[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:06]
GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE NOVEMBER 6TH, 2024 MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.
WOULD THE MINUTES CLERK PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL? COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.
HERE. COMMISSIONER PETER MERZ IS ABSENT.
PRESENT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
HERE. ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COMMISSIONER MERZ.
PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED THIS EVENING BY OUR COMMISSIONER ALICIA LAFFERTY.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
THE NEXT ITEM IS FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 2ND MEETING.ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THAT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING? GOOD. SEEING NONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
SECOND. THANK YOU. CAN WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT.
MOTION TO APPROVE HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER MEENES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STINE.
ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE.
THE MOTION PASSES FOR APPROVAL SIX ZERO.
COMMISSIONER MERZ WAS NOT HERE.
LET'S MOVE ON TO ANOTHER APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
THIS TIME OF THE OCTOBER 16TH MEETING.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING? GOOD. SEEING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
I CAN SECOND THAT. DID YOU MAKE A MOTION? I'LL SECOND THAT.
OKAY. I HAVE MADE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL, AND COMMISSIONER DANNA HAS SECONDED.
ANY DISCUSSION? GOOD. IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE.
AGAIN THE MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO WITH COMMISSIONER MERZ ABSENT.
THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT.
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.
THIS WILL ALLOW OUR 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.
THOSE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF A GROUP HAVE TEN MINUTES, UNLESS THE TIME IS CHANGED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.
THE BROWN ACT ALLOWS ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
PLEASE TREAT OTHERS WITH COURTESY, CIVILITY AND RESPECT.
ALL OTHER NON-AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE HEARD AT THE END OF THE MEETING.
IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT, NO ACTION MAY OCCUR ON THESE ITEMS. MINUTES CLERK DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS FOR NON AGENDA ITEMS TONIGHT? NO CHAIR WE DO NOT.
SEEING NONE WE'LL BEGIN TONIGHT'S HEARINGS.
PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES TO HELP SPEAKERS KEEP WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME.
OUR MINUTES CLERK WILL START THE TIMER.
YELLOW LIGHT MEANS YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE REMAINING.
AND RED LIGHT MEANS YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.
SINCE ITEMS BROUGHT UP UNDER PUBLIC COMMENT ARE NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
THE COMMISSION IS PREVENTED BY LAW FROM SPEAKING ON THESE ITEMS. IF EVERYONE WILL DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN, I'LL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES THE COMMISSION WILL BE FOLLOWING FOR THIS EVENING'S PUBLIC HEARING.
[00:05:07]
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 TEN MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION.
THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY 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.
[1. CDP2024-0009 (DEV2020-0111) 4464 ADAMS STREET 92008]
I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.MR. STRONG, DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT OR SHALL WE? THANK YOU CHAIR. YES.
I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE AN INTRODUCTION OF THIS ITEM.
AS PART OF THE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, I DO WANT TO DISCLOSE THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE STAFF REPORT, THE CITY HAS BEEN IN RECEIPT WITH SEVERAL CORRESPONDENCES WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
CHAPTER 2154010 DOES REQUIRE A PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION TO PROCESS THE APPLICATION.
CITY STAFF IS INTERPRETING THAT TO AS AN ONGOING OBLIGATION OF THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS AUTHORIZATION TO PROCESS THE APPLICATION, AND AS SUCH, WE ASKED THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION.
THE APPLICANT WAS UNABLE TO DO SO AND IS COMFORTABLE REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE OF THIS ITEM.
SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO A DATE UNCERTAIN.
ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE? NO, CHAIR THERE'S NOT.
ALL RIGHT. MISS FROST, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO A DATE CERTAIN? OR HOW SHOULD WE PROCEED? YES. IF YOU COULD CONTINUE IT TO A DATE CERTAIN, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
OKAY. I OMITTED THE THE COMMENTS REGARDING THE NEXT PARTE.
SEEING AS HOW WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO CONTINUE IT, I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY NECESSARY.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM NUMBER ONE TO A DATE CERTAIN? YES, I CAN, I CAN MAKE THE MOTION TO DENY.
COMMISSIONER. I'M SORRY, A JUST A CORRECTION.
APPARENTLY, WE WANTED TO BE A DATE UNCERTAIN.
SO IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO RETURN THIS TO STAFF AND THEN WE WOULD RENOTICE THE ITEM.
BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE A DATE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RENOTICE IT ANYWAY.
SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO RETURN THE ITEM TO STAFF WITH A DATE UNCERTAIN.
THANK YOU. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER MEENES, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE? NO, I WAS GOING TO MAKE A SECOND.
MAY WE HAVE A VOTE? THE MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO WITH COMMISSIONER MERZ ABSENT. THANK YOU.
[2. CT 2024-0001/SDP 2024-0008 (DEV2023-0081) 3215 - 3225 TYLER ST., 92010]
LET'S MOVE ON TO THE SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA.ARE THERE ANY EX PARTE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING ITEM NUMBER TWO THE TYLER STREETS HOMES? COMMISSIONER MEENES YES, I VISITED THE SITE AND WALKED THE SITE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY I CHATTED WITH HIM FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES GATHERING INFORMATION.
[00:10:02]
OKAY. THANK YOU.ANY? YES, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.
AND YES, I WAS BY THE SITE ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR AGO AND WALKED AROUND.
AND I'M ALSO FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.
I'VE BEEN BY IT AND I'VE WALKED BY IT.
MR. STRONG, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? YES. THANK YOU CHAIR.
THIS SECOND ITEM REFERRED TO AS 3215-3225 TYLER STREET ADAM WILL BE PRESENTED BY ASSOCIATE PLANNER EDWARD VALENZUELA. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE PROPERTY IS BORDERED BY AN URBAN WINERY TO THE NORTH, AN AUTO STORAGE YARD TO THE WEST, A MINI STORAGE WAREHOUSE FACILITY TO THE SOUTH, AND RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE EAST.
THE PROJECT IS A 12 UNIT AIR-SPACE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT.
THE PROJECT IS COMPOSED OF FOUR BUILDINGS WITH THREE TOWNHOME STYLE UNITS IN EACH BUILDING.
EACH BUILDING IS THREE STORY'S TALL AND JUST UNDER 35FT IN HEIGHT.
EACH UNIT WILL HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE SERVICED BY A 24 FOOT WIDE DRIVE AISLE OFF TYLER STREET.
THE BUILDINGS ARE SEPARATED BY A COMMON OPEN SPACE AREA.
THE BUILDINGS FRONTING ON TYLER STREET ARE SEPARATED FROM THE STREET WITH A LANDSCAPE PLANTER AREA.
THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE BUILDINGS ARE DESIGNED IN THE CRAFTSMAN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.
SIDING COLORS CONSIST OF GRAY, BLUE AND WHITE.
THERE ARE THREE WAIVER FINDINGS THAT MUST BE MET FOR THE DECISION MAKER TO APPROVE THE WAIVER.
NUMBER ONE, THE PROJECT MUST MEET THE INTENT OF THE DESIGN STANDARD UNDER CONSIDERATION.
NUMBER TWO, THE PROJECT MUST MEET THE ALLOWED DENSITY FOR THE PROJECT SITE.
THE FIRST WAIVER REQUEST IS FOR A FOUR FOOT PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY ALONG THE PROJECT ALONG THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE LOT LINES, INSTEAD OF A FIVE FOOT WALKWAY. FOR FINDING NUMBER ONE, THE WALKWAY SERVES ONLY FIVE UNITS ON EACH SIDE.
THE SECOND WAIVER REQUEST IS TO WAIVE THE THIRD FLOOR BUILDING SETBACK.
FOR THE FIRST FINDING, STAFF BELIEVES THE FINDING CAN BE MADE AS THE INTENT OF THE STANDARD IS BEING MET, AS THE PROJECT IS NOT A SINGLE MASSIVE BUILDING AND IS TWO SMALL BUILDINGS FRONTING ON TYLER STREET.
FOR FINDING NUMBER TWO, AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE PROJECT MEETS THE DENSITY WITH A 22.55 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE DENSITY, AND THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CRAFTSMAN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.
[00:15:01]
TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO PURCHASE THE CREDITS, THE DECISION MAKER MUST MAKE TWO FINDINGS.ONE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING BANK IS LOCATED IN THE SAME QUADRANT AS THE PROJECT.
NUMBER TWO, THERE ARE SUFFICIENT CREDITS TO PURCHASE FROM THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BANK.
THIS PROJECT WAS ANALYZED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ALL REQUIRED CITY CODES, POLICIES AND STANDARDS, AND THAT THE STAFF REPORT AND RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU TODAY CONTAIN ALL THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR PROJECT APPROVAL.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ERRORS IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT NEED TO BE CORRECTED AND MENTIONED.
FINDING 17 POINT D HAS BEEN CORRECTED TO STATE THERE WILL BE 12 UNITS INSTEAD OF 9.
ADDITIONALLY, WE RECEIVED A LETTER TODAY THAT THIS AFTERNOON THAT IN THREE PLACES IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ADT THERE IS A NET DECREASE INSTEAD OF A NET INCREASE.
THIS WILL ALSO BE ADJUSTED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT.
THERE IS A LATE CHANGE TO THE PROJECT.
A SIDEWALK ALONG TYLER STREET WILL BE PUT IN INSTEAD OF A DECOMPOSED GRANITE WALKWAY.
AND THE ASSOCIATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WILL BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE RESOLUTION, EXHIBIT ONE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE TRACK MAP, CT 2024-001 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN STP 2024-0008 TO CITY COUNCIL BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
PLANNING COMMISSION IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM FOR YOU.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS POINT? COMMISSIONER MEENES.
MR. VALENZUELA, A QUESTION FOR YOU IN REGARD TO THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST.
IT APPEARS THAT THE ACCORDING TO THE THE MAP THAT THAT PARCEL DOES NOT HAVE AT LEAST AT LEAST IT'S NOT SHOWING THAT ONCE THIS PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED THAT THERE'S AN EASEMENT OF ANY SORT AND THAT IT'S SOMEWHAT LANDLOCKED.
COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW ACCESS FROM AN EASEMENT WILL OCCUR ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY THAT'S THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TONIGHT? YES. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.
ANY OTHER ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YES, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
THANK YOU. SO THIS PROJECT IS NOT GOING TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IS THAT CORRECT? 12 UNITS AND THERE'S NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING? YES. THEY WILL BE PURCHASING CREDITS FROM THE TAVARUA HOUSING CREDIT BANK.
AND HOW MUCH DOES THAT COST THE OWNERS? THAT DEPENDS.
THE COST WILL BE ASSESSED AT THE TIME THE BUILDING PERMITS ARE PULLED.
BUT WHAT'S THE BALLPARK? I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE 100, OVER $100,000 PER AFFORDABLE UNIT.
BUT I'LL HAVE TO CHECK THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO FIND OUT WHAT THE CURRENT FEE IS.
SO, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS IF THEY INCLUDED AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THIS, HOW MANY WOULD THEY HAVE TO INCLUDE? TWO UNITS. TWO UNITS.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE PURCHASING TWO? YES. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.
YES, THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH ALLOWS THE CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOW FOR ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ISSUED POLICY 57 TO ALLOW THEM TO DO SO.
ALLOW THIS MECHANISM TO PURCHASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS WHENEVER AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IS BUILT THAT EXCEEDS THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT, THOSE UNITS ARE ALLOWED TO GO INTO A HOUSING CREDIT BANK.
GREAT. QUESTION NUMBER TWO, DID THIS USE THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS?
[00:20:03]
IS THIS THE FIRST PROJECT WE'VE SEEN TO USE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN? YES IT IS, COMMISSIONER.OKAY. SO THAT THAT SEEMS TO BE EVIDENT BECAUSE AS THE APPLICANT SEEMS TO BE A FREQUENT FLIER HERE, THIS LOOKS VERY DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THE OTHER PROJECTS WE'VE SEEN FROM HIS OFFICE.
SO SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS BECAUSE CAN YOU GO TO THE IMAGE OF THE FRONT OF THE FRONT OF TYLER STREET? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS PROPERLY.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IN THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN IS ON THE MAIN STREET THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP ON, THERE SHOULD BE A FRONT DOOR.
IS THERE A FRONT DOOR ON EITHER OF THESE UNITS? YES THERE IS.
YOU CAN SEE THE FRONT DOOR JUST TO THE RIGHT ON FOR THIS NORTHERN BUILDING.
AND THIS IS A MIRROR OF THE SOUTHERN BUILDING IS A MIRROR OF THIS ONE.
SO THE FRONT DOOR IS ALSO FACING THE TYLER STREET FRONTAGE.
SO WHAT. THERE'S A WAY, I GUESS.
I GUESS I NEED TO ASK THE DEVELOPER WHAT THE INTENT IS HERE.
AND THAT'S WHY I'M, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S NOT A LITTLE MORE CELEBRATED ON THIS.
BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR IN THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE FRONT ENTRANCES, ESPECIALLY IN A CRAFTSMAN HOME, WOULD, YOU KNOW, SORT OF HAVE SOME KIND OF CELEBRATORY ENTRANCE.
SO SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED WITH THAT AS WELL, OR I FIND THAT CONCERNING.
I THINK THAT THE WAIVE, THE THIRD FLOOR BUILDING SETBACK.
SO, SO THAT'S, I GUESS THAT THIS IS THE IMAGE THAT WOULD SHOW THAT.
CORRECT. IS THAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IT FROM THE ACTUAL TYLER STREET, OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE BUILDING? IT'S JUST FROM TYLER STREET FRONTAGE.
OKAY. SO INSTEAD OF WAVING IT WERE ACTUALLY PUSHING IT OUT.
IS THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING? NO. THIS. YES.
WE'RE WAVING THAT STANDARD COMPLETELY.
AND ADDITIONALLY, AS I STATED IN THE PRESENTATION, THAT THAT THAT STANDARD IS MOSTLY TO FOR MASSIVE BUILDINGS FOR WHEN DEVELOPERS BUY UP MULTIPLE PARCELS THAT TAKE UP AT LEAST HALF A BLOCK, THAT'S WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY.
SO YOU DON'T THINK GOING FROM 2 UNITS TO 12 IS NOT MASSIVE FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? WELL, FOR THIS ONE, THERE'S ONLY EACH OF THESE TWO BUILDINGS THAT ARE FRONTING ON TYLER STREET ONLY HAVE THREE UNITS IN THEM EACH.
YEAH. ONE OTHER QUESTION, MR. VALENZUELA. YOU INDICATED IN YOUR PRESENTATION THAT THE SIDEWALK WAS BEING CHANGED AS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF BEING DECOMPOSED GRANITE TO THE TIP OUT TO THE STANDARD CONCRETE SIDEWALK.
AND HOW DID THAT CHANGE FROM THE STAFF REPORT WE RECEIVED A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO? YES. I BELIEVE THE ENGINEERING MANAGER WAS JASON I'LL DEFER TO THE ENGINEERING MANAGER WHO'S AT THE PODIUM.
IS IT ON? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
JASON GELDERT, ENGINEERING MANAGER FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF CARLSBAD.
AFTER OUR BRIEFINGS, WE CONFERRED WITH THE PROJECT ENGINEER AND THE TRANSPORTATION TEAM.
