[00:00:06]
GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE DECEMBER 4TH MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.
[CALL TO ORDER]
WOULD THE CLERK PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL? YES. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER HUBINGER AND COMMISSIONER DANNA ARE BOTH ABSENT THIS EVENING.PRESENT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
PRESENT. ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COMMISSIONERS, EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONER HUBINGER AND COMMISSIONER DANNA.
WOULD, PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE THIS EVENING, LED BY COMMISSIONER MEENES.
THE NEXT ITEM IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NO, EXCUSE ME,
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
OF THE NOVEMBER 6TH MEETING.ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 6TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING? COMMISSIONER STINE? YES. A COUPLE ON THE PAGE FIVE WERE THE PARAGRAPH SAYS COMMISSIONER STINE.
JUST TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE ACCURATE AND CLEAR.
ON THE SECOND TO THE LAST SENTENCE, THE ONE THAT STARTS.
AND THAT DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT THAT DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS OFFER TAKING OUT STRIKING AT AND CONSUMERS AND PUT THE WORD THAT I THINK IT'S CLEARER AND READS BETTER THAT WAY.
AND THEN THE FINAL SENTENCE, I WOULD ASK THAT THE WORDS IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY BE ADDED TO THAT SENTENCE, BECAUSE WHAT I MEANT TO SAY IT, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR ALL AREAS.
SO IN CERTAIN AREAS THAT IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO RESTRICT DRIVE THROUGH LOCATIONS.
COMMISSIONER STINE, SO IT'S EASY TO FOLLOW ON THE RECORD.
CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR SUGGESTION FOR THE REVISIONS, THOSE TWO SENTENCES? OKAY, I WILL JUST READ THEM AS I'M PROPOSING TO REVISE.
HE ALSO NOTED THAT HE APPRECIATES THE BENEFITS AND CONVENIENCE TO BUSINESSES EXISTING AND NEW THAT DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS OFFER. MR. STINE ADDED THAT HE WOULD BE OPEN TO RESTRICTING DRIVE THRU LOCATIONS THAT DO NOT THAT DO NOT MAKE SENSE IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY.
PERIOD. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MEENES.
YES, I HAVE A SUGGESTION ALSO ON THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6TH ON PAGE NUMBER TWO, THIRD PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER MEENES INQUIRY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER EDWARD VENEZUELA EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS A RECORDED EASEMENT THAT IS ALREADY BEING RECORDED FOR THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE DRIVE AISLE THAT WILL SERVE AS A PRIVATE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE IT AS CLEAR AS IT NEEDS TO BE. SO I WOULD ADD FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE WEST.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ADDITIONS? ALL RIGHT.
I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
YEAH. THE SENTENCE ON PAGE FIVE.
THAT WAS WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE APA ARTICLES STATED.
AND ALSO THE OTHER THING THAT I DIDN'T KNOW IF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET PROGRAM WAS SOMEHOW DIFFERENTIATED THAT'S WHAT IT'S CALLED.
IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET PROGRAM, MR. STRONG? I CANNOT RECALL THE CONTEXT TO WHICH THIS COMMENT REFERENCE TO THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET PROGRAM, BUT I CAN SPEAK TO WHAT ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET PROGRAM IS AS IT EXISTS TODAY, AND THAT IS A WAY
[00:05:02]
TO TAILOR THE DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT OF STREETS WITHIN THE CITY, AND RECOGNIZE THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY THAT LIVES ADJACENT TO THAT COMMUNITY TO COME UP WITH THEIR OWN DESIGN.PERHAPS JASON GELDERT WOULD RECALL.
YEAH. JASON GELDART, ENGINEERING MANAGER, CITY OF CARLSBAD.
IT'S A, IT'S NOT A PROGRAM, IT'S A POLICY FOR REGULATING THOSE STREETS.
YEAH, AND BASICALLY THE POLICY FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SIDEWALKS ARE AT MINIMAL DEFERRED, IF NOT ACTUALLY NOT REQUIRED.
THE POLICY MORE READS THAT THE STREET IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION IS OKAY, AND IF THERE IS CHANGES THAT WANT TO BE MADE, THERE'S A I CAN'T RECALL RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A LIST OF THINGS THAT YOU WOULD GO THROUGH TO SEE IF THE STREET NEEDS TO BE CHANGED, IF THERE'S HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT WOULD BE TRIGGERS.
THAT'S WHAT IT'S CALLED. I'M SORRY, SO IT'S CALLED TRIGGERS.
AND YOU WOULD GO THROUGH THE TRIGGERS TO SEE IF THAT STREET DOES NEED CHANGING.
THEN THERE'S ANOTHER PROCEDURE FOR MAKING CHANGES TO THE STREET.
IT DOESN'T REALLY ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE.
IT JUST SAYS THE STREET'S OKAY THE WAY IT IS.
FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN WITH ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS, THE SIDEWALK IS ALWAYS LEFT OUT.
IN EVERY PROJECT THAT I'VE SEEN THAT'S BEEN ON AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN.
BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE NOT HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS.
SO SHOULD THE. SO THAT'S MY QUESTION THOUGH IS IT A PROGRAM OR A POLICY AND SHOULD IT BE CORRECTED IN THE MINUTES? IT SHOULD REFLECT THE CONVERSATION FROM THE LAST MEETING.
SO, IF LAST MEETING THIS ACCURATELY SUMMARIZES YOUR COMMENTS THEN THIS WOULD BE OKAY TO APPROVE.
BUT IF YOU FEEL THAT IT DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT YOUR COMMENTS, WE CAN NOTE ANY CHANGES.
I THOUGHT MR. GILBERT SAID THAT IT WAS A POLICY AS OPPOSED TO A PROGRAM.
PARDON ME. WHICH ITEM NUMBER ARE YOU ON? IT'S PAGE FIVE, 1234, THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH.
CHANGING INTO FROM AROUND AND CHANGING PROGRAMS TO POLICY.
OKAY. ANY OTHER ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? SEEING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
AS WITH THE THREE CORRECTIONS COMMISSIONER MEENES.
THANK YOU. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED. GREAT.
MOTION TO APPROVE HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER MEENES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STINE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO. PLEASE VOTE.
OKAY. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6TH PASSES FOUR-ZERO.
COMMISSIONER MERZ HAS ABSTAINED, AND COMMISSIONERS DANNA AND HUBINGER ARE NOT PRESENT.
NEXT ITEM IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 20TH, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THAT NOVEMBER 20TH MEETING? COMMISSIONER MERZ.
NO. GOOD. NO COMMENTS? GOOD. SEEING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 20TH MINUTES.
YEAH. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 20TH, 2024 MEETING.
OKAY. AND MAY I HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU. A MOTION TO APPROVE HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER MERZ AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MEENES.
[00:10:04]
THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 20TH MINUTES PASSES FOUR ZERO.COMMISSIONER STINE ABSTAINED BECAUSE HE WAS ABSENT.
AND COMMISSIONER DANNA AND HUBINGER WERE NOT PRESENT.
LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
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, REQUESTS TO SPEAK FORMS MUST BE TURNED IN TO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING.
THIS WILL ALLOW SPEAKER TIME TO BE MANAGED IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER.
ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES UNLESS THAT TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.
SPEAKERS MAY NOT GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANOTHER SPEAKER.
GROUP TIME WILL BE PERMITTED FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
THE BROWN ACT ALLOWS ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
PLEASE TREAT OTHERS WITH COURTESY, CIVILITY AND RESPECT.
NO ACTION CAN OCCUR ON THESE ITEMS. MINUTES CLERK DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS FOR NON AGENDA ITEMS? NO CHAIR WE DO NOT.
THANK YOU. SEEING NONE, WE WILL BEGIN TONIGHT'S HEARING.
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 MEANS YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.
SINCE ITEMS BROUGHT UP UNDER THE PUBLIC COMMENT ARE NOT LISTED ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, THE COMMISSION IS PREVENTED BY LAW FROM DISCUSSING OR TAKING ACTIONS ON THOSE ITEMS. BEFORE YOU BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE CLEARLY.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
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 PERIOD WILL THEN BE OPENED.
A TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES IS ALLOTTED TO EACH SPEAKER.
AFTER ALL, THOSE WANTING TO SPEAK HAVE DONE SO.
THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE CLOSED.
THE APPLICANT AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO ISSUES OR QUESTIONS RAISED.
THE COMMISSIONERS WILL THEN DISCUSS THE ITEM AND THEN VOTE ON IT.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CLOSED.
CERTAIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ARE FINAL BUT MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE FIRST.
[1. 4080 SUNNYHILL DRIVE CDP 2023-0040 (DEV2023-0119)]
HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER MERZ? YES, I VISITED THE SITE.I VISITED THE SITE RECENTLY AND SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS ON THE MARKET.
MR. STRONG, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? YES. AND AS PART OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THE FIRST ITEM, THERE ARE FOUR AGENDA ITEMS. AND I DO WANT TO PROVIDE A CAVEAT TO THIS EVENING'S PROCEEDINGS.
THE COMMISSION HAS HISTORICALLY EXTENDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST CONTINUANCES IN THE EVENT THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN A FULL COMMISSION PRESENT TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE FULL BODY OF THE COMMISSION.
[00:15:08]
ATTENDEES PRESENT.SO WITH THAT KICKING OFF, THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM IS THE DEMOLITION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DETACHED GARAGE, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 4080 SUNNY HILL DRIVE.
AND TO PRESENT THIS ITEM AS ASSOCIATE PLANNER EDWARD VALENZUELA.
SIR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THE SITE IS ZONED ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 15,000 OR R1 15,000 AND HAS A GENERAL PLAN USE DESIGNATION OF R4, ALLOWING FOR 0 TO 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE OF LAND.
THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER, WHO IS HERE TODAY AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, IS REQUESTING YOUR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING ONE STORY, SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND GARAGE, AND IN ITS PLACE, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4140 SQUARE FOOT, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A COVERED PATIO AND TWO SECOND LEVEL DECKS.
ALSO INCLUDED IN THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS A REQUEST FOR A 1198 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED TWO CAR GARAGE, BACKYARD SWIMMING POOL AND ASSOCIATED GRADING. IN ADDITION TO THE MAIN DWELLING AND GARAGE, THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES A DETACHED 1198 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ABOVE THE GARAGE, HERE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.
THE ADU IS NOT PART OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING.
DUE TO CALIFORNIA STATE LAW LIMITING ADUS TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS AND WILL BE ACTED UPON SEPARATELY UNDER AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL MINOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SUBSEQUENT TO COMMISSION'S DECISION TODAY.
WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS FEATURE PAINTED STEEL FRAMES AND DUAL PANE GLAZING.
ALL PROPOSED DECKS ARE SHOWN ARE ENCLOSED BY WOOD RAILINGS.
THE 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 PROJECT APPROVAL.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR 4080 SUNNY HILL DRIVE ON THE FINDINGS, AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.
THIS DOCUMENT IS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AS EXHIBIT ONE.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL.
WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.
SIR, YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
AND MY ADDRESS IS 2936 CAMINO SERBAL IN CARLSBAD.
SO I WAS APPROACHED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY THERE.
THEY LOVED THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
THEY HAVE DEEP ROOTS INTO THE CITY.
THEY WANTED A HOUSE THAT WOULD FIT THEIR FAMILY'S LIFESTYLE AND WORK WELL FOR THEM, AS WELL AS BEING WHAT THEY FEEL AN IMPROVEMENT TO, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY. SO, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THINGS ON THE EXISTING PROPERTY THAT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE IS LIKE THE GARAGE IS SUBSTANDARD AND NOT EVEN REALLY ACCESSIBLE, AND IT DOESN'T MEET THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF CARLSBAD.
SO THAT WAS ONE INITIAL THING THAT WE HAD TO WIDEN THE AREA FOR THE GARAGE.
[00:20:06]
AND I'M OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS OR WE COULD RUN THROUGH MORE OF THE PICTURES IF YOU WANT.COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? LET'S BEGIN WITH COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
YOU SAID THERE'S OTHER RENDERINGS.
