[00:00:03] >> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE OCTOBER 16, [CALL TO ORDER] 2024 MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION. WOULD THE MINUTES CLERK PLEASE TAKE THE ROLE. >> COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. >> HERE. >> COMMISSIONER DANNA? >> HERE. >> COMMISSIONER MERZ? >> HERE. >> VICE CHAIR MEENES? >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? >> HERE. >> COMMISSIONER STINE. >> CHAIR KAMENJARIN? >> PRESENT. ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT. PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED THIS EVENING BY COMMISSIONER MEENES. WE WILL REQUIRE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM FOR ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS. REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS MUST BE TURNED INTO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING. IF YOU'RE IN THE AUDIENCE AND YOU WANT TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME TO THE MINUTES CLERK AND FILL OUT ONE OF THE FORMS RIGHT NOW. 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 MUST IDENTIFY THE GROUP, AND AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE MEETING AT WHICH THE PRESENTATION IS BEING MADE. THOSE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF A GROUP HAVE 10 MINUTES UNLESS THAT 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 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 IN THE FRONT PAGE OF THIS AGENDA. THE PLAN COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED UP TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING. ALL OTHER NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD AT THE END OF THE MEETING IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN, NO ACTION CAN OCCUR ON THESE ITEMS. MINUTES CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS? >> NO, CHAIR, WE DO NOT. >> THANK YOU. SEEING NONE, WE WILL BEGIN TONIGHT'S HEARING. FIRST, I WAS ASKED, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THREE STUDENTS FROM THE CARLSBAD HIGH GOVERNMENT CLASS. THANK YOU. I HOPE YOU ENJOY YOURSELF TONIGHT. THANK YOU FOR COMING. IF EVERYONE WILL DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN, I WILL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES THE COMMISSION WILL BE FOLLOWING FOR THIS EVENING'S PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPENED. STAFF WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THE STAFF PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANTS WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION AND RESPOND TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. THEY WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION. THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL THEN BE OPENED. A TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES IS ALLOTTED TO EACH SPEAKER. AFTER ALL THOSE WANTING TO SPEAK HAVE DONE SO, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE CLOSED. THE APPLICANT AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO ISSUES OR QUESTIONS RAISED. THE COMMISSIONERS WILL THEN DISCUSS THE ITEM AND THEN VOTE ON IT. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CLOSED. CERTAIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ARE FINAL, BUT MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES ON THE BACK OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA. I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1. [1. SDP 2023-0025 (DEV2023-0122)- GRAND HOPE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ] FIRST, HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS HAD ANY EX PARTE CONVERSATIONS OR COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS ITEM. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. >. THE APPLICANT IS MY DENTIST, SO WE DID HAVE A VERY HIGH LEVEL CONVERSATION. YOU ASKED ME ABOUT WHETHER I'M ON A PLANNING COMMISSION. I SAID YES. HE SAID, WELL, I GOT A BUILDING COMING UP SOMETIME IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS. >> THANK YOU. MR. DANNA? NO. >> I VISITED THE SITE. I DROVE BY THE SITE TODAY. >> COMMISSIONER MEENES? >> I ALSO VISITED THE SITE. >> I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. >> COMMISSIONER STINE? >> I VISITED THE SITE. >> I, AM FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND ALSO VISITED IT. MR. LARDI, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER 1? [00:05:01] >> THANK YOU. HERE TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION FOR GRAND HOPE MEDICAL OFFICE, THE SDP, LAUREN ZAGERI ASSOCIATE PLANNER. >> THANK YOU, CITY PLANNER ERIC LARDI, AND GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. ITEM NUMBER 1 ON THE AGENDA TODAY IS A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE GRAND HOPE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED ON A 0.16 ACRE LOT ON THE CORNER OF GRAND AVENUE AND HOPE AVENUE. THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT OF THE VILLAGE BARRIO MASTER PLAN AND IS BORDERED BY R3 ZONE TO THE NORTH AND THE RDM ZONE TO THE EAST. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING ONE STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ON SITE AND CONSTRUCT A 10,671 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING WITH THREE TENANT SPACES, A COMMON EGRESS BALCONY, AND A ONE STORY PARKING GARAGE. HERE ARE THE FIRST FLOOR PLANS. UNIT 1 IS LOCATED AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, GRAND AVENUE. THE PARKING GARAGE IS LOCATED IN THE REAR OF THE BUILDING WITH ACCESS OFF OF HOPE AVENUE. THE PARKING GARAGE WILL CONTAIN A TOTAL OF EIGHT PARKING SPACES. THE TWO PARKING SPACES SHOWN IN RED ON THIS SLIDE WILL BE LIFT SPACES WITH TWO SPACES PER LIFT. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE SECOND FLOOR PLANS. UNIT 2 IS LOCATED TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, AND UNIT 3 IS LOCATED IN THE REAR ABOVE THE PARKING GARAGE. A EGRESS BALCONY IS PROPOSED ADJACENT TO UNIT 3 FRONTING HOPE AVENUE. UNIT 2 AND 3 WILL ALSO HAVE PRIVATE PATIOS. THE STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED AT 34 FEET TALL. MATARIALS WILL CONSIST OF DARK TONE AND MEDIUM TONE PORSIN TILE, MEDIUM GRAY AND WHITE STACCO, AND DECORATIVE METAL ACCENTS. UPON EARLY PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE PROJECT, THE CITY RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THREE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS EXHIBIT 5. SINCE THE PUBLISHING OF THE STAFF REPORT, TWO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM ONE COMMUNITY MEMBER, WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND UPLOADED TO THE WEBSITE. COMMON COMMENTS RECEIVED LISTED CONCERNS WITH BUILDING HEIGHT, ILLEGAL DUMPING TRESPASSING, AND PARKING. THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE VC ZONE IS 45 FEET IN FOUR STORIES. THE OFFICE BUILDING IS PROPOSED AT 34 FEET IN TWO STORIES AND THEREFORE DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT. IN ADDITION, THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO A FOUR STORY CONDOMINIUM BUILDING TO THE WEST. ONCE THE APPLICANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE COMMENTS REGARDING ILLEGAL DUMPING AND TRESPASSING, HE PROMPTLY CLEAN UP THE SITE AND STARTED WORKING WITH THE FENCING COMPANY TO SECURE THE SITE. SUBJECT TO AB 2097, THE CITY CANNOT IMPOSE OR ENFORCE ANY MINIMUM AUTOMOBILE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON A RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN ONE HALF MILE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT. CITY CAN, HOWEVER, REQUIRE EV AND ADA PARKING SPACES BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN REQUIRED. DEVELOPERS CAN STILL VOLUNTARILY PROVIDE ONSITE PARKING, BUT ANY SPACES PROVIDED BEYOND THE MINIMUM REQUIRED EV AND ADA SPACES WILL BE BASED ON BUILDER PREFERENCE AND MARKET DEMAND, NOT BY CITY ESTABLISHED MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS. THE PROJECT IS WITHIN ONE HALF MILE OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE TRAIN STATION, AND THEREFORE, ONLY EV AND ADA PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED. THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THREE EV CAPABLE, ONE EV INSTALLED, AND ONE ADA SPACE FOR A TOTAL OF FIVE PARKING SPACES. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE EIGHT FULLY INSTALLED EV PARKING SPACES. THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN ALLOWS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO DEVELOP DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEN THE MODIFICATION IS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE ONE OR MORE OF THE LIMITED PURPOSES OUTLINED IN SECTION 2.6.7 SHOWN ON THE SLIDE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A STANDARDS MODIFICATION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC BENEFIT, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING MORE PARKING THAN REQUIRED AND EXCEEDING LOCAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MODIFICATION FROM IS A BUILDING MASSING STANDARD PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.7.1.H, WHICH REQUIRES A FIVE FOOT VARIATION OR STEP BACK OF THE WALL PLANE AND A CHANGE IN ROOF LINE FOR EVERY 40 FEET OF BUILDING FACADE VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC STREET. THE FIRST FLOOR BUILDING FACADE ALONG HOPE AVENUE EXTEND 66 FEET WITH ONLY A TWO FOOT STEP BACK AT THE ACCESS STAIRS. THIS BUILDING WALL IS LOCATED AT THE PARKING GARAGE. ONLY FIVE PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED TO MEET ADA AND EV REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING EIGHT SPACES, [00:10:01] WHICH EXCEEDS THE PARKING REQUIREMENT BY THREE. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS ONLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ONE ADA INSTALLED SPACE AND THREE EV CAPABLE SPACES. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE ALL EIGHT SPACES AS EV INSTALLED, THEREFORE, ALSO EXCEEDING THE EV REQUIREMENT. HERE IS THAT 66 FOOT BUILDING FACADE AS SEEN FROM HOPE AVENUE. THE SECOND STORY BALCONY BREAKS UP THE BUILDING FACADE AND REDUCES THE APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING MASS, THEREFORE, MEETING THE INTENT OF THE STANDARD. THIS PROJECT WAS ANALYZED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ALL REQUIRED CITY CODES, POLICIES, AND STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND THE VILLAGE BARRIO MASTER PLAN. 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, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. THIS CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION. I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER DANNA. >> THE 66 FOOT SPAN, THAT'S ONLY AT THE GROUND LEVEL, CORRECT? NOT THE SECOND LEVEL? >> CORRECT. THE SECOND LEVEL DOES MEET THE STANDARD. IT'S ONLY ON THE GROUND FLOOR. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. >> ON PAGE 3, IT TALKS ABOUT THE GRADING OF 700 CUBIC YARDS OF REMEDIAL GRADING. CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THAT MEANS? CAN YOU TELL US HOW THAT AFFECTS THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO GO UNDERGROUND FOR PARKING? >> ASSOCIATE ENGINEER, DAVID RICK WILL HELP ANSWER THIS QUESTION. >> REMEDIAL GRADING IS EXCAVATION OF SOIL, AND THEN TAKING THAT SAME SOIL, TREATING IT, SIFTING THROUGH IT, COMPACTING IT BACK INTO THE GROUND. GENERALLY, REMEDIAL GRADING IS USUALLY USED TO ESTABLISH THE FOUNDATION OF THE BUILDING, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE THE ACTUAL FINISHED GRADE OF THE PROJECT ITSELF. >> HOW FAR DOWN DO THEY HAVE TO GRADE TO GET THAT REMEDIAL EXCAVATION COMPLETED? >> WE WOULD EVALUATE THAT AT THE GRADING PERMIT STAGE, BUT TYPICALLY IT RUNS ANYWHERE BETWEEN THREE FEET TO FIVE FEET DEEP. >> SEVEN HUNDRED CUBIC FEET SEEMS, IS THAT A BIG NUMBER? SEEMS BIG. >> NO. >> I USED TO WORK FOR SURE FIRM SO THAT'S WHY SHE LOOKED AT ME. >> THEY ALSO HAVE THE STACKED PARKING, WHICH IS CAUSING SOME OF THAT ADDITIONAL GRADING IN THAT 700 CUBIC FEET. >> WELL, AND THAT'S THE QUESTION. THAT LITTLE AREA OF DEPRESSION THERE IS STILL GOING TO NEED SOME DRAINAGE, SOME WHATEVER ELSE. WHY WASN'T IT CONSIDERED FOR THE WHOLE AREA TO BE ABLE TO MITIGATE THE AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STANDARDS MODIFICATION TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS PARKING? >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE RULES ON THE STANDARD MODIFICATION ITSELF AND THAT EVALUATION, BUT THIS IS THE PROJECT THAT THE APPLICANT HAD PROPOSED. AS FAR AS I KNOW, NEVER PROPOSED AN UNDERGROUND GARAGE. >> BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE REQUIRED PARKING ON THIS SITE IS 23 BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING 23 PARKING SPACES, BUT THE CONVERSATION WAS FIVE ARE REQUIRED, WE'RE GETTING EIGHT. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER WHOLE BUNCH? >. COMMISSIONER, AS ASSOCIATE PLANNER ZONE STATED, THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE AREA WHERE STATE LAW PRECLUDES A JURISDICTION FROM REQUIRING PARKING. THERE'S AN EXCEPTION IN THAT STATE LAW FOR ADA AND EV PARKING, SO THAT'S HOW THE FIVE WAS DETERMINED TO BE WHAT'S REQUIRED UNDER THOSE LAWS. I THINK THAT THE DECISION TO PROVIDE THE EIGHT AND NOT MORE THAN THAT WOULD BE BEST ANSWERED ALSO BY THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PROPOSE ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING OTHER THAN WHAT WAS REQUIRED. >> I ALSO HAVE A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS. IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN AND THE 45 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT, [00:15:02] CAN YOU GIVE US A BACKGROUND OF WHAT THAT MEANS IN FORM BASED ZONING AND WHY THIS IS BEING ALLOWED TO BE LESS THAN 45 FEET? >> COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, THE 45 FOOT LIMIT, IT'S JUST A MAXIMUM. IF THEY WANT TO PROPOSE LESS THAN THAT, THEY CAN. THERE'S NO MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT WITHIN THE DISTRICT OR WITHIN ANY OF THE DISTRICTS AS FAR AS I AM AWARE. THEY COULD PROPOSE LESS. I KNOW THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS IN THE COMMUNITY REGARDING THE HEIGHT, IT BEING TOO TALL, BUT IT IS LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM. >> DO WE HAVE A GENERAL SENSE OF WHAT THE COMMERCIAL VACANCY RATE IS DOWNTOWN IN THE VILLAGE? >> WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC STUDIES OR ANALYSIS ON THAT. I CAN SAY ANECDOTALLY THAT WE'RE AWARE OF THERE ARE SOME PROJECTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY LOOKING FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE, BUT A LOT OF THAT IS MORE RETAIL IN NATURE. I CAN ASK YOU, THE APPLICANT, OR THE PLANNER, TO SPEAK TO THE TENANTS IF WE KNOW THAT WOULD BE IN THIS SPACE. >> CAN COMMISSIONER MERZ WEIGH IN ON THIS? >> I'M CURRENTLY WORKING WITH THE MEDICAL OFFICE USES. WANTS TO BE IN DOWNTOWN. IT'S VERY TIGHT, ESPECIALLY IN NICER PRODUCT LIKE THAT. I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER FOR YOU. BUT IN TERMS OF GENERALLY IN THE OFFICE MARKET, THERE'S DIFFERENT SEGMENTS, AND THE VILLAGE ALLOWS OFFICE MEDICAL, WHICH IS DIFFICULT TO FIND, AND I'D SAY IT'S GENERALLY A FAIRLY TIGHT MARKET IN THAT. >> WHAT IS TIGHT? WHAT'S THE RATE [OVERLAPPING]. >> I MEAN PROBABLY LESS THAN 5%, THAT'S A GUESS. I COULD FIND THE EXACT NUMBER. I DON'T HAVE IT AT MY FINGERTIPS, BUT I'D SAY IT'S FAIRLY LOW. >> JUST IN A REALLY BRIEF GOOGLE SEARCH OF THE VILLAGE, I'M GETTING FROM 2022, 12%. EXACTLY ACROSS THE STREET, THERE'S A VACANT COMMERCIAL SPACE. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE VALIDITY OF THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MUCH VACANT COMMERCIAL SPACE IN CARLSBAD. >> AGAIN, YOU MENTIONED, AGAIN, WITHOUT GOING TOO FAR FROM [INAUDIBLE] WITHIN THE SPECIALTY OF OFFICE, THIS IS MEDICAL OFFICE, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT THAN COMMERCIAL OR STANDARD OFFICE. TO YOUR POINT, IS THERE A LOT OF OFFICE OUT THERE VACANT? YES, THERE IS. I'M RIGHT NOW WORKING WITH SOME THAT FALLS UNDER THE MEDICAL CLASSIFICATION, THE VILLAGE IS QUITE TIGHT IN MEDICAL. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT OUT OF RANGE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> IT'S START. >> I COULD PROBABLY GET YOU THE EXACT NUMBERS. I'M NOT A REALLY GOOD STATS NUMBER GUY OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. >> YEAH. THEN I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION IS, CAN YOU GO TO THE RENDERING IMAGE? >> SORRY, I'M JUST LOOKING FOR THE SLIDE. >> THANKS. THAT'S FINE. WELL, THE ONE WITH THE TOWERS, ACTUALLY, I WANTED TO SEE. NOT THIS RENDERING, THE OTHER RENDERING. THAT ONE. IN OUR IMAGES LOOKED VERY DARK THOSE TOWER AREAS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS LIGHT AND NEUTRAL BASE COLORS, IT LOOKS DIFFERENT IN THE IMAGES. SO WHICH IS CORRECT? >> WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT TO CLARIFY, BUT THESE ARE THE RENDERINGS THAT THEY PROVIDED IN THE IMAGES THAT I HAVE ON MY PDF VERSION, THE EXHIBITS MARCH THIS AS WELL. >> THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL. THANKS. >> ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I HAVE ONE. IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 4, FIRST PARAGRAPH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD HAVE EIGHT PARKING SPACES, ONE, AN EV INSTALLED ADA AND SEVEN EV INSTALLED. DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU CAN ONLY PARK THERE IF YOU HAVE AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE? >> FOR THE EV SPACES, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SIGNAGE, [00:20:01] AND I BELIEVE THE SIGNAGE DOES STATE THAT THEY ARE FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES ONLY. THIS IS A PRIVATE FACILITY, THOUGH, SO THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING THAT. >> I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER. >> YES, THE PARKING SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR EV WOULD EV PARKING SPACES ONLY. >> THERE'D BE NO PARKING FOR ME, FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC IF THEY DON'T HAVE AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE? >> CORRECT. YES. THEY'RE PROVIDING ALL EV SPACES TO SURPASS THE EV REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY [OVERLAPPING]. >> NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER MERZ. >> SINCE IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, THOUGH, I GUESS THIS AN APPLICANT QUESTION, BUT SINCE IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, IT'S AN EV, THEY COULD MAKE IT OPTIONAL. IF THEY WANT TO INSTALL EV IN THERE, DOES IT HAVE TO BE EV OR IT COULD LIKE, THE FOLKS WHO DRIVE A GAS CAR, SINCE IT'S A PRIVATE PARKING LOT? >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. FOR THE RECORD, MIKE STRONG, ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. THE PROJECT AS ENVISIONED BY THE APPLICANT, INCLUDES THE EIGHT EV PARKING SPACES. THAT PROJECT IS ALSO SATISFYING SOME CRITERIA TO ENABLE CONCESSIONS OR WAIVERS OF STANDARDS. TO PRESUME THAT THE APPLICANT COULD RETROFIT LATER A EV SPACE AND CONVERT IT TO A REGULAR PARKING SPACE WOULD IN FACT BE A VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS POINT? NO. GOOD. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, SIR? YOU'LL HAVE 10 MINUTES WE'LL LET THE CLOCK SOMEWHERE. >> MY NAME IS KIRK MOELLER WITH KM ARCHITECTS. I'M HERE JUST TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. I'M NOT PLANNING ON PUTTING TOGETHER OR PRESENTING A FORMAL PRESENTATION, BUT I JUST WANTED TO ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED TONIGHT. WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY'S QUESTIONS ABOUT PARKING. OUR INTENT WAS TO TRY TO PROVIDE AS MUCH PARKING ON THE SITE AS POSSIBLE. AS YOU ARE AWARE, THERE'S SITE CONSTRAINTS DUE TO SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE SITE, AND ALSO LOCATION BEING SURROUNDED WITH TWO STREETS ON BOTH SIDES. WE LOOKED AT DRIVE AISLE RUNNING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION AND LOOKED AT THE OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DRIVE AISLE. THE SITE WASN'T WIDE ENOUGH TO DO THAT IF THERE WERE PARKING ON ONE SIDE. IT NETTED ALMOST THE SAME NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND DIDN'T ALLOW FOR ANY GROUND-LEVEL MEDICAL SPACE TO BE CONSTRUCTED. WE LOOKED AT THE CONFIGURATION THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY AND THAT CAME TO BE THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO CONFIGURE PARKING. UNDERGROUND PARKING WAS PROHIBITIVE BECAUSE OF THE SPACE THAT'S AVAILABLE AS WELL AS COST. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF LIFTS THAT UTILIZE A SMALL PORTION OF UNDERGROUND PARKING. IT'S MUCH CHEAPER TO BUILD THOSE SPACES THAN IT IS TO BUILD THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE UNDERGROUND. THAT'S HOW WE CAME ABOUT THE PARKING CONFIGURATION THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE TODAY. BUILDING HEIGHT, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS A DENTIST, AS WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER, AND HE INTENDS TO OCCUPY THE SPACE. HIS ULTIMATE GOAL FOR PURCHASING THE PROPERTY WAS TO FIND A LOCATION THAT WAS SUITABLE FOR HIS BUSINESS. HE FOUND THIS SITE. HE LOOKED FOR QUITE A WHILE THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF CARLSBAD FOR A SPACE FOR HIS OFFICE, AND HE FOUND THIS SITE AND PLANS TO OCCUPY ONE OF THE SPACES, AND THE OTHER TWO SPACES, HE HAS PLANS FOR OTHER MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS TO OCCUPY THOSE SPACES. I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS LEASES SIGNED, BUT HE DOES HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITIES THAT HE'S DISCUSSED WITH ME IN THE PAST. HE WASN'T TRYING TO BUILD A LARGE STRUCTURE. LIKE I SAID, HE WANTED TO OCCUPY THE SPACE AND WAS NOT TRYING TO DEVELOP IT LIKE MANY PEOPLE DO IN THE AREA. HE WASN'T WANTING TO BUILD RESIDENTIAL AND LOOKING TO SELL UNITS AND THAT TYPE OF THING WITH THIS PROJECT. IT'S A MUCH DIFFERENT PATH FOR HIM. HOPEFULLY, THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ASK ME, COMMISSIONER? >> THANKS. WELL, LIKE I SAY, THIS RENDERING WAS A QUESTION TO ME BECAUSE, IN THE VILLAGE & BARRIO MASTER PLAN, IT SAYS LIGHT AND NEUTRAL BASE COLORS. WHEN WE SAW THE DARK RENDERINGS, BUT THE OTHER IMAGES MORE ACCURATE, [00:25:03] IS THAT WHAT YOU SING THEY ARE LIGHTER COLORS AND THEY ARE LIGHTER GRAYS? >> YES. IMAGES ARE ALWAYS TOUGH WITH THE TECHNOLOGY THAT'S PORTRAYING [OVERLAPPING]. >> WELL, AND YEAH, WE GET BLACK AND WHITE COPIES. THAT'S WHY I HAD TO ASK BECAUSE THERE'S A THEME TO THE OVERALL MASTER PLAN THAT, OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO VARY IT. THIS IS WHAT OUR JOB IS TO TRY AND MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN REALIZE THE COMMUNITY VISION AS WELL AS YOUR CLIENT'S VISION. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE, AND THIS IS AN ARCHITECT QUESTION, SO I'M SURE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER IT. YOU SAID THAT IT WAS MODERN ARCHITECTURE. I'M WONDERING, IS IT INTERNATIONAL, MID-CENTURY, BRUTALIST, ART DECO, POSTMODERN, DECONSTRUCTIVIST, PARAMETRIC DESIGN? WHAT KIND OF MODERN ARE WE TALKING HERE? HOW CAN WE ACTUALLY GAUGE THAT IT'S IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD? >> I THINK IT'S MORE OF A MID-CENTURY/ART DECO TYPE MODERN IS HOW I WOULD CLASSIFY IT, LOOSELY. >> LOOSELY. OKAY, GOOD. [LAUGHTER] I'LL TAKE THAT AS AN ANSWER. YES. LOOSELY IS PROBABLY A GOOD WAY. THANK YOU FOR NOT GIVING US BEACH SOMETHING. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. STICK WITH ARCHITECTURAL STYLES. BUT, AGAIN, THERE'S A LOT OF VARIATION IN MODERN. WE'RE REALLY JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT GOES ALONG WITH THE TUDORESQUE THINGS AND THE SPANISH COLONIAL STYLE THINGS THAT ARE RIGHT NEXT DOOR OR NEARBY, OR ACROSS THE STREET, THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT'S REALLY A BIG CONCERN TO ME BECAUSE WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO MEET THAT EXPECTATION FOR THE FOREIGN BASE ZONING THAT THE MASTER PLAN HAPPENS TO BE. I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL INCORPORATED IN THIS. I WONDER IF YOU KNOW WHEN THIS CHANGED FROM BEING A RESIDENCE TO COMMERCIAL SPACE. >> I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT CHANGE HAPPENED. I'M SURE IT WAS MANY YEARS AGO. >> I THINK THERE WAS A HISTORIC REPORT DONE THROUGH YOUR COMPANY, CORRECT? >> YES, THERE WAS. I JUST DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE HISTORIC REPORT FINDINGS WERE FOR WHEN IT WAS MODIFIED. >> WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF RESTORING THE EXISTING BUILDING PRIOR TO THIS? >> IT WAS DISCUSSED, AND I THINK IT WAS TOO SMALL OF A STRUCTURE FOR THE DOCTOR TO OCCUPY, AND HE CHOSE TO GO DOWN A ROAD WHERE HE COULD BRING IN OTHER COLLEAGUES OF HIS TO ADDITIONAL SPACE. HE WANTED TO CREATE SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN WHAT WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE SINGLE-STORY STRUCTURE, BUT NOT TO TOO BIG, OBVIOUSLY. >> ONCE YOU GOT THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BACK AND YOU REALIZED YOU HAD TO DO ALL THAT GRADING, IT WAS REALLY DECIDED THAT A BASEMENT WASN'T NECESSARY? >> YEAH, I WAS COSTLY. IT WAS TOO COSTLY TO BUILD UNDERGROUND. IT'S TOUGH WITH THAT SMALL OF A SITE. IF THE SITE WERE LARGER, IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE COST-EFFECTIVE, I SHOULD SAY. >> WE'VE SEEN YOU DO SMALLER SITES. >> WE'VE TRIED. [LAUGHTER] BUT THE BUILDING IS BIGGER AND IT HAS RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR SALE, THAT'S WHAT HELPS IT. FOR HIM, THAT WAS NOT HIS GOAL. HE WANTED TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE IN TUNE WITH HIS PRACTICE AND A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR SOME OF HIS ADDITIONAL COLLEAGUES. >> OKAY. >> A LITTLE DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROJECT THAN YOU'RE USED TO SEEING. >> WELL, AND OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE A HOUSING ELEMENT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO REALIZE, AND EVERY SITE IN THE VILLAGE IS VERY IMPORTANT AND VERY IMPACTFUL TO GAINING ADDITIONAL HOUSING FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THAT'S WHY I DO FEEL THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN TO BUILD COMMERCIAL RIGHT NOW IN A MARKET THAT IS PRETTY SOFT. WELL, MAYBE I'M MISLED. MAYBE IT'S NOT SOFT. [LAUGHTER] BUT I KNOW THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENT MARKET OUT THERE THAT I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH. THANKS FOR YOUR CLARIFICATIONS. >> SURE. ABSOLUTELY. >> SORRY, COMMISSIONER MERZ? >> I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS FOR STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE PARKING. I THINK, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT ON THE PARKING, AND GENERALLY MEDICAL OFFICE IS GENERALLY MORE OF AN INTENSE PARKING RATIO, AND I UNDERSTAND WE'RE CONSTRAINED BY STATE LAW, BUT I MEAN, IN WORKING WITH BUILDINGS LIKE THIS, THERE'S ZERO PARKING REQUIRED, NOW THERE'S EIGHT. WE JUST CLARIFIED THAT THE EV SPACES HAVE TO BE FOR EV. MY CONCERN IS WE'RE ALREADY UNDER-PARKED, AND I AGREE WITH ONE OF THE COMMENTERS IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, SAYS, I THINK IT'S DOUBTFUL THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TAKE PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND WALK HALF A MILE TO THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE. HOWEVER, I UNDERSTAND STATE LAW. [00:30:01] STATE LAW, IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS MORE FOR YOU OR FOR STAFF, BUT MY CONCERN IS, PARKING I THINK IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE, IT'S AN ISSUE IN THE VILLAGE. I THINK THIS IS UNDER-PARKED, IT IS WHAT IT IS. MY CONCERN IS THAT IF THEY'RE ALL RESTRICTED TO EV, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE CROWDING THE STREETS AND EMPTY PARKING PLACES IN THE BUILDING. I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS THIS SOMETHING WHERE WE COULD MAKE A CONDITION OR ADJUSTMENT TO THE APPLICATION WHERE THE SPACES THAT THE APPLICANT OR THE OWNER HAS THE ABILITY TO BE FLEXIBLE WITH THAT BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMS A SHAME? MY CONCERN IS THAT YOU'VE GOT PACKED STREET AND EMPTY EV PARKING PLACES BECAUSE EVERYONE THAT HAS TO DRIVE THERE IS DRIVING A COMBUSTION ENGINE CAR. IS THERE A WAY TO WORK WITH WHAT THE ACTUAL DEMAND FOR PEOPLE SHOWING UP ARE OR JUST HAVING EMPTY PARKING SPACES IN THE BUILDING? >> SURE. I'LL ADDRESS THAT FIRST AND THEN ASK IF THE APPLICANT HAS ANYTHING THEY WANT TO ADD. THE THEORY BEHIND AB2097, WHICH WAS THE BILL THAT RESTRICTED US FROM REQUIRING PARKING WAS TO LET THE FREE MARKET AND APPLICANTS DECIDE HOW MUCH PARKING THEY NEED FOR THEMSELVES, THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND THEIR CUSTOMERS, AND SO THEY'VE CHOSEN THE EIGHT SPACES. PART OF THE REASON THAT THAT DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT WAS PROPOSED TO ALL BE EV IS BECAUSE IN ORDER TO DO A STANDARDS MODIFICATION, THERE'S THOSE STANDARDS IN THAT THRESHOLD. THE REQUIREMENT IS FIVE