AND KNOWING THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD GO TO COUNCIL AND AND THAT TYLER, THERE WAS A LOT OF OUTREACH ON TYLER STREET FOR A CONCURRENCY OR NOT CONCURRENT, BUT A FUTURE CIP PROJECT THAT SIDEWALKS ARE DESIRED.
THE APPLICANT DID EXPRESS THEIR DESIRE TO HAVE THE SIDEWALK.
SO THERE WAS REALLY NOTHING TO PRECLUDE THE SIDEWALK IN THIS CASE.
SO WE WE MET, WE TALKED TO THE APPLICANT AND TALKED WITH OUR TRANSPORTATION TEAM AND, AND WENT AHEAD AND MADE THAT CHANGE TO ALLOW THE SIDEWALK.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE.
THANK YOU, MR. VALENZUELA I WAS BY THERE ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR AGO, AND I'M LOOKING AT THE RENDERING HERE, AND WHAT I SAW DIDN'T LOOK ANYTHING LIKE THE OVERALL AREA THAT I SEE IN THE RENDERING. IN PARTICULAR, THE STREET THERE IS ALMOST LIKE AN ALLEY, IT'S SO NARROW.
I UNDERSTAND IT IS A PUBLIC STREET.
BUT IT'S NOT A NICE WIDE STREET LIKE YOU SEE ON THE PICTURE AT ALL.
[00:25:03]
AND IT'S KIND OF A, YOU KNOW, IT'S THERE'S INDUSTRIAL RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, THERE IS AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP.SO IT'S KIND OF A MIXED OF, YES, THERE'S SOME RESIDENTIAL, BUT THERE'S SOME INDUSTRY IN THERE.
AND MY QUESTION IS, HAS STAFF THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED THE POSSIBLE TRAFFIC AND PARKING IMPACTS THERE? BECAUSE I COULD SEE IT'S, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE MANY CARS GOING OUT ON THAT STREET, THAT STREET CAN'T CARRY A LOT OF CARS BECAUSE IT'S SO DOGGONE NARROW.
AND YOU SEE AND YOU SEE CARS PARKED ALONG THE ALONG THE STREET.
SO COULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT, PLEASE? YES. I BELIEVE THE AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS THAT WILL BE GENERATED FROM THIS PROJECT WILL INCREASE FROM 20 TO A TOTAL OF 72 FOR A 52 INCREASE.
AND EACH EACH UNIT HAS TWO CAR GARAGE, WHICH IS MORE THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE VILLAGE BARRIO MASTER PLAN, WHICH REALLY ONLY REQUIRES ONE AND ONE HALF SPACES PER UNIT.
OKAY, SO THEY'VE EXCEEDED THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT? YES. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.
AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS, IT'S IT'S GOING TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE.
JASON GELDERT, ENGINEERING MANAGER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF CARLSBAD YES, THAT WAS ANALYZED 56 ADT IS NOT ANYTHING, IT'S VERY, VERY, VERY LITTLE.
AND THIS ROAD IS NOT SUBJECT TO LOS STANDARDS.
AS FAR AS DIRECTLY THIS, THIS PROJECT, LIKE I SAID 56 ADT IS NOT VERY MUCH.
YOU'D BE MAYBE A CAR EVERY FIVE MINUTES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT OUT OF THIS PROJECT.
WHY ISN'T THIS SUBJECT TO LOS STANDARDS? THE MOBILITY ELEMENT WAS AND IT'S THE ROAD THAT IS THE.
BUT IT'S NOT DESIGNATED AS A ROAD SUBJECT TO VEHICLE LS, PER THE MOBILITY ELEMENT.
SO IT IS DESIGNATED AS AN ALLEY.
I'M NOT I CAN'T I'D HAVE TO VERIFY THAT I CAN LOOK THAT UP.
AND IF YOU COULD, BECAUSE IT SEEMS VERY MUCH LIKE AN ALLEY TO ME.
BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S GOT TYLER STREET ON IT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE COVERED THAT, BECAUSE I WAS KIND OF SHOCKED WITH I LOOKED AT THE PICTURE AND THE REALITY IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THAT WHEN YOU'RE OUT THERE IN TERMS OF THE WIDTH OF THE STREET AND EVERYTHING.
WELL, THE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH, IF I RECALL, IS 50FT WIDE AND IT WOULD ACCOMMODATE TRAFFIC, TWO WAY TRAFFIC AND SIDEWALK AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.
THE NARROWER STREET WILL WILL IS A TRAFFIC.
IN TERMS OF KIND OF MINIMIZING THE TRAFFIC? YES. OKAY. NOT MINIMIZING THE TRAFFIC, SLOWING THE TRAFFIC DOWN.
THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU ON THAT.
COMMISSIONER STINE, I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT THERE'S A FIVE FOOT DEDICATION STREET DEDICATION AS PART OF THIS PROJECT THAT WILL TAKE PLACE, WHICH WILL WIDEN THE STREET AS WELL. OKAY. SO IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER FIVE FEET BEYOND WHAT IT IS NOW.
AND YOU SAID THE WIDTH IS WHAT NOW? I THINK IT'S 50FT FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH.
OKAY. BUT THE WIDTH OF THE IT DOESN'T SEEM 50FT.
NO. THE PAVEMENT WIDTH IS ALWAYS A LOT LESS THAN THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH.
OKAY. BUT SO THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ADDITIONAL 50FT.
I SAW SOME PARKING ON THE ON THE.
I DON'T RECALL, BUT I DON'T THINK I'LL HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT ALSO TO SEE IF IT IS ALLOWED.
IT'S ONLY ALLOWED IF THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM FOR VEHICLES TO PASS.
YEAH, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY TIGHT WITH PARKING, IS MY RECOLLECTION I DID SEE SOME VEHICLES PARKED ON THE EAST SIDE AND IT MAY BE PROHIBITED ON THE WEST SIDE. I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT'S JUST IT JUST STRUCK ME AS A VERY TIGHT PASSAGE AND VERY NARROW THOROUGHFARE.
YEAH. AND THE WORD I WAS TRYING TO FIND IS TRAFFIC CALMING.
THANK YOU. DO DO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? CHAIR, IF I MAY RESPOND TO SOME OF THE EARLIER COMMENTS TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THEM.
[00:30:06]
THE CURRENT LISTED PURCHASE CREDIT PURCHASE PRICE FOR OFFSETTING THE CREDIT FOR THE IN LIEU OF.INCLUSIONARY HOUSING OBLIGATION IS $116,000, THAT FEE IS SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT EVERY FISCAL YEAR.
SO THAT IS THE CURRENT CREDIT PURCHASE PRICE.
SO IT IS SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT.
SO THE APPLICANT'S OBLIGATIO WOULD TO BE PURCHASING TWO OF THOSE CREDITS.
WITH RESPECT TO THE UPPER FLOOR STEP BACK PROVISION IN THE MASTER PLAN, OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, THE CITY HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND HOUSING CRISIS ACT, THAT WHILE THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO EXERCISE ITS LOCAL CONTROL AND IMPLEMENT DIFFERENT ZONING REGULATIONS TO CONTROL THE ENVELOPE BUILDABLE ENVELOPE OF A PROPERTY.
IN DOING SO, THERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE METHOD.
SO AS LONG AS THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO ADVANCE A PROJECT THAT SATISFIES THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, AND IF A REQUESTING EXCEPTIONS OR WAIVERS FROM THOSE STANDARDS AND MEETING THOSE FINDINGS, THEN IT WOULD BE DETERMINED COMPLIANT WITH THE THE ZONING.
SO IN THIS CASE THERE IS A STANDARD FOR AN UPPER STORY SETBACK AND IN THIS CASE THE THIRD STORY.
BUT THE APPLICANT AND YOU CAN ASK THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK TO THIS MATTER IN MORE DETAIL.
BUT THE APPLICANT HAS RENDERED THE CONSTRAINT TO ACCOMPLISHING THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS PROJECT BY ACCOMMODATING THAT PARTICULAR STANDARD. SO IN LIEU OF THAT, IN THE UPPER STORY'S, SETBACKS DO ACCOMPLISH NOT ONLY REMOVING THE SCALE AND MASS OF UPPER STORY'S, BUT ALSO TO PROVIDE VARIATIONS IN PLANES AND HORIZONTAL AND LINEAR PLANES.
ALSO, ANOTHER IMPORTANT THING I WANTED TO RESPOND TO IS THE ACCESS TO THE SITE.
SO THE EXISTING ALLEYWAY OR TYLER STREET IMPROVEMENTS IS SUBJECT TO A FUTURE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BUT ALSO WHEN THE APPLICATION IS RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION THAT'S READY TO REFERRAL DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND FIRE.
AND THOSE ARE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS SO.
YEAH. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, CAN I FOLLOW UP WITH THAT, SINCE YOU'RE YOU GENTLEMEN ARE THE RESIDENT FORM BASED CODE EXPERTS ON THIS, AND I'M NOT IT SEEMS THAT THE SETBACK WOULD ONLY BE EFFECT ONLY BE VISIBLE FROM TYLER STREET.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO IT WOULD REALLY ONLY AFFECT TWO UNITS ON TYLER STREET.
IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING OF THIS? I BELIEVE YOU SAID SETBACK.
YEAH. SO IS THIS THE FOUR FOOT WAIVER OR THE WAIVER FROM THE FIVE FOOT? NO, NO, THIS IS THE UPPER FLOOR SO YEAH, THE UPPER STORY STEP BACK IS APPLIED TO THAT FRONTAGE.
SO IT WOULD JUST BE THE TWO UNITS THAT WE ARE THEY'RE REQUESTING NOT THE ENTIRE 12 UNITS? YES. THAT'S CORRECT.
WHAT WOULD THE THIRD FLOOR? IT'S A PERCENTAGE, RIGHT? THE THIRD FLOOR.
WHAT? WHAT ARE OBJECTIVE DESIGN REQUIRES IS A THIRD FLOOR PERCENTAGE.
IT'S A I PUT IT UP THERE SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S A TEN FEET FROM THE FRONT SETBACK OR SIX FEET FROM THE PRIMARY BUILDING FACADE.
SO THE FRONT YARD WOULD BE 6 FEET, NOT 10.
SO THE CITY PLANNER IS IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING A CITY PLANNER DETERMINATION TO MAKE TO GIVE THIS ONE SOME CLARITY, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S FOR A 10 FEET STEP BACK FROM THE FRONT SETBACK, OR 6 FEET STEP BACK FROM THE PRIMARY BUILDING FACADE.
[00:35:09]
CODES AND WAIVERS AND WHATEVER ELSE WE HAVE, IS TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW ADEQUATE STREET LIGHT COMING DOWN INTO THE STREET. RIGHT.RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT WHAT I'M CONCERNED WITH IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE IS I'M NOT SURE IT'S INCREDIBLY CLARIFIED.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THE FACADE DESIGN ACTUALLY HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE NARROW STREET, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, EVEN THE RENDERINGS, THE STREET APPEARS MUCH LARGER THAN IT REALLY MIGHT BE. SO SO I, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE THIS WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE AWAY FROM THE BUILDING, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S GOING TO BE MASSIVE ON THIS STREET.
AND, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE HELP OUR RESIDENTS GET ADEQUATE LIGHT TO THAT STREET FRONT? SO I'M I AM CONCERNED, I THINK THAT THE 10 FOOT DOES SEEM EXCESSIVE, BUT I THINK THAT PUSHING FORWARD FROM THAT IS NOT THE INTENT OF WHAT THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARD WAS TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO ADDRESS WITH ALLOWING, YOU KNOW, THE STREET TO BECOME A MUCH MORE ANIMATED PLACE.
I ALSO THINK THAT THE RECESSED I GUESS WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW IS HOW FAR BACK THAT FRONT DOOR REALLY IS BECAUSE IT LOOKS TO ME AND I CAN'T READ THESE VERTICAL, THE HORIZONTAL DRAWINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY VERTICALLY PRESENTED.
SO YEAH, I JUST PUT UP A SNIPPET OF THAT FRONT AREA THAT'S WHERE THE DOOR YOU CAN SEE IS SET BACK. IT'S SET BACK 14FT, 1.5IN FROM THE PRIMARY BUILDING FACE, AND 12FT 1.5IN FROM THE SECONDARY BUILDING FACE. SO BUT WHAT'S THAT FROM THE STREET.
SO FROM THE STREET THERE IS A I BELIEVE THERE'S A 10 FOOT SETBACK.
SO THAT WOULD BE JUST OVER 25FT, I BELIEVE, OR JUST UNDER 25FT.
THANK YOU. AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT SINCE THERE ARE TWO BUILDINGS, THERE IS A 24 FOOT WIDE DRIVE AISLE THAT GOES THROUGH THAT BUILDING AND THE STANDARD, I BELIEVE IT ONLY REQUIRES A STEP BACK FOR 25FT.
SO THE FACT THAT THE BUILDINGS ARE BROKEN UP BY THAT DRIVE AISLE SEEMS TO, IN OUR OPINION, ACCOMMODATE FOR THAT 25 FOOT REQUIREMENT OF THAT STEP BACK.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CLARIFYING COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NO. ALL RIGHT.
WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? I'M THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT WILL NOT BE.
HI. KIRK MOELLER, KM ARCHITECTS.
I THINK I SAW YOU TWO WEEKS AGO.
THANK YOU. SO ANY STATEMENT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE, SIR? YES. I'D JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAD AND I'D GO THROUGH THEM AND I THINK I CAN CLARIFY ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS.
SO THIS WAS AN INTERESTING ADVENTURE FOR ME ALSO.
THERE WERE A LOT OF GOOD THINGS THAT WERE LEARNED AND UNDERSTAND HOW THEY'RE INTENDED TO WORK NOW.
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT.
THERE'S A THERE'S A PROJECT DOWN THE STREET THAT LOOKS VERY NICE.
IT'S A COUPLE OF BLOCKS TO THE SOUTH ON THE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE OF TYLER STREET AS WELL.
AND WE FELT THAT THAT LOOKS VERY NICE IN THAT AREA.
IT'S DONE WELL. THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE THERE ARE VERY HAPPY WITH IT.
AND SO WE WANTED TO TRY TO PLAY OFF OF THAT, THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT.
AND SO WHAT WHAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS FIRST, I GUESS, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FRONT ENTRY DOOR.
[00:40:04]
AND SO THE DRIVING FACTOR FOR THE LOCATION OF THAT DOOR IS PART OF THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.I THINK WE'RE BACK A FEW FEET FARTHER THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED, BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKED WITH THE THE DESIGN OF OUR OUR PARTICULAR BUILDING AND HOW THE ROOMS AND THE, THE ENTRIES AND EVERYTHING WORKED OUT.
I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT THE DEPTH IS, BUT I THINK IT WAS A 10 FOOT, AN 8 FOOT OR A 10 FOOT REQUIRED PORCH THAT THAT EXISTED AT THE FRONT ENTRY, AND EDWARD MIGHT HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON THAT AT SOME POINT.
I'M NOT GOING TO PUT ANY PRESSURE ON HIM.
BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO TO THE COMMISSIONERS THAT THERE WAS A REASON FOR THAT.
THE SECOND THING I WANTED TO ADDRESS WAS THE STEP BACK AT THE THIRD FLOOR.
