSTEAD OF ME DIGGING FOR MY NOTES.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MERZ.

JUST ON THAT ONE SLIDE RIGHT THERE, YOU POINT THE SECOND FROM THE BOTTOM SAID NEGATIVE FINANCIAL IMPACT COMPARED TO PROJECT.

COULD YOU JUST COVER THAT AGAIN? IT WASN'T QUITE. DIDN'T QUITE FOLLOW EVERYTHING YOU SAID.

I'D HAVE TO LOOK IT UP. I BELIEVE THERE IS A KIND OF NET DIFFERENTIAL AT THE END OF ALL OF THIS, BUT FOR PROPERTY VALUE COMPARED TO WITH A NEW PROJECT OR THIS PARTIAL REHABILITATION, IT WOULD BE THE INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUE WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT $300,000.

SO IF THEY MADE A NEW PROJECT OR REHABILITATED, THAT NEW PROJECT WOULD BE 300,000 MORE THAN THE REHABILITATED PROJECT.

OH, OKAY. OKAY.

THE COST? YEAH, AND TYPICALLY, THOSE COSTS AREN'T REALLY A FACTOR FOR A CEQA ANALYSIS.

IT CAN COME INTO PLAY SOME IN THE DECISION MAKING.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

THANK YOU. YEAH.

SORRY. SO UNDER ALL THE FINDINGS THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE, THE REHABILITATION ALTERNATIVE, AND THE PARTIAL REHABILITATION ALTERNATIVE, THE FINDING IS THAT PARTIAL REHABILITATION ALTERNATIVE IS REJECTED BECAUSE SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC, SOCIAL OR OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, INCLUDING MATTERS OF PUBLIC POLICY, MAKE THIS ALTERNATIVE INFEASIBLE.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT'S VERY UNCLEAR, AND I DIDN'T THINK AND I'VE HEARD FROM THE ATTORNEY BEFORE, FINANCIAL MATTERS ARE NOT UNDER OUR PURVIEW TO CONSIDER.

SO CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT STATEMENT UNDER THE FINDINGS? I THINK I WILL HAVE ONE OF OUR CONSULTANTS ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.

HI. KIM BERANEK, BERANEK CONSULTING GROUP.

[00:50:03]

YEAH, SO YOU'RE RIGHT.

WHEN IT COMES TO ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, YOU DON'T LOOK AT ECONOMICS, BUT WHEN YOU DO ADOPT FINDINGS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, THOSE VARIOUS FEATURES THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED, THE TECHNOLOGICAL ECONOMICS IS ONE OF THOSE FACTORS THAT CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN YOU ARE APPROVING A PROJECT OR REJECTING THE ALTERNATIVES, WHICH IS WHAT THESE FINDINGS ARE NOW PORTRAYING FOR YOU.

SO YEAH, AND THERE WAS AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.

THE BASIS OF THAT DOES HAVE NUMERICAL INFORMATION IN THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, AND THAT'S THE BASIS.

SO FOR THE PARTIAL YOU HAD MENTIONED, IT'S A $235,000 ADDITIONAL COST FOR THE APPLICANT TO FOR THAT ALTERNATIVE. SO THAT'S ONE OF MANY REASONS FOR ITS REJECTION, BUT YEAH, ECONOMICS IS FACTORED INTO THAT FINAL DECISION MAKING PIECE FOR CEQA, BUT THIS WOULD THIS PROJECT IF THERE WAS A HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF SOME SORT, WOULD IT QUALIFY FOR MILLS ACT? WOULD THEY GET TAX REDUCTION ON THAT PROPERTY.

THAT'S I MEAN, MILLS ACT IS BEYOND MY OKAY, BEYOND MY BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE A MILLS ACT PROGRAM, AND THE QUESTION COMMISSIONER HUBINGER HAD ABOUT THE HISTORIC RESOURCE.

WE HAVEN'T HAD A HISTORIC RESOURCE PROGRAM IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD BECAUSE IT WAS REPEALED IN 1993.

WE JUST GOT IT BACK 2019 NO 2023.

YEAH. SOUNDS APPROXIMATE.

YEAH, 2023.

SO THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY EVEN TRY TO DESIGNATE THIS PROPERTY WASN'T AVAILABLE TO ANY OF OUR CITIZENS UNLESS THEY WENT DIRECTLY TO CITY COUNCIL TO REQUEST DESIGNATION, AND AGAIN, THERE STILL WASN'T ANY OPPORTUNITY TO MITIGATE.

WELL, WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AGAIN.

YEAH. WE CAN WE CAN HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ON THAT.

I'LL SAY CITY COUNCIL DID ADOPT A MILLS ACT PROGRAM.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF FEATURES AND ITEMS IN THAT.

LAST I HEARD, THERE WAS A COUPLE APPLICATIONS IN ONE OF THE PRIMARY DRIVERS OF THAT AND REQUIREMENTS IS IT NEEDS THAT PROCESS NEEDS TO BE A PROPERTY OWNER INITIATED PROCESS.

CAN I ALSO JUST ADD ONE MORE THING BECAUSE I WAS JUST CONSULTING WITH ASM UNDER THE PARTIAL, YOU'D HAVE TO FULLY MITIGATE OR FULLY REHABILITATE THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR MILLS.

THE PARTIAL DOESN'T DO THAT.

YEAH, AND THEN ALSO ON THE 40, THIS PROPERTY PROBABLY WASN'T LISTED BECAUSE IT REALLY ISN'T EVEN WOULD NOT NORMALLY HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE BECAUSE IT'S LESS THAN 45 YEARS OLD.

SO USUALLY THAT'S THE CRITERIA FOR EVEN CONSIDERING TO LIST SOMETHING JUST AS AN FROM AN INVENTORY STANDPOINT.

SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHY IT HASN'T REALLY, BEEN ON THE RADAR SCREEN.

YET THERE'S CLAIMS THAT IT'S GOING TO IT COULD BE YOU KNOW, ELIGIBLE FOR.

SO ARBITRARY. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

SO. YEAH. WELL, THERE WAS CRITERIA USED FOR SURE.

YEAH. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. OKAY.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

SWITCHING GEARS FROM THE HISTORIC HOW MANY DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ARE THEY REQUESTING ON THIS PROJECT? WE HAVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN? WHICH IS REQUIRED IN THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE, A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, NON-CONFORMING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND A MINOR SUBDIVISION, AND.

GOOD. SO, FIVE.

I THINK IT'S FIVE. YES. YEAH. OKAY.

NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD'S DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FORM IS ALL OF THESE TYPES OF PERMITS ARE DISCRETIONARY.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HERE? CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

IF IT WASN'T DISCRETIONARY, YOU KNOW, SO THEY.

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS BECAUSE WE HAVE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, RIGHT.

FOR OUR WHOLE CITY.

THIS PROJECT COULD HAVE GONE, IF I'M CORRECT.

TELL ME IF I'M CORRECT.

THIS PROJECT COULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND NOT BE AT THIS BOARD TODAY.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS NOT CORRECT, BUT I'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE NUANCES, A FEW THINGS ON THAT.

ONE IS THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE NOT IN EFFECT IN THE COASTAL ZONE.

WE SUBMITTED THEM TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND SO THEY ARE STILL SITTING THERE.

THE SECOND PART IS THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WERE TO THE EFFORT WAS TO TAKE OUR EXISTING STANDARDS, MAKE THEM OBJECTIVE.

IT DIDN'T CHANGE THE PERMIT PROCESS SPECIFICALLY FOR ANYBODY, BUT WHAT THAT WAS IS SORT OF MAKING SURE OUR STANDARDS ARE CLEAR, AS WELL

[00:55:04]

THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT TYPES OF MINISTERIAL PROCESSES UNDER STATE LAW.

THE MOST COMMON ONES ARE SB 9 AND SB 35, BUT THIS PROJECT DID NOT APPLY UNDER ANY OF THOSE.

WELL, THERE ARE CHALLENGES IN THE COASTAL ZONE WITH THOSE.

SB 35 DOESN'T ACTUALLY APPLY IN THE COASTAL ZONE UNTIL NEXT CALENDAR YEAR EITHER, AND SB 9 IT JUST WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS APPLIED I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED, BUT THAT ALSO STILL NEEDS TO MEET COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.

ANY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DOES NEED TO COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF THE VALUE OF THAT IS OVER 60,000, WHICH IS MOST PERMITS, EXCEPT FOR VERY SMALL ALTERATIONS OR SMALL PROJECTS.

CAN WE GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE.

LET ME ASK ONE MORE QUESTION.

ONE MORE QUESTION.

SO BECAUSE IT'S HAPPENED A COUPLE TIMES IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS WHERE WE'VE BEEN HELD BY THIS HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, AND BECAUSE THERE'S NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS PROJECT AND THEY'RE THEY'RE ACTUALLY CREATING NO NET LOSS FOR THESE UNITS.

WHICH IS MORE DOMINANT OR IS THERE A DOMINANCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS? IS THE CEQA MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT? ARE THEY EQUAL? IS THERE A HIERARCHY? HOW DOES IT WORK? I'M NOT SURE. I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION IN TERMS OF, I WOULD SAY PROCEDURALLY, FIRST YOU NEED TO ADDRESS CEQA, AND I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO THINK OF IT IS FIRST WE GO THROUGH THE CEQA ANALYSIS AND THEN YOU CAN GO THROUGH THE PROJECT ANALYSIS.

WELL I'M WONDERING SO BUT FROM LAST PROJECT, YOU KNOW THERE'S NO NET LOSS FOR THIS PROJECT.

SO IS THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT THE IDEA THAT WE COULD BECAUSE THIS IS A DISCRETIONARY A SERIES OF DISCRETIONARY PERMITS BEING REQUESTED THAT CAN BE TECHNICALLY DENIED.

RIGHT, AND WE ARE NOT LOSING UNITS OR GAINING UNITS AND WE'RE NOT GAINING AFFORDABLE UNITS.

THE ASPECT THAT IT'S WRITTEN IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT WE HAVE TO APPROVE THIS BECAUSE OF HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED TO VOTE ON IT IF THERE IS NO NET LOSS, NO AFFORDABLE UNITS, AND ACTUALLY THERE'S A CEQA IMPACT, A SERIOUS CEQA IMPACT.

SO WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT? IS IT THE CEQA IMPACT OR IS IT THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY THAT BECOMES THE GREATER ISSUE? RATE WEIGHTED QUESTION, I GUESS.

I THINK A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE.

ONE IS THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THE MID 80S.

HOW ABOUT I START AND THEN ALLEGRA CAN CORRECT ME OR ADD ON.

SO IT'S BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE SINCE THE 80S, AND SO IT SPEAKS TO WHAT ARE REQUIREMENTS IN ITEMS. WE TALK A LOT ABOUT HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, AND WE MEAN SB 330, WHICH WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THAT IN 2019 THAT ESTABLISHES A VERY CLEAR PRELIMINARY REVIEW PROCESS.

A NUMBER OF HEARINGS, ALL OF THAT.

THIS PROJECT DIDN'T GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN FIVE UNITS TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

SO IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT, BUT THERE ARE STILL PROTECTIONS UNDER STATE LAW RELATED TO HOUSING AND HOW PROJECTS CAN BE CONSIDERED.