WELL, THERE WERE IN THE PACKAGE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE ON THE SLIDES OR NOT.
I HAVE OTHER ELEVATIONS THAT I COULD SHARE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
GREAT. THIS IS THE FRONT ELEVATION THAT IS FRONTING ON SUN HILL DRIVE.
AND THIS IS THE EAST ELEVATION OR THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THIS IS THE NORTH ELEVATION.
SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
WHAT MAKES THIS COASTAL CONTEMPORARY AND WHY IS THAT AN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE? WELL, I MEAN, WE I MEAN IT NEEDS TO BE CALLED SOMETHING, BUT IT'S KIND OF EVOCATIVE.
IT'S GOING TO BE PAINTED, YOU KNOW, PRIMARILY WHITE WITH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE GRAY TRIM AND EVERYTHING AND BLACK ACCENTS AND WINDOWS IS MORE OR LESS A TRENDING STYLE MORE THAN ANYTHING.
OKAY. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS REGARDING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REPORT AND IT'S STATING THAT IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT, ALTHOUGH.
SO IT COULD BE TORN DOWN, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT PERSON, MISS BIGGS DONALD AND LORRAINE BIGGS OUR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PIONEERS OF LARGE SCALE GLADIOLA OLIVE GROWERS.
SO WHY IS THAT NOT SIGNIFICANT FOR OUR COMMUNITY? AND WHY ISN'T IT WORTH PRESERVING PARTS OF THIS FACADE? THAT WAS THE. YEAH.
PROFESSIONALLY, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ENTITY THAN MYSELF.
WHO PREPARED THAT REPORT? SO I DON'T I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO HER ANALYSIS, BUT SHE'S DONE.
SHE DOES THIS FOR A LIVING AND DOES THEM DAY IN AND DAY OUT.
SO IT WAS HER PROFESSIONAL OPINION.
YEAH. WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF THESE REPORTS FROM THIS PARTICULAR HISTORIAN, IF I CAN USE THAT WORD.
AND MOST THINGS TO THIS PERSON ARE NOT VALUABLE.
AND YET WE JUST LOST THE MAYOR'S HOUSE, THE FIRST MAYOR OF CARLSBAD HOUSE.
BECAUSE OF THIS PARTICULAR HISTORIAN, WE LOST THE ONLY BUCKMINSTER FULLER GEODESIC DOME BECAUSE OF THIS PARTICULAR HISTORIC REPORT PERSON THAT CREATES THESE REPORTS.
SO, I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT MAYBE WE'RE MISSING SOMETHING.
AND I WANT TO KNOW FROM THE STAFF IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY KIND OF INFORMATION FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGARDING THIS HOUSE AND THE DESTRUCTION OF IT.
THROUGH THE CHAIR. I'LL RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION.
THE CITY'S CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CONSULTATION GUIDELINES SET THE FOUNDATION AND THE REGULATORY CONTEXT TO EVALUATE AND SCREEN OUT THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE CITY.
THE FRAMEWORK FOR THAT IS APPLIED TO A CEQA PROCESS.
THE INITIAL SCREENING INVOLVES A THREE PRONGED TEST.
ONE IS TO DETERMINE IF IT IS A CEQA PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND ONCE THAT IT IS DETERMINED THAT IT IS A PROJECT, THE NEXT STEP, THE NEXT PRONG, WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S EXEMPT FROM FURTHER REVIEW.
AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EXEMPTIONS THAT COULD APPLY TO PROJECTS.
A GOOD EXAMPLE IS LIKE A BUILDING PERMIT, SOMETHING THAT'S MINISTERIAL.
THERE'S NO EXERCISE OF DISCRETION.
AND AS A REMINDER, CEQA APPLIES TO DISCRETIONARY PERMITS TYPES WHERE THERE'S A DECISION MAKING BODY EXECUTING A WILL OR MAKING FINDINGS TO APPROVE OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVE OR DENY PROJECT.
[00:25:01]
THE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS ARE UNDER THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE.A DETERMINATION IS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY PLANNER PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 1904.
AND UNDER THAT CHAPTER IT PROVIDES THE JURISDICTION TO MAKE DECISIONS.
AND TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION UNDER THE CLASSES OF EXEMPTIONS OFFERED UNDER THE CEQA GUIDELINES, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE AREN'T ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THAT EXCLUSION.
AND IN THIS CASE, A HISTORICAL RESOURCE COULD BE CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION.
AND YOU MOVE TO THAT THIRD PRONG OF THE TEST, WHICH IS TO PREPARE AN INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, SUCH AS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECK OR EIR. SO THAT ANALYSIS THAT WAS PERFORMED BY THE APPLICANT AND THROUGH THIS CONSULTANT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR GUIDELINES IN THE SCREENING OF THAT SIGNIFICANT THRESHOLD.
SO ANY STRUCTURE THAT'S OVER 45 YEARS OLD, THE CITY HAS GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED TO REQUEST AN ORDER THAT THOSE THAT HISTORICAL RESOURCE REPORT, THAT REPORT IS REVIEWED BY THE CITY PLANNER, AND A DETERMINATION IS MADE.
IN THIS CASE, A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION WAS DECIDED AND IT WAS POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
AND ONCE THAT APPEAL PERIOD LAPSES, THE DETERMINATION IS FINAL.
SO THE CEQA MATTER, INCLUDING THE HISTORIC RESOURCE FINDING OR WHETHER IT IS A RESOURCE OR NOT, AS DEFINED BY THE CEQA AND CEQA GUIDELINES AND PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE IS CONCLUDED.
SO THE MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED AND IT IS ACTUALLY NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ORDINARILY, IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE COMMISSION AS A COLLECTIVE BODY.
INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING THE COMMISSION, INDIVIDUAL COMMISSION MEMBERS, OR THE PUBLIC, CAN REQUEST TO RECEIVE THOSE HISTORICAL REPORTS AND POTENTIALLY APPEAL OR CHALLENGE THE CITY PLANNERS DETERMINATIONS, IN WHICH CASE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD BE THE APPELLATE BODY IN THAT CASE.
SO IF AN APPEAL WAS FILED TO PROTEST THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE CITY PLANNER, THEIR APPEAL PROCESS IS STIPULATED BY 2154 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WOULD REQUIRE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECEIVE THE PROJECT AS SUBMITTED TONIGHT, AND THE APPEAL OF THE DETERMINATION AND THE.
BUT IN THIS CASE, THE CEQA FINDINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE.
AND SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS JUST CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT.
AND AS PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THE CITY PLANNER WHO HAS MADE THE CEQA DETERMINATION A HISTORIAN, A CERTIFIED HISTORIAN? NO. AND THAT'S WHY WE ASKED FOR EXPERT TESTIMONY IN THE WRITTEN FORM BY THE USE OF A SURVEY.
BUT IF WE'VE ALREADY HAD SURVEYS FROM THIS PARTICULAR PERSON THAT HAVE PROVEN THAT HAVE COME TO PROVE LONG AFTER THESE THINGS HAVE GONE AWAY, THAT THIS IS NOT A REPUTABLE COMMISSIONER ORGANIZATION OR I'M CONCERNED.
THIS ITEM IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, THE FOCUS OF THE COMMISSION'S DISCUSSION NOW IS WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. YOUR FOCUS IS ON WHETHER OR NOT THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND, IF APPLICABLE, WITH THE PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION POLICIES OF CHAPTER THREE OF THE COASTAL ACT, NOT THE CEQA ANALYSIS.
I WILL ADD AS PART OF THIS, AND I'LL KEEP IT SHORT BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.
BUT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS PROVIDED DIRECTION TO CITY STAFF ON SEPTEMBER 24TH TO RETURN WITHIN 120 DAYS, WITH REVISIONS TO THE CODE TO CHANGE THE DELEGATED AUTHORITY OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS FOR CEQA EXEMPTIONS.
SO THAT WOULD MEAN MOVING FORWARD AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ANY ORDINANCE, IF IT IS ADOPTED, WOULD MEAN THAT THE DECISION MAKER OF THE PROJECT WOULD ALSO MAKE THE DECISION ON THE CEQA FINDINGS.
[00:30:01]
THAT'S HELPFUL, BUT NOT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, UNFORTUNATELY.SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
COMMISSIONER MERZ. OH, WELL I GUESS I RAISED MY HAND, BUT PAGE TEN OF THE HISTORIC REPORT SAID THAT BRIGGS SOLD THE SUBJECT LOT, WHICH WAS UNIMPROVED IN 1953.
SO THERE'S NO STRUCTURE WHEN THEY SOLD IT.
AND THEN IT LOOKED LIKE THE BUILDING WAS BUILT IN 54.
I KNOW IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA, BUT IT WAS AN UNIMPROVED LOT, SO THERE WASN'T.
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEMOLISHING STRUCTURE, IT WAS UNIMPROVED.
WHEN THE SUBJECT PERSON SAID WAS THAT.
THE ONLY REASON I'M ASKING THIS IS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A PLAQUE PROGRAM.
THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED EVEN IF THERE'S NO STRUCTURE.
AND BECAUSE HISTORIC HASN'T EVEN HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THIS OR WEIGH IN ON THIS.
AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE COME WITH A COASTAL CONTEMPORARY DESIGN, I'M CONCERNED, OKAY.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTIONS.
ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE. LET'S OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS AGENDA? ITEM NUMBER ONE.
THE STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED? NO. OKAY.
DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? GOOD SEEING.
NONE. WE'LL OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSION.
ANY COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER STINE. YES, I THINK THIS IS A STRAIGHTFORWARD ITEM.
STAFF HAS MADE VERY CLEAR IN THE CITY.
WHAT IS CLEARLY BEFORE US IS A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
AND I CERTAINLY I DON'T SEE ANY COASTAL RELATED ISSUES BE THOSE VIEW ISSUES OR ACCESS ISSUES HERE THAT WORRY ME IN TERMS OF THE PERMIT BEFORE US.
SO FOR THAT REASON, AND THIS IS AN EASY AFFIRMATIVE VOTE FOR ME.
COMMISSIONER MERZ YEAH, I THINK IT'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
I ALSO I SUPPORT THE PROJECT ALSO, AND I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY'S CLARIFICATION ON THE POINT ABOUT THE PLAQUE AND THE PROGRAM THAT IS, I APPRECIATE HER FOLLOW UP COMMENTS ON THAT.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER MEENES? YEAH, I SUPPORT THE PROJECT AS WELL.
I THINK ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGNED PROJECT.
I THINK THE HOME IS WELL DESIGNED AND WILL SERVE THE APPLICANT VERY WELL.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I WILL SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.
I WOULD JUST REQUEST OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE APPLICANT THAT THEY MAINTAIN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE OF THE 50 YEAR OLD SUCCULENT CACTI GARDEN. IT'S VERY REMARKABLE I THINK.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER ONE PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
GREAT. A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER MEENES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STINE ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE 4080 SUNNY HILL DRIVE PROPERTY. PLEASE VOTE.
THE MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO, AND COMMISSIONERS DANNA AND HUBINGER ARE ABSENT.
WE'LL NOW CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. MR.
[2. CARLSBAD PREMIUM OUTLETS KIOSK PROGRAM AMEND 2023-0014/ AMEND 2023-0016 (DEV2023-0146)]
STRONG, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA? THANK YOU. YES.THE SECOND ITEM IS TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A OUTLET KIOSK PROGRAM.
AND TO PRESENT THIS ITEM AS ASSOCIATE PLANNER EDWARD VALENZUELA.
I'M SORRY. DO WE HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER MERZ? YES. THIS HAD TO DO WITH PARKING.
[00:35:08]
GREAT. COMMISSIONER MEENES.YES, I VISITED THE SITE AND COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY I SHOPPED THERE, AND I HAVE NOT VISITED THE SITE IN PARTICULAR IN CONTEXT OF WHAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT.