WE THERE ARE ZERO FOOT SETBACKS THAT ARE REQUIRED ON THE SIDE YARD.
WE RECOGNIZED THAT THE STREET IS NARROW.
IT'S IT LOOKS LIKE AN ALLEY, YOU KNOW, IF WE WANT TO CALL IT THAT.
I THINK WE'VE GOT ALMOST 11FT ON BOTH SIDES, AND THEN 20, 24 FOOT DRIVE AISLE DOWN THE CENTER.
THERE'S SOME POP OUTS ON THE BUILDING THAT REDUCE IT TO 20FT AT THE UPPER FLOORS.
BUT WHEN YOU ADD UP ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS.
WE'VE GOT 42FT OF CLEAR, OPEN TO THE SKY SPACE THAT IS COMING BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS.
SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE TRIED TO DO ALSO, BE COGNIZANT OF THE STREETSCAPE AND HOW THE PROJECT READS FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND HOW LIGHT IS ABLE TO SHINE THROUGH ON THE STREET.
TYLER STREET, I KNOW THIS WAS MENTIONED BRIEFLY, BUT ONE OF THE THE REASONS WE WERE DRAWN TO THE SITE ALSO IS THAT THERE IS A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THAT IS IN THE MIX FOR TYLER STREET.
AND SO WE FEEL THAT THIS AREA IS AN UP AND COMING AREA THAT'S IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REVITALIZED.
ADDITIONALLY, THE BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OR BUILDING YES, THE BUILDING FRONTING TYLER IS PUSHED BACK AN ADDITIONAL 2 FEET FARTHER THAN THE BUILDING ON THE NORTH SIDE, WHICH GIVES A LITTLE DIFFERENT PLANE CHANGE THAT YOU CAN'T.
SO I THINK THE IMPROVEMENTS HOPEFULLY WILL WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT ISSUE.
I THINK THAT WAS ALL I HAD TO MENTION.
WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT I MISSED FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS OR? YEAH. COMMISSIONERS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER MEENES, YOU WANT TO GO FIRST? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION.
AND IT POSSIBLY MIGHT BE JASON THAT MIGHT NEED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION VERSUS YOURSELF.
OKAY. THE QUESTION I HAD WAS IN REGARD TO DRAINAGE.
NOW, ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL, I NOTICED ON THE ON THE PARCEL MAP HERE IT IS SHOWING BASINS AND THERE'S ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, SEVEN BASINS THAT ARE TO THE WEST OF THE PARCEL.
AND SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, COULD YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AS TO WHY, FROM A DRAINAGE STANDPOINT, WE'RE PUTTING IN THOSE DRAINAGE BASINS VERSUS HAVING POSSIBLY DRAINAGE OFF THE SITE, GOING TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OF TYLER STREET. YES, I'LL LET JASON EXPLAIN THAT WE ALSO HAVE OUR CIVIL ENGINEER HERE, AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE WEST TO DISCUSS.
THANK YOU. ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS.
SO SO THOSE SEVEN ITEMS ARE ACTUALLY OUTLET STRUCTURES.
[00:45:02]
THEY'RE NOT REALLY BASINS.THEY'RE THERE TO SPREAD OUT THE FLOW OF WATER AND MIMIC A SHEET FLOW EFFECT ONTO THE PROPERTY AND TO REPLICATE WHAT WAS A WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE WAS A VACANT LOT WITH SHEET FLOW.
SO THAT'S WHAT THOSE STRUCTURES ARE.
BUT THE DRAINAGE IS FLOWING ONTO THIS PARCEL TO THE WEST.
THAT'S BEEN A THAT'S THE WAY DRAINAGE, THAT'S THE NATURAL FLOW OF THE DRAINAGE IN THAT AREA.
BUT DRAINAGE GOING OKAY NOW THAT AN IMPROVEMENT IS BEING MADE TO THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL, DRAINAGE, GOING FROM ONE PARCEL TO ANOTHER SEEMS A LITTLE STRANGE TO ME.
SO IT'S IN THIS AREA AND IN THE VILLAGE, IT'S COMMON BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE LOTS ARE THERE.
THEY WERE ORIGINALLY EITHER GRADED OR JUST LEFT NATURAL, AND THEY FLOW FROM ONE STREET TO THE NEXT THROUGH LOTS JUST LIKE THIS. SO THIS IS FLOWING FROM TYLER AND IT GOES, IT GOES DOWN TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS BASICALLY.
SO THIS IS THE NATURAL DRAINAGE FLOW OF THAT AREA.
TWO THEY WOULD TAKE AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF WORK AND FILL AND WALLS AND THINGS TO TILT THE DRAINAGE BACK TO TYLER, AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO STUDY THE EFFECTS OF DRAINING ON THE TYLER.
BUT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IMPROVING THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL, WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO ELIMINATE HAVING STORMWATER FLOW GOING FROM ONE PARCEL TO ANOTHER PARCEL OWNED BY ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER? IDEALLY THAT [INAUDIBLE] THE IMPACT THAT MIGHT HAVE.
WELL, THE IMPACT THERE IS NO IMPACT BECAUSE OF THE FLOW IS IS GOING TO BE ATTENUATED AND IT WILL BE THE SAME OR LESS THAN THE FLOW THAT IT RECEIVES NOW ON THE ADJACENT PARCEL.
SO THE ADJACENT PARCEL IS ALREADY RECEIVING THE FLOW.
BUT THERE'S DRAINAGE LAW THAT ALLOWS HISTORICAL FLOWS.
THEY CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT AS LONG AS THEY DON'T CHANGE THAT, THE NATURE OF THOSE FLOWS.
SO THEY HAVEN'T DONE THAT ON THIS PROJECT, BUT IN THIS CASE, TO CHANGE THE FLOW FROM WHERE IT'S GOING NOW TO GO UP TO TYLER STREET, ONE IS WE WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS TYLER STREET AND THE DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ON TYLER STREET TO SEE IF, IF THE IF THE TYLER STREET CAN HANDLE THE FLOWS OR IF, IF THEY WOULD BE CARRIED ON OR IF IT WOULD BE UNLOADED ON THE TYLER STREET AND THEN GO TO THE NEXT NEIGHBOR AND THEN DOWN INTO THEIR PROPERTY.
SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED.
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD HAPPEN, BUT WE'D ADDRESS THAT.
SO THERE WOULD BE LOTS OF FILL BEING PLACED.
THE THE SITE WOULD BE RAISED UP.
IT WOULD LOOK A LITTLE BIT OUT OF CHARACTER IN THIS CASE.
THAT WAS PART OF WHY THIS STILL FLOWS TO THE BACK.
AND I THINK AND THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM COULD TALK TALK ABOUT IT, BUT THEY'RE THEY'VE WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE WEST ON THEIR AGREEMENTS.
AND, AND ALL OF THIS IS AWARE BY THE, BY THE OWNER OF THE WESTERLY PROPERTY.
IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT IT SEEMS ODD.
WHY WOULD THE ADJACENT PARCEL THAT IS UNIMPROVED AT THIS TIME TO THE WEST, IF IN SOME FUTURE DATE THAT PARCEL IS DEVELOPED, MAYBE SIMILARLY TO THIS, THEN THAT PARTICULAR OWNER OF THAT PARCEL WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT ONLY THE STORMWATER FLOW ON THAT PARCEL INDIVIDUALLY, BUT ALSO HAVE TO MITIGATE THE FLOW OF STORMWATER FROM THIS PARCEL AS WELL, IN WHATEVER THE DESIGN OF THAT PROJECT WOULD BE. IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT MAYBE HE MIGHT HAVE TO DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF MITIGATION IN REGARD TO THAT, BECAUSE I GUESS TO THE WEST OF THAT IS THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
SO IN THIS CASE, IF THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST DEVELOPED NOW AND FIRST, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT DRAINAGE AND MITIGATE IT.
[00:50:01]
SO THERE'S NO AND AND THIS PROJECT IS NOT INTRODUCING ADDITIONAL FLOWS OR ANYTHING DIFFERENT.WELL BUT IT IS BECAUSE CURRENTLY IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PARCEL NOW, IT HAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON IT WITH A LOT OF SOIL THAT IS EXPOSED. BUILDING THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, YOU'RE BASICALLY TAKING 90% OF THE, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY OPEN SOIL, AND IT'S EITHER DEVELOPED WITH A BUILDING OR CONCRETE.
AND SO THEREFORE THE FLOWS ARE DIFFERENT THAN IT IS CURRENTLY TODAY.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF DESIGN FEATURES IN THIS.
AND IT'S ALL LAID OUT IN THE HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC REPORTS.
BUT THERE ARE DETENTION BASINS THAT ATTENUATE THAT FLOW.
THERE'S ALSO THE DRIVEWAY IS ALSO A PERVIOUS.
IT'S A PERMEABLE SURFACE WHERE THE WATER WILL GO INTO THE SOIL.
SO HOW COMMON IS THIS? I KNOW WE'VE HAD OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE'VE THAT HAS COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE PAST.
AND IN THOSE PARTICULAR CASES, THE I GUESS YOU SAY CONSIDERATION OF STORMWATER OFF OF ONE PARCEL TO ANOTHER IS DISCOURAGED. AND THE WATER THEN IS FLOWING TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WHERE THERE'S ADEQUATE RUNOFF FACILITIES.
WHY IS THIS ONE DIFFERENT? IT'S NOT DIFFERENT.
THERE ARE SEVERAL PROJECTS THAT DO DEVELOP AND DO FLOW BACK TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
LIKE I SAID, THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE A LOT OF FILL.
IT WOULD RAISE THE SITE UP CONSIDERABLY IN THE REAR.
ALSO WOULD MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT.
SO THEY HAVE DO THEY DO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THIS ROADWAY FOR THE WESTERLY PROPERTY IF WE WERE TO DRAIN IT TO IF THIS PROPERTY WERE TO DRAIN TO TYLER, THERE WOULD BE A VERY LARGE VERTICAL DIFFERENCE.
AND SO ACCESS TO THE WESTERLY PROPERTY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OCCUR THROUGH THIS PROPERTY.
CITY ATTORNEY, DO YOU WANT TO ADD TO THIS? DID YOU HAVE ANY REMAINING QUESTIONS? WELL, JASON JUST MADE THE COMMENT IN REGARD TO SOME LEGAL I GUESS, BACKGROUND OF SOME SORT IN REGARD TO DID YOU NOT, JASON.
YEAH, I SPOKE TO DRAINAGE LAW.
I WOULD SAY THAT THIS TYPE OF DRAINAGE SCHEMATIC PLAN IS MORE COMMON ON SITES WHERE THE LOT SITS BELOW THE FRONTAGE. SO IN THIS CASE, AS AS ENGINEERING MANAGER GILDA WAS SPEAKING TO, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FILL IMPORT TO RAISE THE PAD AND HAVE THAT SLOPE SO THAT THERE WOULD BE THE NATURAL DRAINAGE BACK TO THE TYLER STREET, WHICH THEN MAY RENDER THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST VERY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP.
THE CRITERIA BY WHICH ENGINEERING WILL REVIEW THE STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND WITH THE POST-CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IS ENSURING THAT THE FLOW RATE FROM THIS PROPERTY ISN'T EXCEEDING TODAY'S STANDARD.
SO THERE ISN'T AN ADDITIONAL IMPACT THAT NEEDS TO BE MITIGATED.
DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? YES. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
I JUST CURIOUS AND I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY NOT PART OF THE COMMISSION, BUT SINCE YOU ARE THE FIRST OF US TO SEE THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN IN ACTION.
AND I'M JUST WONDERING HOW BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN PREVIOUS WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE, AND IT'S NOT QUITE AS URBANELY IDENTIFIED OR URBANISTIC.
SO HOW WAS IT TO WORK WITH THE URBAN, WITH, YOU KNOW, FROM A PROFESSIONAL STANDPOINT, HOW WAS IT TO WORK WITH THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN AND DID IT HELP THE PROCESS, OR WAS IT MORE CUMBERSOME? IT IT ADDED SOME TIME TO THE PROCESS, PARTIALLY BECAUSE IT WAS MY FIRST TIME DOING IT, AND I HAD TO READ THROUGH THE DOCUMENT MANY, MANY TIMES TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT, WHAT THE INTENT WAS.
AND I HAD TO WORK WITH STAFF ALSO TO UNDERSTAND A FEW ITEMS. I THINK ULTIMATELY IT IT ADDED A SENSE OF SPECIFIC DESIGN
[00:55:02]
STYLE, WHICH WAS THE INTENT OF CREATING THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.THERE ARE A COUPLE ITEMS THAT I DIDN'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH, BUT WE OVERCAME THEM.
WE ACTUALLY APPLIED FOR A COUPLE ANOTHER WAIVER FOR THE FRONT PORCH ELEMENT.
I WANTED THAT TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT THERE THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARD THAT REQUIRES A SHED ROOF OVER FRONT PORCHES FOR FOR CRAFTSMAN BUILDINGS, AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS A BIT CHALLENGING, BUT I UNDERSTAND.
I MEAN, WE ULTIMATELY CAME UP WITH A SOLUTION.
SO THERE ARE A FEW THINGS I DIDN'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH, BUT BUT WE FIGURED IT OUT.
I THINK IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE SOME OF THE OTHER DESIGN STYLES AS MORE PROJECTS COME ALONG AND HOW THEY ARE ADDRESSED AND WHAT POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS THEY POSE.
BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE WAS FAIRLY EASY TO COMPLY WITH AFTER I HAD DIGESTED WHAT THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WERE TRYING TO DO. SO HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW, THE THE COMMISSION THAT WAS ON, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, WORKING VERY HARD TO TRY AND, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF COMPLAINT ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, INNOCUOUS NATURE OF MOST OF THE PROJECTS COMING FORTH IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, SO WE WERE HOPING THAT BY DEFINING SPECIFIC ARCHITECTURAL STYLES, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO SUGGEST, THOUGH, BECAUSE AGAIN, I DO THINK THAT THE FRONT PORCH IS A VERY IMPORTANT COMPONENT TO THIS, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S A CONCERN FOR OUR RESIDENTS.
I THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD MAKE IT MANDATORY FOR OUR PEOPLE THAT ARE REVIEWING THIS TO LOOK AT JANE JACOBS AND, YOU KNOW, TRY TO SEE THAT EYES ON THE STREET AND WHY WE WANT THE FRONT PORCHES AND WHY WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR SETBACKS AND STREET EXPERIENCES WITH SIDEWALKS AND NARROW STREETS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WALKABILITY, MAKE IT VERY CLEAR. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THIS PROJECT ISN'T QUITE.
I'M SO EXCITED HOW NICE THIS HAS COME OUT.
I THINK IT'S A VERY SOLID PIECE OF WORK.
THANK YOU. BUT I ALSO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT AS WE INCREASE DENSITY, WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE WALKABLE AND SAFE.
AND WITH SET REALLY FAR SETBACK FRONT ENTRIES, THAT'S A CONCERN TO ME.
AND I THINK IT'S A CONCERN TO OUR NEIGHBORS.
YOU KNOW, SO WALKING THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO BUT THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
MR. STRONG, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? YES. SINCE THE DISCUSSION IS WINDING DOWN, I JUST WANT TO REMIND THE COMMISSION, AND PERHAPS WE CAN BRING UP THE SLIDES, THERE ARE SOME SUGGESTED EDITS TO THE RESOLUTION THAT WE'D LIKE THE MOTIONER TO MAKE.