EV SPACES. IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FELT THAT SOME OF THOSE SPACES SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE EV, AS LONG AS THEY'RE STILL MEETING THE ADA RESTRICTION, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEELS THAT IT WOULD STILL MEET THE THRESHOLD. IF YOU COULD BRING UP THAT SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE STANDARDS MODIFICATION, STILL FELT THAT IT WOULD MEET THAT, THEN THAT COULD BE A RECOMMENDATION OR MODIFICATION FROM THE COMMISSION. WE'VE NOT DISCUSSED THAT WITH THE APPLICANT, SO WE'D ALSO OPINE IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD BE AMENABLE TO. >> THAT'S WHY IT'S [INAUDIBLE] FOR BOTH. IF THE APPLICANT HAS THEIR BUILDING, BUT AT THE SAME POINT, YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING, [INAUDIBLE] TO SEE EMPTY PARKING PLACES IN A BUILDING. >> WELL, I GUESS, HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT IS WE WERE TRYING TO PROVIDE AS MUCH PARKING AS POSSIBLE. IF WE COMPLIED WITH THE 40 FOOT STANDARD ITSELF, IT WOULD PUSH THE BUILDING BACK AND WE WOULD LOSE A PARKING SPACE, WHICH WE FELT WAS VERY VALUABLE. WE WANTED TO PURSUE THE STANDARDS MODIFICATION TO SAVE ONE OF THE PARKING SPACES. ULTIMATELY TO DO THAT, WE WERE WILLING, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, TO DO ANYTHING WE HAD TO. FOR US, IT'D BE PREFERABLE IF THE EV SPACES THAT WERE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE REQUIRED GREEN BUILDING STANDARD AND CAP REQUIRED SPACES WERE EITHER OR. SOMEONE WITH ANY TYPE OF VEHICLE COULD PARK THERE, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD PREFER. IF STAFF IS ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT AND THE COMMISSION ITSELF, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY OPEN TO MAKING THAT A CONDITION. >> COMMISSIONER MEENES. >> I GUESS WORKING OFF OF THAT AS TO AND THIS IS A QUESTION MORE FOR STAFF AND MAYBE MR. LARDY, IS FOR THE STANDARD MODIFICATIONS, WHAT IMPACT IF THAT WERE CHANGED FOR 100% ELECTRIC EV TO HAVING IT BE MORE FLEXIBLE FOR OTHER VEHICLES AS WELL. WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE MODIFICATIONS RESPECT OF IT? >> WELL, I THINK IT WOULD MODIFY THE 3C THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED ON THIS, AND WE WOULD NEED TO DISCUSS THAT. 3G IS ESSENTIALLY ANYTHING AS DETERMINED BY THE DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY AS THE DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY OR REALLY THE RECOMMENDER FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE THIS IS IN THE VILLAGE BARRIO DISTRICT. THE ADDITIONAL PARKING ITSELF COULD BE DETERMINED TO BE A BENEFIT AS DETERMINED BY YOU. IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'VE DONE BEFORE. I'LL ALSO COMMENT THAT WHEN THIS SECTION WAS WRITTEN IN THE MASTER PLAN, THE EV AND THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS HAVE CHANGED SEVERAL TIMES SINCE THAT SO THE BAR CONTINUES TO BE MOVED, AND WE'RE INCREASINGLY FINDING THAT THAT A AND THAT C ARE DIFFICULT TO GO BEYOND WITHOUT A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL BEYOND. I REALIZED THAT WASN'T A CLEAR ANSWER. I WILL SAY THAT IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN DOING, WE WOULD NEED TO PROBABLY LOOK AT WHAT SPECIFICALLY WOULD BE CHANGING IN THE RESOLUTION AND MAYBE NEED A QUICK RECESS TO DO THAT. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER HUBINGER? YEAH. >> IF I UNDERSTOOD THE CITY ON THIS IS THAT IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENFORCE THE ELECTRIC PARKING SPACES ON THEIR PROPERTY, RIGHT? SO ANYBODY COULD PARK THERE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S DESIGNATED AS A ELECTRICAL VEHICLE PARKING, CORRECT? [00:35:03] >> IT WOULD BE A PRIVATE LOT SO THE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE A ROLE IN IENFORCING IT. >> OKAY. THEN IF WE WENT DOWN THIS ROAD, WOULD THIS DELAY THE APPLICANT? >> WELL, I THINK WHAT WE WERE RECOMMENDING IS THAT IF THIS WAS THE ROAD THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANTED TO GO DOWN, WE COULD WORK IN A BRIEF BREAK TO MAKE SURE WE WERE HELPING YOU CREATE THE RIGHT MOTION. ULTIMATELY, YOU ARE RECOMMENDING BODY ON THIS PERMIT SO WE COULD MAKE SURE WE'RE INCLUDING THAT, AND THEN ULTIMATELY WOULD BE THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING. >> SO YOU DON'T THINK IT WOULD DELAY THE PROJECT? >> UNLESS ANY COMMISSIONERS OR THE APPLICANT THOUGHT SO, NO, WE WOULD NOT THINK IT WOULD. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DANNA. >> YES. THANK YOU. QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER FEATURES ON THE BUILDING THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH ITEM A EXCEEDING THE MINIMUM CLIMATE ACTION PLAN? >> WE'RE PLANNING TO ADD AS MUCH SOLAR AS THE BUILDING CAN HANDLE SO THAT WAS ONE THING WE DISCUSSED WITH STAFF, BUT LIKE ERIC LARDY MENTIONED, THE CAP HAS CHANGED A LITTLE BIT, AND SO THERE ARE SOME TITLE 24 CALCULATIONS THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF AND LOOK AT. WE WEREN'T ABLE TO SAY WE CAN DOUBLE IT OR TRIPLE IT, BUT WE ARE PLANNING TO ADD AS MUCH AS WE CAN POSSIBLY HANDLE ON THE ROOF SO THAT IS SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO DO. >> THANK YOU. >> SURE. >> COMMISSIONER STINE. >> THANK YOU. WITHOUT BEATING THIS TO DEATH, I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PARKING ISSUE. BUT MR. MOLLER, WOULD THE APPLICANT BE OKAY WITH REVISING, INSTEAD OF HAVING EIGHT SPACES FOR EV, HAVING, SAY, FIVE SPACES AND THREE SET ASIDE AS JUST REGULAR SPACES FOR GAS POWERED VEHICLES? HOW WOULD THE APPLICANT FEEL ABOUT THAT? >> ABSOLUTELY. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT. >> OKAY. YOU'RE NOT WEDDED TO HAVING EIGHT EV SPACES NECESSARILY. [OVERLAPPING] AS LONG AS YOU CAN GET THE STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS. >> YES. LIKE I EXPLAINED EARLIER, OUR GOAL WAS TO PROVIDE AS MANY SPACES AS POSSIBLE. WITHOUT THE STANDARDS MODIFICATION, WE'D LOSE A SPACE SO WE FELT EVERY SPACE WAS VERY IMPORTANT SO WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE EV OR NOT, I THINK WE WANT TO HAVE SOME OF THEM FOR GAS IF POSSIBLE, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE NOT EVERY VEHICLE IS GOING TO BE EV SO WE'RE OPEN TO ANYTHING YOU PROPOSE ALONG THOSE LINES. >> THANK YOU. >> TELL US AGAIN WHY UNDERGROUND PARKING IS NOT CONSIDERED. >> THE SITE CONSTRAINTS, THE SIZE OF THE SITE, AND THE SHAPE OF THE SITE, AS WELL AS THE COST OF GOING COMPLETELY UNDERGROUND. >> WELL, THE REASON I ASK, AND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS MAY REMEMBER THIS, WE RECENTLY APPROVED A PROJECT WHICH HAD A AUTOMOTIVE TURNTABLE, WHICH I WAS TOLD WAS GOING TO COST LIKE $40,000 TO ACCOMMODATE A SMALL SPOT. IT'S JUST A CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT THE VERY LIMITED PARKING. >> YES. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THOSE PARKING OPTIONS, AND STILL WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THINGS UNDER CONTROL FROM A COST STANDPOINT. I KNOW IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A LOT IN THE WHOLE PICTURE, BUT YOU GET INTO UNDERGROUND WATERPROOFING, DIGGING, REMOVAL OF SOIL. IT STARTS TO ADD UP QUICKLY. >> COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. >> THAT BRINGS UP JUST A LITTLE QUESTION ABOUT THE SOLAR. YOU'RE TRYING TO MAX OUT THE SOLAR. I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE SOUTH FACING, BUT THE VERY MINIMALLY SOUTH FACING. THE BUILDING NEXT TO YOU BECAUSE OF YOUR LOW PROFILE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BLOCK MOST OF YOUR SOLAR SO WHERE'S THE RATIONALE TO. >> IT'S SUBJECTIVE, DEPENDING ON THE TIME OF THE YEAR, THE PANELS MAY NOT BE AS EFFICIENT IN THE AFTERNOON AND IN THE WINTER, BUT WE STILL WANT TO TRY. >> WELL, IT'S REQUIRED BY CODE, CORRECT SO IT'S NOT EXACTLY LIKE YOU HAVE AN OPTION. >> THEY'LL BE ANGLED APPROPRIATELY WITH THE PROPER STANDS. THE SOLAR COMPANY WILL HAVE TO DO THE BEST THEY CAN TO WORK WITH THE SPACE AND THE AVAILABLE AREA. >> THANKS. >> ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER MEENES? NO. COMMISSIONER DANNA. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> LET'S NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY. [00:40:03] MINUTES CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? >> WE DO. WE HAVE SIX. I'LL CALL THE FIRST THREE UP. >> PLEASE. >> VICKY SAGE. OH, SORRY. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY, ZERO. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AS OUR FIRST SPEAKER APPROACHES THE PODIUM. LET ME EXPLAIN THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY. EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR 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 REMAINING, AND BLINKING RED LIGHT MEANS YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, NOT THE STAFF, THE APPLICANT OR THE PUBLIC. PLEASE. >> THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THIS EVENING. A GOOD EVENING TO ALL OF YOU AND THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT YOU DO FOR OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY. I WANTED TO SAY THAT PERSONALLY. >> I'M SORRY, MA'AM, WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME? >> OH, MARIAN VINEY. I'M SORRY. I LIVE IN CARLS BEND. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I AM PERSONALLY VERY INTERESTED IN CONSERVING THE HISTORY, THE HISTORICAL BUILDINGS AND THE CHARACTER OF OUR VILLAGE. I'M IN THE VILLAGE ALL THE TIME, SUPPORTING THE BUSINESSES THERE AND I LOVE IT SO DO MANY OF MY FRIENDS. I'D ASK THAT IN LIGHT OF WHAT COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY WAS SAYING THAT IN THIS BUILDING AND OTHER BUILDINGS THAT COME UP THAT WE CAN LOOK MORE CHARACTER AND UNDERSTAND HOW THESE BUILDINGS DO FIT INTO OUR VILLAGE IN TERMS OF THEIR STYLE, ETC AND THAT THEY DO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE OUR CHARACTER. I SAW ONE REALLY GOOD PICTURE OF THIS NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSTRUCTION HERE, AND ALSO IT LOOKED LIKE THE OTHER BUILDING THAT'S REALLY NEXT TO IT, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE OF THAT CONTEXTUAL VIEWS OF WHAT THESE NEW BUILDINGS WILL LOOK LIKE COMPARED TO WHAT THEY'RE BEING BUILT AROUND. I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE. ANYWAY, THAT'S WHAT I HAD TO SAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKERS? >> NO, THERE'S NOT. >> ALL RIGHT. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? >> I DON'T THINK I NEED TO. >> OKAY. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? >> I JUST HAD THE QUESTION ABOUT WHEN IN THE HISTORIC REPORT THIS CONVERTED FROM BEING A RESIDENCE TO A COMMERCIAL SPACE. DO WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION? >> I DID LOOK THROUGH THE HISTORIC REPORT. I DID NOT FIND THAT INFORMATION SPECIFICALLY WHEN IT WAS CONVERTED SO I DON'T HAVE THAT. >> CAN YOU GIVE US A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE BUILDING ITSELF, THE EXISTING BUILDING? >> SUCH AS WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED OR? ACCORDING TO THE HISTORIC REPORT, IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN AROUND 1949. IT WAS ADVERTISED AS A DUPLEX WITH TWO BEDROOMS AND A FIREPLACE ON EACH SIDE AND A LARGE GARAGE. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAPPENED OVER THE YEARS. THERE'S A COUPLE OF ALTERATIONS, THE GARAGE TO THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY WAS REMOVED AROUND 1988, AND THEN THERE WAS ALTERATIONS TO THE ROOF AND THE SKY LIGHTS AS WELL. [00:45:02] THE HISTORIC REPORT GOES ON TO SAY THAT THE BUILDING REMAINED UNCHANGED FROM THE 1990S THROUGH THE 2000S. IN 2013, A PERMIT WAS FILED TO EXPAND THE DENTAL OFFICE INTO THE OTHER HALF OF THE DUPLEX, CREATING ONE LARGE COMMERCIAL SPACE ON BOTH SIDES. >> THANKS. >> COMMISSIONER STINE. >> YES. THIS IS FOR STAFF. I WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION ON THIS. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S THE AB 2097, WHICH AFFECTS A PUBLIC POLICY OF NOT REQUIRING APPLICANTS TO PUT PARKING ON PROJECTS THAT ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, I FORGET IF IT'S A MILE, HALF A MILE, WHATEVER IT IS, AND THIS WILL BE SUBJECT TO IT. BUT IT'S MY FURTHER UNDERSTANDING THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE CITY AND STATE REQUIREMENTS WOULD REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF FOUR EV SPACES AND ONE SPACE FOR DISABLED PARKING. AM I RIGHT ON THAT, A TOTAL FIVE, FOUR EV, AND ONE DISABLED, IS THAT CORRECT? OR AM I IN ERROR ON THAT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. COMMISSIONER IS SAYING. >> OKAY. IF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE COMMISSION DECIDED THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE THREE OF THOSE SPACES FOR GAS POWERED VEHICLES AND KEEP FOUR FOR EV AND ONE DISABLED, THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT? >> THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY STATE UNDER STATE LAW. CAN YOU PUT UP THE SLIDE WITH THE MODIFICATIONS UNDER B3? THE STANDARDS MODIFICATION, RIGHT NOW WE'RE RELYING ON TWO CODES TWO SUBSECTIONS. RIGHT NOW WE'RE RELYING ON ONE, THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING ADDED EV PARKING, BUT ALSO THAT THEY'RE ADVANCING OTHER BENEFITS AS DETERMINED BY THE DECISION MAKING BODY. IF YOU WERE NOT PROVIDING THE ADDED EV PARKING, WE COULD JUST RELY ON THAT SECOND CATEGORY OF ADVANCING OTHER BENEFITS AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FELT THAT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT'S REQUIRED BY STATE LAW WAS AN OTHER BENEFIT AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU COULD ACHIEVE THE STANDARDS MODIFICATION THAT WAY. >> MY CLARIFICATION THEN, SO IF WE WENT THROUGH G, WE WOULD NEED TO ARTICULATE A PUBLIC BENEFIT ON THE RECORD FOR DOING THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION, YES. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER MEENES, DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? >> YEAH. COMMISSIONER STINE WAS GOING EXACTLY WHERE I WAS GOING TO GO AND THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT CLARIFICATION THAT OUR ATTORNEY HAD PROVIDED. I GUESS THE NEXT QUESTION AT HAND, GIVEN THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE EV SPACES ARE THERE, PURELY THE ENFORCEMENT IS ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER OR MANAGER OR WHATEVER AND THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY IS NOT NECESSARILY RESPONSIBLE TO DO SO. WHAT WOULD BE THE ADVANTAGES IF IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF GOVERNMENTAL AND IT IS PURELY THE CHOICE OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO DO SO? I'M JUST BRINGING IT UP FOR THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX. IS IT BENEFICIAL TO MODIFY THE RESOLUTION AND, OR THIS APPLICATION TO CONSIDER THE THREE GAS POWERED VEHICLES? IS THERE A BENEFIT OR IS THERE NOT A BENEFIT? >> I THINK YOU ARE CORRECT THAT THE MANAGEMENT OF THIS WOULD BE BY THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF IT. HOWEVER, WE DO EITHER GET INSPECTIONS OR COMPLAINTS. IF WE WERE GOING TO DO THAT AND WE GOT THAT AND REVIEW THE CONDITION, THERE COULD BE POTENTIALLY A PROBLEM WITH THAT. WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND, IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION AND YOU THINK YOU CAN MAKE THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AS CITY ATTORNEY FROST OUTLINED THAT THAT BE INCLUDED IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROJECT. >> THAT'S EXCELLENT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT BE CLARIFIED. APPRECIATE. >> COMMISSIONER MERZ. >> I THINK FROM A COST STANDPOINT THEN SO JUST BE THE COST OF NOT HAVING TO CONSTRUCT THE EV. [00:50:04] I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE DOWN TO THE DISCUSSION YET BUT I THOUGHT COMMISSIONER STINE WAS SPOT ON WHAT HE SAID. >> UNLESS WE HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS, LET'S FORMALLY MOVE INTO THE DISCUSSION STAGE. COMMISSION MERZ, DO YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING? >> NO. I THOUGHT COMMISSIONER STINE'S OBSERVATIONS WERE SPOT ON. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT WHERE IT WOULD BE, I GUESS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED, I THINK IT WAS ONE ADA, AND THEN FOUR EV AND THAT WOULD LEAVE THREE NON EV SPACES, IF I UNDERSTOOD THAT CORRECTLY, AND THEN THAT WOULD FIT THE CODE AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE SIMPLE WAY TO GO. >> COMMISSIONER MEENES, DO YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING? >> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK IF STAFF NEEDS TO CONSULT AND GIVE US THE OPTION AS TO THE WORDING, IF CHOSE TO DO SO. >> SURE. I THINK AS LONG AS IT'S CLEAR IN THE MOTION AND THE SECOND IN THE VOTE, THAT THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE CAN WORK ON THE LANGUAGE BEFORE IT GOES TO THE CITY COUNCIL. JUST FOR THE RECORD, RELATED TO THAT, THE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD BE MODIFIED WOULD BE NUMBER 7 AND NUMBER 9 INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTION. I APOLOGIZE, NOT THE CONDITIONS, THE FINDINGS. THOSE ARE LOCATED ON PAGES 9 AND 10. >> I'M SORRY. WHAT PARAGRAPH NUMBERS AGAIN, MR. LARDY? >> SEVEN ON PAGE 9 AND NINE ON PAGE 10. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS AGENDA ITEMS? COMMISSIONER STINE. >> THANK YOU. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF MICROMANAGING PROJECTS FROM THE DIAS. I THINK WE HAVE TO NORMALLY TAKE THE PROJECT AS IT'S SUBMITTED. THERE ARE REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION OF CHOOSING CERTAIN FEATURES OVER THE OTHER. I'M GENERALLY NOT IN FAVOR OF THE COMMISSION IMPOSING STANDARDS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS CHOSEN FOR VARIOUS REASONS, SOME OF THE FINANCIAL BUSINESS TO EMPLOY. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, THIS ISSUE OF CHANGING THE TYPES OF PARKING IN THE EIGHT, WHEN I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, HE WAS RECEPTIVE TO THAT. WE'RE NOT IMPOSING SOMETHING AND CRAMMING IT DOWN THE APPLICANT'S THROAT FROM THE DIAS, SO I DON'T SEE THAT MY GENERAL CONCERNS APPLY HERE. I THINK IN THIS AREA, HAVING A MORE DIVERSE PARKING OPTIONS IS A GOOD THING. THIS IS AN AREA WHERE THERE ARE SOME PARKING CONSTRAINT ALONG THE OFF STREET PARKING, AND I THINK RATHER THAN HAVE EIGHT EV PARKING SPACES INSIDE THE BUILDING, CHANGING IT UP A LITTLE BIT AND HAVING THREE GAS POWERED, FOUR EV, AND ONE DISABLED, MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO PARKING, AS I INDICATED WITH THREE GAS POWERED SPACES FOR GAS POWERED VEHICLES, FOUR EV SPACES, AND ONE FOR DISABLED PARKING. I WOULD ARTICULATE THE PUBLIC BENEFIT AS FOLLOWS. THIS IS AN AREA WHERE PARKING ON STREET PARKING IS TIGHTLY CONSTRAINED. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES. BUT HAVING THE PARKING ALLOWING FOR THREE GAS POWERED VEHICLES, I THINK GIVES ADDITIONAL OPTIONS TO THE PUBLIC WHO MAY BE USING AND MAYBE PATIENTS AT THE MEDICAL CENTER TO HAVE THOSE OPTIONS RATHER THAN HAVING A GAS POWERED VEHICLE, PARKING IN EV SPACE AND CREATING A SITUATION. I WOULD ARTICULATE AS DIVERSITY OF PARKING OPTIONS IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT WITH THAT SLIGHT MODIFICATION. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER MEENES. >> YES, I'LL SECOND WITH A COMMENT. >> THANK YOU. >> THIS IS A REAL FINE EXAMPLE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT STATE LEGISLATION IN REGARD TO AB 2097. I ASKED THE QUESTION BEFORE WAS IF AN AB 2097 DID NOT EXIST, [00:55:06] HOW MANY PARKING SPACES WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT? >> TWENTY-THREE. >> IT WAS 23. THAT'S QUITE A CONTRAST TO EIGHT. REALLY, THE REQUIREMENT IS EVEN LESS THAN THAT. THE APPLICANT HAS CHOSEN TO DO EIGHT. THIS IS JUST ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES THAT WE AS A COMMISSION AND THE CITIES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARE DEALING WITH IS STATE LEGISLATION, THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS ON THEIR COMMUNITY REGARDING PARKING. WE LOOK AT THE VILLAGE AND HAVING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WITH AMTRAK, THE COASTER, THE BUSES AND WHATEVER AS A REAL BENEFIT IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. YET, BECAUSE OF THE HALF MILE THAT THIS PROJECT IS FROM PUBLIC TRANSIT, THE LEGISLATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TAKES I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THE TYPES OF PLANNING THAT WE HAVE CHERISHED FOR SO MANY YEARS IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AND HAS TAKEN THAT AWAY FROM US. YET IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, OUT OF THE PARKING SPACES, OUT OF EIGHT, FOUR ARE WITH LIFTS. WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT CLIENTS COMING INTO THE MEDICAL CENTER, THEY'RE GOING TO BE PARKING ON THE STREET, SO THEN YOU HAVE THE IMPACT OF PARKING ON THE STREET. WHERE OTHERWISE, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE PROVIDING MANY MORE PARKING SPACES FOR THEIR CLIENTELE. I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP AS TO THE CONSTRAINTS THE CITY AS WELL AS THE COMMISSION IS UNDER IN REGARD TO STATE LEGISLATION. THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. BUT AT LEAST I DO SUPPORT BECAUSE WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE. I THINK THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT IS EXCELLENT. I THINK THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN IS PERFECT FOR THIS LOCATION, AND I SUPPORT IT AS A SECOND. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER DANNA. >> YES, I AGREE WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I THINK IT'S A NICE QUALITY PROJECT FOR THE VILLAGE. I DO APPRECIATE THAT THE PARKING ELEVATOR IS GOING DOWN, NOT UP BECAUSE THE ONES THAT GO UP TEND NOT TO BE USED. I DO APPRECIATE THAT AND I FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING THE FINDING THAT THE EXTRA PARKING PROVIDED IS ENOUGH TO COVER SECTION 3G IN URBAN MASTER PLAN STANDARDS MODIFICATION SECTION. >> I ALWAYS BELIEVE IN THE HOMILY. IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME. BUT I'VE GOT SERIOUS RESERVATIONS ABOUT THIS. I APPRECIATE WHAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ATTEMPTED TO STITCH TOGETHER. BUT TO ME, THE PARKING IS TOTALLY INADEQUATE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE MEDICAL FACILITIES, YOU'VE GOT EIGHT SPOTS, THE STAFF ALONE CAN TAKE THOSE EIGHT SPOTS. WE'RE GOING TO ASK PEOPLE TO TAKE AN UBER OR WALK OR MAYBE TAKE A SHUTTLE. I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST IT. COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE. LET'S DO SO. A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER STINE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MEENES ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1, PLEASE VOTE. THE AMENDED MOTION PASSES 5:2. COMMISSIONER STINE MEENES, MERZ, DANNA, AND HUBINGER, SAY YES. COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN AND LAFFERTY, SAY NO. THANK YOU ALL. LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1, AND LET'S MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2. [2. GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR EXPANDED AIRPORT USES] FIRST, HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS HAD ANY EX PARTE CONVERSATIONS ON ITEM NUMBER 2 OR ANYTHING THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT? GOOD. THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO EX PARTES. MR. LARDY, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? >> SURE. HERE TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION IS ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, MIKE STRONG. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS, AND GOOD EVENING. MIKE STRONG, THE ASSISTANCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR [01:00:01] FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS PROJECT, JUST TO SET THE TABLE EARLY IN THIS PRESENTATION, DOES NOT CONSIDER ANY IMMEDIATE PERMIT APPROVALS FOR THE AIRPORT. THIS IS FOCUSED ON PROCESS AND PERMITS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE REQUIRED. THE PROJECT ITSELF ENTAILS TWO PRIMARY COMPONENTS. THOSE ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING CODE, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. THAT IS PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT 2 OF THE STAFF REPORT, AND EXHIBIT 4 PROVIDES STRIKEOUT UNDERLINE OF THOSE PROPOSED CHANGES. PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 21661, THAT'S A TYPO, THAT IS TO IDENTIFY THE PROCEDURES BY WHICH THE CITY WOULD REVIEW AND CONSIDER ANY APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF ANY LAND ACQUISITIONS BEYOND THE AIRPORT BOUNDARY. TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT IS CEQA ADDENDUM NUMBER 2 TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR THAT WAS PREPARED FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT REZONE PROGRAM. TO REVIEW SOME OF THE TIMELINE AND HISTORY OF THE AIRPORT AND THE CITY'S ROLE IN THE AIRPORTS HISTORY. THE AIRPORT FIRST OPENED IN 1959, WAS RELOCATED FROM THE CITY OF DEL MAR TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXPANSION OF THE I-5 FREEWAY. THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN WAS APPROVED IN 1975 BY THE COUNTY. AT THE TIME, THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN EXPANSION ANTICIPATED AN UNCONSTRAINED FORECAST OF 500,000 ANNUAL EMPLOYMENTS, MORE REALISTIC AND CONSTRAINED MODEL, ASSUMED 290,000 EMPLOYMENTS, AND THAT ENTAILED A NEED TO EXPAND THE RUNWAY 300 FEET AND TO BUILD A SECOND RUNWAY OF APPROXIMATELY 3,600 FEET TO THE NORTH. NEITHER OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WERE EVER ACHIEVED. THE AIRPORT ITSELF AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNTY WAS ANNEXED TO ACQUIRE MUNICIPAL SERVICES. IN 1978, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION 5637 IN DECEMBER OF THAT YEAR AND ORDERED THE AIRPORT ANNEXED. AS A CONDITION OF THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT, THE COUNTY AND CITY MUTUALLY AGREED TO PLACE THE APPROPRIATE ZONING DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY AND FOR THE AIRPORT PROPRIETOR THE COUNTY TO RECEIVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ITS OPERATION. IN AUGUST OF 1980, THERE WAS A VOTER INITIATIVE THAT WAS CIRCULATED, A PETITION TO REQUIRE ANY AIRPORT, LANDS, ACQUISITIONS, OR EXPANSIONS TO REQUIRE AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO APPROVE THAT DOCUMENT. >> LATER IN THAT SAME YEAR IN SEPTEMBER OF 1980, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTING AS THE FINAL DECISION MAKING BODY FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, APPROVED THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND THAT WAS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION 1699, AND THAT WAS REFERRED TO AS CUP 172. SO YOU'LL SEE CUP 172 REFERENCED THROUGHOUT THE STAFF REPORT, AND THAT REFERS TO THE PLANNING CASE FILE. A CONDITION OF THAT CUP WAS TO SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE IT TO REMAIN AS A GENERAL AVIATION FACILITY UNTIL THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WAS TO BE AMENDED. LATER IN 1980 IN NOVEMBER OF 1980, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED A ORDINANCE 5699 FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT. AND THAT EFFECTIVELY PLACED THE M INDUSTRIAL ZONE ON THE AIRPORT PROPERTY AND SPECIFICALLY ADDED THE LABEL OF AIRPORT DESIGNATING ITS PRECISE LOCATION ON THE ZONING MAPS. BOTH THE CUP AND THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ITSELF, AND THE ZONING MAPS AND GENERAL PLANS SINCE THAT TIME, HAVE BEEN PREDICATED ON THE ONGOING USE OF THE AIRPORT AS A GENERAL AVIATION FACILITY AND WITH ITS PRECISE LOCATION AS SHOWN ON THOSE MAPS. IN 1984, THERE WAS A RESOLUTION ADOPTED OPPOSING EXPANSION. THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THAT RESOLUTION 7530 AND TOOK A FORMAL POSITION ABOUT POTENTIAL EXPANSION PLANS OF THE AIRPORT. THAT IS VERY SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE MORE RECENT RESOLUTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED, WHICH I'LL COVER LATER ON THIS TIMELINE. THE COUNTY DIRECTED THE FIRST AIRPORT UPDATE TO THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN IN 1997. SIMILARLY, THAT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN ALSO DIRECTED [01:05:03] A FUTURE IMPROVEMENT TO EXTEND THE RUNWAY 300 FEET, BUT IT NO LONGER CONSIDERED THE SECOND RUNWAY TO THE NORTH OF 3,600 FEET. IN 2015, THE COUNTY BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIRECTED THE COUNTY STAFF TO BEGIN A NEW THIRD UPDATE TO THE MASTER PLAN, AND THAT WAS ADOPTED IN OCTOBER OF 2018. ABOUT A WEEK LATER ON OCTOBER 16, 2018, THE CITY COUNCIL PROVIDED DIRECTION TO CITY STAFF TO BEGIN WORKING ON ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO REQUIRE ANY EXPANSION OF THE AIRPORT TO OBTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TO ONLY AUTHORIZE AIRPORT USES WITHIN THE EXISTING AIRPORT BOUNDARY. LATER IN THAT YEAR IN