GREAT. I TOO HAVE SHOPPED AT THIS SITE DESPITE THE PARKING PROBLEMS. LET'S WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION, SIR? THANK YOU. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THE 26 ACRE PROJECT SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A SHOPPING CENTER.
THE APPLICANT, WHO IS HERE TODAY AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, IS REQUESTING YOUR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR AN UPDATED PUSHCART AND KIOSK PROGRAM FOR THE CARLSBAD PREMIUM OUTLETS.
THE NEW PUSHCART AND KIOSK PROGRAM FEATURES 17 PUSH CARTS AND FIVE KIOSKS.
16 OF THE 17 PUSH CARTS WILL BE FIVE FEET BY EIGHT FEET.
PUSH CARTS FOR KIOSKS AND ONE PUSH CART ARE REQUESTED TO BE RETROACTIVELY PERMITTED.
ACCORDING TO MEENES CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2144 .090 OF THE PARKING ORDINANCE, IF ANY SUCH FACILITY IS TO OCCUPY 5000FT² OR MORE, THEN THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR TWO OR MORE PARTICIPATING BUILDINGS OR USES MAY BE REDUCED BY UP TO 15%, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL BY THE DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY.
FOR THIS PROPOSAL, A FIVE FOOT RETAIL AREA PERIMETER IS INCLUDED AROUND EACH PUSHCART AND KIOSK, WHICH COUNTS TOWARD THE TOTAL RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIRED TO BE PARKED ON SITE, INCLUDING THE SHOPPING CENTER'S 3000FT² OF INTERIOR RETAIL SPACE.
THE ADDITION OF THE PUSHCARTS AND KIOSKS.
THE TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING IS 1534 SPACES.
CURRENTLY THERE ARE 1519 SPACES ON SITE.
THE 1519 SPACES CURRENTLY ON SITE.
THE PUSHCARTS AND KIOSKS ARE EXPECTED TO BENEFIT FROM LINKED TRIPS THAT OCCUR WHEN THE PATRONS OF THE SHOPPING CENTER WILL STOP AT THE CARTS AND KIOSKS TO SHOP AND GENERATING TRAFFIC SOLELY FOR THE CARTS AND KIOSK.
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 THIS PROJECT APPROVAL.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR THE CARLSBAD PREMIUM OUTLETS KIOSK PROGRAM, BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.
THIS DOCUMENT IS IDENTIFIED IN PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AS EXHIBIT ONE.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER MEENES.
YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU IN REGARD TO THE REDUCTION IN PARKING SPACES TO ACCOMMODATE.
AND IT INDICATES HERE, PER THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSED A 1% REDUCTION IN PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
UP TO 15% PARKING REDUCTION MAY BE APPROVED BY THE DECISION OF THE WITH THE MAKING AUTHORITY WHEN ANY COMMON PARKING FACILITY FOR TWO OR MORE BUILDINGS ARE USED AND OCCUPIES A SITE OF 5000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE.
SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS I KNOW I'VE BEEN TO THE SITE MANY, MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS.
[00:40:02]
YOU KNOW, TO WHERE PARKING IS ALMOST TO CAPACITY.AND OFTEN PEOPLE ARE PARKING ON THE STREET ON CAMINO DEL NORTE.
AND SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, YES, IT'S TALKING IN REGARD TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE, BUT IN PRACTICALITY WITH THERE ARE DAYS WHEN IT IS OCCUPIED TO CAPACITY.
THE HOW IS THAT MUNICIPAL CODE THEN APPLIED? WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
I'VE BEEN OUT TO THE PROJECT SITE FOUR TIMES THROUGHOUT THIS PROJECT PROCESS, AND I'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND A PARKING SPOT RELATIVELY EASILY TWICE IN THE AFTERNOON AND TWICE IN THE EVENING AND HAD NO ISSUES.
IT'S BASICALLY GOING TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO WITH THE ADDITIONAL KIOSKS AND PUSH CARTS.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE.
FOLLOWING UP ON COMMISSIONER MEENES INQUIRY, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT ACTUALLY ELIMINATING OR CHANGING OR DELETING PARKING SPACES.
BUT THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET FEWER PARKING SPACES AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT.
COMMISSIONER. YES, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
WHY? WHY IS IT RETROACTIVE? YES. IT'S CURRENTLY THE PUSH CARTS THAT ARE ON SITE.
OVER TIME THAT THERE HAS BEEN ADDITIONAL KIOSKS AND PUSH CARTS THAT HAVE BEEN OPERATING AT THE OUTLET PREMIUM OUTLETS, AND THIS IS MOSTLY DUE TO CONFUSION BETWEEN THE STAFF AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AND PROPERTY MANAGERS ON WHAT THE CORRECT PROCESS IS IN TERMS OF GETTING THOSE PUSH CARTS AND KIOSKS APPROVED AND OKAYED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION.
AND SO THIS IS LOOKING TO RETROACTIVELY PERMIT THOSE TO RECTIFY ALL THOSE THAT ARE EXISTING THAT HAVE RECEIVED BUSINESS LICENSES IN SOME CASES, AND SOME HAVE ALSO RECEIVED BUILDING PERMITS FOR ADDITIONAL WORK, INCLUDING ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS AND OTHER SORTS.
SO WE ARE LOOKING TO RECTIFY THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN OPERATING AND PAYING TAXES AND TO THE CITY AND TO MAKE THE SITUATION RIGHT BY INCLUDING THEM IN THIS NEW, UPDATED VERSION OF THE PUSHCART AND KIOSK PROGRAM.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHT.
WOULD THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT, I THINK YOU SAID IS HERE, WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? GOOD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, SIR.
YOU'LL HAVE TEN MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.
YES. GOOD EVENING CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
JACOB GLAZE, KIMLEY-HORN 1100 TOWN AND COUNTRY, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA.
ULTIMATELY HERE TO REPRESENT THE PREMIUM OUTLETS.
AND FIRST, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR TAKING THE TIME ON A WEDNESDAY TO MEET HERE.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PROJECT TO US.
BUT AS MR. VALENZUELA SAID ELOQUENTLY JUST A SECOND AGO.
AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, FOR ASKING THE QUESTION.
THERE IS ULTIMATELY, WHEN PREMIUM OUTLETS TOOK OVER THIS FACILITY IN 2004, THESE CARTS AND KIOSKS.
THE NUMBER HAS ALWAYS BEEN PUSH CARTS, AND THE KIOSK HAS ALWAYS REMAINED THE SAME ON SITE.
SO WE'RE NOT ADDING ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING.
WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE PARKING FIELD.
THERE'S NOTHING BEING MODIFIED IN THE PARKING FIELD.
WE'RE MORE OR LESS JUST TRYING TO BRING THE CURRENT SITE UP TO THE CODE OF THE SPD.
AND I ALSO HAVE THE MALL MANAGER HERE AS WELL.
AND JACOB GLAZE, AGAIN, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
BUT AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT AS WELL AS MR. VENEZUELA'S TIME FOR MEETING US OUT ON SITE, WALKING THE SITE AND PRESENTING THE CASE TONIGHT.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER MERZ? I THINK IT WAS KIND OF ANSWERED, BUT SO IT'S SORT OF LIKE ORIGINALLY THE IT WAS LIKE 13.
AND THEN NOW WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 17.
SO I'M ASSUMING THAT WE THIS IS A CLEAN UP IF YOU WILL.
BUT THE APPLICANT WANTS THAT ADDITIONAL CAPACITY.
[00:45:02]
THEY, THEY DEEM THAT FAVORABLE TO THE OPERATIONS OF THE MALL TO HAVE THOSE ADDITIONAL PUSH CARTS AND KIOSKS TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING, IS THAT CORRECT? COMMISSIONER MERZ, THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.PERFECT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER.
COMMISSIONER MERZ I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IT'S 17 PUSH CARTS AND FIVE KIOSKS FOR A TOTAL OF 22.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
WE'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, CHAIR, THERE IS NOT.
WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED, EITHER BY THE APPLICANT OR ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS? NO. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
OKAY. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? GOOD. I'M SORRY.
NO. GOOD. SEEING NONE, LET'S OPEN OUR COMMISSION DISCUSSION.
ANY COMMISSIONER LIKE TO GO FIRST IN DISCUSSING THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER STINE. THANK YOU.
YES. BEFORE US TONIGHT IS A AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A CDP COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
I DON'T SEE ANY CDP ISSUES WHATSOEVER HERE.
SO I'LL FOCUS ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ISSUE.
WE'RE GETTING INTO THE HOLIDAY SEASON.
WE'RE ACTUALLY IN THE HOLIDAY SEASON RIGHT NOW.
AND WE WANT THAT PARKING TO BE ADEQUATE.
BUT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT DOESN'T NEGATIVELY OR POSITIVELY AFFECT THIS IN MY MIND.
THEY'RE ALREADY ADDING TO THE AMBIANCE OF THE OUTLET MALL.
I DON'T SEE THAT THAT IS A DRAW TO PEOPLE SUCH THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET MORE PEOPLE AT THE OUTLET MALL SUCH THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED MORE PARKING SPACES, A LITTLE BIT LIKE GOING TO A SPORTING EVENT AT PETCO PARK.
AND WHEN YOU'RE THERE, YOU ORDER A BEER.
YOU DON'T GO TO THE PETCO PARK TO DRINK A BEER, BUT IT'S AVAILABLE TO YOU ONCE YOU ARE THERE.
SO THIS IS NOT A DRAW OR A MAGNET THAT WOULD INCREASE THE PARKING DEMAND.
SO I DON'T SEE THAT AS AN ISSUE.
SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM, PARTICULARLY SINCE THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT ALREADY.
THE CITY'S BEEN COLLECTING TAXES FROM THIS.
YES, I'D ALSO SUPPORT THE PROJECT.
AND I THINK IT'S TOO IMPORTANT.
THE CITY WANTS TO DO. BUT ALSO IT'S IMPORTANT TO THE APPLICANT FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE MALL, AND WITH ALL THE CHALLENGES OF COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE AND ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO AS A CITY TO HELP ASSIST THEM IN BEING MORE SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR OPERATIONS, I THINK IS GOOD.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING A VERY MINIMAL CHANGE IN THE PARKING RATIO.
SO I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE PROJECT.
THE OTHER THING TOO, I WAS ACTUALLY I WAS THERE I ACTUALLY WAS KIND OF INTERESTED THERE'S PERCEPTION OF THE PARKING ISSUES AND, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNER, YOU KNOW, MR. VALENZUELA SAID, YOU KNOW, HE'S BEEN THERE A NUMBER OF TIMES, ACTUALLY, I WENT THERE KIND OF LIKE NEAR THE END OF WORK HOURS.
AND YEAH, I WAS KIND OF PLEASANTLY SURPRISED.
I DIDN'T SEE A PARKING ISSUE AT ALL OUT THERE.
SO. YEAH. SO I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE PROJECT.
GREAT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, THANK YOU.
I THINK THIS DEVELOPER SEEMS TO BE I TRYING TO RECTIFY A SITUATION THAT WAS MAYBE OVERLOOKED OR, YOU KNOW, A PROBLEM.
SO I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THAT IS COMING TO US, AND I'M HAPPY TO APPROVE THIS.
SO I WANT TO COMPLIMENT YOU ON THE THINGS YOU ARE TRYING TO DO FOR THAT PARTICULAR SHOPPING CENTER, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT HAS BECOME A REAL STAPLE IN OUR IN OUR COMMUNITY.
AND WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL TO HAVE THAT CONTINUED.
YOU KNOW, JUST ABILITY TO WORK ON IT TO MAKE IT MORE A PART OF OUR COMMUNITY.
SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. APPRECIATE IT.
[00:50:01]
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YEAH, I ALSO WILL SUPPORT THIS.IT SEEMS THAT'S THE RIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEIR PROPERTY.
I DON'T SEE THIS AS A GREAT HINDRANCE OR A PROBLEM FOR OUR CITIZENS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? GOOD. MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? I'LL MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER TWO IN PERTH.
GREAT. THANK YOU. AND MAY I HAVE A SECOND? OKAY. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER MEENES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MERZ ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.