IT'S ACTUALLY THE DECISION MAKING BODY THAT MAKES THE FINDINGS, WHICH IS THE CITY COUNCIL.
BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? GO AHEAD.
IF NOT, WE'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS? WE DO. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, MATT HALL.
WILL YOU COME TO THE PODIUM? YES. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.
WITH THAT, I HAVE TWO CONCERNS.
TODAY, I HAVE LITTLE OR NO STORMWATER RUNOFF COMING FROM THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.
RIGHT NOW, LESS THAN 20% OF THAT PROPERTY IS IN HARDSCAPE.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ABOUT 70 OR 75% OF HARDSCAPE IN THE FUTURE.
AND SO I'VE LOOKED AT THE PLANS, I'M NOT THE ENGINEER.
ALL I KNOW IS I HAVE VERY LITTLE WATER RUNNING UNDER MY PROPERTY.
AND SO WITH THAT SAID, I THINK THAT'S A CONCERN.
AND I DON'T WANT TO PLAY HARDBALL.
SECOND CONCERN I HAVE IS NOISE.
I'VE OWNED THAT PROPERTY FOR OVER 50 YEARS.
IT WAS M-1 ZONING WHEN I BOUGHT IT.
THERE ARE STILL USES ON THAT PROPERTY THAT MAKE NOISE 24/7 365 DAYS A YEAR.
50% OF THEIR BUSINESS IS FROM 7 P.M.
[01:00:02]
P.M. TO A.M..SO AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING YOU CAN HAVE A TRUCK RUNNING AT PROBABLY 20% THROTTLE SLIDING A HEAVY METAL OBJECT THAT SCREAMING OFF THE BED OF A TRUCK.
I DROVE A TRUCK LIKE THIS FOR 15 YEARS, SO I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING.
I'VE NOT HAD ONE NOISE COMPLAINT IN 35 YEARS.
THERE'S NOW GOING TO BE A RESIDENTIAL UNIT LESS THAN 30FT AWAY FROM THESE UNITS.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS PART OF THE RECORD CLEARLY STATED ABOUT NOISE.
AND THAT'S KNOWN UP FORWARD AND IT'S ADDRESSED HOWEVER HOWEVER WE CHOOSE TO ADDRESS IT.
BUT WITH THAT SAID, I'M WILLING TO WORK HOWEVER WITH THESE PEOPLE ON BOTH STORMWATER AND THE NOISE.
THE THIRD ISSUE, AND I THANK YOU, MR. STINE, FOR BRINGING THIS UP, IS TYLER STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION, WHEN THEY VOTED, THEY VOTED TO MAKE NO CHANGE, NO CHANGE TO THIS STREET.
THOSE ARE 65 FOOT RIGS SO THEY'RE USING TYLER STREET.
ALSO ONE BLOCK DOWN ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU MAYOR.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT.
WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED? IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO DISCUSS FURTHER? RESPOND. YEAH.
ALL RIGHT, SO IN RESPONSE TO MATT HALL'S COMMENTS ABOUT SOUND, WE'LL START WITH THAT FIRST.
WE ARE GOING TO DISCLOSE IN OUR [INAUDIBLE] THERE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S TRAIN NOISE THAT THAT COMES THROUGH THAT AREA AS WELL AS THE SALVAGE YARD NOISE. AND SO ANY POTENTIAL BUYERS WILL BE NOTIFIED OF WHAT THEY'RE UP AGAINST IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN OR EXCUSE ME, LIVE IN THAT AREA, THEN THEY AREN'T REQUIRED TO THEY, THAT WILL BE OUT ON THE TABLE.
SO WE KNOW THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE AND WE'RE PREPARED TO TO DEAL WITH IT ACCORDINGLY.
HE'S THEY'VE OBVIOUSLY RUN ALL THE NUMBERS AND CALCULATIONS AND HE'S GOING TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT.
YEAH. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
SURE. MITIGATION STANDPOINT OF NOISE COMING FROM THE PARCEL ON THE WEST.
IN YOUR DESIGN OF THE WINDOWS IN THESE PARTICULAR UNITS, ARE YOU UPGRADING TO SOMETHING THAT IS A LITTLE BIT BETTER FROM THE STANDPOINT OF A NOISE REFLECTION STANDPOINT? YES. WE'VE HAD A WE'VE HAD AN ACOUSTIC STUDY DONE AND WE'VE IDENTIFIED, YOU KNOW, THE TRAIN NOISE IS WHAT WAS WAS STUDIED.
OBVIOUSLY THAT'S THE BIGGEST NOISE ISSUE IN THAT AREA.
AND SO WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO DO SOME SOUND MITIGATION ON THE, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE OUR WALLS ARE TWO BY SIX WALLS WITH, WITH OUR, YOU KNOW, THE THICKNESS OF INSULATION AND, YOU KNOW, DOUBLE PANE GLASS.
YES. I MEAN, WE OBVIOUSLY KNOW THAT'S A CONCERN.
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO TELL BUYERS THAT, HEY LOOK, WE'VE WE'VE DONE THESE THINGS TO THIS UNIT.
LAST THING WE WANT IS TWO, TWO END UNITS UNSOLD.
SO IT DOESN'T DO ANYBODY ANY GOOD.
THERE IS AN INTERIOR NOISE LIMIT OF 45DB FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.
THE CITY HAS ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE BUILDING CODE.
BUT THAT SECTION IDENTIFIES PRESCRIPTIVE METHODS IN LIEU OF RECEIVING AN ACOUSTICAL REPORT.
SO THAT COULD BE A GOOD RELIANCE DOCUMENT.
BUT TECHNICALLY, THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL AND INSPECTORS WOULD BE VERIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAWS, INCLUDING THAT INTERIOR NOISE LIMIT, SO THAT THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION.
[01:05:01]
GREAT. THANK YOU MIKE.ONE ONE MORE THING THAT I WANT TO ADD ALSO ABOUT THE WESTERN PROPERTY.
SO JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE AS WELL.
LET'S SEE HERE. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS BRIAN KNAPP, I'M THE CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT, I THINK WHAT JASON SUMMARIZED EARLIER KIND OF PAINTED THE PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON AS FAR AS THE DRAINAGE, YOU KNOW, TO THE WESTERLY PROPERTY, WHAT OUR PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE.
SO THERE'S ABOUT THREE FEET OF FALL FROM TYLER STREET BACK TO THE WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE.
THERE IS STORM DRAIN THAT EXISTS JUST WESTERLY OF HIS OF MATT HALL SITE.
AND THAT RUNS ALONG PARALLEL TO THE TRACKS AND OUTLETS TO THE LAGOON.
SO IT DRAINAGE LEAVES OUR SITE, CROSSES ONE PROPERTY AND ENTERS A STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S FAIRLY IMPACTFUL TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE WEST.
YES, IT DOES, YOU KNOW, INCREASE THE IMPERVIOUS FOOTPRINT ON THE SITE RIGHT TO OFFSET THAT.
THEY THEY TREAT THE STORMWATER AND THEN THEY ARE METERED OUT OF THESE THINGS AT A SLOW RATE.
SO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL THE FLOW RATE LEAVING THE SITE.
AND JUST KIND OF ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.
WE ASSUMING NO, NO PLANTERS OR NO NO BMPS, YOU KNOW, WE INCREASE THE RUNOFF BY ABOUT 50% OR 33%.
AND ALL THAT'S DOCUMENTED IN THE HYDROLOGY REPORT.
SO I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE IS FAIRLY COVERED AND SUMMARIZED.
BUT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
SO ANY QUESTIONS OF THIS SPEAKER? THANK THANK YOU SIR.
DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? COMMISSIONER STINE YES, I KNOW WE'VE KIND OF BEAT THIS TO DEATH, BUT I'M NOT REAL CLEAR ON THIS.
AND I'M NOT GOING TO THE STORMWATER ISSUE.
THE TYLER STREET IMPROVEMENTS, ANY PROJECTION AS TO WHEN THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WILL TAKE PLACE? YEAH, I'LL DEFER TO THE ENGINEERING MANAGER, JASON GILDERT.
ENGINEERING MANAGER JASON GELDERT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CITY OF CARLSBAD.
NO, THOSE ARE STILL IN DESIGN PHASE.
WE DON'T HAVE A SCHEDULE OF THE WHEN THE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD TAKE PLACE.
IT STILL NEEDS TO GO THROUGH A FEW DESIGN FEATURES AND I THINK, AND APPROVALS.
SO AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE'S NO SCHEDULE FOR IMPROVEMENTS.
OKAY. BUT IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS.
YOUR CITY'S GOING THROUGH THE DESIGN OR MAYBE OUTSIDE.
THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE'RE WE'RE DOING THIS ANTICIPATION THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE THESE IMPROVEMENTS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED SOMEDAY? CORRECT. AND SOMEDAY.
I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING PROBABLY IN THE NEXT 2 OR 3 YEARS.
HAVE ANY IDEA? I CAN'T SAY IF IT'S 2 OR 3 YEARS OR 10 YEARS.
IF THERE'S NO IF THERE'S NOT BUDGET OR IF SOMETHING ELSE COMES UP, THERE IS A DESIGN.
BUT AS FAR AS WHEN IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OR IF IT'LL BE CONSTRUCTED, I COULDN'T TELL YOU.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THIS APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. IF WE HAVEN'T DONE SO, WE SHOULD CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY BECAUSE ALL WE HAD WAS MATT HALL'S TESTIMONY.
SEEING NONE, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, LET'S OPEN FOR COMMISSION DISCUSSION.
WOULD ANY COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM? I THINK WE'VE I THINK WE'VE EXHAUSTED COMMISSIONER STINE.
[01:10:02]
DID YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS? YES. JUST THIS IS A THIS IS AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A VERY AS I INDICATED BEFORE, A VERY NARROW STREET THERE.AND THEN IT'S UP TO THE CITY AS TO WHEN TO DO THE IMPROVEMENTS.
I UNDERSTAND WE CAN'T ACCELERATE THAT.
THAT'S FOR A COUNCIL DECISION DOWN THE ROAD.
THE STORMWATER ISSUE, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE HAVE EXPERTS THAT SAY IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE IT ANY WORSE, IF ANYTHING, IT'LL MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER, ACCORDING TO WHAT I'M HEARING.
AND THE NOISE ISSUE IT'S IT'S I THINK IT'S BEING ADDRESSED.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A NOISE ISSUE.
AND THAT MAY BE COMPOUNDED, AS MAYOR HALL INDICATES, BY THE NATURE OF THE VEHICLES ON TYLER AND, YOU KNOW, DOING SOME LOADING AND UNLOADING SOMETIMES AT THE WEE HOURS OF THE MORNING.
SO, YOU KNOW, I HOPE THAT'S ADDRESSED I THINK IT'S BEING ADDRESSED AS WELL AS WE CAN.
BUT THOSE ARE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES.
THIS IS A CHALLENGING SITE TO WORK WITH.
NOT A PERFECT WORLD, BUT THE BEST THAT THEY CAN.
AND I'M ALSO STRUCK BY THE FACT THAT THIS IS A PROJECT WITHIN THE HCA HOUSING CRISIS ACT IN WHICH WE'RE PRETTY WELL CONSTRAINED IN TERMS OF OUR ABILITY TO DISAPPROVE IT IF WE DIDN'T LIKE THE PROJECT.
WE HAVE OUR OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.
THEY'VE BEEN USED HERE FOR APPARENTLY THE FIRST TIME.
I'VE LOOKED AT THE FINDINGS FOR THE WAIVERS.
SO I THINK IN LIGHT OF THE STATE LAW, AND I THINK BOTH THE APPLICANT AND APPLICANT'S ARCHITECT AND CITY STAFF HAVE WORKED TO DEAL WITH A CHALLENGING PROJECT, AND I THINK THEY'VE DONE THE BEST THEY CAN.
SO WITH THAT IN MIND, WITH THAT BACKGROUND IN MIND, I WOULD MOVE A PROJECT APPROVAL.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE.
REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS TO THE RESOLUTION.
I THINK WE HAVE SLIDES FOR EACH OF THEM.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MAKER OF THE MOTION IS INCLUDING THOSE IN THEIR MOTION.
THE FIRST ONE WAS SHOULD BE CORRECTING A TYPO, REVISING FINDING 17 D TO STATE 12 UNITS INSTEAD OF 9.
IF YOU COULD SWITCH TO THE NEXT ONE.
YEP, THE NEXT ONE IS CHANGING ALL REFERENCES FROM DG TO CONCRETE.
AND THEN THE FINAL CORRECTION WAS TO INCLUDE FINDINGS FOR THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING CREDITS.
YES. MY MOTION DOES INCLUDE THAT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR MAY WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER DANNA, WHAT DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT? JUST A QUICK DISCUSSION ITEM.
IT PROVIDES 10 ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNITS TO THE CITY'S HOUSING STOCK.
IT FOLLOWS THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
THE FINDINGS CAN BE MADE TO SUPPORT THE REQUESTED WAIVERS.
PARKING EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS GREAT.
AND IN FACT, THIS PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE TO USE AB 2097, WHICH REQUIRES NO PARKING AT ALL.
AND I ALSO AM IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CORRECTIONS TO THE RESOLUTION.
GREAT. COMMISSIONER MEENES, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A SECOND? NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A SECOND.
ALL RIGHT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.
RESOLUTION HAS PASSED SIX ZERO WITH COMMISSIONER MERZ ABSENT.
WE'LL NOW CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.
[01:15:05]
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IS PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.BEFORE WE DO SO, I'M GOING TO REQUEST WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK UNLESS THERE'S OBJECTION.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ON THIS AGENDA IS AGENDA NUMBER THREE.
[3. DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT RESTRICTIONS - INFORMATIONAL REPORT & DISCUSSION.]
HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS HAD ANY EX PARTY COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING DRIVE THRUS? OKAY. MR. STRONG, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ITEM AND OUR GOALS HERE TODAY? THANK YOU. AND BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS ITEM, I JUST WANT TO REMIND THE PUBLIC IF THERE IS ANY DESIRE TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, TO SUBMIT THE SPEAKER SLIP BEFORE I INTRODUCE IT. OTHERWISE, WE'LL BE UNABLE TO ACCEPT IT.NO MOVEMENT SO I'LL INTRODUCE THIS ITEM.
NO ACTION IS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED OTHER THAN TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY DECIDE TO SUMMARIZE ITS CONSENSUS OR ITS SENTIMENT BY MAKING A MINUTE MOTION AND PROVIDING THAT TO STAFF, JUST TO QUICKLY REFLECT THE FEEDBACK FROM THIS GROUP.
AND PART OF THAT CAVEAT IS ALSO TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCES FROM THE PUBLIC, HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND SHARED WITH THE COMMISSION APPROPRIATELY. AND I THINK THERE WAS ABOUT HALF A DOZEN OR SO OF THOSE CORRESPONDENCES.
SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO KICK IT OVER TO ASSOCIATE PLANNER KYLE VAN LEEUWEN.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. STRONG. YES. TONIGHT WE WILL BE HAVING AN INFORMATIONAL REPORT AND DISCUSSION ON DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT RESTRICTIONS.