IN THIS CASE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, AND, AND BECAUSE IT MEETS OUR OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CEQA PROCESS.

IN ORDER TO AGREE WITH US, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD NEED TO ADOPT THE DOCUMENTS AS WE'VE PRESENTED THEM OR WITH MODIFICATIONS, IF YOU FEEL THEY ARE APPROPRIATE.

IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT AGREE WITH US, THEY COULD RECOMMEND A ONE OF THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES, AND WE WOULD NEED TO TAKE THAT BACK AND UPDATE THE FINDINGS AND DOCUMENTATION RELATED TO THAT, BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE NOT SAYING IS THAT THERE'S A MANDATORY DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THIS CASE.

YEAH. SO I'M GOING BACK TO WHAT I ORIGINALLY SAID, WHICH IS TAKE IT ONE STEP AT A TIME.

I'D FIRST GO THROUGH YOUR CEQA ANALYSIS AND LOOK AT THE IMPACTS.

LOOK AT THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND IF YOU ARE WANTING TO LOOK AT ONE OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES, WE WOULD NEED TO GO BACK AND REDO OUR FINDINGS TO BRING THAT BACK AT A DIFFERENT MEETING, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP.

[01:00:03]

PLUS, I WANT TO HEAR THE CONSULTANTS AS WELL, BUT THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

APPLICANT, DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE TO US? WE DO. EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU. WOULD YOU PROVIDE YOUR NAME AGAIN? AND YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION? YES, YES. GOOD EVENING MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, IT'S WAYNE BRECHTEL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, RENEE WALES.

JOHN BARRY, YOUR ARCHITECT IS HERE AND RENEE WALES IS HERE.

SO WE'RE ALL GOING TO SPEAK, AND I'LL JUST GET STARTED.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS BUILDING ISN'T LISTED NATIONALLY.

IT'S NOT LISTED IN ANY STATE REGISTER.

IT'S NOT LISTED LOCALLY.

IT HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED TO BE ELIGIBLE BY ANY STATE OR NATIONAL OR LOCAL INSTITUTION, BECAUSE NO OWNER HAS EVER ASKED FOR THAT TO BE DONE.

IN CARLSBAD, HOMEOWNERS HAVE TO AGREE TO SUBJECT THEIR HOMES TO HISTORICAL DESIGNATION.

IF THEY DON'T AGREE, THEY DON'T GET DESIGNATED.

WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IS SORT OF A BACKDOOR DESIGNATION OF THIS BUILDING, BECAUSE MISS WALES HAS THE UNFORTUNATE NEED TO GET A DISCRETIONARY PERMIT, AND I WILL JUST SAY THAT, TO BE CLEAR.

LET ME JUST CUT TO THE CHASE.

WE I GUARANTEE YOU MISS WALES DOESN'T AGREE THAT THIS IS A HISTORIC STRUCTURE.

EVEN ONE MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC COMMISSION THOUGHT IT DIDN'T QUALIFY AS A HISTORIC STRUCTURE.

SO THERE'S ROOM FOR DEBATE THERE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE BATTLE WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU TONIGHT.

WE THINK THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DID A GOOD JOB.

WE THINK THERE'S ROOM TO DISAGREE ON WHETHER IT'S HISTORIC, BUT THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU IS A WAY TO BALANCE THE HARDSHIP THAT THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS AND PLACED ON THE OWNER, WHO, BY THE WAY, OWNED ONE CONDO IN 2016, [INAUDIBLE] UNTIL 2020.

SO SHE HAD NO ABILITY TO MAINTAIN OR DO ANYTHING, AND A REPORT PREPARED BY HERITAGE ARCHITECTURE OUTLINED WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RESTORE THE STRUCTURE, AND IT'S A LOT, AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS TO IMPLEMENT WHAT HERITAGE ARCHITECTURE REQUIRES TO RESTORE IT WOULD COST ABOUT $1 MILLION MORE THAN THE BUILDING WOULD BE WORTH.

AFTERWARDS. IT BASICALLY TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO DO A FULL REHABILITATION WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY DENYING THE PROJECT.

IT WOULD BE A REGULATORY TAKING, BECAUSE NO ONE'S GOING TO SPEND A MILLION EXTRA DOLLARS TO, 4 MILLION, TO BUILD SOMETHING WORTH THREE.

SO I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ARCHITECT, JOHN BERRY, SPEAK TO THE PROJECT AND MISS WALES SPEAK TO WHAT SHE'S GONE THROUGH AND THE FACT THAT THIS ISN'T JUST A LACK OF MAINTENANCE, THIS IS JUST AN OLD BUILDING THAT'S DETERIORATED AND WE THINK THAT THE PROPOSAL WITH THE MITIGATION, WHICH IS FULL DOCUMENTATION OF THIS BUILDING, WHICH, BY THE WAY, HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN GREAT DETAIL BY THE ARCHITECT WHO'S STILL ALIVE, WHO ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, CAN HELP PROVIDE THAT DOCUMENTATION.

YOU KNOW, INFORMATIONAL PLAQUE ON THE SITE, AND SALVAGE, WHERE FEASIBLE, IS A REASONABLE WAY TO BALANCE THE INTEREST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND THIS IS A UNIQUE CASE AND THE INTEREST OF THE HOMEOWNER, AND WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO MR. BERRY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JOHN BERRY.

I'M THE ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT.

THIS PROJECT STARTED ACTUALLY BEFORE I WAS EVEN INVOLVED IN IT FROM THE OWNER'S POINT OF VIEW.