THE MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO AND COMMISSIONER DANNA AND COMMISSIONER HUBINGER ARE ABSENT.
WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.
I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.
THE CHERRY BEACH HOMES FIRST, IF ANY COMMISSIONERS HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS ITEM.
ALL RIGHT. AND COMMISSIONER MEENES.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
MR. STRONG, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ITEM?
[3. CHERRY BEACH HOMES PUD 2024-0002/SDP 2024-0013/CDP 2024-0016/ MS 2024-003 (DEV2024-0052) -]
YES. THANK YOU.THIS IS ITEM NUMBER THREE, CHERRY BEACH HOMES.
AND TO PRESENT THE ITEM IS ASSOCIATE PLANNER KYLE VAN LOON.
THANK YOU. AND GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS THE CHERRY BEACH HOMES PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A SECONDARY BUILDING THAT IS A GARAGE AND DUPLEX AS TWO UNITS IN THE REAR UNIT OR THE REAR BUILDING AT 180 CHERRY AVENUE.
THE PROJECT SITE IS A JUST UNDER 7800FT² IS IN THE R-3 ZONE.
IMPLEMENTING THE R 23 GENERAL PLAN ZONING DESIGNATION IS WITHIN THE R2 SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND IS WITHIN THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY.
THE PROJECT PROPOSAL INCLUDES THREE STANDALONE STRUCTURES, ALL SINGLE UNIT OR ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
UNIT A AND UNIT B ARE BOTH JUST UNDER 3000FT², WITH UNIT C JUST OVER 3000FT².
THESE ALL THESE BUILDINGS WILL BE THREE STORIES TALL AND COMPLIANT WITH THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE, AS WELL AS HAVING INDIVIDUAL ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGES.
HERE'S A RENDERING OF THE THREE UNITS FROM CHERRY STREET.
WITH UNIT A AND B ON THE LEFT.
THIS IS THEIR PRIMARY FRONTAGE FOR UNIT C.
THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE WOULD BE FROM GARFIELD STREET.
AND HERE IS A CORNER VIEW OF THAT UNIT.
INDIVIDUAL VIEW OF UNIT B AND A INDIVIDUAL.
AND HERE'S ANOTHER RENDERING JUST OF THE SIDING.
OF THE PROPERTY ON THE CORNER HERE OF CHERRY AND GARFIELD STREET.
THERE WAS ONE THING THAT STAFF WANTS TO CLARIFY WITH THIS ITEM.
JUST SO IN CASE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC OR THE COMMISSION NOTICED THAT FOR THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT, SO LONG AS THE NEW UNITS ARE BUILT WITHIN TWO YEARS OF DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING THREE UNITS.
THE PROJECT DOES REPLACE THREE UNITS WITH THREE NEW UNITS AND THERE'S NO INCREASE IN UNITS, SO THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN LIEU FEE WOULD NOT APPLY, AND THE PROJECT IS CONDITIONED TO PAY THE IN LIEU FEE FOR THE THREE UNITS IF PERMITS HAVE NOT BEEN APPLIED FOR WITHIN TWO YEARS OF DEMOLITION.
I DID WANT TO BRING THIS UP BECAUSE IN EXHIBIT FOUR THERE WAS SOME MIS WORDING FOR THIS WHICH STATED THAT ONE OF THAT THE CURRENT PROPERTY ONLY HAD TWO UNITS AND SO ONE FEE WOULD BE REQUIRED.
[00:55:03]
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ANALYSIS AND EXHIBIT FOUR HAD AN ERROR.AND WITH THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAN, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND MINOR SUBDIVISION. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
WHAT ARE THE WHAT'S THE AGE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES? I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME.
SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME.
THERE WAS NO HISTORIC REPORT BECAUSE IT'S IT'S 45.
THAT WASN'T INCLUDED IN PART OF THE PACKET, THOUGH.
DO YOU HAVE ANY DIAGRAMS OF ANY BACKYARDS FOR THESE PROPERTIES? I DIDN'T NOTICE THEM.
AND THAT IS MET BY THE TWO SECOND AND THIRD STORY SECOND AND THIRD STORY BALCONIES.
AND SO THAT IS ACTUALLY TECHNICALLY MET BY THE PATIOS THAT ARE IN THE PROJECT.
I CANNOT READ WITH MY POOR EYESIGHT THE NUMBERS IN THE BACK OF UNIT C, IT LOOKS LIKE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE LOT LINE.
YEAH, THERE'S A SIX FEET SIDE SETBACK.
THAT WOULD BE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS PICTURE AND A 12 FOOT REAR SETBACK.
THE PROPERTY AS A WHOLE, THE REAR SETBACK WOULD BE TO THE LEFT THERE.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT TONIGHT, SIR? YES, THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
THEY DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT WE'LL SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION SHORTLY.
OKAY. DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO MAKE ANY SORT OF PRESENTATION OR JUST FIELD QUESTIONS OR.
WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE, SIR? GOOD EVENING. CHAIR KAMENJARIN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I'M JONATHAN FRANKEL. I SERVE AS VICE PRESIDENT OF FORWARD PLANNING FOR RINCON HOMES.
THANK YOU TO STAFF AND MR. VAN LOON FOR HIS PRESENTATION.
AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, RINCON HOMES IS CARLSBAD'S LOCAL HOMEBUILDER.
WE HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA, BUILDING A WIDE VARIETY OF PRODUCT TYPES.
AND OF COURSE, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
I WAS JUST INTERESTED IF YOU'D STAY UP THE MICROPHONE.
OH, YEAH. NO. IT'S INTERESTING. I LIKE THE LOOK OF THE PROJECT NOW.
I FOUND IT'S INTERESTING IS THAT THE SITE IS ACROSS THE STREET.
MOST OF THEM ARE, LIKE, TOGETHER.
AND THEN YOU PICK THREE, YOU KNOW, FREESTANDING STRUCTURES.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT KIND OF PLAYED INTO THAT, THAT DECISION.
AND SO WHEN WE'RE BUILDING IN ONE PARTICULAR AREA, WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS DIVERSIFY OR SEGMENT THE PRODUCT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ONE TYPE OF PRODUCT THAT YOU'RE SELLING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
AND SO IN ORDER TO CREATE THAT DIVERSITY, WE LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS.
AND HERE WE REALLY SEE A HUGE DEMAND FOR DETACHED AS WELL AS DETACHED.
YEAH. I WAS THEY'RE SORT OF SQUEEZED IN THERE.
I WAS WONDERING IF UNIT B HAD A SWIMMING POOL, BECAUSE THERE'S A BIG DIVOT IN THE IN THE SECTION ON DRAWING 401, AB401.
HOW DOES THAT ROOFLINE WORK WITH THE 30FT? BECAUSE THAT LOOKS LIKE INVITING A SWIMMING POOL ON THE TOP OF THAT ROOF.
[01:00:03]
SURE, I CAN ASSURE YOU, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, THERE IS NO SWIMMING POOL THAT IS BEING THAT IS BEING PLANNED FOR THE ROOF.SO, AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A 30 FOOT.
WELL, IT MAY NOT BE INTENDED, BUT RIGHT NOW THAT'S WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
HOWEVER, AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A 30 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT HERE.
SO I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PARTICULAR SECTION.
I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
BUT WE HAVE TO GET CREATIVE ON THE THIRD FLOOR.
AND THAT FLOOR PLATE IS SEVEN FEET, SIX INCHES.
SO WE HAVE TO SHRINK THAT THAT TOP FLOOR PLATE.
SO THOSE CEILINGS ARE A LITTLE BIT A LITTLE BIT SHORTER THAN THE, THAN THE MAIN LIVING SPACE.
BUT WE DO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS.
IS THAT CORRECT? WHICH MEANS THAT THAT KILLS THAT FLOOR.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS COMPLIES WITH OUR PLANNING STANDARDS.
IF WE CAN'T GET AN ACTUAL 3 IN 12 PITCH ROOF ON THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT'S SO LARGE, THE ELEMENT THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO AS THE SWIMMING POOL, THE VALLEY BETWEEN THE THE TWO APEXES OF THE ROOF ELEMENTS IS A COMPONENT OF A ROOF WITH A PITCH. SO IT WOULD BE DEEMED COMPLIANT WITH OUR HEIGHT STANDARDS.
AND THEN THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, WE WOULD BE EVALUATING PROPER DRAINAGE.
AND OF COURSE, THE NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES DO NEED TO HAVE SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OUR LOCAL GUIDANCE ON.
I THINK IT'S 2.5IN OF RAIN WATER, AND SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO SHOW PROPER DRAINAGE.
WELL, AND THAT'S THE OTHER THING THAT I'M CONCERNED WITH IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE HAVING GOING BACK TO THE CAN YOU GO TO THE BACK TO THE SITE PLAN, PLEASE, OR THE THREE DIMENSIONAL THAT YOU HAD WITH ONE OF THOSE? YEAH. SO YOU'RE PROPOSING THREE DRIVEWAYS AS WELL, CORRECT.
THAT'S CORRECT. SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS.
AND IS IT TYPICAL FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IN A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE DRIVEWAY? IS THAT TYPICAL? BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS USUALLY SITES ONLY HAVE ONE DRIVEWAY.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF WE'RE MEETING ALL THE CRITERIA.
I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A PROHIBITION.
SO THIS IS DEVELOPING AS A DETACHED PROJECT WHERE IT'S GIVING THE ILLUSION OF SEPARATE OWNERSHIP.
SO IT'S PERCEIVED AS ALMOST LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
SO THAT'S WHY THE PROTOTYPE IS PROPOSED, AS ENVISIONED BY THE APPLICANT, TO HAVE SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS SERVING THOSE FACILITIES AND HAVING SEPARATE DETACHED GARAGES TO EACH UNIT TYPE.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR.
WE'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE? NO, CHAIR, THERE'S NOT.
WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED EITHER BY THE APPLICANT OR BY THE COMMISSIONERS? I THINK WE JUST I'D JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT WE DO LOOK AT THE HEIGHT FOR THE BEACH AREA, OVERLAY COMPLIANCE FOR THE PITCH OF THE ROOF AND THE AREA YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT I ALSO, YOU KNOW, SEE IT ON 402 WHERE THE PITCH IS IN A THREE AND 12 ALSO.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS WITH MEETING OUR BUILDING ENVELOPE.
[01:05:04]
ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. LET'S OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSION.I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST ON THIS ITEM.
I DON'T THINK THIS PLAN WORKS.
I DON'T SEE IT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIRED STANDARDS OF OUR HEIGHT LIMITS, BECAUSE IF THEY'RE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, MAKING THESE ROOF LINES BUT NOT MAKING THEM COMPLY WITH OUR HEIGHT LIMITS OR, YOU KNOW, KIND OF MAKING THE ROOMS NOT HABITABLE INSIDE THAT BARELY MINIMAL CODE IS NOT REALLY WHAT THESE APARTMENTS ARE GOING TO SELL FOR.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS ISN'T QUITE AS VIABLE AS MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED THROUGH THIS COMPANY. AND I ALSO AM CONCERNED WITH HAVING MULTIPLE DRIVEWAYS ON THIS PROJECT.
SO I REALLY DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK, BUT LET'S HEAR FROM THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
GO AHEAD. WELL SO IT'S INTERESTING, I UNDERSTOOD FROM A CITY PLANNER STRONG THAT IT WAS COMPLIANT WITH THE ROOF PITCH, BUT THEN COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY SEEMS TO MAKE A FINE THAT'S NOT.
I GUESS I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED HERE AS TO WHAT'S GOING ON.
AND I WOULD GENERALLY SUGGEST THE COMMISSION TREAT LIKE A MANSARD ROOF AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A FLAT ROOF AND THAT THAT GIVES OFF THE ELEMENT FROM A STREET SIDE THAT THERE IS A ROOF PITCH, BUT IN REALITY IT'S MORE FUNCTIONING AS AN EXPANDED PARAPET IN A SENSE RIGHT.