THERE IS NO FORMAL DRAFTED RESOLUTION TO MAKE A MOTION ON.
THE REGULATION OPTIONS FRAMEWORK FOR THAT.
IN TERMS OF THE HISTORY OF THE PROHIBITION DURING THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS FOR LEGOLAND THEME PARK IN THE MID 90S, CONCERNS WERE RAISED BY RESIDENTS THAT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIKE THAT FOUND AROUND DISNEYLAND, IN PARTICULAR DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS COULD OCCUR IN CARLSBAD.
IN RESPONSE, THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO STUDY DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT LAND USES WITH THE OBJECTIVE TO PREVENT THE PROLIFERATION OF POORLY DESIGNED FAST FOOD SITES, WHICH CAN CAUSE IMPACTS TO PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION.
WITH SIGNAGE, LITTER, NOISE, ODOR, AND AIR QUALITY IMPACTS FROM IDLING ENGINES ALSO BEING A CONCERN.
IN FEBRUARY OF 1997, THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEWED THE LAND USE STUDY THAT WAS REQUESTED AND DISCUSSED POSSIBLE REGULATION OPTIONS AND DIRECTED STAFF THROUGH A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO PREPARE AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE TO STRENGTHEN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS.
STAFF ALSO PRESENTED CITY COUNCIL WITH TWO DRAFT URGENCY ORDINANCES AT THE TIME THAT WOULD HAVE PROHIBITED THE ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING OR APPROVAL OF NEW DRIVE THRU LOCATIONS. BUT THOSE URGENCY ORDINANCES FAILED TO PASS BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE A 4/5 VOTE, WHICH DID NOT RECEIVE.
LATER THAT YEAR, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT, AND THE CITY PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED TWO OTHER INQUIRIES ABOUT OTHER LOCATIONS FOR DRIVE THRU'S.
DUE TO THIS, THE TOPIC WAS BROUGHT BACK TO CITY COUNCIL IN JUNE OF 1997, WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED A NEW RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO CONSIDER A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD FULLY PROHIBIT ALL NEW DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS.
ON DECEMBER 2ND OF 1997, THE CITY COUNCIL AGAIN DISCUSSED THE PROHIBITION AND CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD THAT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME, WHO DID NOT VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE OUTRIGHT BAN.
COUNCIL DID, HOWEVER, DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT NEW DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS, AND ON JANUARY 6TH, 1998, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE ORDINANCE ON A 3-2 VOTE. THE RESOLUTION ALSO ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROHIBITION INCLUDED BAKERIES, CANDY STORES, COFFEE SHOPS, ICE CREAM AND DESSERT STORES, AMONGST OTHER FOOD PREPARATION LOCATIONS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVED THE AMENDMENTS TO GO INTO EFFECT IN THE COASTAL ZONE IN JULY OF 1998.
[01:20:02]
AND THEN FOR EARLIER THIS YEAR ON MAY 21ST, THE COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO DEVELOP OPTIONS FOR REGULATING OF DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS IF THE PROHIBITION WERE TO BE VOTED TO BE LIFTED.IN TERMS OF OUR EXISTING DRIVE THRUS HERE IN CARLSBAD, 11 OF THE 12 LOCATIONS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE 1997 LAND USE STUDY ARE STILL IN OPERATION, AND ONE ADDITIONAL ONE, THE ONE APPROVED IN 1997, IS ALSO STILL IN OPERATION, SO WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 12 DRIVE THROUGH LOCATIONS, 5 IN THE VILLAGE AND 4 NEAR PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND THE 5 FREEWAY.
THE TWO MOST KNOWN SPOTS OR CONDENSED SPOTS.
4 OF THOSE 5 ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE, AND AGAIN, THERE'S 4 THAT ARE LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND THE 5 FREEWAY.
IN TERMS OF OPTIONS FOR REGULATING NEW DRIVE THROUGH USES, IF THE PROHIBITION WERE LIFTED, THE MOST LENIENT WOULD BE NO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED, WHERE A RESTAURANT WOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO OPEN A DRIVE THROUGH PORTION OF THAT JUST BY MEETING SET STANDARDS. OR THERE'S THE OPTION OF A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH IS REVIEWED BY STAFF AND APPROVED AT THE CITY PLANNER LEVEL.
ALL OF THOSE LEVELS ARE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR REGULATION.
AND I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT BOTH THE CUP DECIDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CUP DECIDED BY CITY COUNCIL ARE SUBJECT TO ENHANCED OUTREACH REQUIRED BY POLICY 84, IN TERMS OF LOCATIONS OR ZONING FOR POTENTIAL NEW DRIVE THROUGH USES.
HERE IS THE LIST OF POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL ZONES.
I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT THE OFFICE ZONE AND THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE ARE NOT VERY PLENTIFUL.
AND SO THOSE PROBABLY AREN'T REALISTIC OPTIONS.
THE COMMON CONCERNS THAT ARE RAISED WHEN PEOPLE DISCUSS DRIVE THROUGH IMPACTS ARE VEHICULAR IMPACTS AND INCLUDING QUEUING LINES, INCREASED TRAFFIC AND AVAILABILITY OF PARKING. SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN COMPLAINTS ABOUT CORPORATE TYPE ARCHITECTURE WITH YOUR CHAIN RESTAURANTS, AND THE AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE THAT ALSO OFTEN GOES ALONG WITH DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS. THERE'S ALSO CONCERNS FOR AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, NOISE AND LIGHT POLLUTION DURING THE LATE NIGHT HOURS IF THEY'RE OPEN.
AND IN TERMS OF POSSIBLE STANDARDS THAT COULD BE IMPOSED OR DEVELOPED WOULD BE A LIMIT ON HOURS.
THE LIMIT OR MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN TWO DRIVE THRUS IF TWO ARE IN THE SAME AREA OR SHOPPING CENTER, AND THE MINIMUM SEPARATION FROM RESIDENTIAL IF ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ALSO CAN BE PUT IN PLACE TO CURB CERTAIN DESIGN, ARCHITECTURE OR SIGNAGE CONCERNS.
REGARDING PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENT.
THE COMMUNITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DID WORK WITH THE COMMUNICATION AND ENGAGEMENT DEPARTMENT TO COME UP WITH A STRATEGY TO OUTREACH TO THE PUBLIC, WHICH INCLUDED CITY, A WEB PAGE SPECIFICALLY DEDICATED TO THIS TOPIC, AS WELL AS OUTREACH THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA, OUR EMAIL NEWSLETTER, AND SOME TARGETED EMAILS TO INTERESTED GROUPS.
AND I WILL SAY, THE COMMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED SO FAR ARE MOSTLY IN FAVOR OF HAVING SOME DRIVE THRUS, CITING FAMILIES, PEOPLE WITH CHILDREN EASIER TO GO TO THE DRIVE THRU, AS WELL AS A DISABILITY OR ELDERLY WHO WOULD LIKE THE ACCOMMODATION OF A DRIVE THRU.
AND IF COUNCIL DOES DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT CODE CHANGES, THAT WOULD AGAIN COME BACK THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION FOR AN EVENTUAL CITY COUNCIL ACTION OR AND POSSIBLY ADOPTION.
LIKELY IN THE SECOND HALF OF 2025.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I DO HAVE A FEW BACKUP SLIDES, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE SPECIFIC ZONES IF YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE OF THE DETAILS FOR KIND OF THE MAKEUP OF THOSE ZONES AND THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THOSE, BUT HAPPY TO HAVE ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE LETTERS AND EMAILS WE HAVE RECEIVED.
SOME OF THEM WERE VERY ARTICULATE AND I WAS VERY FAVORABLY IMPRESSED WITH THEM.
SO REMIND ME AGAIN OR REMIND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, OUR JOB TONIGHT IS NOT TO PASS A RESOLUTION.
[01:25:07]
IT'S BASICALLY TO EXPRESS OUR OPINIONS AND THOSE OF THE PUBLIC.CORRECT. YES. WE WOULD LIKE THE OPINIONS OF THE COMMISSION, AS YOU ALL HAVE UNIQUE POINTS OF VIEW AND DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS THAT MIGHT ADD TO OUR CONVERSATION ONCE WE TAKE IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR TO TAKE IT TO COUNCIL.
WE WILL BE TAKING NOTES AND MAKING SURE THE MINUTES REFLECT YOUR STATEMENTS.
AS MR. STRONG HAD SAID, IF THERE IS A FEW POINTS THAT THE MAJORITY AGREES ON AND WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOTION TO KIND OF REFLECT THAT THOSE ARE REFLECTED BY THE MAJORITY OR A NUMBER OF THE MAJORITY, THEN THAT WOULD ALSO BE POTENTIALLY HELPFUL IN PRESENTING IT TO COUNCIL.
SO DO YOU WANT DO YOU WANT A CONSENSUS OPINION? NO, WE DO NOT NEED A CONSENSUS.
I'M SORRY. WE DON'T NEED A FULL CONSENSUS.
NOW WE'RE TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERNS, OUR OPINIONS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
CORRECT. IF I CAN ADD A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY, IF THE COMMISSION IS ABLE TO REACH A CONSENSUS, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO HEAR A CONSENSUS VIEW IF YOU HAVE ONE TO OFFER THEM.
THEY LOOK TO THIS BODY FOR YOUR GUYS'S ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO IF YOU'RE ABLE TO DEVELOP A CONSENSUS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ON SOME SORT OF RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO THIS ITEM, I'M SURE THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED. IT IS NOT REQUIRED.
CAN I CAN I FOLLOW UP ONE MORE THING, PLEASE? SO TELL ME HOW.
TELL US HOW EITHER A DRIVE THROUGH BENEFITS THE CITY OR DOESN'T BENEFIT THE CITY.
AND WHAT WOULD BE A WAY TO TO ACTUALLY ASCERTAIN WHETHER THAT THAT'S A GOOD OR BAD FOR THE CITY? BECAUSE I'M A QUANTITATIVE.
I WANT TO I WANT TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, BE FACT BASED ON THIS.
I BELIEVE ONE OF THE COMMENTS FROM THAT WAS EMAILED IN STATED THAT THERE ARE BUSINESSES THAT IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH, THEY DO NOT SEE THAT AS TAKING AWAY FROM THEIR SIT DOWN CUSTOMERS.
SO THERE ARE BUSINESSES THAT WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
THERE'S ALSO BEEN SOME DISCUSSION.
I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S REFLECTED IN THE PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE.
AND SO THERE'S DEFINITELY BEEN SOME STATEMENT THAT CARLSBAD HAS NO DRIVE THRU COFFEE.
SO I THINK THERE'S SOME EVOLUTION OF BUSINESS TYPES THAT MAYBE ARE NOT FACILITATED HERE IN CARLSBAD WITHOUT HAVING THE PROHIBITION TO GET THE BUSINESS ASPECT.
TOTALLY GET THE BUSINESS ASPECT, BUT THAT'S JUST ONE SLICE OF IT, YOU KNOW? IS THERE A COUNTERVAILING ISSUE ON THE CITY SIDE THAT WOULD SAY THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING FOR THE CITY, OR NOT A GOOD THING FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY? THAT'S A HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER.
YOU KNOW, THE CONCERNS FOR THE OTHER SIDE ARE IMPACTS OF INTO YOUR PARKING LOTS AND DRIVE THRUS WHEN YOU HAVE TOO MANY IN ONE PARKING LOT.
AIR QUALITY IS ALSO OFTEN COMES UP, COMES UP.
WE DID GET A LETTER FROM SURFRIDER FOUNDATION THAT DIDN'T SUPPORT REMOVING THE PROHIBITION DUE TO AIR QUALITY, SO I THINK IT DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK WHAT THE NEGATIVES ARE. BUT IN TERMS OF QUANTIFYING THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT.
YEAH, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FOR US.
THAT'S ALL. I'M TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT.
YES. THERE'S A LOT OF OBVIOUSLY IT'S GREAT FOR BUSINESS, YOU KNOW.
I CAN IMAGINE, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE NOT AS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, BUT THANKS.
IT'S AN INTERESTING WAY TO TRY TO APPROACH THIS.
COMMISSIONER STINE, DO YOU HAVE SOME THOUGHTS? I DO, I JUST QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND WE CAN HAVE I'LL EXPRESS MY THOUGHTS LATER ON.
THIS PRESENTATION FOCUSED ON ONE TYPE OF DRIVE THROUGH BUSINESS, NAMELY RESTAURANTS.
OKAY, I KNOW WE HAVE OTHER DRIVE THROUGH DRIVE THROUGH BUSINESSES.
[01:30:05]
I KNOW ONE IN PARTICULAR IS A PHARMACY CLOSE TO WHERE I LIVE.SO WE HAVE DRIVE THROUGH PHARMACIES HERE IN CARLSBAD.
DO WE HAVE THOSE IN THE CITY? WE DEFINITELY DO HAVE THOSE.
I'M TRYING TO THINK OF I DEFINITELY KNOW OF A FEW PHARMACY LOCATIONS.
I'M TRYING TO THINK IF THERE'S AN ATM, I'M SURE THERE IS.
AND YOU CAN STILL A BRAND NEW BUILDING COULD OPEN WITH A DRIVE THRU IF IT'S FOR A PHARMACY THAT DOES REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TYPICALLY APPROVED BY AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL.
IS THERE ANY OTHER TYPE OF DRIVE THROUGH BUSINESSES OR BUSINESSES THAT HAVE DRIVE THROUGH AS PART OF THEIR THEIR FACILITY THAT YOU KNOW, OF? I'M UNAWARE OF ANY IN THIS IN CARLSBAD.
CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME SENSE? DOES STAFF GET A LOT OF COMMENTS, PROBABLY THROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT, ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THOSE TYPE OF DRIVE THRUS, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME OF THE SAME ISSUES. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE QUEUING COULD BE YOU COULD HAVE NOISE ISSUES, NOT ALL THE SAME, BUT SOME OF THE SAME.
SO IF THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY CODE PARAMETERS, THERE'S NOTHING TO ASSIGN A VIOLATION TO.
SO WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPLAINTS, MOST OF THE DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES, ESPECIALLY THE DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES, ARE SUBJECT TO TONIGHT'S CONVERSATION, THE RESTAURANTS, THOSE HAVE BEEN FACILITIES FOR 20 YEARS OR SO, IF NOT MORE.
SO THEY'RE ESTABLISHED PART OF THE COMMUNITY.
SO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SURROUNDED OR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE OR DO BUSINESS SURROUNDING THOSE COMMUNITIES, ARE AWARE OF THE IMPACTS AND NUISANCES AND BENEFITS THAT MIGHT COME WITH A DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT.
BUT ONCE A VIOLATION IS DOCUMENTED, LIKE I SAID, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION MEASURES THAT AGAINST THE CODE, AND CURRENTLY THERE ARE NO PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TIED TO DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES.
IT'S PREMATURE TO DISCUSS WHAT IMPACTS OR BENEFITS THERE MIGHT BE TO THIS TYPE OF ASSIGNMENT.
THE CONVERSATION IS FOR THE COMMISSION'S INITIAL FEEDBACK, WHICH IS NON-BINDING.
AND IF AN ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED, IT WOULD ESTABLISH THOSE STANDARDS SO THAT WHEN THERE IS A VIOLATION, CODE ENFORCEMENT COULD APPROPRIATELY RESPOND AND USE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE.