THERE WAS AN ARCHITECT FIRST PRIOR TO ME ON THE PROJECT CALLED MARENGO MORTIMER, AND THEY DID A FEASIBILITY STUDY.

I DON'T HAVE THE TIME.

I GOT THREE MINUTES TO DISCUSS SIX YEARS WORTH OF DOCUMENTATION.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO QUICKLY HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS.

THEY DID A FEASIBILITY STUDY IN 2018, AND IN THAT STUDY IT BASICALLY SAID IT DIDN'T SAY THAT ALL OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE BUILDING WAS DUE TO MAINTENANCE.

IT BASICALLY SAID THE EXISTING BUILDING, SHELL AND SYSTEM ARE AT THE NEARLY AT THE END OF ITS LIFE CYCLE.

OKAY. THAT'S A TYPICAL TERM FOR CONSTRUCTION.

THERE IS A SKETCH.

THIS IS THE SKETCH THAT THEY DID INITIALLY AND THEY DID IN THEIR FEASIBILITY STUDY, WENT TO THE CITY, GOT ALL THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

THEY DID NOT FIND ANYTHING THAT RELATED THIS TO A HISTORIC BUILDING.

THESE ARE QUALITY AND GOOD ARCHITECTS.

THEY CAME UP WITH THIS SKETCH IN TERMS OF WHAT THE BUILDING WOULD BE, AND IT'S MORE OF A CONTEMPORARY PROJECT.

THE CONSISTENCY, THE DESIGN WOULD BE SIMILAR IN DESIGN TO WHAT I HAVE DONE AND WHAT THE ORIGINAL WAS BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE BUILDING.

SO THAT WAS 2018.

[01:05:01]

IN OUR DESIGN, WE WENT THROUGH FOUR CYCLES WITH THE CITY BACK IN 2022, AND WE MET AND EXCEEDED ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

FROM THE GENERAL PLAN TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE, ALL THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, STATE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY, EXISTING UTILITY SERVICES, WHICH ARE ALL THERE TO SUPPLY THIS, AND THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE FOR CONSTRUCTION.

THE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.

THE DESIGN TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROPERTY TO DEVELOP A UNIQUE PROJECT WITH SIMILARITIES TO THE EXISTING PROJECT, IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE CONCEPTS.

THE NUMBER OF UNITS REMAINS THE SAME, WHICH ADDED THE REQUIREMENT.

SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NEW BY THE TIME I GOT TO IT WITH REGARDS TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, WE HAD TO PUT IN GUEST PARKING, WE HAD TO PUT IN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND A VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.

PLANNING CONCEPTS.

WELL, THE TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER, THE I'M GOING TO GO TO THE UNITS.

WE GOT THREE UNITS. THE CIRCULATION IS GREATLY IMPROVED.

IT HAS CODE COMPLIANCE.

IT'S LESS CHOPPED UP BY FLOORS.

THERE'S HALF FLOORS WITHIN THE BUILDING, AND IT'S LARGELY CLEAR SPACES.

THE ENTRANCE IS INDIVIDUALLY SENSED ENTRANCES RATHER THAN ONE MONOLITHIC ELEMENT ACROSS THE FRONT OF IT.

THE LANDSCAPING AND THE LANDSCAPING AND THE RETAINING WALLS OR THE PLANTERS OUT FRONT GIVE IT AN INTEREST AND SOFTENING ALONG THE ENTRY.

IT FITS HARMONIOUSLY WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SINCE THERE'S A LOT OF HOUSES THAT ARE IN THE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WERE BUILT BEFORE THIS PROJECT.

THERE ARE ALSO NEWER HOUSES OR PROJECTS IN THE COMMUNITY.

THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE CONTEMPORARY, EVEN MORE CONTEMPORARY THAN WHAT WE HAVE.

SO I'LL LET RENEE TAKE CARE, TAKE OVER.

HI, MY NAME IS REENE WALES.

I STARTED PURCHASING UNITS OF THIS BUILDING BACK IN 2016-2017.

I WAS MARRIED, MY HUSBAND WAS LIVING ON OCEAN STREET DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THIS BUILDING, AND I WANTED TO HAVE ONE CONDO THAT WOULD BE LIKE AN OVERFLOW GUEST HOUSE FOR OUR BIG EXTENDED FAMILY.

WHEN I FINALLY GOT INTO SEEING WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING WAS, NEITHER OF THE OTHER TWO OWNERS WOULD INVEST ANY MONEY WHATSOEVER.

I HAD TO WAIT UNTIL I COULD ACQUIRE ALL THREE UNITS TO GET THE AUTHORITY TO DO ANY MAJOR CHANGES.

I HAVE PUT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO THIS BUILDING.

I HAVE PUT ON NEW ROOFS, NEW WINDOWS.

I HAVE DONE ALL THAT I CAN DO, BUT THE FAULTS, EVEN ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS WOULD JUST BE LIKE PUTTING A BAND AID ON THIS.

THE FOUNDATION IS SHOT, IT'S GOT TERMITES.

IT IS UNINHABITABLE BECAUSE OF THE MOLD.

SO I HAVE OWNED THESE BUILDINGS, ALL OF THE CARRYING COSTS, ALL OF THE PROPERTY TAXES, ALL OF THE UTILITIES SINCE 2017, AND I HAVE NEVER GOTTEN ONE PENNY OF INCOME FROM THESE.

THEY ARE NOT HABITABLE.

THE ENVIRONMENTALIST WHO DID ALL THE MOLD RESEARCH SAID YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE SOMEONE STAY IN THIS HOUSE, THIS UNIT, MORE THAN A WEEK OR TWO AT THE MOST, AND DEFINITELY NOT YOUNG PEOPLE OR OLD PEOPLE.