SO THAT'S MORE OF A ROOFTOP DESIGN ELEMENT.
THAT WOULD BE A FLAT PITCHED ROOF AND SUBJECT TO THE STANDARD, LOWER STANDARD HEIGHT STANDARD.
IN THIS CASE, THE AT LEAST THE PLANNING STAFF HAS MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT IT'S MORE LIKE THE PITCHED ELEMENT BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE ROOF IS OF A PITCHED ELEMENT SORT, THAT IT WOULD QUALIFY FOR THAT EXPANDED HEIGHT, SO THAT THAT IS WHAT'S CARRYING THE WEIGHT OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT.
CERTAINLY, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT TO HAVE THEIR, YOU KNOW, THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND GIVE YOU FEEDBACK ON WHAT THEY FEEL IS CONSTITUTING AS A FLAT PITCH ROOF OR NOT, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, BUT AT LEAST STAFF EVALUATED THE PROPOSAL AGAINST THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND CAME UP WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE FORWARD.
COMMISSIONER MERZ, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT OR THE ARCHITECT TO ADDRESS? ARE WE BEYOND THAT POINT? I UNDERSTAND IF WE CAN, THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE WITH ME.
SO MAYBE IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO ADDRESS I DON'T WANT TO GET OUT OF ORDER.
CERTAINLY. SO THE PITCH OF THE ROOF IS 312.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? YEAH. THE PROJECT ANALYSIS ON PAGE 38 OF 88 TALKS ABOUT THE 30 FOOT FOR ROOF PITCH AT THREE AND 12.
WHAT IS. DO YOU CAN YOU CALL UP THAT STANDARD FOR US TO READ? WHAT. BECAUSE IT'S BASICALLY 30FT AND THAT'S 24.
ISN'T THERE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR IS THAT.
HAS IT BEEN CHANGED? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF I MAY PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
SO ON PAGE 43 OF 88 IS THE ANALYSIS OF THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.
43. SO THAT WILL PROVIDE THE STANDARD.
AND SO I'LL READ IT INTO THE RECORD.
[01:10:10]
24FT WHEN PROVIDING LESS THAN A 312 ROOF PITCH.SO THAT'S THE STANDARD THAT YOU WERE ASKING.
SO WHERE WAS THAT AGAIN? 44. 43 OF 88.
24 WHEN PROVIDING LESS THAN THREE AND 12.
SO THAT, I GUESS, IS WHY I'M QUESTIONING IT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT JUST ON FROM THE WAY I'M SEEING THIS. IT'S NOT JUST UNIT B, IT'S ON UNIT B TWICE.
THE SWIMMING POOL IS ON UNIT C AND IT'S ON UNIT A, AND THERE'S VERY FLAT ROOFS INDICATED IN THE SECTIONS ON AC 401 AND 402.
AND I APPRECIATE THESE SECTIONS BECAUSE IT IS ALSO ON AA 401 AND 402.
THEY'RE ALL INDICATING VERY FLAT AND NOT PITCH.
SO THAT'S WHERE I'M RUNNING INTO AN ISSUE BECAUSE HOW DOES THAT I MEAN, I GET THAT IT'S PART OF A LARGER ROOF, BUT I'M STILL CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BENDING THE STANDARDS SO MUCH.
IS THAT MEETING OUR REQUIREMENT? AND I'M NOT SURE THAT ANY OF THOSE ROOFS WOULD HAVE HABITABLE SPACE UNDER THEM IF THEY WERE 24FT HIGH.
THIS PROJECT, ALTHOUGH IT MAY LOOK NICE DOESN'T REALLY MEET OUR STANDARDS.
COMMISSIONER STINE. I APPRECIATE THE INSIGHTS THAT THE COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY PROVIDED.
SHE HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING AN ARCHITECT AND THE REST OF US AREN'T.
SO. BUT WE APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THAT ON.
BUT AS I'M SEEING THAT THE ISSUES YOU RAISED HEIGHT LIMITS.
STAFF HAS RESPONDED TO THAT IN DETAIL.
I CAN'T GET INTO THE WEEDS AT THAT LEVEL AND MAKE IT, BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO.
I'M GOING TO DEFER TO STAFF WHEN THEY SAY IT DOES MEET OUR OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.
NO DISRESPECT TO COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY AND THE OTHER ISSUE THAT SHE RAISES, I WOULD LIKE A MORE OF A SPECIFIC RESPONSE FROM STAFF, AND THAT IS SHE RAISES THE ISSUE IS DOES IT MEET OUR STANDARDS WITH REGARD TO DRIVEWAYS? COULD STAFF RESPOND AS TO WHAT OUR OBJECTIVE STANDARD, IF ANY, WOULD BE WITH RESPECT TO DRIVEWAYS FOR A PROJECT LIKE THIS? LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER MANAGER JASON GELDART IS APPROACHING THE SPEAKING MICROPHONE.
GO AHEAD. JASON GELDART, ENGINEERING MANAGER, CITY OF CARLSBAD.
GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS AGAIN.
THERE ARE ENGINEERING STANDARDS REGARDING DRIVEWAYS AND THOSE STANDARDS.
THIS PROJECT MEETS THOSE STANDARDS.
THERE IS ALLOWED DRIVEWAY WIDTHS ON THE ON FRONTAGES OF THE OR THE SIDES OF THE LOT.
OKAY. SO THERE'S NO STANDARD WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBERS OF DRIVEWAYS.
SO IT'S IF I RECALL, IT'S LIKE 40% OR MAXIMUM OF 30FT OF DRIVEWAY.
OKAY. EACH OF THESE THREE MEET THAT STANDARD.
DESIGN STANDARDS. RIGHT? CORRECT.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? JUST FOR THE COMMISSION'S REFERENCE, IF IT'S HELPFUL FOR YOUR DELIBERATIONS, EACH OF THE UNITS ON PAGES 67, 73 AND 79 HAS DIAGRAMS THAT SHOWS THE SLOPE OF THE ROOF AND IDENTIFIES A ROOF PITCH OF 312 FOR THE ENTIRETY OF EACH OF THE THREE UNITS.
[01:15:02]
THE AREA THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AS A DIP, I'LL REFER TO IT AS IS IDENTIFIED AS THE OVER FRAMING.AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE COMPLIANCE WITH OUR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ON THOSE THREE PAGES.
IT'S PAGES 67 OF 88, 73 OF 88 AND 79 OF 88.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NUMBER THREE.
AND MAY I HAVE A SECOND? I WOULD SECOND BY LIKE AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT IF I MIGHT, MR. CHAIR, ON THIS THIS IS ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE EVALUATE ACCORDING TO OUR OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.
WE'VE HEARD STAFF RESPOND TO THE ROOF ISSUE.
WE STAFF HAS RESPONDED TO DIAGRAMS THAT SEEM TO SUGGEST THAT IT DOES COMPLY.
BUT EVEN IF IT WASN'T, I LOOK AT THIS PROJECT AND I THINK IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE PROJECT.
IT'S DIVERSE. NOT ALL THE BUILDINGS ARE NOT BOXY OR THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
SO I THINK STATE LAW BASICALLY CONFINES OUR DISCRETION HERE.
AND AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA, AND I THINK IT DOES.
BUT EVEN IF IT DIDN'T, I MY THINKING IS THIS IS A NICE PROJECT.
IT LOOKS NICE AND IT SEEMS TO COMPLY WITH OUR OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS.
SO FOR THAT REASON I WOULD SECOND THE MOTION.
YEAH. COMMISSIONER MERZ, I'M SORRY, I DID WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT, IF THAT'S OKAY.
I DIDN'T MEAN TO TALK OUT HERE, BUT ONE THING THAT JUMPED OUT ABOUT ME THIS PROJECT TOO, WAS THAT AS I VISITED THE SITE, YOU KNOW, YOU GO ACROSS, YOU LOOK IN THERE AND LIKE ACROSS THE STREET HOW IT'S VERY DIFFERENT.
I MEAN, FROM A MARKETING STANDPOINT, YOU SAID THERE'S A DESIRABILITY FACTOR TO LIKE BEING IN A FREE STANDING STRUCTURE WHICH THEY'VE CREATED, WHICH I WOULD THINK IS PROBABLY SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN PUTTING THEM ALL TOGETHER TOO.
THE OTHER THING THAT REALLY STUCK OUT TO ME TOO, IS IN THE ELEVATION.
SO YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT AT THE END.
DIDN'T MEAN TO TALK OUT OF TURN.
I'LL KEEP MESSING UP THE ORDER OF THINGS.
I DIDN'T MEAN TO FORCE THE VOTE.
NO. DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT TO TALK FURTHER? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
YEAH, I ACTUALLY HAVE SEEN SEVERAL OF THESE PROJECTS FROM THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER AND AM CONSTANTLY AMAZED AT HOW WELL HE CAN FIND ALL THE LOOPHOLES AND MINIMUM STANDARDS TO BE ABLE TO PUSH THESE PROJECTS THROUGH.
AND, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T MEET OUR REQUIREMENTS.
YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE DRIVEWAYS ON ONE SITE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
FLAT ROOFS MORE THAN 20 FOOT, FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
AND YET, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WE HAVE SEEN THIS HAPPEN.
AND YOU KNOW, THE POOR NEIGHBORS ARE WE'VE SEEN LETTERS FROM THEM.
I HAVE A VERY HARD TIME SUPPORTING THE ANOTHER ONE OF THESE PROJECTS.
AND I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG COMMISSIONER MEENES, DID YOU MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT? I DID, AND YOU SECOND IT.
OKAY. AND WHO? AND COMMISSIONER STINE SECONDED.
THE MOTION ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE PASSES 4 TO 1.
COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN, STINE, MEENES AND MERZ HAVE APPROVED THIS.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY VOTES NO.
AND COMMISSIONER DANNA AND HUBINGER ARE ABSENT.
WE'LL NOW CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
[01:20:13]
I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR.[4. TERRAMAR STAIRWAY STABILIZATION CDP 2022-0026/SUP 2024-0002 (DEV2022-0071) -]
THE TERRAMAR STAIRWAY STABILIZATION FIRST.ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS EX PARTE REGARDING THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER MERZ. SO I VISITED THE SITE AND I WALKED DOWN THE STAIRS AND LOOKED AT BOTH SIDES OF IT.
COMMISSIONER MEENES YEAH, I ALSO VISITED THE SITE.
I WALKED DOWN THE STAIRS, WALKED UNDER THE STAIRCASE AND FULLY EXAMINED THE SITE.
GREAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
AT ABOUT 430 THIS EVENING, I WITH MY SUIT ON, I WALKED DOWN THE TRAIL.
I GOT SOME WEIRD LOOKS, UNDERSTANDABLY, AND I WALKED DOWN THE TRAIL.
I WALKED ON THE ROCKS WHICH ARE AT THE END OF THE TRAIL, AND DID LOOK UNDERNEATH THE CONCRETE TRAIL THAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT, SO I VIEWED IT AND I'LL CONSIDER WHAT I SAW.
I WASN'T AS COURAGEOUS OR CAVALIER AS COMMISSIONER MEENES.
I DIDN'T WANT TO GO UNDER THE STAIRWELL INTO THE SEA CAVES.
GREAT. MR. STRONG, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? YES. THANK YOU.
THE FOURTH AND FINAL ITEM IS THE TAMAR STAIRWAY STABILIZATION PROJECT.
AND TO PRESENT THIS ITEM AS SENIOR PLANNER SHANNON HARKER.
THANK YOU, MR. STRONG. AND GOOD EVENING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE TAMAR STAIRWAY IS LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 5327 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD. THE STAIRWAY PROVIDES THE PUBLIC WITH YEAR ROUND ACCESS TO SOUTH CARLSBAD STATE BEACH.
THE PROJECT SITE HAS A SPLIT GENERAL PLAN AND LAND USE SPLIT.
SO BEFORE I GET INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND RELATED TO THE PERMIT HISTORY AT THE SITE AND THE RECENT CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM THE COASTAL COMMISSION FOR THE REPAIR PROJECT.