OKAY, BUT KIND OF SUMMARIZING UP, SUMMARIZING IT UP THEN STAFF IS NOT AWARE OF ANY PARTICULAR HIGH DEGREE OF COMPLAINTS WITH REGARD TO DRIVE THRUS AT THE PRESENT TIME.
THE ONLY ONES THAT I'M AWARE OF, AND I'M NOT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF ALL THE CITY OFFICIALS IN THE CITY, BUT THE ONLY ONES I KNOW OF ARE THE ONES ASSOCIATED WITH IN-N-OUT, WHERE THERE'S STACKING THAT GOES BEYOND THE PROPERTY'S BOUNDARIES INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.
MR. VAN LEEUWEN, I THINK IN THE BRIEFING I MENTIONED THAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO FIND OUT WHAT SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES HAVE DOING WITH REGARD TO DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS, PARTICULARLY ALONG THE COAST HERE OF NORTH COUNTY AND A LITTLE BIT INLAND, PERHAPS AS FAR AS ESCONDIDO.
CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THEY APPROACH THE SAME ISSUE? YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
SO I DID LOOK INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT AND FOR OCEANSIDE ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR DRIVE THROUGH NEW DRIVE THROUGH USES IN THEIR DOWNTOWN AREA, THEY'RE MOSTLY NOT ALLOWED FOR NEW USES THERE ARE STILL SOME EXISTING ONES.
THERE ARE A SMALL SECTION OF WHAT THEY STILL CONSIDER THEIR DOWNTOWN CLOSE TO THE HARBOR WHERE YOU COULD POTENTIALLY PUT IN A THERE WAS A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THEIR DOWNTOWN REGULATED AREA THAT WOULD ALLOW NEW DRIVE THROUGH USE.
[01:35:01]
I'M SORRY. WILL OR WILL NOT ALLOW THAT WOULD ALLOW? THE MAJORITY OF THE OF THE OCEANSIDE DOWNTOWN AREA NEAR MISSION STREET WOULD NOT.BUT THERE ARE NO NEW USES IN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ALLOWED IN VISTA.
FOR SAN MARCOS, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS APPROVED.
THEY DO HAVE A NUMBER OF SPECIFIC PLANS.
I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO LOOK THROUGH ALL OF THOSE.
MY UNDERSTANDING AND THAT THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL IS WIDELY SEEN IN THE INTERIOR SAY EL CAMINO REAL, YOU KNOW, CUTS THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF ENCINITAS.
SO AROUND THOSE AREAS, THOSE WOULD BE AREAS THAT COULD HAVE NEW DRIVE THRUS.
THE COASTAL AREAS ARE REGULATED BY SOME SPECIFIC PLANS.
MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE SPECIFIC PLANS LARGELY DO NOT ALLOW NEW USES.
SO THAT WOULD BE ESPECIALLY IN THE ENCINITAS SPECIFIC DOWNTOWN, I BELIEVE LEUCADIA AS WELL.
MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THE COMMISSIONER AS WELL.
OKAY. WHAT ABOUT SOLANA BEACH AND DEL MAR? HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THOSE? I DID NOT WAS NOT ABLE TO GRAB INFORMATION ON SOLANA BEACH OR DEL MAR.
THERE'S LIKE FOUR CITIES AND NONE OF THEM HAVE PROHIBITIONS.
IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
ANY OTHER INITIAL COMMENTS? IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTION, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, WITH THE PERMISSION OF MY COLLEAGUES, IS OPEN UP THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
LET'S NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS? I ASSUME WE DO.
EXCUSE ME. HOW MANY DO WE HAVE TOTAL? FIVE. ALL RIGHT.
WOULD YOU CALL THE FIRST THREE.
BRET SCHANZENBACH, MIKE HOUSE, PAIGE DECINO.
EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS.
TO HELP SPEAKERS STAY WITHIN THE LIMIT, THE MINUTES CLERK WILL ACTIVATE THE LIGHTED TIMER.
YELLOW MEANS YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE, SIR.
AND BLINKING RED LIGHT MEANS YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.
PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE AND CLEARLY STATE YOUR NAME.
I AM THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
I'M HERE SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
AND WE ARE HERE TO SUPPORT THE LIFTING OF THE PROHIBITION AND THE CREATION OF SOME KIND OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS TO VET AND DECIDE AND HOPEFULLY APPROVE SOME DRIVE THRUS FOR EATERIES, COFFEE SHOPS AND THE LIKE.
THERE ARE PADS WITHIN OUR CITY THAT HAVE BEEN UNDEVELOPED FOR DECADES, THAT HAVE BEEN SITTING AND WILL NEVER BE DEVELOPED BECAUSE OF THE BLANKET PROHIBITION, MAKES IT A NONSTARTER FOR OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THESE DEVELOPMENTS THAT MEMBERS OF OURS HAVE BROUGHT TO US AND EXPRESSED.
AND SO HAVING A PROCESS SO THAT THEY CAN BE EVALUATED WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVELY OR THROUGH YOURSELVES, WOULD BE PREFERABLE, SO THAT THEY CAN AT LEAST HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DEVELOPMENT.
AND THOSE AS WE HAVE EMBRACED THE ELECTRIC CAR ARE BEING MITIGATED YOU KNOW, DAILY.
YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT MY OWN HOUSEHOLD WHERE WE HAVE THREE CARS, AN ELECTRIC, A HYBRID AND MY ONE GAS CAR, IT THE ENGINE SHUTS OFF EVERY TIME I GET TO A STOP SIGN OR PAUSE ANYWHERE. IT'S ACTUALLY ANNOYING AT TIMES, YOU KNOW? SO AS THE TECHNOLOGIES EVOLVE AND OUR RAPID ADOPTION OF ELECTRICS CONTINUE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE LESS AND LESS AND LESS.
[01:40:07]
NOT TO MENTION, IT'S KIND OF DISINGENUOUS WHERE WE ALLOW DRIVE THRUS FOR THE OTHER TWO USES, AS WAS BROUGHT UP TONIGHT.IS THERE NO ENVIRONMENTAL THERE? BUT WE ALLOW IT THERE, BUT JUST NOT FOR COFFEE SHOPS, EATERIES.
SO THERE'S THERE'S A DISCONNECT.
SO WE WOULD SAY THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT.
AND THEY'VE TOLD US POINT BLANK THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT THEY WOULD BRING INTO THE CITY WOULD GO UP EXPONENTIALLY WITH THE DRIVE THRU OPTION, AND THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP A LITTLE BIT TONIGHT AS WELL. SO OUR BOARD WOULD RECOMMEND THAT A PROCESS BE PUT IN PLACE AND WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE GENERAL PROHIBITION BE LIFTED. AND AN A PROCEDURE BE ADOPTED FOR CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU.
MIKE HOUSE, 3177 SEABURY STREET, CARLSBAD.
I'M NOT CURRENTLY INVOLVED WITH ANY DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS.
I MIGHT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN ONE SOMETIME IN THE PAST, EITHER AS A STAFF PLANNER OR A CONSULTANT.
SO I'VE WORKED ON OVER HUNDREDS OF PROJECTS BETWEEN 1980 AND 2020.
STAFF DID A VERY GOOD JOB WITH THE PRESENTATION TONIGHT.
THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN AND FEAR WHEN LEGOLAND CAME IN.
THERE'S PEOPLE WORRIED IT'S CARLSBAD IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A SAFE PLACE FOR WOMEN OR CHILDREN LEGOLAND COMES IN, AND THERE'S CONCERN THAT THERE COULD BE TOO MANY FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS. SO THE PROHIBITION WAS PUT IN PLACE.
I DON'T HAVE A STRONG FEELING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ABOUT FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS.
HAVING NOW THAT I HAVE GRANDKIDS.
YOU TAKE THEM TO THERE YOU GOT TO STRAP UNSTRAP THEM, DRAG THEM IN, MAKE SURE THEY DON'T GET LOST IN THE, IN THE, YOU KNOW, INTO ANY OF THE PLAY AREAS AND HOLD ON THEIR HANDS, CARRY THE FOOD BACK OUT.
STAFF REALLY PUTS EVERYTHING UNDER THE MICROSCOPE.
THEY'RE NOT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING IN CARLSBAD.
SO THAT'S MY PRESENTATION, MY FEELING.
IF YOU WANT TO GO, GO WITH ITEM NUMBER THREE.
BUT I TRUST YOU, YOUR DECISION TO PROTECT THE VIRTUE AND SANCTITY OF CARLSBAD.
HI, I'M PAIGE DECINO CARLSBAD RESIDENT AND LONGTIME CLIMATE ACTIVIST.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING OUR CARLSBAD SIERRA CLUB TEAM.
AND YOU SAW ME HERE LAST MONTH WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, OR CAP.
AND I JUST WANT TO REITERATE A FEW THINGS ABOUT THAT.
AND SO I THINK CONSIDERING ADDING MORE DRIVE THRUS TO THE CITY IS ILL ADVISED.
THREE YEARS AGO, THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED A CLIMATE EMERGENCY RESOLUTION.
AND SO I THINK IDLING THROUGH DRIVE THRUS IS TAKING US IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
IT'S YOU'RE PRODUCING NOT ONLY GREENHOUSE GASES BUT OTHER KIND OF AIR POLLUTANTS.
SO I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT CARLSBAD LIKES TO THINK OF ITSELF AS A BIG CITY IN SUSTAINABILITY.
BUT I THINK IF WE ADOPT MORE DRIVE THRUS IN THE CITY, WE'RE GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
SO I, I URGE YOU JUST TO NOT LOOK AT CONSIDER MORE DRIVE THRUS.
I THINK WE'RE DOING REALLY WELL AS WE ARE.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS DIANE NYGAARD, REPRESENTING PRESERVE CALAVERA.
WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHY THE FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS OPTION.
THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THOSE HUGE LINES OF CARS BACKED UP BEHIND THEM.
BECAUSE THEY'LL WAIT IN LINE 15 MINUTES.
IT'D TAKE THEM THAT LONG TO GO IN AND GET THEIR FOOD.
THE REAL QUESTION IS, WHY WOULD CARLSBAD WANT IT? WHAT'S THE BENEFIT TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD? LAND USE EXPERTS WILL TELL YOU THAT THE BEST ORDINANCE IS THE ONE YOU ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE.
AND IF SOMETHING ISN'T BROKE, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO FIX? ESPECIALLY AT THIS TIME WHEN YOU'RE IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING YOUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.
OF COURSE, THERE ARE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM CARS IDLING IN THESE LINES.
[01:45:03]
IT'S MOVING THE CITY BACKWARDS FROM ALL THE EFFORT THAT'S GONE INTO REDUCING GREENHOUSE GASES.THINK ABOUT THE LAND USE IMPACTS, HOW MUCH LAND HAS GOT IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ACCOMMODATE THAT LONG LINE OF QUEUED CARS, AND NOT TO MENTION THE ESTHETICS.
IF YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT THE ESTHETICS, MITCH AND I WERE LAUGHING.
DON'T LOOK AT OCEANSIDE BOULEVARD AND OCEANSIDE, FOR GOSH SAKES.
THAT'S THE EXAMPLE OF WHAT THESE THINGS LOOK LIKE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT FOR CARLSBAD? SO PLEASE, IT'S NOT BROKE, SO LET'S LEAVE THE BAN IN PLACE.
I'D LIKE TO REMIND THIS COMMISSION THAT AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNTS FOR OVER HALF OF THE CITY'S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, MAKING IT THE SINGLE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR BY A VERY WIDE MARGIN.
THE PROHIBITION ON DRIVE THRUS IN 1998 IS ACTUALLY A VISIONARY POLICY.
IT NOT ONLY REDUCED VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, IT HELPED PROTECT CARLSBAD CHARACTER.
YOU KNOW, BASICALLY FROM SOME OF THE WORST EXCESSES OF OUR CAR DOMINANT CULTURE, LIKE INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION, INCREASED AIR POLLUTION AND LITTER AND UGLY, POORLY DESIGNED DEVELOPMENT THAT, QUITE FRANKLY, IS DOWNRIGHT HOSTILE TO PEDESTRIANS AND BIKE RIDERS.
DRIVE THRUS INDUCE DEMAND TOWARDS A MORE CAR CENTRIC CITY.
I WAS GOING TO MENTION OCEANSIDE BOULEVARD AS WELL, BUT I'LL KEEP THAT.
I LIVE IN OCEANSIDE. IT'S IT'S HORRIBLE.
IT'S A DRIVE THROUGH EVERY TWO BLOCKS AND IT'S VERY CONGESTED.
I THINK CORPORATE FAST FOOD CHAINS ARE NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT'S BEST FOR THIS COMMUNITY.
THEY'RE INTERESTED IN INCREASING PROFIT MARGINS.
THEY'LL DO THAT AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR ENVIRONMENT, AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR HEALTH, OUR CLIMATE GOALS, OUR COMPLETE STREETS GOALS AND OUR LOCALLY OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES THAT WILL SUFFER IF MORE DRIVE THRUS POP UP TO COMPETE WITH THEM.
THE CITY COUNCIL GOT IT RIGHT IN THE 90S AND 26 YEARS LATER, OUR SOCIETY IS IN A MUCH WORSE PREDICAMENT WHEN IT COMES TO CLIMATE CHANGE, AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION HAS ONLY GOTTEN WORSE, MUCH WORSE.
SO ON BEHALF OF OUR OCEAN WAVES AND BEACHES, WHICH ARE EXISTENTIALLY THREATENED BY THE CLIMATE CRISIS, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THIS COMMISSION TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT THE EXISTING PROHIBITION ON DRIVE THRUS.
THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKER SLIPS? NO CHAIR, THERE'S NOT. THANK YOU.
LET'S NOW CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
STAFF, DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO ANYTHING THAT WAS RAISED BY THE COMMENTS? NO. NOT PARTICULARLY.
THANK YOU. ANY OF OUR COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE? YES, COMMISSIONER MR. VAN LEEUWEN, IF WE WERE TO LIFT THE BAN AND X, Y, Z FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WANTED A WANTED A DRIVE THROUGH, THEY WOULD GO THROUGH A PROCESS, AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PROCESS, OR WOULD THEY IN TERMS OF, OF YOU KNOW, THE IMPACT THAT THAT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT HAD ON THE ENVIRONMENT? THROUGH THE PROCESS OF RECEIVING A PERMIT.
IT WOULD IT WOULD BE A PROJECT SUBJECT TO CEQA.
[01:50:03]
WE WOULD THE CITY WOULD BE BEHOLDEN TO MAKE A CEQA FINDING.CORRECT. IF I COULD ALSO CLARIFY THE ORDINANCE.
THAT'S A PROJECT UNDER CEQA AND UNDER SOME RECENT CASE LAWS, THE LEAD AGENCY HAS TO CONSIDER THE FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROJECT. SO THERE WOULD BE A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS AS PART OF THAT ORDINANCE AS WELL.
COMMISSIONER STINE, I SEE YOUR NAME ON MY MONITOR.
I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
THE CURRENT POLICY NOW IS WHAT WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S A PROHIBITION, BUT WE APPROVE.
YOU KNOW, THERE WAS AN APPROVAL OF THE IN AND OUT.