THE WAY THE FLOOR PLAN IS, IT JUST DOESN'T FLOW.

IT'S A TRIP HAZARD.

YOU CAN'T BE A YOUNG PERSON.

YOU CAN'T BE ELDERLY AND SURVIVE IN THIS BUILDING BECAUSE IT'S A SPIRAL CIRCULAR STAIRCASE.

[01:10:04]

IT WAS THIS WOULD COST SO MUCH MORE TO TRY TO FIX IT THAN TO JUST BUILD WHAT I WANT TO BUILD, AND I HATE THE LOOK OF THE BUILDING.

SO TO MAKE ME SPEND AN EXTRA MILLION DOLLARS AFTER ALL MY SUNK COSTS ALREADY, TO REBUILD SOMETHING THAT WAS IN SOMEBODY'S ARCHITECTURE BOOK IS JUST NOT FAIR.

IT'S JUST NOT FAIR.

IT'S TAKEN SO LONG.

I HAVE GOTTEN DIVORCED.

I HAVE MOVED TO COLORADO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

BEFORE YOU LEAVE, REAL QUICK, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR THE OWNER.

COMMISSIONER MERZ, ARE YOU THINKING, COMMISSIONER HUBINGER? I JUST WANT TO COMPLIMENT YOU ON THE NEW STRUCTURE.

I THINK IT LOOKS FANTASTIC, AND YOU KNOW, COMPARED TO WHAT'S THERE, THIS IS I THINK THIS IS A DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT.

SO I REALLY WANTED TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON SOME GREAT WORK.

COMMISSIONER MERZ.

NO? COMMISSIONER STINE.

YES, MA'AM. I'M REALLY SYMPATHETIC TO YOUR PLIGHT, AND WHAT WOULD BE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE AS TO THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT YOU'VE PUT INTO THE BUILDING ALREADY? YOU SAID THERE'S OVER $100,000.

HAVE ANY ESTIMATE? WELL, MY PURCHASE COSTS WERE OVER 3 MILLION.

I HAVE A LINE OF CREDIT LOAN.

NOT SO MUCH PURCHASED, MA'AM.

WHAT YOU'VE INVESTED SO FAR IN TERMS OF MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP AND THAT TYPE OF THING.

OH, MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP, PROPERTY TAXES.

IT'S, AND THAT I HAD TO PAY FOR THE CEQA STUDY, WHICH WAS 300,000.

FOCUS ON WHAT YOU'VE DONE FOR MAINTENANCE TO KEEP IT IN SOME TYPE OF CONDITION.

TRYING TO GET IT HABITABLE.

YES. 500,000.

EASILY, NO EXAGGERATION? EASILY. OKAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE THAT.

MINUTES CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL? I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME MINUTES CLERK, DO YOU HAVE ANY REQUESTS FOR SPEAKERS? NO, VICE CHAIR, WE DO NOT.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.

VICE CHAIR. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT SAM WRIGHT WAS DIDN'T WANT TO SPEAK, BUT WANTED TO NOTE HIS SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT.

OKAY, AND IS THAT ON THE RECORD? IT IS NOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT.

SO WITH THAT IN MIND DOES STAFF WANT TO RESPOND TO ANY ISSUES OR QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP AND RAISED WHILE THE APPLICANT WAS MAKING THEIR PRESENTATION? NO. OKAY, FINE.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AND STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME? COMMISSIONER MERZ? NO.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING THAT THERE'S NONE.

COMMISSIONERS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

YEAH, I HAVE BEEN INTERESTED IN HEARING WHAT THE OWNERS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS PROJECT, AND BECAUSE I'M DISAPPOINTED THEY DON'T.

WELL, THE STATEMENT WAS, HATE THE BUILDING.

RIGHT. SO SO I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT THEY HATE A BUILDING.

THAT ACTUALLY WAS SOMETHING THAT MOST ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS IN THE 1980S ACTUALLY WERE NOT JUST FAMILIAR WITH, BUT ACTUALLY ANALYZED AND OVERANALYZED THIS PROJECT BECAUSE OF ITS SIGNIFICANCE INTERNATIONALLY AND THERE BE IT INTERNATIONALLY.

SO UNDERSTANDABLY, POSTMODERN ARCHITECTURE ISN'T FOR EVERYBODY.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT TO BE ONE OF WHAT DID THE HISTORIANS SAY? LESS THAN 50 IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY OF THIS STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE AND CARLSBAD HAS ONE IS NOT JUST SIGNIFICANT, BUT I THINK HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT AND OBVIOUSLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF CEQA, EVEN IF IT'S NOT ON A HISTORIC REGISTER LIST, IT'S STILL ACTUALLY ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT.

[01:15:01]

SO ACTUALLY, SAN DIEGO SAVE OUR HERITAGE ORGANIZATION DID ACTUALLY RECOGNIZE THIS IN 2022 AS A SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF ARCHITECTURE.

SO THE FINDINGS THAT I'M CONCERNED WITH IN THE HISTORIC REPORT ARE LARGELY BASED ON REPAIR ISSUES AND FINANCE, WHICH I'M CONCERNED THAT UNDERSTANDABLY, THIS IS A CONCERN, BUT WE CAN'T DICTATE WHAT YOU SPEND ON ANY TYPE OF PROJECT, LET ALONE RENOVATION OR BUILDING A NEW BUILDING, AND IN MY EXPERIENCE, ANY KIND OF DEMOLITION AND BUILDING OF A NEW BUILDING DEFINITELY COSTS MORE THAN ANY KIND OF REPAIR.

SO YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST MY MINIMAL EXPERIENCE.