IN 2002, A PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME.
THE EMERGENCY CDP FOR THE SEAWALL WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY WITHOUT AN APPEAL, BUT THE FOLLOW UP CDP, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE MUNICIPAL CODE, WAS APPEALED BY THE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
THE CITY COUNCIL DENIED THE APPEAL AND APPROVED THE PERMIT, BUT THE COASTAL COMMISSION APPEALED THE PERMIT DURING THEIR APPEAL PERIOD, WHICH OCCURS AFTER THE CITY APPROVES THE PROJECT AND ISSUES A NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION.
THEREFORE, THE STATUS OF THE CDP FOR THE SEAWALL REMAINS OPEN AND UNRESOLVED AND JUMPING TO 2022.
THE SUBJECT PERMITS WERE FILED TO REPAIR THE TERRAMAR STAIRWAY.
IN SHORT, COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF BELIEVE A PORTION OF THE STAIRWAY IS WITHIN THEIR PERMIT JURISDICTION AND THE PROJECT SHOULD REQUIRE TWO COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FROM ONE FROM THE CITY AND ONE FROM THE COASTAL COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 21.201 .230 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE COASTAL COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION OVER TIDELANDS.
PROJECTS LOCATED WESTWARD OR SEAWARD OF THIS LINE ARE WITHIN THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION, WHILE PROJECTS LOCATED EAST OR LANDWARD OF THIS LINE ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY'S JURISDICTION, BUT CAN BE APPEALED BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION.
THREE SURVEYS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR.
THE MOST RECENT OF WHICH WAS NOVEMBER 2ND OF THIS YEAR.
ALL THREE SURVEYS SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE CONCLUDED THE STAIRWAYS EAST OF THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE.
[01:25:05]
MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE NOVEMBER SURVEY CONCLUDED THE BASE OF THE STAIRWAY WAS 42FT EAST OF THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE.BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION HAS NOT PROVIDED A PROFESSIONAL SURVEY DISPUTING THESE RESULTS, THE CITY HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CITY'S PERMIT JURISDICTION.
HOWEVER, THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TONIGHT CAN BE APPEALED BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION.
SO LET ME EXPLAIN IT TO YOU WHILE I HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME HERE.
DOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM, THEN WE HAVE THE 2022 SURVEY, AND THEN WE HAVE THE 2024 SURVEY.
ALL RIGHT. SO SHIFTING BACK TO THE SUBJECT, PERMITS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT, HERE ARE TWO PHOTOS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STAIRWAY, DOCUMENTING THE EXISTING SETTING AND HOW IT'S CHANGED JUST WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OF THIS PERMIT PROCESS.
THE LEFT PHOTO TAKEN IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR AND THE RIGHT PHOTO WAS TAKEN THIS MONTH.
THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT INCLUDES A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO REPAIR THE STAIRWAY, AS WELL AS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR WORK IN THE FLOOD ZONE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE REGARDING THE ONGOING EROSION UNDERNEATH THE STAIRWAY.
THE TALLEST SECTION OF THE WALL WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THE SOUTH AND UP TO 17FT IN HEIGHT.
SO HERE ARE SOME PHOTO SIMULATIONS OF THE PROPOSED WALL AS VIEWED FROM THE NORTH AND SOUTH.
THE SHOTCRETE WALL WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE WALLS OF THE EXISTING STAIRWAY AND SEA WALL, AND WILL BE TEXTURED AND COLORED TO MATCH THE SURROUNDING COASTAL BLUFFS AND ADJACENT SEAWALL. THE APPLICANT HAS COORDINATED THE PROPOSED WORK WITH THE STATE PARKS DEPARTMENT SINCE THE STAGING AREA WILL BE LOCATED ON THEIR PROPERTY.
THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE REQUEST TO UTILIZE THE PROPERTY FOR THEIR REPAIR WORK.
THE CITY PLANNER ISSUED A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION ON APRIL 30TH OF THIS YEAR.
THE NOTICE WAS POSTED FOR TEN DAYS AND NO APPEALS WERE FILED.
THE PROJECT HAS ALSO BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE, INCLUDING THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, AS WELL AS THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.
AND FINALLY, POLICY 4-1 ONE OF THE MELLO II SEGMENTS OF THE LCP INDICATES THE FOLLOWING.
SEAWALLS, CLIFF RETAINING WALLS, AND OTHER SUCH CONSTRUCTION THAT ALTERS NATURAL SHORELINE PROCESSES SHALL BE PERMITTED WHEN REQUIRED TO SERVE COASTAL DEPENDENT USES, OR TO PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURES OR PUBLIC BEACHES IN DANGER FROM EROSION, AND WHEN DESIGNED, TO ELIMINATE OR MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON LOCAL SHORELINE SAND SUPPLY AS A CONDITION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT.
PERMITTED SHORELINE STRUCTURES MAY BE REQUIRED TO REPLENISH THE BEACH WITH IMPORTED SAND.
PROJECTS WHICH CREATE DREDGE SPOILS, WHICH IS SAND SHALL BE REQUIRED TO DEPOSIT SUCH SPOILS ONTO THE BEACHES IF THE MATERIAL IS SUITABLE FOR SAND REPLENISHMENT. CONDITIONS, 17 AND 18 OF THE RESOLUTION ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SAND REPLENISHMENT AND DEPOSITING ANY
[01:30:06]
EXCAVATED SAND ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT ONTO THE NEARBY BEACH.THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER MEENES.
SHANNON, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
WOULD YOU PULL UP THAT PHOTO THAT YOU HAD SHOWING THE SHOT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STAIRCASE? SURE. OKAY.
LET'S SEE. THAT'S THE PHOTO SIMULATIONS.
YES. OKAY. THE ONE ON THE RIGHT BOTTOM? YES. CORRECT. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANTS ATTEMPTING TO USE THAT ENCLOSURE THAT IS MEANING THE SEA, CAVES AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF IS GOING TO BE TOTALLY ERADICATED AND ENCLOSED WITH THAT NEW SEA WALL THAT IS BEING BUILT.
SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS IN LOOKING AT THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRCASE ITSELF AND THE STRUCTURE, BECAUSE IT WAS THAT ONE PILLAR POST. IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXISTING SITUATION RIGHT NOW, HOLDING UP THE STAIRCASE ITSELF DOES THE CITY IN ITS AND I WOULD ASSUME THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY FOR STABILITY AND FOR, YOU KNOW, MEETING THE CODES THAT THAT STRUCTURE, BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH THE SHOT PUT ON THE WALLS AND THEY'RE REPAIRING THE STAIRCASE ITSELF, MEANING THE STAIRS THEMSELVES. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF? IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS. OBVIOUSLY IT MEETS CITY REQUIREMENTS, BUT COULD YOU CLARIFY FOR US WHAT THAT CITY REQUIREMENTS ARE? BECAUSE IT'S HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND HOW WHEN I LOOK AT THE CONDITION OF THAT EXISTING STRUCTURE, THAT IT MEETS THE CODE.
SO IT WAS ADEQUATELY, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANTLY ANALYZED AS FAR AS SAFETY.
THERE IS A CASE ON AT LEAST ONE CAISSON THAT'S SUPPORTING THIS STRUCTURE.
SO I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S, YOU KNOW, AT A SIGNIFICANT RISK FOR COLLAPSING.
BUT IF IT CONTINUED TO ERODE, IT COULD.
YEAH, BECAUSE IT JUST IT'S HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT THEY THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD TAKE THIS APPROACH TO, I GUESS YOU SAY REPAIR THE STAIRCASE AND HAVE THAT MEET CODE RATHER THAN JUST BASICALLY DEMOLISHING THE ENTIRE STAIRCASE AND BUILDING NEW.
OF COURSE IT GETS INTO ECONOMICS, I'M SURE, BUT.
CODES. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE GEOTECHNICAL PERSON.
YES. AND I MAY ADD ALSO THAT WE DID HAVE A THIRD PARTY REVIEWER REVIEW THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
AND IN FACT, I RECALL THE RESULTS THAT THEY EXCEEDED THE SAFETY RECOMMENDED SAFETY FACTORS.
THERE'S CERTAIN TIE BACKS THAT THEY USE TO INSTALL THIS SHOTCRETE WALL, AND THEY GO INTO THE BLUFF TO STABILIZE THE WALL, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WAS A DISCUSSION WITH COASTAL COMMISSION THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
SO I DO RECALL THAT THEY WERE EXCEEDING THE SAFETY FACTORS, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ESSENTIALLY.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
COULD THE IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE THE GEOTECHNICAL COME UP OR IS IT.
YEAH. LET'S FIRST ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. COMMISSIONER.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
HOW WILL ACCESS OF THIS LOCATION TO THE BEACH BE PROVIDED DURING CONSTRUCTION? IT'S. SO WE HAVE INCLUDED A CONDITION THAT THEY MAINTAIN ACCESS DURING BUSY PARTS OF THE YEAR, NAMELY WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS.
[01:35:09]
ADJACENT. NO.AND SO THAT'S THE NEXT QUESTION IS THIS IS BASICALLY BEING REBUILT IN KIND.
IS THAT KIND OF WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE? I WOULD DISAGREE, I WOULD DEFER ULTIMATELY TO THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
SO BASICALLY THEY'RE REBUILDING THE BLUFF, NOT NECESSARILY THE STAIR IN A SENSE.
SO MY QUESTION IS THERE SOME TYPE OF ACCESSIBILITY? I MEAN, IT'S A STAIR, SO WHEELCHAIR ACCESS, PEOPLE CAN'T USE IT.
IS THERE ANY KIND OF ACCOMMODATION FOR WHEELCHAIR ACCESS BEING CONSIDERED IN THIS PROJECT? NO, IT IS NOT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YES, MISS HARKER, A COUPLE QUESTIONS HERE.
THIS IS IN A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, AND I FORGET THE NAME OF IT.
TERRAMAR IS THAT THE NAME OF IT? I'M TALKING ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY THAT IS WEST OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND RIGHT BETWEEN THE CLIFFS AND CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.
IN THE TERRAMAR AREA, ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC STAIRWAYS OR TRAILS OR ANYTHING THAT TAKE PEOPLE DOWN THAT CLIFF AND GIVE THEM SAFE ACCESS TO THE BEACH.
NOT WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
SOME OF THE RESIDENTS MAY HAVE THEIR OWN PRIVATE ACCESS.
I'M NOT AWARE OFFHAND EXACTLY WHICH PROPERTIES.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS OR.
SO THIS IS THE ONLY ONE IN THE TERRAMAR COMMUNITY THAT THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF, RIGHT? YES. AND SO AS YOU GO NORTH FROM TERRAMAR, THE CLIFF KIND OF RECEDES AND THE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD IS FAIRLY LEVEL WITH THE SAND AREA THERE.
SO ALL THE WAY UP THERE UNTIL THERE'S NO MORE CLIFF AND IT RECEDES.
THE ONLY WAY TO GET DOWN THAT CLIFF IS THROUGH THIS STAIRWAY.
AM I IN THAT TERRAMAR AREA? PUBLICLY, YES. PUBLICLY.
AND IF YOU GO THE OTHER WAY, WHERE THERE'S A HUGE VACANT LOT, AND THEN IT DIPS DOWN WHERE THERE'S NO MORE BLUFF OR CLIFF, AND THEN IT GOES TO THE CAMPGROUND.
I DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER PUBLIC ACCESS ON THAT VACANT TOP PORTION TO GET DOWN TO THE BEACH.
AM I RIGHT ON THAT? THERE'S NO OTHER WAY.
I BELIEVE YOU'RE CORRECT. YES.
SO FOR A PERSON TO GET DOWN TO THE BEACH, BASICALLY THEY'VE GOT TO GO DOWN TO WHERE THE DIP IS IN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, WHERE IT'S FAIRLY LEVEL TO THE SAND JUST BEFORE THE CAMPGROUND, RIGHT. OKAY.