NOVEMBER OF 2018, THE CITIZENS FOR FRIENDLY AIRPORT FILED A SUIT CHALLENGING THE ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THAT WAS ADOPTED AND CERTIFIED BY THE COUNTY TO SUPPORT THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND CHALLENGE THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN DOCUMENTS ITSELF. THE CITY ALSO FILED SUIT IN DECEMBER OF 2018 ON SIMILAR GROUNDS. IT WASN'T UNTIL MARCH OF 2018 THAT THE CITY BEGAN TO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. IN MAY, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2,000 1960 AND ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND AMONG THOSE WAS TO DROP THE LEGAL CHALLENGE AND TO ABANDON THE ZONING CODE WORK. THE CITIZENS FOR FRIENDLY AIRPORT ENDED UP PREVAILING IN THE IN THEIR LAWSUIT IN 2021. BUT PRIOR TO THAT TIME, THE CITY COUNCIL DID ADOPT TWO RESOLUTIONS IN 2019, 2019-178 AND 2010-179. AND AGAIN, HAD A SIMILAR TONE AS TO THE 1984 RESOLUTION OPPOSING AIRPORT EXPANSIONS THAT WOULD INVOLVE ANY RUNWAY EXTENSION OR EXPANSION BEYOND THE EXISTING. AFTER THE 2021 JUDGMENT IN MAY, THE COUNTY SET ASIDE ALL OF ITS APPROVALS AND RESCINDED THE APPROVAL OF THE EIR AND THE MASTER PLAN AND BEGAN WORK TO UPDATE THAT 2018 DOCUMENT AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT, PROVIDE THE REQUISITE ANALYSIS AND THEN ENDED UP ADOPTING THE 2021 PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT. THEREAFTER, ON JANUARY 2 OF THIS YEAR, THE CITIZENS FOR FRIENDLY AIRPORT SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER RESTARTING THAT ZONING CODE WORK AND PROVIDED ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERED THAT REQUEST AT THE FEBRUARY 27 MEETING AND THEN GAVE DIRECTION FORMALLY TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2024-178, I BELIEVE. TO BEGIN THE WORK TO INITIATE THE WORK PROGRAM TO AMEND THE CODE AMENDMENTS, AND THAT IS THE BASIS OF THIS PRESENTATION AS FOLLOWING UP ON THAT COUNCIL DIRECTION. THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT DOES INCLUDE SEVERAL PARTS IN WHICH I WANTED TO WALK THROUGH. THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE PROPOSED TO SPECIFY AS A POLICY STATEMENT, CITY OPPOSITION TO CHANGES TO THE PALMER AIRPORT THAT WOULD INCREASE THE IMPACT OF THE PALOMAR AIRPORT, HAS ON NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES AND ON THE CITY RESOURCES BEYOND B-II ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE. IT INCORPORATES STATE LAW DEFINITIONS FOR AIRPORT AND AIRPORT EXPANSION, AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, IT INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE THOSE DEFINITUS USED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE. THE THIRD ITEM IS TO REQUIRE NEW OR EXPANDED AIRPORT LAND USES TO OBTAIN A NEW OR AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND THE FOURTH ITEM IS TO PERMIT AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ONLY WITHIN THE CURRENT BOUNDARY OF THE PALOMAR AIRPORT AS REFLECTED ON THE GENERAL PLAN MAPS. THE ZONING CODE ORDINANCE CHANGES TO TITLE 21 INCLUDE INCORPORATING STATE LAW DEFINITIONS FOR AIRPORT AND AIRPORT EXPANSION, AND THESE SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTIONS REFERENCED IN THAT STATUTE. AIRPORT IS DEFINED BY SECTION 21013, AND AIRPORT EXPANSION IS DEFINED BY 21664. THE THIRD ITEM IS TO AMEND THE ZONING TABLES TO REMOVE AIRPORT AS A PERMISSIBLE LAND USE SUCH THAT ONLY THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CURRENT BOUNDARY OF THE PALOMAR AIRPORT AS DEPICTED ON THE CITY ZONING MAP WOULD REMAIN AS CONDITIONALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR AIRPORT LAND USES. SO IF THE ORDINANCE IS ULTIMATELY ADOPTED, IT WOULD RETAIN AIRPORT AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN CHAPTERS 21, 32 AND 21,34. THE AMENDMENTS TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, [01:10:02] PROPOSE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT WERE DESCRIBED EARLIER FOR THE AREAS THAT ARE IMPACTING COASTAL ZONE RESOURCES. THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IS ALSO PROPOSED FOR AMENDMENT, THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCES THAT WERE DESCRIBED EARLIER OR FOR THOSE AREAS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE. UNDER STATE LAW UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE 21661, THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE AIRPORT MAY NOT BEGIN UNTIL THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SUBMITS A PLAN DETAILING THE PROPOSED USES OF THE PROPERTY TO THE CITY, AND THE CITY HOLDS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVES THAT PLAN. THAT'S A DECLARATION OF EXISTING STATE LAW. THAT PROPOSED PROCEDURES ARE INTENDED TO DESCRIBE THE CITY'S ROLE AND THE COUNTY'S ROLE IN THAT PROCESS. THE PROCEDURES ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE AN EXPEDITIOUS REVIEW OF THE COUNTY APPLICATIONS OF THE APPROVED PLANS TO IMPLEMENT THAT PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION, WHILE ENSURING THAT ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE GIVEN FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR VIEWS IN A PUBLIC SETTING. IT INCLUDES PROCEDURES CONSIDERING NOTICING THE STANDARDS REVIEW AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS TO IMPLEMENT THAT STATUTE. STAFF RECOMMENDS THREE SEPARATE ACTIONS, WHICH COULD BE TAKEN UNDER ONE MOTION, BUT IS TO APPROVE THE CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR. CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE RECORD AND UNDER THE CEQA GUIDELINES, 15164. THERE'S NO REASON OR CAUSE TO PREPARE ADDITIONAL FURTHER ANALYSIS. THERE'S NO NEED TO PREPARE A SUBSEQUENT OR SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT. THERE ARE ONLY MINOR CHANGES THAT ARE NECESSARY TO THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, AND SO IT WAS FITTING TO PREPARE THE ADDENDUM. FOR EXHIBIT 2 IS THE CODE AMENDMENTS, AND THAT WOULD ENTAIL ALL THREE ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT. THE THIRD EXHIBIT THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR ARE THE PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE, SECTION 21661, AND AGAIN, APOLOGIZE FOR THE TYPO IN THAT SLIDE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION, AND I'M ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> CAN I THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER STEIN. >> THANK YOU. MR. STRONG, JUST BRIEFLY, AM I CORRECT IN UNDERSTANDING THERE IS NO APPLICATION FROM THE COUNTY PENDING BEFORE THE CITY TO EXPAND THE AIRPORT, IS THAT RIGHT? THERE'S NOTHING CITY IS REVIEWING RIGHT NOW? >> THAT'S CORRECT. YES. >> BUT WE ANTICIPATE THAT MAY BE ONE IN THE NEAR FUTURE? >> REGARDING THE TIMING, I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE COUNTY IN TERMS OF THE PURSUIT OF IMPLEMENTING THE. >> ONE COULD COME DOWN THE PIKE AT SOME POINT. >> CERTAINLY. >> COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR ME THE PROCEDURES THAT ASSUMING THE COUNTY DOES SUBMIT A APPLICATION FOR AIRPORT EXPANSION, THE PROCEDURES INTERNALLY WITHIN THE CITY THAT THIS WOULD BE REVIEWED? >> THERE ARE TWO PROCEDURES THAT ARE CODIFIED BY STATUTE. ONE, I REFERENCED EARLIER, THERE IS PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 21661. THAT REQUIRES THE AGENCY OF JURISDICTION TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ANY PLAN FOR THE EXPANSION OR LAND ACQUISITION BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CURRENT AIRPORT. THERE'S ALSO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65402, AND THAT PROVIDES THAT IF ANY AGENCY IS TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF ITS TERRITORIAL LIMIT, THAT THEY REFER THAT REQUEST TO THE AGENCY OF JURISDICTION AND FOR A GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION. SO THAT IS A DECLARATORY OF EXISTING LAW. WHAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO ARE TO CLARIFY, SPECIFY THE CODE AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS OR THE STANDARDS, AS WELL AS THE PROCEDURES. THE EXHIBIT NUMBER 3 TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS CLARIFYING THE CITY'S ROLE AND THE COUNTY'S ROLE TO SET THE EXPECTATIONS ON HOW THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED THE 21661. WITH RESPECT TO ANY EXPANSION OF THE AIRPORT AS IT IS PROPOSED TO BE DEFINED, THE COUNTY'S PURSUIT OF ANY OF THOSE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WOULD THEN TRIGGER A NEED TO PROCESS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD ULTIMATELY BE THE DECISION MAKING BODY THROUGH A REFERRAL REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE COUNTY WOULD BE REACHING OUT TO CITY STAFF IF THIS WAS TO BE ADOPTED TO COORDINATE THAT PROCESS. I BELIEVE THAT WOULD INITIALLY START OFF WITH THE PURSUIT OF THE PUBLIC PROCEDURES SIMPLY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE, WHERE WOULD BE DISCOVERED WHETHER OR NOT A CUP OR OTHER REQUIREMENT WOULD BE IMPOSED. [01:15:02] >> THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ONE WOULD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WOULD BE ADVISORY MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE FINAL AUTHORITY, AM I AHEAD ON THAT? >> YES. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER MARS. >> YEAH. THANK YOU. YES. SO LOOKING AT GOING BACK TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM SAYING THIS IS A BEAST. ONE OF THE PEOPLE SAID THAT'S ACCURATE DESCRIPTION, BUT AN INTERESTING ONE THAT. IF WE GO IN THE PACKAGE, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE COP 172, RESOLUTION 1699. IN LOOKING AT THAT IN TABLE A, IT BASIS SAYS, THE FOLLOWING USES ARE PERMITTED WITHOUT THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW. I TALKED ABOUT AIRPORT, STRUCTURES, FACILITIES ARE NECESSARY TO OPERATION OF THE AIRPORT TO CONTROL AIR TRAFFIC IN RELATION TO KNOW IT GOES THROUGH THAT. I GUESS THE QUESTION SEEMS LIKE AN OVERARCHING QUESTION. IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS AND ISSUES HERE IS THE CONCEPT OF INCREASED USE OF THE AIRPORT. IS THERE ANYWHERE IN THE CUP THAT WAS GRANTED THAT EVER RESTRICTS THE I GUESS FOR LACK OF BETTER TERM, THE INTENSITY OF USE. THERE'S THAT CONCEPT OF THE B-11 OR UP TO THE D. THERE'S A LOT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION THERE, BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS WHEN THE CUP WAS GRANTED, ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS THAT SAYS, I STRUT WITH THE WORDS AN INTENSITY LEVEL, IF YOU WILL, TO WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? BECAUSE THAT DOES SEEM TO BE THE MAIN OVERARCHING CONCERN HERE. >> BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY CANNOT SET CURFEW HOURS AND CANNOT CONTROL THE NUMBER OF FLIGHTS ENTERING OR DEPARTING THE AIRPORT ITSELF. THE OPERATION OF THE AIRPORT ITSELF WITHIN THE EXISTING BOUNDARIES OF THE AIRPORT, DOES HAVE PROTECTIONS UNDER THE FAA, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, FOR THE, NAVIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND THE NAVIGATION OF AIRSPACE. WHAT THIS PROJECT IS ATTEMPTING TO DO IS TO CONTROL LAND USE DECISIONS OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE LOCAL LAND USE DECISIONS WITHIN THE CITY'S CONTROL. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE CUP, IT WAS PREDICATED ON IT BEING A GENERAL AVIATION FACILITY. SO THAT TERM ITSELF CARRIES SOME WEIGHT AS THE FAA CATEGORIZES DIFFERENT AIRPORTS. THERE ARE CURRENTLY 20 COMMERCIAL AIRPORTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND 33 RELIEVER AND 133 GENERAL AVIATION FACILITY. SO THIS WAS INTENDED WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY TO BE A GENERAL AVIATION FACILITY, WHICH THEN WAS REPRESENTED BY SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS TO BOTH DESIGNATE THE AIRPORT THROUGH THE ZONING CODE MAP AMENDMENT IN 1980, AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 1980. SO EVER SINCE THEN, THE EXPECTATION HAS BEEN THAT THOSE APPROVING ACTIONS PREDICATED THE INTENDED USE OF THE FACILITY. BUT IN TERMS OF THE SIZE AND TYPE OF AIRCRAFT, THAT THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT. THE DECISION TO USE THE AIRPORT IS UP TO THE PILOT. A PILOT OF A LARGER AIRCRAFT CAN AND DO USE THE AIRPORT. THERE ARE C3 AND D3 AIRCRAFT THAT CURRENTLY DO USE THE AIRPORT TODAY. >> BECAUSE ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT CAME OUT IN THE REPORT WAS JUST THE REQUEST TO CHANGE IT TO I THINK IT WAS THE STATE DEFINITION, BUT IT'S A COUNTY FACILITY. COULD YOU EXPAND ON THAT? THERE'S A PART WHERE THEY WERE REQUESTING USING A STATE DEFINITION, I THINK IT WAS A AIRPORT VERSUS THE ALTHOUGH IT'S A COUNTY THAT'S OPERATING IT THOUGH. I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THAT. >> YEAH, THE STATE DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS WORKS THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. >> THEY ARE PROMULGATING RULES AND REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE AERONAUTICS ACT. WITHIN THE AERONAUTICS ACT, THERE ARE DEFINITIONS FOR AIRPORT AND AIRPORT EXPANSION, WHICH I REFERENCED EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION. BUT WHAT OUR ZONING CODE IS MISSING, AND THIS PLAN COMMISSION IS WELL AWARE THAT IT WORKS WITHIN A SET OF BOUNDARIES OF WHAT'S PERMITTED AND WHAT'S NOT, AND TYPICALLY, THERE ARE USES AND ACTIVITIES THAT ARE ASSIGNED TO DIFFERENT ZONES, AND TO DETERMINE WHAT A USER ACTIVITY ACTIVITY ENTAILS, WE'LL REFER TO CHAPTER 2,104 OF THE DOCUMENT, WHICH INCLUDES A SET OF DEFINITIONS. CURRENTLY, WHAT IS MISSING IS A DEFINITION [01:20:02] FOR AIRPORT AND A DEFINITION FOR AIRPORT EXPANSION. IT IS UP TO THE CITY TO DETERMINE WHAT TERMINOLOGY AND WHAT THAT SHALL MEAN, AND IT MAKES SENSE TO RELY ON A STATE AGENCY HAVING GREATER AUTHORITY AT THE STATE DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS, TO RELY ON THE SAME TERMS THAT THEY USE WHEN THEY IMPLEMENT THINGS WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION FOR AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER MEENES. >> MR. STRONG, THAT IS ONE ASPECT OF IT, WITH THE COUNSEL ASKING FOR UPDATES FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE, GENERAL PLAN, ETC. THIS BEING ONE ASPECT OF IT REGARDING THE DEFINITIONS OF WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED. ARE THERE OTHERS THAT ARE A PART OF THIS IN THE REASON AND RATIONALE WHY THE COUNCIL HAD ASKED THAT THESE UPDATES OCCUR AT THIS TIME? >> I BELIEVE THAT THIS HAS BEEN A CONVERSATION THAT STARTED BEFORE THE MOST RECENT REQUEST TO INITIATE THE WORK PROGRAM. IN 2018, SHORTLY AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE 2018 VERSION OF THE MASTER PLAN, THERE WAS INTERESTED IN THAT TIME TO PURSUE A SIMILAR COURSE OF ACTION. THE IDEA WAS JUST TO CLARIFY AND SPECIFY WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE, SHOULD THE COUNTY SEEK ANY PERMIT OR APPROVALS FROM THE CITY. THIS ISN'T INTENDED TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF EXISTING, LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE DECLARATIONS OF EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE LAWS THAT HELP IMPLEMENT AIRPORT EXPANSIONS, BUT IT'S INTENDED TO IDENTIFY THE ROLE THAT THE CITY HAS IN THAT PROCESS. IN DOING SO, THE IDEA IS TO NOT INTERFERE OR INTERRUPT THOSE PROTECTIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT JUST RELY ON WHAT IS WITHIN THE LOCAL POLICE POWERS. IN DOING SO, IT SHOULD BE CLEAR WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE AND SO WITHIN EQUAL UNDERSTANDING OF HOW TO ADMINISTER THE SECTION OF THE CODE, THE IDEA IS THAT ALL RESPONSIBILITIES WOULD BE ABLE TO FOLLOW. >> THANK YOU FOR THE INTENT BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO FULLY UNDERSTAND AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC AS TO THE PURPOSE OF DOING SO. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? GOOD, SEEING NONE, LET'S NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. A MINUTES CLERK, DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS? >> WE DO. WE HAVE SIX. >> HOW MANY DO WE HAVE? >> SIX. >> SIX. >> WOULD YOU CALL THE FIRST THREE, PLEASE? >> YES. >> VICKY SAIGE, LANCE SHELTE, JAMIE ABBOTT. >> AS OUR FIRST SPEAKER APPROACHES THE PODIUM, LET ME EXPLAIN THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY. EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS TO HELP SPEAKERS STAY WITHIN THEIR TIME LIMIT. THE MINUTES CLERK WILL ACTIVATE THE LIGHTED TIME. A GREEN LIGHT MEANS SPEAK. YELLOW MEANS YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE REMAINING, AND BLINKING RED LIGHT MEANS YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, NOT TO THE STAFF. AFTER WE HAVE RECEIVED TESTIMONY FROM EVERYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK, WE WILL ASK THE APPROPRIATE PERSON TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS. PLEASE SPEAK IN THE MICROPHONE AND CLEARLY STATE YOUR NAME. >> GOOD EVENING. VICKY SAIGE AND THE PRESIDENT OF CITIZENS FOR FRIENDLY AIRPORT OR C FOR FA. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PLEASE ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND PASS THE RESOLUTIONS BROUGHT FORTH. ON BEHALF OF C FOR FA, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE CITY COUNCIL FOR GIVING US ITS UNANIMOUS AND BIPARTISAN SUPPORT TO PURSUE THIS MUCH NEEDED PROJECT, AND FOR STAFF FOR THE INCREDIBLE BODY OF WORK THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, ALL 283 PAGES OF IT. THIS HAS BEEN A WELL THOUGHT OUT, WELL VETTED HERCULEAN EFFORT. TONIGHT IS THE CULMINATION OF SEVEN YEARS OF WORK. A MILLION DOLLAR SPENT IN OUTSIDE LEGAL FEES BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIX FIGURES SPENT BY C FOUR FA. THE CITY OF CARLSBAD WAS GRANTED LOCAL AUTHORITY OF LAND USE BY THE COUNTY AS A CONDITION OF THE 1978 AIRPORT ANNEXATION, AS THE 2021 COURT RULING SO CLEARLY STATES, AND I'M QUOTING, THE COUNTY VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY RELINQUISHED ITS IMMUNITIES WITH RESPECT TO THE AIRPORT END QUOTE, FROM THE JUDGE. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A NEED FOR THE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY. IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE AIRPORT ANNEXATION, THINGS WORKED REALLY WELL. TIME PASSED AND THINGS CHANGED. THE COUNTY STARTED TO STEAM ROLE THE CITY, AND QUITE HONESTLY, THE CITY LET THEM. THE CITY'S OUTSIDE COUNSEL, KKNR, WAS GIVEN THE SAME BAD INFORMATION BY THE COUNTY IS DEMONSTRATED BY A PRESENTATION GIVEN BY NAMED PARTNER PETER KIRSCH AT THE MAY 17, [01:25:05] 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AND I QUOTE, THE COUNTY'S POSITION, IT'S EXEMPT FROM CITY ORDINANCES, FALSE. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CUP IS VOLUNTARY, FALSE. NO WAIVER OF IMMUNITY, FALSE. THE COUNTY PROVIDED THIS FALSE INFORMATION AND THE DOCUMENTS TO TO PROVE OTHERWISE WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE. THE LACK OF RECORD KEEPING AND THE INTENTIONAL WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION LED TO BAD GOVERNANCE. AS KKNR REPORTED IN THE SAME CITY COUNCIL MEETING, A NOTE ABOUT HISTORY. PAST CITY IN QUOTES, PAST CITY, COUNTY ACTIONS AND INACTIONS COULD BE CRITICIZED WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT. THE CITY COULD HAVE BEEN MORE AGGRESSIVE IN THE PAST, AND OUR FOCUS HAS BEEN ON WHAT CAN BE DONE NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. THE CULMINATION OF THESE PAST ACTIONS AND THE PASSING OF THE 2018 MASTER PLAN UPDATE LED TO OUR LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY. WE WERE LEFT WITH NO OTHER CHOICE, SO WE SUED, AND WE WON. TONIGHT, WE ARE ASKING YOU TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP, THE CITY, COUNTY, AND RESIDENTS NEVER HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER ORDEAL SUCH AS THIS AGAIN. STAFF HAVE CREATED A MANUAL, A RECIPE BOOK, IF YOU WILL, AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW THE CITY AND COUNTY MUST PROCEED WITH AIRPORT LAND USE CHANGES TO HONOR THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT AND ABIDE BY THE COURT'S RULING. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU PLEASE VOTE TO ACCEPT ALL OF THE STAFF'S REQUESTED RESOLUTIONS TO PROTECT CARLSBAD AND ITS RESIDENTS FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD NIGHT. >> THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. >> LANCE SHELTE. >> HELLO, LANCE SHELTE, 7386, ESCALLONIA COURT, AND CARLSBAD. I WANT TO THANK MIKE STRONG. I THINK MIKE'S WORK ON THIS, AS I'VE SEEN IT, REPRESENTS THE BEST OF CARLSBAD. IT REPRESENTS STAFF WORKING WITH CITIZENS ON ISSUES OF CRITICAL CITIZEN CONCERN. IT'S STAFF WORKING WITH CITIZENS. ON ISSUES. I MOVED TO CARLSBAD AND WAS ON THE CITY PLANNING STAFF A FEW YEARS AFTER THE 1984 RESOLUTION ON THE AIRPORT. I CAN TELL YOU AS A STAFF PERSON, YOU ARE NOW SIMPLY REAFFIRMING WHAT WE KNEW AND I KNEW BACK IN THE 1980S, THAT THE LONG TIME CITIZEN AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON AIRPORT EXPANSION PROPOSALS IS RIGHT BEFORE YOU NOW. YOU ARE LOOKING AT ADOPTING WHAT WAS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS AND WHAT WE CONSIDERED TO BE ON THE BOOKS AND THE WAY WE LOOKED AT IT IN THE '80S WHEN I WAS ON STAFF. I ASK YOU TO ADOPT THIS TONIGHT. AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK MIKE STRONG ON THIS. THIS IS AN ISSUE. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME CITIZEN CONCERN ABOUT THE AIRPORT AND THIS NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF TONIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. >> JAMIE ABBOTT. >> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JAMIE ABBOTT. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, AND PALOMAR AIRPORT IS ONE OF THE EIGHT THAT I OVERSEE IN OUR AIRPORT SYSTEM. RELATED TO THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT, THE COUNTY SUBMITTED TWO LETTERS TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, ONE APRIL 23RD, ANOTHER ONE ON JULY 8TH, AND ANOTHER LETTER TO THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ON JULY 9TH. WHICH EXPRESSES OUR POSITION THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF PALOMAR AIRPORT IS WITHIN THE CURRENT AUTHORITY OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION GUIDANCE FROM THE FAA. WE ASK THAT THE COMMISSION TAKE OUR POSITION INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING ITS RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RELATED TO THE CURRENT AND FUTURE AIRPORT USES AND DEVELOPMENT. WE CONTINUE OUR COMMITMENT TO BE AND GOOD PARTNER WITH THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AND A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO THE COMMUNITY. I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR ALL THEIR HELP AND ALL THE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE RELATING TO THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> CALL THE NEXT SPEAKERS, PLEASE. >> THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE, DOM BETRO, FRANK SUNG, AND MARY ANN VINDGE. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M DOM BETRO. I LIVE AT SOLAMAR HOA, WHICH IS THE 55 AND OLDER PARK RIGHT NEXT TO THE HILTON GARDEN INN AT SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND CARLSBAD BOULEVARD. I'VE BEEN WORKING FOR TWO YEARS, HELPING TO COORDINATE A NETWORK OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM 25 HOAS NOW THAT SURROUND THE AIRPORT. THAT THE HOAS HAVE ABOUT 25,000 RESIDENTS IN THEM. [01:30:02] WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED AT THE AIRPORT, QUITE FRANKLY. WE DON'T FEEL WE'RE WORKING WITH A TRUSTWORTHY PARTNER WITH THE COUNTY. OUR GENERAL NUISANCE CONCERNS ABOUT NOISE HAVE ELEVATED TO A HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERN. SPECIFICALLY, YOU'VE HEARD THE CASE. I CAN'T APPLAUD STAFF ENOUGH AS A FORMER ELECTED CITY COUNCILMAN IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE. I'VE BEEN THROUGH PLANNING PROCESSES AND I CAN APPRECIATE IT'S MORE THAN A BEAST THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT. BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU IN THE TWO YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN AT THIS, ALL WE'VE GOTTEN IS FINGER POINTING BETWEEN THE FAA AND THE COUNTY AND WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT? ULTIMATELY, IT'S THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS THAT CONCERN US. WHEN I SAY NOT TRUSTWORTHY, I DON'T SAY THAT WITH ANY GLEE, BUT I WILL JUST POINT TO YOU THE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS WHERE THE COUNTY IS TRYING TO PUSH FOR A 76 PASSENGER AMERICAN AIRLINES JET THAT'S RATED AS A CATEGORY C AIRPORT PLANE TO FLY INTO THIS GENERAL AVIATION B2 AIRPORT. WE CANNOT HAVE THAT ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THIS COMMUNITY AND THE RESIDENTS. WE NEED THE CITY TO BE A PARTNER IN THIS. OUR GROUP HAS RESEARCHED AIRPORTS LIKE THIS THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AND WHERE IT WORKS MOST EFFECTIVELY AND WHERE WE GET THE HEALTH AND SAFETY RESULTS WE NEED IS WHEN THE CITY IS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN ASSERTING ITS JURISDICTION. IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT JUST AN ETHICAL OR MORAL JURISDICTION. YOU HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS AS A CITY TO REQUIRE THE LAND USE OF THIS AIRPORT TO COMPLY AS A GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, WHICH IS WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO BE. THE COUNTY'S ACTIONS IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS IS TO EXPAND THIS AS A FULL BLOWN COMMERCIAL AIRPORT. THE FACT THAT IT'S HAPPENING AT THIS TIME IS A MESSAGE TO YOU AND TO THE CITY, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GET GRAPHIC ABOUT WHAT THE MESSAGE IS, BUT I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND IT. THEY ARE MOVING AHEAD NO MATTER WHAT. WE WILL BE DEFINING WHAT DOES EXPANSION MEANS, AS THAT FAMOUS A TIME OF DEFINING WHAT THIS MEAN AS WE GO FORWARD. THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THIS. >> FRANK SUNG. >> I LOVE FOLLOWING HIM. GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND CITY STAFF. MY NAME IS FRANK SUNG, 21 YEAR. CALLED BY A RESIDENT. I'M ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MARINERS POINT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 186 HOMES. WE'RE RIGHT NEAR POINT CITY OF PARK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD. MY NEIGHBORS AND I ARE EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED, EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED WITH THE COUNTY AND HOW THEY'RE OPERATING THE AIRPORT. WE HAVE AIRPLANES FLYING OVER OUR HOMES, OUR SCHOOLS, OUR PARKS, ALL HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT. THE SINGLE ENGINE AIRPLANES ARE LOW AND LOUD AND DANGEROUS, AND THEY ARE MAKING EARLY TURNS TO GO EAST AND SOUTH. WHEN YOU BRING THAT UP TO THE COUNTY, WHAT CAN WE DO? WELL, THAT'S LIKE SOMEBODY THAT OWNS AN APARTMENT BUILDING AND SAYS, I JUST OWN AN APARTMENT BUILDING, I HAVE TENANTS. I CAN'T CONTROL WHAT THE TENANTS DO. THE COUNTY HAS BEEN REALLY OBLIVIOUS TO ANY OF OUR CONCERNS. THEN YOU HAVE THE LARGE JETS WHO ARE SCREAMING OVER OUR ROOFTOPS, THEY'RE GOING RIGHT OVER THE TENNIS COURTS AND THE PADDLE BALL COURTS AT POINSETTIA PARK, CUTTING THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THEY ARE FLYING AFTER 10:00 PM AND BEFORE 7:00 AM WHICH ARE THE VOLUNTARY QUIT HOURS. IT'S NOT JUST NOISE POLLUTION AND AIR POLLUTION, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SAFETY. WITH ALL OF THAT SAID, I KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS LOCAL JURISDICTION OF LAND USE. WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU APPROVE THE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN REVISIONS. THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IS IN A BETTER POSITION TO INFLUENCE THE OPERATION AT THE AIRPORT AND BE IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT IN TERMS OF HOW THE AIRPORT MAY OR MAY NOT GROW IN THE FUTURE. I JUST WANT TO SHOUT OUT TO MIKE AND THE CITY STAFF FOR BRINGING ALL THESE REVISIONS TO YOU. THANK YOU. >> HELLO. GOOD EVENING. AGAIN, MARYANN VINNEY. I JUST WANTED TO REQUEST THAT YOU PLEASE APPROVE THE CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORT LAND USES SO THAT OUR CITY CAN EXERCISE ITS LOCAL CONTROL THAT IT DOES HAVE UNDER STATE LAW AND UNDER LOCAL REGULATIONS WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. ALSO, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT STAFF HAS DONE REALLY [01:35:01] A STELLAR JOB ON WORKING ON THIS AND I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. AGAIN, ITEM 2, PLEASE APPROVE THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? >> NO. >> I DIDN'T PUT MY NAME IN. SHOULD I GO? >> GO AHEAD. AGAIN, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> I'M MARIE MASENKO. I USED TO LIVE IN CARLSBAD, AND I JUST WANTED TO ADD TO THE COMMENTS TO THE AIRPORT. I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THE AIRPORT SINCE 2018, I STARTED AND I HAD TO MOVE BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ANSWERS, THERE WAS NO HELP. I WROTE LETTERS, I WENT TO THE AIRPORT. I TALKED TO THE COMMISSIONS. I WAS