FROM THE HISTORY OF WHAT I UNDERSTAND ABOUT ARCHITECTURE AND THE COST EXCEEDING VALUE AND WHY IT'S NOT WHY IT'S NOT A CONSIDERATION WHEN ACTUALLY THE ARCHITECT OF THE BUILDING HAS ACTUALLY OFFERED TO DO PRO BONO WORK TO HISTORICALLY PRESERVE THIS BUILDING IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE WERE GIVEN TO HELP THAT PROCESS I THINK IS A HUGE BENEFIT TO OUR COMMUNITY IF IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESERVE IT.

SO I CAN'T MAKE THE FINDINGS THAT A PLAQUE AND THE DOCUMENTS OF DEMOLITION ARE GOOD ENOUGH.

I THINK THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION WAS REALLY THOROUGH IN TRYING TO NOT ONLY RECOMMEND THE HISTORIC REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT ALSO THEY SUGGESTED THAT KEEPING THE FACADE WAS PROBABLY THE BEST MITIGATION MEASURE OPPORTUNITY.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD WANT TO TALK ABOUT AS TO BEING A MITIGATION MEASURE, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY ALL THE OTHER THE PROPOSAL RIGHT NOW WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THIS CULTURAL RESOURCE.

THAT SHOULD BE AND OBVIOUSLY THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMUNITY SEES AS SIGNIFICANT.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.

EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER STINE.

YES. I HAVE A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT TAKE ON THIS.

LET ME JUST ADDRESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BEGIN WITH, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY A TWOFOLD PROCESS.

ACTUALLY, WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE RESOLUTIONS, ONE ON THE CEQA WITH THE OVERRIDE AND THEN FOR THE PROJECT ITSELF.

I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY IS AND I REALLY RESPECT AND IT'S REALLY VALUABLE THAT WE HAVE HERE TO PROVIDE THAT INPUT.

I LOOK AT IT MORE FROM A LAY PERSPECTIVE AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY, AND I LOOK AT THAT BUILDING AND THEN I LOOK AT OTHER BUILDINGS IN OUR COMMUNITY, SUCH AS THE TRAIN STATION, SUCH AS THE MAIN BUILDING USED TO BE CALLED TWIN INNS, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE NAME OF IT NOW IS ON THE CORNER OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.

I'M LOOKING AT A NUMBER OF OUR BUILDINGS HERE THAT ARE CLEARLY OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE AND WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS TO THE CITY IF IT WAS BULLDOZED DOWN AND A MORE MODERN BUILDING PUT UP THERE, AND WE RESPECT THAT AND VALUE THAT.

HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING, I DON'T SEE IT IN THAT CATEGORY.

I SEE IT AS A BUILDING THAT'S BADLY DILAPIDATED.

A LARGE PART IN MY MIND, PROBABLY BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THE OCEAN AND THE CORROSIVE NATURE OF OCEAN BREEZES, WHICH IS JUST INHERENT IN BEING CLOSE TO THE OCEAN.

THIS IS A BUILDING BOTH IN THE FACADE, WHICH IS THE KEY TO THE FALSE FRONT AREA, WHICH SEEMS TO BE UNDERLYING THE CEQA DETERMINATION OF HISTORIC. ALTHOUGH THERE'S SOME ISSUES AND I LOOKED BEHIND IT, I SEE RUST, I SEE DIRT, I SEE A BUILDING THAT'S IN VERY, VERY BAD SHAPE

[01:20:07]

WHAT SHE PAID FOR IT IS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

THAT'S HER BUSINESS DECISION, BUT SHE'S ALREADY SUNK A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY INTO THE MAINTAINING OF THE BUILDING, AND WHAT DO WE FIND NOW? BASICALLY THE STRUCTURE IS IN SUCH POOR CONDITION THAT IT'S NOT WORTH IT'S LIKE HAVING A, A CAR THAT WAS BUILT IN 1945 AND THEN TRYING TO PUT A NEW ENGINE AND EVERYTHING IN IT.

YOU DON'T DO THAT.

AT SOME POINT YOU SAY IT'S AN OLDER CAR OR AN OLDER BUILDING.

WE NEED TO GET SOMETHING NEWER.

SO ON THE CEQA, I THINK IT'S A VERY QUESTIONABLE CALL, ALTHOUGH I CAN SUPPORT IT.

AS TO WHETHER THIS BUILDING IS OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE, IT'S NOT IN ANY REGISTRY, AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE ULTIMATE DECISION, BUT I THINK THAT'S A FACTOR. IT'S NOT IN A REGISTRY, APPARENTLY IT IS IN A NUMBER OF ARCHITECTURAL DIGEST, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

SO HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE QUESTIONABLE.

OKAY. WELL, LET'S JUST SAY THAT IT IS, BUT THE OVERRIDE TO ME IS A FAIRLY EASY FINDING TO MAKE BECAUSE OF THE COST THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN OTHERWISE TRYING TO REHAB THE BUILDING.

IT ISN'T COST EFFECTIVE AND I DON'T SEE ANY REALLY LOSS TO THE COMMUNITY QUITE SERIOUSLY WITH REMOVING THIS OLDER, DILAPIDATED BUILDING AND A NEW MODERN STRUCTURE THAT IS MUCH MORE CONSISTENT WITH DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THAT IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I WALKED THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF NEW BUILDINGS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT LOOK REALLY FINE AND ARE A REAL ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY.

I'M SORRY, BUT THIS BUILDING HAS SEEN BETTER TIMES AND IT'S BECOME SOMEWHAT OF AN EYESORE, SO I CAN EASILY MAKE THE FINDINGS MYSELF BASED UPON IT'S IN BAD CONDITION NOW.