SO THAT TELLS ME THIS IS A REAL IMPORTANT, A REAL VITAL ACCESS POINT FOR THE PUBLIC.
OKAY. SECONDLY WE TALKED ABOUT SAND IMPACT ON SAND.
DOES STAFF BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED AND BUILT AS THEY PROPOSED, IS THIS GOING TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE VOLUME OF SAND IN AND AROUND THAT STAIRWAY? I THINK I'D LIKE TO DEFER TO THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TO EXPLAIN THAT THERE IS A VERY DETAILED MATHEMATICAL FORMULA INVOLVED IN MAKING THAT CALCULATION.
BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE GEOTECHNICAL EXPERT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS POINT OKAY.
THANK YOU. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME, SIR, FOR THE RECORD, GOOD AFTERNOON.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
I'M THE ENGINEER FOR THIS PROJECT.
I WORK FOR NGO AND MY ADDRESS IS 3890 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE 200, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA.
WE'VE HAD MANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS PROJECT, AND I WILL SAY THAT THIS IS A COLORFUL PROJECT.
IT HAS A COLORFUL HISTORY, AND WE'RE DEALING WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION.
AND I FIRST BECAME INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT IN 2012, WHEN I REPRESENTED DEAN GAETZ, WHEN HE WAS TRYING TO GET THE COASTAL COMMISSION TO ISSUE A PERMIT. AND THIS IS FOR A PROJECT THAT THE CITY ISSUED AN EMERGENCY PERMIT FOR IN 2008, ALLOWED THE CONSTRUCTION IN 2009, AND THEN IN
[01:40:08]
2010 APPROVED A FORMAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AS MISS HARKER INDICATED, IT WAS NOT UNTIL 2014 THAT THE COMMISSION FINALLY PUT A STAY ON THE PROJECT.BUT IT'S NOW BEEN A DECADE, AND THEY'VE GONE SILENT FOR A DECADE.
WE GOT TO GET WE GOT INVOLVED AGAIN IN 2021.
AND IF YOU HAVE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
IN 2021 BECAUSE THIS SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE STAIRWAY.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE TO THE LEFT OF THE STAIRWAY, THERE'S SEA CAVES EXTENDING TEN PLUS FEET BEYOND THE STAIRWAY UNDERNEATH THE PROPERTY AT 5327 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.
AND THIS IS KIND OF IMPORTANT BECAUSE IN 2021, WE HAD URBAN OUTDOORSMEN LIVING THERE.
AND INTERESTINGLY, IF YOU GO INTO THE SEA CAVE AND WHEN YOU WENT IN THERE, AT LEAST THE LAST TIME I WENT IN 2021, THERE WAS A SHELF THAT FORMED IN THE BEDROCK SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE THEIR BEDDING UP THERE AND EVEN AT HIGH TIDE WITH EXCURSIONS COMING IN, THEY STAY DRY.
BUT YOU HAD URBAN OUTDOORSMEN OUT THERE DOING THEIR THING BY 2021.
IT'S CORRODING. IT'S BASICALLY GONE.
WE'RE CONCERNED. AND YES, THERE IS A DRILLED PIER.
AND WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THE FOUNDATIONS.
NEXT SLIDE. SHANNON TALKED ABOUT THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINES.
AND THIS IS IT'S WE DEAL WITH THE COAST MISSION ALL THE TIME.
THEY'RE INTERESTED IN TRYING TO OBTAIN MORE JURISDICTION.
WE'VE DONE THREE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE SERVICE AT THE REQUEST OF THE COAST COMMISSION.
IT'S TODAY 47FT FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY.
THE SOVEREIGN TIDELANDS ARE MANAGED BY THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION.
ALTHOUGH IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET AT TIMES, BUT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PROVIDE A BETTER QUALITY RESOURCE AND THIS PROJECT IS IN FACT AN IMPORTANT AND AS YOU INDICATED, QUALITY ACCESS TO THE BEACH.
INTERESTINGLY JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO, COASTAL MISSION STAFF ASKED FOR A FULL SCOUR MTL ANALYSIS.
YES. WHAT IS A FULL SCOUR ANALYSIS? THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF SOLANA BEACH IN DECEMBER OF 1997, JUST SOUTH OF TIDE BEACH PARK AFTER THE 97 STORMS, EVERY GRAIN OF SAND WAS REMOVED FROM SOLANA BEACH.
THIS IS A FULLY SCOURED BEACH.
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A FULL SCOURED METAL ANALYSIS, YOU NEED THIS CONDITION SO YOU CAN MEASURE THE LOCATION OF THE ELEVATION OF THE MEAN HIGH TIDE, WHICH IS THE AVERAGE OF THE HIGH, HIGH AND LOW HIGH, WHICH ACCORDING TO NOAA, IS 4.6FT BELOW THE LOW WATER DATUM.
BUT THE REALITY IS THAT ASKING FOR A FULL SCOUR IMAGE IS A IS A CRAZY REQUEST, WHICH THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION DOES NOT AGREE WITH. YOU LOOK FOR THE AMBULATORY BOUNDARY ON NEXT SLIDE.
AND THIS IS JUST ANOTHER THIS IS FOR PERSPECTIVE.
AND YOU CAN SEE HE'S ABOUT SIX FEET TALL.
THE LEDGE ABOVE HIM IS ABOUT 12FT TALL.
BUT IN THE MIDDLE YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE BEDROCK DIPS DOWN.
THAT WAS THAT ELEVATION OF THAT, THAT SHELF ROCK.
THIS IS THE CONDITION THAT YOU EVALUATE THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE.
AND IT IS AN AMBULATORY LINE BECAUSE IN THE WINTER IT ERODES.
[01:45:05]
THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A LAND GRAB TRYING TO TAKE ADDITIONAL JURISDICTION.WE JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRWAY.
AND THIS WAS TAKEN IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THE STAIRWAY COLLAPSES.
NEXT SLIDE. THIS WAS TAKEN THIS PAST WEEKEND.
AND THE STAIRWAY IS FAILING AND IT'S DANGEROUS.
AND IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE MANY PEOPLE GET HURT.
AND I CAN ASSURE YOU, PEOPLE ARE TRIPPING UP AND DOWN, AND THESE TREADS HAVE TO BE REPAIRED.
HE HAS BEEN SINCE 2001 TRYING TO GET THIS PROJECT APPROVED.
WE'RE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL OF A PUBLIC ACCESS STAIRWAY, PAID FOR ENTIRELY BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY.
AND ARGUABLY THE COASTAL COMMISSION WANTS PUBLIC ACCESS.
THIS IS PUBLIC. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT SAFE, PUBLIC ACCESS.
AND I'D LIKE TO CLOSE WITH ONE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IN AUGUST 2ND, 2019, THERE WAS A TRUE TRAVESTY WHEN THREE WOMEN WERE BURIED AND DOCTOR DAVIS, A DENTIST IN ENCINITAS, SUED THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PRIMARILY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF BENSON.
LAST MONTH, THERE WAS FINAL DECISION MADE, AND THERE WAS A $32 MILLION JUDGMENT RENDERED.
$13 MILLION AGAINST THE CITY OF ENCINITAS.
MY CLIENT DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE THIS LIABILITY.
WE ARE ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL THIS EVENING OF A PROJECT THAT'S NEED TO BE APPROVED, NEED TO BE STABILIZED, AND WILL MAKE IT SAFE FOR THE PUBLIC TO USE THIS VERY NICE LITTLE POCKET BEACH.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER STINE, DO YOU WANT TO GO FIRST? YES I DO.
IF IT'S APPROVED ON THE VOLUME OF SAND IN AND AROUND THE AREA.
AND IN 1994, THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION DEVELOPED A SAND MITIGATION POLICY.
I ACTUALLY GAVE MISS HARKER A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL POLICY.
WE'VE DONE SAND MITIGATION FEE CALCULATIONS REQUIRED BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION, AND IT'S BEEN SO LONG, I FORGET THE ACTUAL VOLUME, BUT THEY'RE CHARGING $60 A YARD FOR SAND. AND AS I RECALL, IT'S AROUND 60 OR $70,000 FOR MITIGATION USING THE COASTAL COMMISSION SAND MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION.
SO THE TEST REALLY IS IF THE SEAWALL IF THE STAIRWAY DID NOT EXIST.
THAT EROSION OF THE BLUFF WOULD THEN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SAND TO THE BEACH.
SO WE'VE CALCULATED THAT WE'VE GIVEN IT TO THE CITY.
AND AS I STAND HERE BEFORE YOU, I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DOLLAR AMOUNT.
OKAY, SO AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION.
THE PROJECT IS APPROVED AND CONSTRUCTED.
IT WILL HAVE IT WILL HELP TO RETAIN THAT BLUFF WHICH WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SAND ON THE BEACH.
THE SOIL BEHIND THE TEN FOOT WIDE STAIRWAY.
YES. WILL STAY THERE BECAUSE WE'RE PROTECTING IT.
IT'S THAT VOLUME OF SAND THAT WOULD ERODE.
BUT FOR THE PRESENCE OF THE STAIRWAY THAT'S PROTECTED THAT WE'RE MITIGATING FOR.
OKAY. BUT THE IMPROVEMENTS ITSELF WILL NOT AFFECT IT.
THE STAIRWAY IS ALREADY THERE.
OKAY. THE STAIRWAY IS ALREADY.
SO THE COASTAL COMMISSION LOOKS AT A PROJECT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS BUILT IN THE EARLY 2000.
[01:50:03]
THEY WANT THEIR MITIGATION TODAY AS IF THE PROJECT DID NOT EXIST.SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS JUST REHABILITATING THE STAIRWAY, BUT WE'RE NOT PROVIDING ANY ADDITIONAL WELL, YOU CAN WALK UNDERNEATH THE STAIRWAY TODAY AND THE BLUFF IS ERODING LANDWARD TOWARDS CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.
THAT SOIL IS ERODING RIGHT NOW.
WE CALCULATED ASSUMING THE ENTIRE STAIRWAY IS GONE.
SO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE CUSTOMER WANTS TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE SOIL THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING PROTECTED, AT LEAST PARTIALLY PROTECTED BY THE EXISTING STAIRWAY, AND FULLY PROTECTED BY OUR IMPROVEMENTS.
OKAY. SO THEN YOU HAVE TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION REQUIRE YOU TO REPLENISH THAT.
THEN IF I CAN JUMP IN I MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP ANSWER YOUR QUESTION HERE.
SO CONDITION 18 IN THE RESOLUTION REQUIRES THE DEVELOPER TO EITHER REPLENISH THE BEACH WITH 85.1YD³ OF IMPORTED SAND, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THEY CAN PAY THE SAND MITIGATION FEE TO A GUARANTEED FUNDING SOURCE, WHICH IS THE SANDAG FEE THAT'S BEING MENTIONED HERE.
THAT SAND WOULD WORK ITS WAY SOUTH, BUT TYPICALLY THE FEE 85YD³ TIMES $60 A YARD WOULD GO TO THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AS A BASICALLY A BANK HOLDING UNTIL THERE'S ANOTHER BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT WHERE THE FUNDS WOULD BE SPENT.
BUT REGARDLESS, IT'S WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.
THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT FOR THE RECORD THAT IT IS ABOUT $5,000 FOR THAT FEE.
IT'S 85.1 TIMES 60, SO IT'S JUST OVER $5,000.
THE BLUFF, WHICH IS TO THE SOUTH OF THE STAIRCASE.
THE PROPERTY IS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
NO SHOT WALL IS BEING BUILT THERE WHATSOEVER.
HAD THERE EVER BEEN ANY DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN REGARD TO THAT TYPE OF AN IMPROVEMENT THERE ON THAT, THAT BLUFF? BECAUSE I'M THINKING TO MYSELF, YOU KNOW, AS THE EROSION MIGHT OCCUR AFTER YOU ENCLOSE THAT STAIRCASE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO. MAYBE, MAYBE ENGINEERS KNOW, BUT I DON'T KNOW AS TO WOULD THERE BE ANY MORE EROSION TO THE BLUFF TO THE SOUTH, WHICH IS STATE PROPERTY? SO THERE'S A LOT OF EROSION.