SO WHAT WAS THE PROCESS? WAS IT JUST PLANNING COMMISSION OR DID IT GO TO COUNCIL TOO? SO IN 1998 IS WHEN THE PROHIBITION WAS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL.
AND THAT HAD THE EFFECT OF PREVENTING ANY NEW DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS FROM BEING APPROVED, DIDN'T MATTER IF IT'S IN A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CITYWIDE, AND SO ANY OF THOSE THAT EXIST CURRENTLY WERE APPROVED PRIOR TO 1998.
AND SOME OF THE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT IS HERE ON THIS GRAPH.
THE ONE OF THE LAST ONES THAT WAS APPROVED, THE ONE THAT WAS IN BETWEEN WHEN THEY READ THE LAND USE STUDY AND ADOPTED THE PROHIBITION, IS THE CARL'S JR NEXT TO THE COSTCO.
AND OUR RECORDS SEARCH FOUND THAT THE IN-N-OUT WAS APPROVED IN 1993.
SO BY WHO? THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO ONLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION RIGHT NOW.
UNLESS IT'S IN COASTAL OR LIKE WHAT'S THE...
YOU CANNOT GET AN APPROVAL FOR A NEW DRIVE THROUGH TODAY AND HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FOR 25 YEARS PRIOR TO THAT, IT WAS A PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A RESTAURANT TO HAVE A DRIVE THRU COMPONENT.
SO CHICK FIL A DOESN'T HAVE A DRIVE THRU? CORRECT. OKAY. I'M NOT FAMILIAR.
OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS RECALLING.
I THINK PEOPLE ASSUME THAT A CHICK FIL A WOULD NOT OPEN WITHOUT A DRIVE THRU.
AND WE JUST APPROVED THE HOPE APARTMENTS WITH THE HORIZONTAL MIXED USE OF THE EXISTING CARL'S JR, WHICH IS COUNTER TO WHAT THE FORM BASED ZONING ON CARLSBAD VILLAGE IS.
WE ALSO JUST APPROVED REMOVING A GROCERY STORE AND REPLACING IT WITH TWO FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS ON CARLSBAD VILLAGE THAT ARE THE SIZE OF TWO FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS.
THERE'S 12 ON THIS LIST, BUT EVERY GAS STATION IS A DRIVE THRU.
EVERY YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BANKS.
AND I THINK STAFF IN MY RECOMMENDATION SHOULD ACTUALLY NOT ONLY LOOK AT THESE 12 RESTAURANTS, BUT ALSO IDENTIFY WHERE OTHER DRIVE THRU LOCATIONS ARE, WHERE THE PHARMACIES ARE, WHERE THE BANKS ARE, WHERE THE GAS STATIONS ARE, AND ACTUALLY TRY TO IDENTIFY, WELL, WHY ARE THESE PARTICULAR LOCATIONS BEING SO TARGETED WITH DRIVE THRU LOCATIONS? BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS AS GOOD AS THIS INFORMATION IS, IT'S NOT A COMPLETE PIECE OF INFORMATION.
I THINK WE NEED MORE INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND.
WELL, ACTUALLY, WE ALLOW DRIVE THRUS A LOT, BUT IT JUST MAY NOT BE A RESTAURANT.
SO I THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY THE BIG CONCERN I HAVE IS WHERE ARE THESE LOCATIONS AND HOW DO WE ACTUALLY, LIKE, ALLOW THEM TO BE PART OF A BROADER COMMUNITY? RIGHT. BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S CERTAIN PLACES THAT ARE WARRANTED AND CERTAIN PLACES THAT AREN'T.
BUT I THINK THE BIGGER QUESTION I'M HAVING IS, HOW CAN CARLSBAD PROMOTE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC HIGH ENOUGH TO FORGO HAVING DRIVE THRU DEVELOPMENTS? I THINK THAT'S REALLY OUR BIGGEST CONCERN HERE.
[01:55:01]
THAT'S WHAT THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IS ALL ABOUT, RIGHT? AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN THE APA, THE MAGAZINE THAT THEY COME OUT WITH, HAS AN ARTICLE ON FAST FOODS.ARE THEY ACTUALLY OPTING FOR ELIMINATING THEIR DRIVE THRUS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS AND I KNOW I SEE A CAL POLY SHIRT OUT THERE.
I KNOW SAN LUIS OBISPO HAS ACTUALLY TRIED TO REGULATE MORE OF THEIR DRIVE THRUS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AT THIS POINT, BUT I THINK THAT SAN LUIS OBISPO IS A VERY WALKABLE CITY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE CERTAIN IDENTIFIED CRITERIA FOR DRIVE THRUS IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND I DON'T THINK THEY'RE RIGHT IN THE VILLAGE OR RIGHT IN THE CENTER OF TOWN.
SO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE ALSO LOOKING TO REVIEW, ON ANOTHER NOTE, JUST ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET PROGRAMS, BECAUSE I ALSO THINK THAT THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET IS HURTING OUR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO BEING ABLE TO GET TO OTHER PLACES.
IT'S A REAL ISSUE, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM WITH PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE NOT ONLY REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, PROHIBITING DRIVE THRUS.
SO I THINK THAT YOU KNOW, TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHAT ALL THE DRIVE THRU SITUATION LOOKS LIKE, INCLUDING GAS STATIONS, INCLUDING BANKS, INCLUDING ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN THINK OF.
SO. SO I THINK THAT IT'S REALLY HARD TO MAKE A DETERMINATION, BUT I THINK THAT AT A MINIMUM, WE SHOULD BE AT LEAST HAVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER MEENES, DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT? WELL, I WAS JUST I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT.
IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE WITH THE BRAND NEW CHICK-FIL-A, YOU'RE RIGHT.
MOST PEOPLE THINK OF CHICK-FIL-A AS HAVING A DRIVE THRU.
THIS ONE HERE IN CARLSBAD DOES NOT BECAUSE OF OUR PROHIBITION.
AND IT'S INTERESTING, THE CONCEPT THAT THEY CAME UP WITH FOR THIS LOCATION IS TO HAVE PARKING STALLS WHERE YOU PARK YOUR CAR, AND A PERSON COMES OUT WITH THE MEAL THAT YOU ORDERED TO YOUR CAR VERSUS HAVING CARS IDLING.
SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS AN INTERESTING AND PROVOCATIVE WAY OF SATISFYING THE PUTTING THE RESTAURANT INTO THAT LOCATION AND YET DOING SO WITHOUT HAVING A DRIVE THRU.
SO I THOUGHT I'D JUST ADD THAT.
THANK YOU. ANY OF THE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF STAFF? GOOD.
SEEING NONE, LET'S CONTINUE OR ANY COMMISSION DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS. COMMISSIONER DANNA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? OKAY, SO I SEE ON THE THAT ON THE STAFF REPORT, THERE'S A SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT COMMON CONCERNS WITH DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS.
I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT A LOT OF TIMES, DRIVE THRU QUEUING BLOCKS, A LOT OF THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE PROVIDED ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH MAKES THEM KIND OF RENDERS THEM USELESS. AND THAT BECOMES A PROBLEM.
I THINK IN REGARDS TO DRIVE THRUS THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO FOOD SERVICES, I DON'T THINK THERE IS ENOUGH VOLUME TO CREATE A PROBLEM WITH ALL THE ISSUES, ALL THE COMMON CONCERNS THAT ARE BROUGHT UP.
AND IT ALSO DISCOURAGES THE CAR CENTERED CULTURE THAT WE ARE IN.
SO I, I DO THINK THAT THE CURRENT, THE STATUS QUO OF NOT ALLOWING NEW DRIVE THRUS IS THE RIGHT WAY OF MOVING FORWARD, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE DO HAVE 12 RESTAURANTS CURRENTLY THAT DO HAVE DRIVE THRUS. SO THERE IS THAT OPTION FOR RESIDENTS AND VISITORS TO BUY FOOD THROUGH A DRIVE THRU.
[02:00:04]
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MEENES.YEAH. I'M JUST KIND OF THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX HERE, AND KIND OF JUST FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IS NOW.
MANY OF THE EXISTING DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS DATE BACK INTO THE 1980S AND 90S.
AND FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, IN THE VILLAGE PRIMARILY, OR AT PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AT THE I-5 FREEWAY.
AND IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE FROM A DISCUSSION STANDPOINT, LOOKING AT SOME OF THE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE, IF WE DID WANT TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF NOT HAVING A TOTAL PROHIBITION, AS WE DO TODAY.
LOOKING AT LAND USE REGULATIONS REGARDING SPECIFIC LOCATIONS THAT WITH ZONING, IN AREAS WHERE IT MIGHT BE MORE COMPATIBLE TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND OR TO THE SURROUNDING LAND USES IT HAS SOME MERIT THAN HAVING IT CONTINUE TO BE PROHIBITED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY, BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER LOCATIONS OTHER THAN THE TWO PRIMARY ONES THAT WE HAVE TODAY THAT COULD BE COMPATIBLE.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN THE AREA OF EL CAMINO REAL, FOR EXAMPLE, OR, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT OTHER LOCATIONS THAT POSSIBLY MIGHT BE BECAUSE OF COURSE, THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER, TOO, IS STARBUCKS, FOR EXAMPLE, OR THE COFFEE TYPE OF THING.
AND I THINK AN INDIVIDUAL THAT SPOKE THIS EVENING MADE THE COMMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, IT HAS CHANGED.
SO THE CULTURE HAS CHANGED A LITTLE BIT.
SO DO WE WANT TO POSSIBLY CONSIDER THAT THE CULTURE HAS CHANGED? THE SOCIETY WE'RE LIVING IN TODAY IS DIFFERENT, AND IF WE WANT TO CONSIDER THAT, THEN MAYBE WE CAN BE VERY RESTRICTIVE AS TO THE ZONING AND LOCATIONS THAT WOULD PERMIT APPLICATIONS IN THE FUTURE.
SO JUST BRINGING IT UP FOR CONVERSATION.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE.
YES. THANK YOU. I WAS LISTENING CLOSELY TO WHAT MY COLLEAGUES THEIR COMMENTS.
AND WE'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GET A CONSENSUS ON THIS, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
FIRST COMMENT I HAD, IT'S LONG OVERDUE THAT WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE PROHIBITION.
IT WAS ADOPTED 26 YEARS AGO ON A NARROW THREE TWO VOTE.
CARLSBAD IS A VERY DIFFERENT CITY THAN IT WAS 26 YEARS AGO.
WE'VE GROWN SO GREATLY AND WE HAVE A LOT MORE PEOPLE.
I WAS IMPRESSED, AND THE REASON I ASKED STAFF TO LOOK INTO WHAT OTHER CITIES DO.
I ALWAYS I'M OF THE TYPE THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT AN ISLAND HERE.
LET'S LOOK WHAT OUR NEIGHBORS ARE DOING.
NOT NECESSARILY. WE HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY DO, BUT IT'S FOR A FRAME OF REFERENCE AND APPARENTLY OF OUR REALLY CLOSE NEIGHBORS OCEANSIDE, VISTA, SAN MARCOS AND ENCINITAS. NONE OF THEM HAVE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITIONS.
ALL OF THEM PERMIT IT THROUGH SOME TYPE OF DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.
SO OUR NEIGHBORS, NEIGHBORING CITIES THAT WE LOOK TO SEEM TO NOT GO THE WAY WE HAVE, WE APPARENTLY WAY BACK IN 98 WHEN LEGOLAND WAS NEW, THERE WAS A CONCERN OF WHAT LEGOLAND WOULD BRING TO US.
AND ONE OF THE NEGATIVES WAS CONCERN ABOUT A PLETHORA OF OF FAST FOOD DRIVE IN RESTAURANTS.
WELL, THAT HASN'T REALLY HAPPENED, BUT.
AND SO I THINK WE'RE AT A DIFFERENT TIME.
LEGOLAND HAS BEEN HERE FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND EVERYTHING SEEMS TO BE FINE.
I'M ALSO IMPRESSED BY THE FACT THAT WE WHEN I ASKED STAFF ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GETTING ANY UNUSUAL NUMBERS OF COMPLAINTS FOR OTHER DRIVE THRUS, WHAT OTHER TIMES WE HAVE FOR BANKS AND FOR PHARMACIES, THE ANSWER IS NOT REALLY.
[02:05:02]
ALL OF THAT, SIMILAR TO THE CONCERNS HERE, DON'T SEEM TO BE A REAL PROBLEM ON OTHER DRIVE THRUS.SO I'M KIND OF PERSUADED THAT IF IT'S NOT SUCH A PROBLEM WITH OTHER DRIVE THRUS AND WE ALREADY HAVE 12, THAT MAYBE, IN ALL FAIRNESS, WE OUGHT TO OPEN IT UP TO POTENTIAL OTHER DRIVE THRUS.
OUR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PRESIDENT INDICATED THAT HE'S AWARE OF PADS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE VERY SUITABLE TO HAVING A DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT THAT BECAUSE OF THE PROHIBITION, THEY'RE STILL EMPTY PADS.
I THINK THAT THERE IS CERTAINLY A BENEFIT IF WE GOT VACANT LAND THAT HAS BEEN SITTING THERE ALL THIS TIME, TO HAVE THAT LAND IMPROVED AND TO GENERATE SOME REVENUE FOR THE CITY OF THAT, AND WITH THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE IN 98. MY OWN THOUGHT IS THAT WE, DO TO TAKE OUT THE PROHIBITION I THINK A BLANKET PROHIBITION.
YOU CAN'T DO IT ANYWHERE ANYTIME, IN MY JUDGMENT, IS THE WRONG WAY TO GO.
THE RIGHT WAY TO GO IS HAVE IT REVIEWED BY A CUP.
THAT'S HOW WE REVIEW OTHER BUSINESSES THAT MAY HAVE EXTERNAL ADVERSE IMPACTS, INCLUDING TRAFFIC, INCLUDING NOISE. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, A DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT IS NOT GOING TO BE SUITABLE FOR EVERY AREA, BUT OPENING IT UP TO AT LEAST HAVING A REVIEW PROCESS THROUGH A CUP, I WOULD PREFER IT THROUGH A CUP THAT COMES HERE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RATHER THAN ACUP.
SO I'M KIND OF IN FAVOR OF GETTING RID OF THE PROHIBITION.
I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT TOO RESTRICTIVE.
WE WANT AND OPEN IT UP TO A CUP PROCESS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE IT.
WE REVIEW IT, WE LOOK AT THE SPECIFICS ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS AND MAKE A DECISION.
THERE ARE BENEFITS TO THAT IN TERMS OF BUSINESS ENHANCEMENT.
AND AS SOMEONE WHO'S A GRANDFATHER MYSELF, I CAN PERSONALLY, FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, NOT HAVING TO TAKE, I THINK IN MY CASE, I HAVE THREE GRANDKIDS AND THEY'RE LITTLE NOT HAVING TO TAKE THEM OUT OF THE CAR AND INTO A RESTAURANT, AND BEING ABLE TO DO GO DRIVE THRU IS A BIG BENEFIT.
SO IT'S A BUSINESS ENHANCEMENT.
AND I PERSONALLY THINK THAT ANY ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE WOULD BE FAIRLY NEGLIGIBLE HERE.
MAYBE THEY GET THROUGH REAL FAST AND OUT, AND SOMETIMES THERE MIGHT BE A BIT OF A LINE.