SO FRUSTRATED BECAUSE OF THE NOISE, BECAUSE NOBODY WOULD HELP ME THAT I HAD TO MOVE FOR THAT. I JUST WANTED TO ADD TO THAT THAT PLEASE VOTE YES ON THIS BECAUSE THERE NEEDS TO BE A SOLUTION AND I DON'T THINK THERE HAS BEEN IN THE LAST SIX YEARS. I STILL HAVE PLANES FLYING OVER ME. IT'S NOT AS BAD, BUT I DON'T WANT MORE AND I ALMOST GOT DIVORCED BECAUSE OF IT, THE NOISE. IT WAS HORRIBLE. THERE WAS JUST NO HELP OTHER THAN THE C4 GROUP THAT HELPED. BUT I JUST WANT TO ADD THOSE COMMENTS. I LOVE CARLSBAD AND I MISS IT VERY MUCH, AND THAT IS THE MAIN REASON I LEFT CARLSBAD. THANKS. >> THANK YOU. SEEING THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKERS, LET'S NOW CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED OR ANY COMMENTS MADE? >> FOR THE RECORD, NO. >> DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER MERZ. >> I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. JAMIE ABBOTT FROM THE COUNTY. I WASN'T QUITE SURE WHAT THE COUNTY'S POSITION WAS. I CAN'T EVEN ASK THAT QUESTION. I GUESS IT'S MORE IF THE STAFF CAN CLARIFY WHAT THE COUNTY'S POSITION ON THIS IS. >> PLEASE. >> THE SPEAKER REPRESENTING THE COUNTY DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS, INDICATED THAT THERE ARE PRIOR CORRESPONDENCES SUBMITTED AND THAT IT IS INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA PACKET. THERE IS A APRIL 23RD, 2024 CORRESPONDENCE, WHICH IS PROBABLY IN THE FRONT END OF THAT EXHIBIT, I THINK EXHIBIT 7. THEN THERE IS A CORRESPONDENCE TRANSMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE CITY ON JULY 8TH. THAT SUMMARIZES THE COUNTY'S POSITION. I DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY SUMMARIZE EXACTLY THEIR POSITION. BUT THEIR POSITION, I GUESS RESTATING WHAT WAS SAID TONIGHT IS A BETTER WAY OF HANDLING THIS RESPONSE. THE SPEAKER DID SAY THAT THE OPERATION OF THE FACILITY IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THAT THERE ARE FEDERAL PREEMPTIONS IN PLACE FOR AERONAUTICAL NAVIGATION. I THINK FOR A RESPONSE TO THIS, I'LL DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MISS FROST. >> TO THE EXTENT THE COMMISSIONER WAS LOOKING FOR RESPONSE, I'LL JUST SAY THAT FEDERAL LAW DOES INDEED REGULATE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF AVIATION AND AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT, AND WE'VE DRAFTED THE ORDINANCE, SUCH THAT NOTHING IS INTENDED TO CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW. [BACKGROUND] >> EXCUSE ME. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER MERZ AGAIN. >> YES. IT IS INTERESTING. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP, WAS LOOKING AT THE COUNTY LETTER ON JULY 8TH, AND IT MENTIONED WE'RE CHANGING THE ZONING SO THAT REMOVES AIRPORT USES OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AIRPORT. BUT THEN MENTIONED A LETTER FROM AT THE TIME, CITY ATTORNEY, MR. BALL. I WAS LOOKING AT THE LETTER. SAYS, MY FURTHER UNDERSTAND THAT PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR A CLEAR ZONE WOULD NOT REQUIRE FACILITIES OR STRUCTURES AND WOULD NECESSITATE REDESIGNATION OR REZONING OF THE CARLSBAD EXISTING PLANNING DOCUMENTS. [01:40:02] AS SUCH, NO LEGISLATIVE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IS REQUIRED AND NO VOTE OF THE PEOPLE WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THOSE ACQUISITIONS. THE POINT I THINK REMAINS THAT I THINK CALLED THE EMAS IS BASICALLY TODAY'S VERSION OF THE CLEAR ZONE. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE GOT SOMETHING WHERE THE CITY'S POSITION AT THE TIME WAS IS THAT ACQUIRING LAND OUTSIDE OF THE AIRPORT BOUNDARY, AT THAT TIME WOULD BE A CLEAR ZONE, WHICH TODAY WOULD BE, I THINK IS EMAS OR WHATEVER IT'S CALLED, WOULD NOT TRIGGER A CHANGE TO THE CUP. COULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT? >> SURE. I ALSO MIGHT DEFER TO THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AGAIN FOR RESPONSE. BUT JUST TO CLARIFY, THE EMAS STANDS FOR ENGINEERING, MATERIALS, APPLIED, SURFACES I THINK. >> SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> THAT IS A LAND TREATMENT DEVICE. IT ALMOST ACTS LIKE A PHONE TO HELP SLOW DOWN THE AIRCRAFT. >> IN THE RUNWAY. >> THAT REDUCES THE NEED FOR AN EXTENDED RUNWAY IN SOME SENSES BECAUSE YOU'RE SLOWING DOWN THE AIRCRAFT MORE EXPEDITIOUSLY THAN YOU WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE. REGARDING THE PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE THAT 1993 LETTER FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND I'LL DEFER TO THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO SUPPLEMENT, BUT MY RESPONSE IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THESE CODE AMENDMENTS AND THESE PROCEDURES ARE TO SET THE EXPECTATIONS. IN AREAS OF DOUBT OR UNCERTAINTY, WHERE THERE MIGHT BE INTERPRETATION, THIS IS INTENDED TO FILL THAT VOID. IT MAY BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN OPINION IN 1993. >> JUST TO ADD ON TO THAT A LITTLE BIT, AS MR. STRONG, JUST SAID, THE CODE AMENDMENTS BEFORE YOU ARE INTENDED TO CLARIFY AREAS WHERE THERE IS CURRENTLY SOME AMBIGUITY. IT WOULD HELP WITH INTERPRETATIONS WHERE IN THE PAST, THERE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A PROVISION THAT WAS DIRECTLY ON POINT. HOWEVER, THE ADVICE MEMO THAT I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO FROM THE PRIOR CITY ATTORNEY, I BELIEVE THAT ONE WAS IN REFERENCE TO INTERPRETING A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT THAT RELATED TO THE CITY'S VOTER INITIATIVE AND WHETHER OR NOT A CUP AMENDMENT TRIGGERED A VOTE REQUIREMENT OF THE PEOPLE. IN THAT CASE, HE HAD OPINED THAT A CUP WAS NOT A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT AND THEREFORE DID NOT REQUIRE A VOTE UNDER THAT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION. IT WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. IT'S STILL RELATED, BUT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? GOOD. IF NOT, LET'S OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSION. ANY COMMISSIONER LIKE TO START OFF THE DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER DANNA. >> I CAN START THEN. JUST A BRIEF COMMENT. I THINK THIS DOESN'T NECESSARILY DENY THE AIRPORT THE ABILITY TO PROPOSE PROJECTS, BUT IT DOES ALLOW THE CITIZENS AND THE CITY COUNCIL, AND OF COURSE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT IT BEFORE IT IS APPROVED. I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. >> THANK YOU. THIS IS A REMARKABLE JOB STAFF HAS DONE ON THIS. WELL, 383 PAGES. I COULD HAVE BEEN WATCHING A LOT OF BALL GAMES THIS WEEKEND. NOT FOR THIS. I THINK YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB. I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS, AND IN FACT, I'M GOING TO ASK MR. LARRY A QUESTION. ARE WE ABLE TO VOTE ON EACH OF THESE RESOLUTIONS AS ONE, OR DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON EACH OF THEM SEPARATELY? >> YOU CAN VOTE ON ALL OF THEM IN ONE MOTION. >> COMMISSIONER MERZ. >> I KNOW WE'RE A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER, BUT CAN I ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF? ARE WE BEYOND THAT? IS THAT OKAY TO ASK THAT? >> SURE. GO AHEAD. >> IT'S INTERESTING AND SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME REVIEWING THIS PACKAGE AND GET THROUGH. IT'S A VERY COMPLEX ONE. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS IS THAT THE COUNTY WANTS TO DO CHANGES TO THE RUNWAY WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE AIRPORT. WHAT'S BEFORE US WOULD REQUIRE THE COUNTY TO GET APPROVAL OF THE CITY OR CHANGE THE CUP OR MODIFY IT TO DO WORK TO THE RUNWAY. IS THAT CORRECT? >> LAND ACQUISITION CAN INVOLVE SEVERAL PATHWAYS. ONE IS THE DIRECT PURCHASE. [01:45:01] ANOTHER IS CONDEMNATION, EMINENT DOMAIN. THE OTHER IS THROUGH PROPAGATING EASEMENTS OR ACQUIRING RIGHTS TO USE THE LAND. ALL THREE OF THOSE SCENARIOS UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE 21661 WOULD TRIGGER A NEED FOR THE COUNTY TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL TO THE CITY AND HAVE A CITY COUNCIL EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THAT REQUEST. ANY LAND ACQUISITION CURRENTLY UNDER STATE LAW REQUIRES THE CITY TO HAVE SOME INVOLVEMENT IN THAT PROCESS. WHAT THIS CODE AMENDMENT AND THE RELATED PROCEDURES ARE INTENDED TO DO ARE TO FILL THOSE VOIDS THAT WE HAD SPOKE TO EARLIER, JUST TO MAKE SURE IT'S ABSOLUTELY CLEAR WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE. UNDER STATE LAW, THE COUNTY IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF ANY LAND ACQUISITIONS TO ACQUIRE LAND OUTSIDE OF THE EXISTING BOUNDARIES OF THE AIRPORT. >> BUT THE WAY IT'S SET UP NOW, THOUGH, THE CHANGES WOULD MAKE IT PRETTY MUCH IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT STRIKES AIRPORT FROM THOSE LANDS OUTSIDE THE CURRENT BOUNDARY. CORRECT? >> AIRPORT AS DEFINED RELYING ON THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE 21013 WOULD INCLUDE AIRPORT RELATED USES, THOSE RELATED TO THE MAINTENANCE STORAGE AND OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT, AND THOSE INCLUDING THE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE OR SAFETY ZONE AREAS. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME LEGISLATIVE ACTION ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND. BUT THE BENEFIT OF FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES OF 21661 IS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER THE REQUEST AND DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE REQUEST TO BE PROCESSED STRICTLY UNDER A 21661 PROCEDURE. WHETHER IT TRIGGERS A NEED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR SOME OTHER ACTION INCLUDING LEGISLATIVE ACTION BY THE CITY. >> THEN HOW ABOUT THE INSIDE THE BOUNDARY? IT'S A VERY COMPLEX PACKAGE. I KNOW I SPEND TIME LOOK AT THE C4, THE FRIENDLY AIRPORT GROUPS LETTER, AND THEN ALSO THE COUNTY'S LETTER. I GUESS THE THING I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS HOW WILL THIS ACTION AFFECT THE WORK DONE ON THE RUNWAY INSIDE THE BOUNDARY OF THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE AIRPORT, ANY WORK THAT'S DONE ON THAT? >> A LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 172, THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION 1699 EXCLUDES RUNWAY EXTENSIONS OR NEW RUNWAYS FROM THE LIST OF USES THAT ARE PERMITTED. UNDER THE COVER OF THAT RESOLUTION AND THAT DOCUMENT, IF THERE IS ANY RUNWAY EXTENSION, THEY SHOULD PURSUE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WITH THIS PROJECT IS THAT THE DECISION MAKING BODY WOULD BE THE CITY COUNCIL. >> NO, WAIT A MINUTE. THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT, BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THE CITY AGREES WITH THE INTERPRETATION THAT THAT'S A SPECIFIC OMISSION IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 172, WHEREAS THE COUNTY'S POSITION, IT WAS NOT. IT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE FROM THE COUNTY'S LETTER, THEY WERE SAYING THAT THE COURT AGREED. THE C4 GROUP BASICALLY SAYING THAT IN THEIR RUIN, THIS IS IMPORTANT. JUST LOOKING FOR IT. THERE'S A LOT IN THIS PACKAGE HERE. BASICALLY, THAT IF YOU GO BACK TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 172 WAS IS THAT THEY LOOKED AT THAT AS A SPECIFIC OMISSION, AND BECAUSE AS OMISSION, YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT APPROVAL. THE COUNTY CAME TO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THAT SAME THING. IT SOUNDED LIKE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE COUNTY LETTER, THAT THE COURT AGREED WITH THE COUNTY ON THAT POSITION. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY IS AGREEING WITH THE C4'S GROUP ON THIS. >> THE PROJECT PROPOSED HELPS CLARIFY THAT THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE GENERAL PLAN THAT SAYS ANY NEW OR EXPANDED AIRPORT USES MUST OBTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND AS AIRPORT AND AIRPORT EXPANSIONS ARE NOW TO BE DEFINED, WOULD INCLUDE RUNWAY EXTENSIONS. >> WOULD YOU AGREE THOUGH THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION? THE CITY'S TAKING AN OPINION THAT THAT IS THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO RESTRICT OR REGULATE CHANGES INSIDE THE CURRENT BOUNDARY OF THE RUNWAY. >> THE RUNWAY INSIDE THE CURRENT BOUNDARY OF THE AIRPORT BASED ON THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THAT EMISSION STATEMENT. >> THIS WOULD CLARIFY THAT TO THE EXTENT IT'S NOT PREEMPTED BY A FEDERAL LAW. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME FURTHER EVALUATION, AND THAT'S THE BENEFIT OF HAVING THE PROCEDURES IS THAT THE APPLICATION CAN COME TO THE CITY AND WE CAN REVIEW THE APPLICATION, [01:50:03] THE SCOPE OF IMPROVEMENTS AND DETERMINE ITS APPLICATION OR ELIGIBILITY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. >> I GUESS I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK, BUT I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE A DIFFERENT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THAT WHOLE STATEMENT WAY THE CP IS WRITTEN, BECAUSE I LOOK AT, I'M A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN I'VE ACTUALLY AS A COMMERCIAL REALEST, I'VE DEALT WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD WE JUST RECENTLY DID A MINOR ONE AND I'VE ACTUALLY READ THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND THAT WAS WHY MY EARLIER QUESTION WAS IS THAT, I GUESS, I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THE EMISSION STATEMENT IN THE C4 LETTER WHEN I LOOK AT THE ACTUAL WRITING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE IT BASICALLY SAYS, IF YOU LOOK AT TABLE 1, THE FOLLOWING USES ARE PERMITTED BY THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITHOUT THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY WHATEVER IT SAYS AIRPORT STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES ARE NECESSARY TO THE OPERATION OF THE AIRPORT AND TO THE CONTROL OF AIR TRAFFIC IN RELATION THERE TO. I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE MAKING THE STATEMENT THAT WELL, BECAUSE THIS ONE THING ABOUT THE TAXIWAY EXPANSION ISN'T IN THERE, THEREFORE, IT WAS AN ADMISSION, THEREFORE, IT'S RESTRICTED. THE COUNTY OBVIOUSLY CAME TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VIEW OF THAT. I GUESS WHEN I READ THIS, ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT, I AGREE WITH THE COUNTY. IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THE TABLE 1 SAYS, "LOOK, YOU CAN RUN AN AIRPORT HERE." IT SEEMS THAT WHOLE POINT, THAT EMISSION STATEMENT IN THAT THEY WERE REFERRING TO, I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THAT. I'M HAVING A REALLY HARD TIME WITH THAT. THE COUNTY SUBSTANTIATE THAT IN THEIR LETTER IN STATING THAT. THAT SEEMS TO BE A KEY POINT OF THIS ENTIRE THING IS THAT ISSUE. THE BASIC THE C4 ATTORNEYS HAVE STATED THAT BECAUSE IT DIDN'T SAY THIS WASN'T IN THERE, THEREFORE, IT MEANT THIS VERSUS WHERE IT SEEMS LIKE THE CLEAR READING THE CP SAYS, WELL, YOU CAN OPERATE AN AIRPORT AND THAT'S WHAT CAME TO MY INITIAL QUESTION. ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THAT? IT SEEMS LIKE CASE LAW, THE CASES HAVE GONE FORTH IN THERE HAVE STATED EVERY TIME THEY TRY TO RESTRICT IT, WITH THE USE OF AN AIRPORT, IT GETS STRUCK DOWN. THERE SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF AGREEMENT ON THIS. I DON'T MEAN TO BE SO LONG WINDED, BUT IT'S SOMETHING I READ VERY CLOSELY. >> THROUGH SHERIFF, I MAY RESPOND. PART OF IMPLEMENTING A AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT RELIES ON SOMETHING CALLED THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN ALP, AND THAT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH AIRPORT MASTER PLAN. THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND THE EIR SUPPORTING THAT DOCUMENT ITSELF STATES THAT THE COUNTY WILL BE PURSUING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. UNLESS THE COUNTY AMENDS THE MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT ITSELF, THE IDEA IS THAT THE COUNTY WOULD BE PURSUING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. >> CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME. >> THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN, WHICH IS INTENDED FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AIRPORT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN, AND THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT MAKES REFERENCES TO THE NEEDS TO OBTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT NECESSARILY INCLUDES ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE PLANNED BECAUSE THERE'S A LITANY OF DIFFERENT SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS. BUT IT DOES MAKE REFERENCE TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE POTENTIAL NEED TO OBTAIN ONE. IF THE COUNTY IS INTENDING TO IMPLEMENT THAT MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT. >> WHICH INCLUDES THE CHANGE TO THE RUNWAY? >> THAT THEY WOULD BE EVALUATING OBTAINING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. ALSO, THE BOARD ACTION ALSO INDICATED, I BELIEVE, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PURSUE THE CONDITIONAL PERMIT, SO THAT WHEN THE DOCUMENT WAS ADOPTED IN DECEMBER OF 2021, THE BOARD ACTION REFERENCED THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS WELL. >> THE COUNTY BOARD. >> REFERENCE WOULD BE GOING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. >> CAN I SPEAK? >> YEAH. COMMISSIONER HUBER. >> I JUST WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR A FANTASTIC JOB ON THIS. I INTEND TO SUPPORT YOU. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE, YOU WANT TO SAY? >> YES, I DO. I ALSO WANT TO ECHO COMMISSIONER HUBER. STAFF DID A MARVELOUS JOB. THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE AND A CONTROVERSY THAT GOES BACK, NOT JUST A FEW YEARS BUT DECADES THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN DEALING WITH THIS. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE HAS BEEN QUITE A BIT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY ON THIS. I THINK THAT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE, [01:55:02] BUT THAT'S OUR REALITY. IT'S THE HISTORY GOING BACK MANY DECADES. UNFORTUNATELY, IT HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED. THERE'S BEEN LITIGATION. I HOPE THERE'S NOT FUTURE LITIGATION, BUT IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME IF THERE WERE. STAFF, I THINK YOU DID A MARVELOUS JOB. I TOO CAN SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE WHAT IT DOES IN MY MIND, WE DON'T HAVE A PROJECT IN FRONT OF US, SO IT'S PREMATURE TO TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A PARTICULAR PROJECT HAS PARTICULAR IMPACTS, PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF NOISE. THAT'S NOT BEFORE US TONIGHT. WHAT BEFORE US TONIGHT IN MY MIND IS A SET OF RULES AND LAWS, CHANGES THAT ESTABLISH A LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR A FUTURE. AS I SAY A FUTURE APPLICATION FROM THE COUNTY TO EXPAND OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT. IT'S PREMATURE FOR US TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT WHAT THE IMPACTS OF THAT PROJECT IS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT PROJECT BEFORE US. BUT I THINK THE GROUND RULES THAT SET ARE CERTAINLY WITHIN THE CITY'S LAND USE AUTHORITY IN MY MIND, AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE DO IN OTHER PROJECTS WHERE A USE IS NOT PERMITTED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, BUT IT'S A MATTER OF DISCRETION. WHAT DO WE DO? WE HAVE A CUP HEARING. WHAT'S A CUP INTENDED TO DO? IS TO BALANCE THE POSSIBLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF A PARTICULAR PROJECT AGAINST THE BENEFITS OF THAT PROJECT. THAT'S NOT BEFORE US TONIGHT, BUT WE'RE SETTING UP HERE A PROCESS THAT MAKES SENSE THAT IN THE FUTURE, THROUGH A CUP PROCESS, WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT WEIGHING AND BALANCING IF AND WHEN THAT PROJECT COMES TO US. IT'S HORRIBLY COMPLICATED WITH CHANGES TO GENERAL PAY ON COASTAL PROGRAMS. YOU COULD SPEND HOURS AND HOURS OF THIS AND I TYING TO JUST GET UP TO SPEED ON THE BASICS. BUT AGAIN, I THINK THE GIST OF IT WHERE WE'RE SETTING THE FORCE, THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK THROUGH A CUP PROCESS MAKES A HECK OF A LOT OF SENSE. WE DO SIMILAR THINGS OUTSIDE OF THE AIRPORT ALL THE TIME ON A PROJECT THAT MAY HAVE ADVERSE EXTERNAL IMPACTS, NOISE, TRAFFIC, AND THE LIKE. IN MY MIND, THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD NOT HAVE A PROCESS LIKE THAT HERE IF AND WHEN AN AIRPORT EXPANSION PROJECT COMES BEFORE US. >> MR. STRONG, DID YOU WANT TO? >> TO CONTINUE THE EARLIER CONVERSATION. THE OPTION B IS WHAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD AT THEIR DECEMBER MEETING IN 2021, AND IT APPEARS THAT IT'S COMMINGLING TWO ACTIONS. THE FIRST IS THAT IT IS ADOPTING ESSENTIALLY A 200 FOOT EXPANSION IN THE NEAR TERM ENHANCED FACILITY, THE B2 ENHANCED FACILITY NOW. THEN SEEING VERBATIM AND ADDING FUTURE D3 DESIGN STANDARDS CONDITION ON ADDRESSING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND RETURNING TO THE BOARD TO CONSIDER D3 DESIGN STANDARDS AND RUNWAY EXTENSION OPTION. I DON'T KNOW THE CONVERSATION WAS HAD AT THAT BOARD MEETING, BUT I WOULD PRESUME THAT THIS WOULD INVOLVE SOME COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY TO DETERMINE THE APPLICATION OF THAT AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY FEDERAL PREEMPTION FROM A HIGHER LEVEL AUTHORITY. >> CASK TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT THERE. >> PLEASE. >> IN 2021, THEY AGREE THAT, THEN AS A RESULT, THE CITY THEN MADE IS PROPOSING A BUNCH OF CHANGES TO THE ZONING AND THE GENERAL PLAN THAT SEEM LIKE A DEFENSIVE MEASURE TO MAKE THAT MORE DIFFICULT TO DO. BECAUSE IT'S SAYING ON PAGE TWO, IT SAYS, SPECIFIES A POLICY STATEMENT, CITY OPPOSITION, TO CHANGES IN THE PALMAR AIRPORT THAT WOULD INCREASE THE IMPACT THAT PALMAR AIRPORT HAS ON NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES AND ON C RESOURCES BEHIND THE V2 ENHANCED ALTERNATIVES. BECAUSE THE COUNTY LETTER, BASICALLY, IF I UNDERSTAND THE COUNTY LETTER RIGHT, WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS, THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME FOR A CUP. WELL, NOW WE HAVE SET UP. NOW, WHAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT IS TO PUT ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS TO MAKE THAT CUP MORE DIFFICULT TO GET, ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET. >> THE ONLY MEASURE THAT'S CHANGING UNDER THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AUTHORITY IS THE DECISION MAKING BODY. THERE ARE OTHER CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN. BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THOSE ARE STATEMENTS OF EXISTING POLICIES THAT HAD BEEN PRIOR ADOPTED. IT GOES BACK TO THE 2019 RESOLUTIONS, THE 1984 RESOLUTION, AND THEN ALSO THE PREDICATED ASSUMPTIONS OF THE USE OF THE AIRPORT AS A GENERAL AVIATION FACILITY WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED. >> I GUESS A CONCERN HAVE IN DEALING WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS MYSELF WHERE THEY'LL SAY, [02:00:02] WELL, I MEAN, YOU CAN GET A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WE'LL NEVER APPROVE IT, BUT YOU CAN GET IT. AS I SPENT A LOT OF TIME GOING OVER THIS PACKAGE, IT SEEMS LIKE ON ONE HAND, WE'RE SAYING, WE WANT TO SET UP THE PROCESS FOR THE COUNTY, HOW YOU WOULD DO THIS, BUT THEN WE'VE MADE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. I'M NOT SAYING SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T HAPPEN, BUT IT'S A CONCERN AS I READ THIS PACKAGE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES SENSE OR NOT. >> OTHER THAN COMMISSIONER MERZ, DO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANT TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM FURTHER? COMMISSIONER MEENES? >> YES, I DO. GOING THROUGH AND AGAIN, STAFF DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB, GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS AND PROVIDING A DOCUMENT OF THIS NATURE. IT'S EXTREMELY AND THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY GOING BACK 20, 30 YEARS IN REGARD TO THE AIRPORT. BUT I DO HAVE TO SAY THAT OBVIOUSLY THE COUNCIL RECENTLY DECIDED THAT IT WAS BEST TO HAVE STAFF GO BACK AND REVISIT TO MAKE CODE CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN, TO BE ABLE TO UPDATE SO THAT IT'S CURRENT, AND I VIEW THAT AS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. THEREFORE, I SUPPORT THE PURPOSE, AND I THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE AS CURRENT AS POSSIBLE, GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF DEALING WITH THREE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES THAT WE BE AS CURRENT AS POSSIBLE TO DO SO. I DO SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. >> ARE WE STILL ON QUESTIONS OR ARE WE? >> WE'RE IN DISCUSSION ON THE EVE OF A VOTE. >> ALL DISCRETIONARY PERMITS CAN BE DENIED. YOU'D NEVER KNOW IT FROM THIS BODY BECAUSE WE RARELY DO THAT, BUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COULD BE DENIED DEPENDING ON ANYTHING. I HAVE TO APPLAUD THE CITIZENS WHO HAVE COME OUT TO HELP OUR CITY UNDERSTAND THE RAMIFICATIONS AND IMPLEMENT THE EFFECTS THAT EXPANDING OUR AIRPORT WOULD HAVE ON OUR COMMUNITY, AND MAKING THE CITY COUNCIL AND OUR PLANNING STAFF VERY AWARE OF THE HOLES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR POLICY TO BE ABLE TO HOPEFULLY MAKE BETTER DECISIONS FOR OUR OVERALL COMMUNITY. WHEN THE CITY WAS COUNTY LAND, THEY HAD MORE CONTROL, BUT NOW THEY'RE IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AND WE SHOULD PRESERVE OUR CITY'S COMMUNITY CHARACTER, BUT WE SHOULD ALSO PRESERVE OUR LOCAL CONTROL, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. CONGRATULATIONS CITIZENS FOR YOUR TEAM EFFORT IN TRYING TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY MOVE THIS FORWARD, AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS EFFORT. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE. >> JUST A BRIEF FOLLOW UP, IN THIS CASE, TO HAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENT OPINION THAN MY COLLEAGUE, COMMISSIONER MERZ HERE. I SEE THE RULES HERE THAT ARE SET DOWN ARE NEUTRAL AND FAIR AND BALANCED, AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD IN ANY WAY PREJUDGE HOW DIFFICULT OR EASY IT WOULD BE TO GET TO CUP. I THINK THIS BODY AND THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ACT IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER, USE OUR DISCRETION APPROPRIATELY, IF AND WHEN AN APPLICATION FOR AN EXPANSION COMES UP. I WOULD NOT SAY IN ANY WAY THAT THE ODDS ARE TILTED AGAINST THE COUNTY OR IN FAVOR OF THE COUNTY OR ANYTHING, NO. WE HAVE A NEUTRAL PROCESS CONSISTENT WITH OUR CODE, CONSISTENT WITH OUR POLICE POWERS, THAT IF AND WHEN WE HAVE A PROJECT, CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES THAT WE'RE ADOPTING HERE TONIGHT, IF WE APPROVE THOSE, THAT WE CAN FAIRLY AND FULLY HAVE A HEARING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CUP GRANTED WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED SENTIMENT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. >> THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER MEENES? >> YES. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> WHEN I SUGGEST FOR THE RECORD, DO YOU WANT TO READ FROM PAGE 1, SO YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? THE THREE PIECES, COMMISSIONER MEENES. >> WE'LL DO. ADOPTING STAFF RECOMMENDATION ENTAILS THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM NUMBER 2 TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT DATE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. EXHIBIT NUMBER 2 OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION. EXHIBIT NUMBER 3; RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES, [02:05:02] JAE PAYMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE 21661.6. >> THANK YOU. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER MEENES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2, PLEASE VOTE. THE ITEM PASSES, THE RESOLUTION PASSES, 61, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN, STINE, LAFFERTY, MEENES, DANNA, AND HUBINGER VOTING YES. COMMISSIONER MERZ VOTING NO. THANK YOU ALL. WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU STAFF FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. THE PUBLIC FOR YOUR COMMENTS, THEY'RE APPRECIATED. THIS CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF TONIGHT'S MEETING. IS THERE A REPORT FROM ANY COMMISSIONER? NO. IS THERE A REPORT FROM THE CITY PLANNER? [CITY PLANNER REPORT] >> WE DO HAVE SEVERAL AGENDA ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR NUMBER 6. NONE OF THOSE ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE VERY LONG, BUT WE DO HAVE FOUR ITEMS CURRENTLY ON THERE, AND WE DO HAVE AT LEAST ONE OR TWO ITEMS ON NOVEMBER 20. WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THE DECEMBER CALENDAR. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE A REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY? >> NOTHING FOR ME. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. WE'RE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.