THERE ARE HEALTH SAFETY ISSUES NOW AND IT JUST ISN'T PRACTICAL TO REHAB IT.

YOU'VE GOT TO START FROM SQUARE ONE.

SO I LOOK AT THE OVERRIDE FINDINGS, AND I CAN EASILY MAKE THOSE FINDINGS.

IN TERMS OF THE PROJECT ITSELF, ON THE SECOND RESOLUTION, YEAH, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING FROM OUR DISCRETIONARY PERMITS THAT I HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS.

STAFF HAS ADVISED US THAT THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT SHORTER, THREE FEET THAN THE OTHER THAN THE THAT THE EXISTING BUILDING.

SO SLIGHTLY THAT WOULD ENHANCE VIEWS.

I MEAN, THERE IS A VIEW ISSUE FROM MAGEE PARK WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET.

SO THAT'S A POSITIVE.

IT'S TAKING THREE UNITS AND REPLACING THEM FROM THREE UNITS WITH A BUILDING THAT, ACCORDING TO THE DRAWINGS I SEE, WOULD BE A DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT FROM WHAT'S THERE. SO I CAN PERSONALLY MAKE THE OVERRIDE FINDINGS, AND I CAN SUPPORT THE PROJECT BASED UPON THE PERMITS THAT ARE SUBMITTED. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

COMMISSIONER STINE DID A GOOD JOB OF LAYING OUT A LOT OF THE DETAILS, SO I'LL KEEP IT AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL.

I BELIEVE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE RIGHTS, AND TO IMPOSE COSTS AND REQUIREMENTS ON THEM IS NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO AS A CITY. I BELIEVE THE NEW STRUCTURE IS VERY ATTRACTIVE, ADDS TO THE BEAUTY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY, AND IN THAT WAY, IT'S A DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT'S THERE, AND I JUST, I THINK THAT WE CAN'T BE A CITY THAT PUNISHES LANDOWNERS.

YOU JUST CAN'T DO THAT AND SURVIVE LONG TERM.

SO I INTEND TO SUPPORT BOTH RESOLUTE.

COMMISSIONER MERZ.

I'M SORRY; I DIDN'T HAVE MY MICROPHONE ON.

IN THE COMMENT THAT MADE SENSE TO ME BEING IN I'M IN THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST THE THING IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT ACTUALLY WILL HAPPEN, AND I THINK THE INTERESTING POINT WAS IF THE REQUIRING REHABILITATION THAT EXCEEDS THE COST, THEY'LL JUST NEVER HAPPEN, AND IT JUST SIMPLY WILL NEVER OCCUR AND WILL CONTINUE TO DETERIORATE.

IT'S INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH.

SO THE ONE THING I GUESS I WISH I WAS ASKED IN THE QUESTION PERIOD, IT HIT ME NOW AS I WAS REVIEWING THIS UNDER MITIGATION.

IT GOES BACK TO A SITUATION I JUST HAD IN BOISE, IDAHO, WHERE BOTH MY PARENTS LIVE IN A RETIREMENT AREA.

[01:25:06]

AS YOU'RE WALKING ALONG THE STREET, THERE'S PLAQUES UP THAT TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE COMMUNITY.

IT USED TO BE A FAIRLY LARGE AREA.

I GUESS IT'D BE ON THE EAST END OF BOISE, IDAHO, WHERE THERE'S INTERPRETIVE PLAQUES UP TO EXPLAIN THE BUILDINGS THAT WERE THERE, THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THAT AREA, AND IT WAS ACTUALLY IT WAS GREAT. IT WAS I COULD READ IT AND LEARN ABOUT IT AND THINK, WOW, NONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS EXIST TODAY.

THERE'S STILL SOME MOUNDS OF DIRT AND ALL IN THE LUMBER MILL AREA ALONG THE BOISE RIVER, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY VERY HELPFUL.

SO THIS IDEA THAT A PLAQUE IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.

I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY A VERY EFFECTIVE WAY TO IF WE WANT TO MEMORIALIZE WHAT THIS ARCHITECT HAS DONE.

I MEAN, RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT A BUILDING THAT I ALSO VISITED THE SITE.

THE BUILDING IS IN TERRIBLE CONDITION.

IT'S FALLING APART AND, AND JUST BECAUSE A BUILDING AT ONE TIME WAS HISTORICAL AND DOES HAVE HISTORICAL VALUE, DOESN'T MEAN IT NEEDS TO STAY UP FOREVER.

NOR IS IT REASONABLE TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO SPEND MONEY ON A PROJECT THAT'S JUST LITERALLY FALLING APART.

HOWEVER, I THINK YOU KNOW THAT PLAQUE IDEA, ACTUALLY, I'VE SEEN THAT, AND I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY A VERY GOOD THING, AND SO THE FOLKS THAT WANT TO PRESERVE THE MEMORY OF THE VICTOR CONDOS AND WHO ARE INTERESTED IN DOING PRO BONO WORK, ARE INTERESTED IN DOING THESE THINGS.

WELL, I THINK MAYBE THEY PUT UP A PLAQUE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT OCCURS ON MCGEE PARK LAND OR THAT OCCURS ON THEIR LAND.

THE ONE AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE.

ONE QUESTION I WISH I WOULD HAVE ASKED IS IN THE REPORT UNDER MITIGATION IT SAID COULD CONSIST OF A PERMANENT PLAQUE, AND THEN IT SAID THAT MIGHT BE COULD POTENTIALLY BE ON THE SITE OR SOMEWHERE THERE.

I WISH YOU KNOW, I WISH YOU WOULD ASK THAT QUESTION AT THE TIME.