THE FINAL POINT THAT HAS BEEN MADE THAT I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD ONE.
I DON'T THINK THEY POLLUTE AT ALL PERSONALLY AND IN OUR GAS POWERED VEHICLES, WITH OUR SMALL CONTROL SYSTEMS AND THAT ARE MORE WIDESPREAD THAN THEY WERE BACK IN 98. I'M NOT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE TO US AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF A PARTICULAR PROJECT IS GOING TO COME TO US.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GET A REPORT ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S POTENTIAL IMPACT.
AND WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ANALYZE THAT AND IN THE COURSE OF OUR DECISION MAKING.
SO IT'S A LONG WAY OF SAYING I'M AGAINST THE PROHIBITION.
I THINK IT'S A LONG TIME OVERDUE THAT WE CHANGE THAT.
AND I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF OPTION NUMBER THREE, AND THAT WOULD BE A CUP PROCESS.
BUT I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT PARTICULAR AREAS OF THE CITY PERHAPS THAT WE DON'T WANT THEM.
IF THERE ARE PARTICULAR AREAS THAT ARE SENSITIVE THAT IT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE I'M OPEN TO THAT DISCUSSION, BUT OTHERWISE I BELIEVE A CUP PROCESS COMES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN GO TO CITY COUNCIL IF THERE'S APPEALS, THE BEST WAY TO GO.
THANKS. I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THE PROHIBITION.
I LIVE NEXT TO THE STARBUCKS ON TAMARAC.
IT'S A NIGHTMARE FOR THE CARS THERE, BUT IT MAKES EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WALK THERE.
WE THEY HAVE THEY HAVE SUCH A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS THERE.
AND THE ONLY THING I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS THE RATS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I DON'T THINK ANY DRIVE THRU IS GOING TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM, BUT I DO THINK THAT IT HAS CHANGED THE WAY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BROUGHT IN A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT THAT ACTUALLY PROMOTES PEOPLE TO
[02:10:07]
WALK. BECAUSE THE PARKING LOT IS SO TINY, PEOPLE, YOU KNOW.IT CREATES SOME KIND OF CONGESTION IN THE STREETS A LITTLE BIT.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE APRA ARTICLE TALKED ABOUT WAS SAYING THAT CAMPUSES, TRANSIT CENTERS, MALLS AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS ARE RIPE FOR THESE TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS TO BE ABLE TO CREATE THAT MORE GENERATIVE RETAIL OPPORTUNITY FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.
AND THOSE ARE THE PLACES THAT IF WE ARE LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS FOR FAST FOOD, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THOSE PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY LOOKING AT DRIVE THRUS.
SO I THINK THAT TO CLARIFY, I DO THINK IF WE HAVE A PROCESS, IT HAS TO GO THROUGH AT LEAST THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT IF WE DON'T, IF WE CONTINUE WITH THE PROHIBITION, I THINK WE SHOULD BE ALLOWING MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALLER RESTAURANTS TO GO INTO CAMPUSES, TRANSIT CENTERS, MALLS AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.
OKAY. I'LL TRY TO FILL IN HERE BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S DONE A GOOD JOB.
I LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL REASON FOR DOING THIS AND IT'S VERY DUBIOUS TO ME.
I THINK THAT THE CONSUMER HAS A VOTE HERE, AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT.
THIS IS VERY CONVENIENT FOR CONSUMERS.
AND THEY WANT THIS CONVENIENCE AND NO ONE'S SAYING IT.
IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG, LONG PROCESS.
I'M IN FAVOR OF A REVIEW THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WITH THE RIGHT STUDIES AND SO FORTH, MAYBE THOSE THINGS WON'T EVEN GET APPROVED, BUT THEN MAYBE THEY WILL, BECAUSE THAT'S GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER.
I MEAN, THE WORLD'S MOVING RIGHT.
AND WE HAVE TO MOVE WITH IT AND CONVENIENCE IS PART OF THAT.
SO I'M IN FAVOR OF OPTION THREE.
AND I ALSO REPEAT WHAT COMMISSIONER STINE SAID.
AND IT REALLY MAKES SENSE TO HAVE CERTAIN AREAS OF OUR CITY THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE IT.
THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME, BUT THERE ARE.
BUT I THINK A BLANKET PROHIBITION MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
THANK YOU. LET ME MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE BLANKET PROHIBITION, BUT I TEND TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.
I THINK THERE SHOULD BE DEFINITELY AREAS WHERE IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN.
WE WOULD NOT ALLOW A DRIVE THRU.
I REPRESENTED MCDONALD'S AS THEIR ATTORNEY.
THEY HAD CONSTANT PROBLEMS WITH THE DRIVE THRUS.
TO ME OR YOU GO TO ANAHEIM, GO TO SOME OF THOSE MAIN DRAGS ON ANAHEIM.
SO IF WE WERE GOING TO DO ANYTHING AND I THINK THIS WILL BE BEYOND OUR SCOPE TONIGHT.
[LAUGHTER] I THINK THE STAFF THIS NEEDS TO GO BACK TO STAFF.
THEY NEED TO DO SOME REPORTS AND SOME FURTHER WORK.
YEAH. AND THAT'S EXACTLY, I GUESS, THE DIRECTION THAT I'M GOING AS WELL, WHEN I MADE MY FIRST INITIAL COMMENT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT CONDITION NUMBER THREE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST LOGICAL.
BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE STAFF BE ABLE TO SPEND ADEQUATE TIME RESEARCHING WHAT IS THE BEST RECOMMENDATIONS FOR US TO CONSIDER WHAT LOCATIONS, FROM A ZONING STANDPOINT, FROM A ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU DON'T WANT IT NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL PARCEL OF LAND LIKE YOU SEE IN SO MANY OF THE OTHER CITIES.
[02:15:05]
SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE IN PLACE.AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE STAFF BE ABLE TO DO SOME RESEARCH FROM THE STANDPOINT OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING LAND USES AND PROPER ZONING, THE TYPES OF IT CAN BE COMMERCIAL AND, AND ALSO IN REGARD TO WHERE WITHIN THE CITY WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THERE ARE LOCATIONS IN THE CITY THAT MIGHT HAVE ZONING SIMILAR TO WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE? FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE I USE THE RECOMMENDATION OVER THERE NEAR LOWE'S.
BUT YET MAYBE THERE MIGHT BE ZONING SIMILAR TO THAT AREA IN ANOTHER PART OF THE CITY, WHERE THE ENVIRONMENT IN THAT AREA IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO FAST FOOD OR A RESTAURANT DRIVE THRU.
AND SO THEREFORE, I THINK LOOKING AT AREAS WITHIN THE CITY WOULD BE IMPORTANT.
IT'S, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT WAS DONE PRIOR TO 1998.
WELL, OF COURSE, BACK IN 1998, IN THE 80S AND 90S, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT WAS APPROPRIATE THERE AT THE TIME BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE CONCENTRATION WAS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PEOPLE LIVING IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
SO I THINK LOOKING AT THAT AREA AS WELL WOULD BE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AS TO WHAT QUADRANTS OF THE CITY IS APPROPRIATE AND NOT APPROPRIATE SO THAT ZONING ADJACENT LAND USES, ETC.
AND WITH THAT COME BACK TO US WITH POSSIBLE GUIDELINES THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY LOOK AT, AND THEN WE COULD POSSIBLY THEN MAKE A DECISION OR MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL BASED UPON THAT, WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THIS GENERAL.
BUT MAYBE THAT'S NOT WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTS.
MAYBE THEY JUST WANT SOMETHING VERY GENERAL AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.
BUT IF IT IS, I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT.
YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SAID, COMMISSIONER MEENES, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT? THAT WE KICK IT TO THE STAFF FOR A FURTHER STUDY IF, BEFORE WE TAKE OUR DEFINITIVE VOTE.
ARE WE WANTING TO DISCUSS A LITTLE FURTHER HERE.
SO THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED STAFF TO CHECK IN WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE BEFORE RETURNING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OR SORRY, BEFORE RETURNING TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FEEDBACK ON THE EVALUATION ON THE OPTIONS.
CITY COUNCIL THEN WOULD DIRECT WHETHER OR NOT TO PURSUE ANY AMENDMENTS OR KEEP THE EXISTING POLICY INTACT, AT WHICH POINT, IF THERE IS DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD, THERE WOULD BE THAT FURTHER STUDY THAT EVALUATION, IN WHICH CASE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE ITEM WOULD BE WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW, ACTING AS AN ADVISORY BODY TO ANY ORDINANCE MODIFICATION OF THE TITLE 21 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO I THINK FOR TONIGHT, THERE HAS BEEN A GOOD DISCUSSION, AND THERE'S ENOUGH FOR STAFF TO RECORD THAT AND REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL IF THERE IS.
ARE YOU SAYING YOU'RE HAPPY WITH HOW THIS TURNED OUT? BUT THAT OPTION IS AVAILABLE.
THANK YOU. BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, I'M WONDERING.
AND THAT'S WHY I'M KIND OF LOOKING AT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
IS WOULD A MOTION BE APPROPRIATE, GIVEN THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THAT MIGHT NOT FEEL THE SAME AS SOME OF THE COMMENTS I MADE OR SOME OF THE COMMENTS COMMISSIONER STINE MADE? MAYBE WE DO NEED TO MAKE A MOTION OR SOMETHING TO SEE.
OR MAYBE NOT. I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST KIND OF THROWING IT OUT AGAIN.
I DON'T THINK THE ABSENCE OF ONE COMMISSIONER LIMITS THIS AGENDA ITEM TO BE COMPLETED THIS EVENING, AND I THINK THE COMMISSION CAN PROVIDE ITS FEEDBACK, EITHER AS INDIVIDUALS OR AS COMMISSION AS A WHOLE THROUGH A MOTION AND THAT'S SATISFACTORY.
I'M JUST BEING RESPECTFUL TO THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
[02:20:09]
MAJORITY OF YOU IF YOU WANT TO PROVIDE YOUR INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS, WHICH WE'VE ESSENTIALLY COLLECTED THROUGH THE MINUTES, WE HAVE THAT ALREADY AND WE'LL PROVIDE THAT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THAT IS COMPLETE.COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I SEE YOUR NAME ON MY MONITOR.
IT SAID THAT THE PUBLIC WAS NOTIFIED 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING, BUT THERE WERE INTERESTED PARTIES, INCLUDING BUSINESS GROUPS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS THAT WERE CONTACTED.
AND THERE'S A DATE OF OCTOBER 23RD.
SO MY QUESTION IS, DID THE PUBLIC HAVE ENOUGH NOTICE VERSUS THE BUSINESS OUTREACH THAT WAS CONDUCTED TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION IS, WAS THERE MORE GIVEN TO THE BUSINESS GROUPS AND STAKEHOLDERS? WELL, THE LEGALLY REQUIRED NOTICE IS THE 72 HOURS NOTICE.
THERE'S ONGOING PUBLIC OUTREACH RIGHT NOW.
AND THIS IS NOT THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INPUT.
SO THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT ARE ONGOING IN TERMS OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
THAT'S THE 72 HOURS NOTICE FOR THIS MEETING.
THAT DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION.
THE QUESTION WAS, DID THE STAKEHOLDERS GET MORE NOTICE THAN THE PUBLIC? THAT I CAN'T I DON'T KNOW WHO RECEIVED THE NOTICE.
SO I AM CONCERNED THAT YOU KNOW, AND MAYBE OUR OTHER PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
SO SO I THINK THAT A MOTION TO BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T ALL AGREE ON WHAT ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN IS PREMATURE.
I THINK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED.
AND I THINK THAT I OUTLINED A COUPLE OF BROADER TOPICS OF YES, WE SHOULD INVESTIGATE MORE PEDESTRIAN LOCATIONS FOR HIGHER TRAFFIC AREAS FOR THESE TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS RESTAURANT AREAS, PROPOSALS.
AND ALSO YOU KNOW, CONCENTRATE ON THE CAMPUS'S TRANSIT AND MALLS.
AND, AND IF THERE IS HISTORIC DISTRICTS, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THOSE LOCATIONS.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT YOU KNOW, WE REALLY SHOULD CONSIDER IS TO TRY TO YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE CONSIDER AVOIDING THAT DISNEYLAND SITUATION? YOU KNOW, IF WE PUT IT IN A ZONE, GUESS WHAT? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MAIN DRAGS OF ANAHEIM AGAIN, YOU KNOW, SO, SO, OR OCEANSIDE BOULEVARD OR ALL THESE OTHER THINGS.
SO I FEEL THAT YOU KNOW, PUTTING IT IN A ZONE ISN'T GOING TO HELP THE CONCERN TO BE ABLE TO MOVE AWAY FROM THESE THE PROLIFERATION OF THIS.
SO I AM VERY CONCERNED, BUT I THINK THAT HAVING THAT AND LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS TO BE ABLE TO ALSO ENCOURAGE MORE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC IN OUR VILLAGE, ESPECIALLY TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW THESE FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS TO OCCUR, BUT NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE THEY'RE DRIVE THRUS.
COMMISSIONER STINE, I SEE YOUR NAME ON THE MONITOR.
IT SEEMS TO ME, ON THIS ISSUE AND IN TERMS OF THE ISSUE OF HAVING STAFF COME BACK WITH SPECIFICS ON AREAS THAT IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE OR INAPPROPRIATE.
I THINK WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE OVER OUR SKIS ON THIS ONE.
AND I MY OWN FEELING IS THAT WE HOLD OFF, LET THIS GO TO THE PROCESS, LET IT GO TO COUNCIL.
AND IF COUNCIL FEELS THE WAY THAT AT LEAST FOUR OF US DO THAT, IT GOES THROUGH A CUP PROCESS, ALTHOUGH SOME AREAS BE OFF LIMITS THEN THEY PERHAPS WOULD DIRECT STAFF TO INVESTIGATE THAT AND WE COULD REVIEW IT AGAIN AS TO THOSE AREAS.
EXCELLENT COMMENT. COMMISSIONER MEENES.
[02:25:02]
YEAH, I HAVE TO TOTALLY, 100% AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER STINE.YOU KNOW, LOOKING AND SEEING THE COMMENTS MADE HERE ON THE DAIS TONIGHT I THINK PROBABLY JUST ENOUGH INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME TO PROVIDE A STAFF REPORT FOR COUNCIL.
YOU KNOW, MY FEELING IS WE NOT MAKE A MOTION.
WE BASICALLY ADJOURN THIS AGENDA ITEM AND CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING? YES. ANY DISAGREEMENT? NOPE. GREAT. THANK YOU.
LET'S DO THAT. THEN WE'LL ADJOURN ON THIS ITEM AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THANK YOU. IS THERE A REPORT FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE ADJOURN FOR THE NIGHT? NO. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
[CITY PLANNER REPORT]
IS THERE A REPORT FROM THE CITY PLANNER, MR. STRONG? NOTHING TO REPORT OTHER THAN THE NOVEMBER 20TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL CONTINUE AS PLANNED.WE DO HAVE ONE AGENDA ITEM SCHEDULED FOR THAT EVENING.
OKAY. IS THERE A REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? NOTHING FOR ME, THANK YOU.
GREAT. ALL RIGHT, WELL, THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION STANDS ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.