I CAN'T NOW, BUT SO I DO THINK IT IS I THINK IT'S A VALUABLE STATEMENT TO HONOR AND REMEMBER THE VICTOR CONDOS, BUT I THINK THE PLAQUE ACTUALLY IS ACTUALLY A VERY EFFECTIVE AND PROBABLY, I THINK, A BETTER OPTION THAN, THAN KEEPING UP THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE BUILDING I THINK THE BUILDING NEEDS TO COME DOWN, AND THEN YEAH, AND SO I GUESS I WOULD SAY THAT TO THE FOLKS THAT WANT TO REMEMBER THE VICTOR CONDO, I THINK THE PLAQUES ARE A GREAT IDEA, AND AS FAR AS THE FINANCE GUY, I AGREE WITH THE STAFF REPORT AND I SUPPORT THE PROJECT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE VOTES OR ONE VOTE? BECAUSE THERE'S TWO RESOLUTIONS.

YOU CAN SPLIT IT UP. CAN WE SPLIT IT? WE CAN SPLIT IT IF WE CHOOSE TO DO SO.

YEAH. OKAY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.

OKAY. SO THAT IN REGARD COMMISSIONER STINE.

OH, I WAS GOING TO SAY, DID YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ALSO [INAUDIBLE].

YEAH, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO SO AT THIS TIME, I JUST WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO BE ABLE TO EXPRESS THEIR POSITIONS. MY POSITION ITSELF IS IS SIMILAR.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE, FOR YOUR ELOQUENT, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, I ALSO AGREE, I THINK THAT THE PLAQUE IDEA THAT COMMISSIONER MERZ CAME UP WITH, AND IT WAS EVEN MENTIONED IN THE REPORT, AS WELL AS ONE OF THE MITIGATING FACTORS THAT WE COULD CONSIDER IS TO HAVE IT BE RECOGNIZED IN SOME FASHION OR FORM, AND I THINK THE PLAQUE IDEA IS A GOOD ONE, DEPENDING UPON WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, BUT I THINK THAT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CONDITION OF THE CURRENT STRUCTURE AND THE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF REHABILITATION AND THE VARIOUS OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN REGARD TO THAT AND LOOKING AT WHAT IS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT IN REGARD TO THE BUILDING ITSELF, IT WAS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT BACK, WHAT WAS IT 2019, THAT FIVE FOUR STOREY BUILDING, ETCETERA, AND COMPARING THAT TO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED THIS EVENING, I THINK WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED THIS EVENING IS IS FAR BETTER.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT THREE UNITS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE DEMOLISHING AND REPLACING IT WITH THREE UNITS, AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE AND MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT WAS PROPOSED 3 OR 4 YEARS AGO, AND ALSO IN REGARD TO THAT, I THINK THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF WHAT CURRENTLY IS THERE, EXCUSE ME, IN THE PROPOSAL IS EXCELLENT AS WELL.

SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD GO AHEAD AND REQUEST THAT I AND WE CAN GO AHEAD AND SPLIT.

IF WE HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS BY STAFF, WE CAN SPLIT IT INTO TWO MOTIONS IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO.

SO, COMMISSIONER STINE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED?

[01:30:01]

I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE HERE WITH THE EIR AND THE FINDINGS OF OVERRIDE THAT WE HAVE.

I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION.

THE FIRST RESOLUTION IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND THAT IS THE ONE CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.

SO THAT'S MY MOTION.

SECOND. OKAY.

MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER STINE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MERZ.

WE HAVE A VOTE.

OKAY. WE HAVE FOUR FOUR COMMISSIONERS VOTING YES AND ONE COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY VOTING NO.

COMMISSIONER STINE, DO YOU HAVE THE SECOND MOTION THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING? I WOULD BE HAPPY TO.

MR. CHAIR, I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF THE SECOND RESOLUTION, WHICH IS THE STAFF RESOLUTION THAT RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF EACH OF THE DISCRETIONARY PERMITS CONNECTED WITH THIS PROJECT.

COMMISSIONER STINE MADE THE MOTION.

COMMISSIONER MERTZ MAKING A SECOND.

WE HAVE A VOTE.

WE HAVE FOUR COMMISSIONERS VOTING YES.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY VOTING NO.

THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH.

MOTION CARRIES BY FOUR ONE.

WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU. EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THIS EVENING FOR YOUR INPUT.

WE TRULY APPRECIATE STAFF.

EXCELLENT JOB.

THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF TONIGHT'S MEETING.

IS THERE ANY REPORTS BY THE COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

COMMISSIONER MERZ.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

NOTHING ON HISTORICAL PRESERVATION THIS EVENING.

ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER STINE.

ALL RIGHT. CITY PLANNER LARDY.

[CITY PLANNER REPORT]

THE NEXT MEETING IS SEPTEMBER 4TH.

THE PRESENTATION WILL BE AN UPDATE ON THE CAP UPDATE.

IT'S NOT A RECOMMENDATION.

EXCUSE US. WE'RE STILL DOING A FEW BUSINESS ITEMS. IF YOU COULD TAKE IT OUTSIDE.

EXCUSE ME, MA'AM, COULD YOU? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE APPRECIATE. THANK YOU FOR COMING THIS EVENING, BY THE WAY.

SORRY. THE IT IS A WORKSHOP ON THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP JUST MEANS THAT IT'S NOT ASKED TO MAKE ANY SPECIFIC ACTION.

THE SPECIFIC ACTION IS BEING TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 2ND, WHERE THE COMMISSION WOULD BE ASKED TO REVIEW AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE CAP ITSELF.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

CITY ATTORNEY, ANY REPORTS? NOTHING FROM ME. THANK YOU.

EXCELLENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT IN MIND, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THE MEETING.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.