FIRST OFF, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE APPLICANT, MR. MASSMAN, ACTUALLY AGREED TO STABILIZE THE ENTIRE COVE AREA.
AND WE INITIALLY PROPOSED IN 2022 TO HAVE A TIDE BACK WALL TO STABILIZE THE ENTIRE COVE.
WE WORK WITH STATE PARK STAFF AND THEY SAID, WELL, THEY LIKED THE IDEA AND CONCEPT.
WE'VE DISCUSSED IT WITH STATE PARKS.
CONCEPTUALLY THEY APPROVE OF IT.
YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION BECAUSE THAT WAS A CONCERN OF MINE AS WELL.
YEAH. THANK YOU. IT WAS FASCINATING PRESENTATION.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS OR NOT, BUT IF WE STEP BACK AND LOOK AT THIS, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT MAKES SENSE, RIGHT? IT'S THE AS YOU STATED, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING PUBLIC ACCESS, PRIVATE LANDOWNERS PAYING FOR IT.
THE CITY BENEFITS FROM IT SEEMS TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION BENEFITS FROM IT.
SO IT KIND OF BEGS THE QUESTION IS, AND IF YOU FEEL FREE TO NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION, BUT WHAT IS THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S GOAL HERE IN OPPOSING THIS? OR COULD YOU CONJECTURE ON THAT IF THAT'S AN UNFAIR QUESTION TO ASK? I DON'T MEAN TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT IT DOES KIND OF BEG.
[01:55:02]
THE QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO GET AT HERE? SURE. YEAH.I MEAN, I DON'T MEAN TO PUT YOU IN A DIFFICULT SPOT, YOU KNOW? SO FROM 2012, WHEN WE WERE HIRED BY DEAN GOETZ TO 2014.
WE SPENT TWO YEARS SQUABBLING WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION OVER THE SEAWALL THAT YOU SEE TO THE LEFT OF THE STAIRWAY IN THE TWO LEFT PHOTOGRAPHS. THE CITY OF CARLSBAD APPROVED IT UNDER YOUR LCP AND IT IS IN AGREEMENT.
I'M SORRY. YOUR CITY ATTORNEY, CELIA BREWER, DID AN EXEMPLARY JOB OF DESCRIBING THE LAW.
THE CITY'S LCP MADE IT VERY CLEAR AND FRANKLY OUR THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING MR. MASSMAN NOW IS OF THE OPINION WHO, BY THE WAY, THIS IS STEVE KAUFMAN, WHO WORKED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AND WAS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE COASTAL COMMISSION, SITTING ON THE DAIS WITH THE COMMISSION.
HE KNOWS THEM WELL, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THE COMMISSION WAS STRUGGLING WITH WHAT TO DO BECAUSE CELIA BREWER, YOUR ATTORNEY, DEMONSTRATED THAT THE CITY WAS FULLY WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION AND IT IS WITHIN YOUR JURISDICTION, NOT THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S.
BUT TO BE HONEST, THE COASTAL COMMISSION IS STILL THEY WANT ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE.
TEN YEARS AFTER THEY REFUSED TO HEAR AFTER THE 2014 HEARING.
THAT'S THE REASON THEY'RE SQUABBLING OVER THIS.
SO THE ISSUE IS THEY'RE HAVING A PROBLEM.
THE SEA WALL NOT AND THEN THIS IS JUST A WAY TO GO AFTER THE SEA WALL.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND RESPONDING TO OUR QUESTIONS.
AND IT'S REGARDING THE SEA WALL.
IT SAID IT'S THE DESCRIPTION SAYS IT'S CONNECTED TO THE STAIR IS THAT SOMEHOW IT'S SO IS ARE THERE TWO RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE CONNECTED OR HOW IS IT HOW IS THE STAIR AND WHAT'S THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE STAIR TO THE SEAWALL AS YOU AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE UPPER LEFT PHOTOGRAPH, THE SEAWALL TOUCHES THE, THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STAIRWAY AND IT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL LATERAL SUPPORT.
AND FRANKLY, WITH ALL OF THE FAILURES THAT HAVE OCCURRED, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT ABSENT THE ABSENT THE WALL, THE STAIRWAY WOULD HAVE COLLAPSED BECAUSE THE STAIRWAY IS EXPOSED TO LARGE WAVE FORCES THAT THE SEAWALL HELPS RESIST.
SO AND THAT'S MY OTHER QUESTION.
INSTEAD OF REPAIRING, I GUESS, IS WHAT IS THE WORD THE ERODED AREAS THAT ARE COMPROMISING THE UNDERSIDE OF THE STAIR.
WAS IT EVER CONSIDERED TO CREATE THAT UPPER PORTION OF THE STAIR CANTILEVERED OVER THAT AREA AND LET SORT OF THE EROSION CONTINUE, AS OPPOSED TO BASICALLY DOING WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION KIND OF DOESN'T LOVE ON THE OTHER SIDE. IS IT WOULD IT HAVE BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY OR AN INVESTIGATION TO MAYBE EITHER CANTILEVER THAT ASPECT OF THE STAIR OVER OR BRIDGE IT SOMEHOW INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY EMBEDDING IT INTO MORE WALL? SO WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE GROWTH OF SEA CAVES.
WE'RE VERY CONCERNED THE SEA CAVE.
WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE GROWTH OF THE TWO SEA CAVES.
AND IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE.
AND IT'S FORTUNATE THAT YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS GOT OUT SAFELY.
BUT IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE SOMEONE IS HURT OR KILLED AND.
AND WHO'S LIABLE FOR THAT? YOU KNOW, ARGUABLY OUR CLIENT'S LIABLE.
AND HE'S FRANKLY VERY, VERY CONCERNED.
ONCE IT COLLAPSES AND KILLS SOMEONE, THEN THERE WILL BE A THREAT TO THE RESIDENCE.
AND THEN THE COASTAL ACT ALLOWS US TO PROTECT THAT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE LITMUS TEST IS THE THREAT, THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
[02:00:03]
BUT IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THE ROOF OF THAT MORE NORTHERLY SEA CAVE COLLAPSES.YOU DON'T WANT IT TO HURT SOMEONE.
BUT WHEN IT COLLAPSES, THEN IT STARTS TO UNDERMINE THE RESIDENCE.
IS THAT DOES THAT CREATE? I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S DOES IT NEED ADDITIONAL STABILIZATION, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE EROSION ISN'T GOING TO STOP REGARDLESS OF IF WE, YOU KNOW, PUT A SEAWALL UP OR NOT.
RIGHT. LET ME SPEAK TO COUNCILMEMBER MERZ'S COMMENT BEFORE I STOOD UP HERE.
AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
WE'RE PROPOSING THAT IF WE REMOVE ALL OF THE SAND AND EXPOSE THE BEDROCK SHORE PLATFORM THAT EXISTS AT AROUND ELEVATION ZERO, WE WANT TO EXPOSE ALL OF THE BEDROCK AND THEN BACKFILL UNDERNEATH THE STAIRWAY WITH 500 PSI CONCRETE.
IT'S LIKE IT'S A TWO AND A HALF SACK MIX, 200 POUND, 202 SACKS OF CONCRETE.
WE'RE BUILDING UP TO AND SUPPORTING THE ENTIRE STAIRWAY.
THEY WROTE ABOUT CONCRETE 500 PSI STILL ERODIBLE.
WE WANT TO HAVE AN EROSION RESISTANT SURFACE.
THE COASTAL COMMISSION REQUIRES THAT ALL THE SEAWALLS AND WE PROBABLY DESIGNED 100 SEAWALLS.
THEY HAVE TO BE NATURALIZED AND COLORED.
SO THIS ENABLES A VERY NICELY ATTRACTIVE FINISHED PRODUCT AND IT'S STABLE.
EXCUSE ME, ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
WE'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR? NO, CHAIR THERE IS NOT.
OKAY. MISS HARKER, DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED? NO. I THINK THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND APPLICANT DID A GREAT JOB.
THANK YOU. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE STAFF? GOOD. SEEING NONE, LET'S OPEN OUR COMMISSION DISCUSSION.
THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DID ANSWER A NUMBER OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD AND HIS I GUESS YOU COULD SAY EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE STABILITY OF THE STAIRCASE BELOW, WHICH I APPRECIATE.
THAT WAS VERY, VERY HELPFUL FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE STABILITY OF IT.
SO IT ACTUALLY REALLY IS SERVING PURPOSES FOR ONE STAIRCASE STABILITY AS TO HAVING THAT MUCH CONCRETE AND BUILDING A BASICALLY A MAJOR CONCRETE STRUCTURE UNDER THE STAIRCASE AS, AS WELL AS, OF COURSE, THE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE MADE TO THE PROJECT TO IMPROVE.
I GUESS YOU COULD SAY STABILITY TO THE WALL ITSELF.
SO I THINK HE'S ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE.
I AM ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT AND I'LL EXPLAIN MY REASONS WHY.
IN DOING MY HOMEWORK FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING, I REFRESH MY MEMORY ON THE TERMS OF THE OF THE COASTAL ACT, PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE AND THE THEME AND THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ACCOMPLISH.
AND PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 3,001.5 TALKS ABOUT THE UNDERLYING FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS FOR THE COASTAL ZONE. C SAYS AND I QUOTE.
WELL, THIS PARTICULAR STAIRWAY IS A CRITICAL MEANS FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC ACCESS.
IN FACT, THE ONLY MEANS FOR ABOUT A MILE FOR PEOPLE THAT TO ENJOY THE BEACH, IT'S WE'RE I THINK WE SHOULD BE VERY APPRECIATIVE AND SUPPORTIVE OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER FOR ALLOWING THE PUBLIC TO USE THIS PARTICULAR STAIRWAY, BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER STAIRWAYS ALONG THIS AREA THAT PROVIDE SAFE BEACH ACCESS, NOT IN THE TERRAMAR AREA AND NOT IN THE AREA SOUTH OF TERRAMAR ALONG THAT VACANT PROPERTY.
I DIDN'T SEE ANY PLACE THAT SOMEONE COULD SAFELY.
[02:05:04]
MAYBE THEY TRIED TO GO DOWN ANYWAY, BUT I THINK THEY WOULD GO DOWN THAT STEEP CLIFF AT THEIR PERIL.YOU'VE HEARD ME TALK A NUMBER OF TIMES.
EVERY TIME WE HAVE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
WELL, WE HAVE ISSUES OF ACCESS.
WELL, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS ITSELF ACCESS OKAY.
MOST OF THE TIME THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS FAR AWAY FROM THE SHORELINE ITSELF.
THIS IS RIGHT ON THE SHORELINE.
SO I SAY THAT IT'S IN THE SPIRIT OF THE COASTAL ACT THAT WE PROMOTE PUBLIC ACCESS.
AND WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD IS THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS AREA FOR A LONG DISTANCE BOTH TO THE SOUTH AND THE NORTH, AND WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PRESERVE THAT.
I'M ALSO STRUCK BY THE FACT THAT THE CITY, IN ITS CONDITIONS, HAS MANDATED THAT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE NOT ONLY MAINTAIN IT, BUT THEY ASSUME LIABILITY IN THE CASE OF ACCIDENTS.
THAT'S IF SOMEBODY FALLS OR, GOD FORBID, THIS PARTICULAR STAIRWAY COLLAPSES AT SOME POINT, WHICH THE GEOTECHNICAL EXPERT HAS TESTIFIED, IT COULD HAPPEN. WE HOPE IT DOESN'T, BUT IT COULD.
SO I'M JUST SAYING, HOW CAN WE ASK THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO ASSUME THE LIABILITY AND MAINTAIN IT? IF WE DON'T GIVE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER THE TOOLS TO DO SO, THIS IS A CRITICAL TOOL TO DO SO.
WE'VE SEEN BY THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE LAST 13 MONTHS WE'VE SEEN SUBSTANTIAL DETERIORATION.
IT'S NOT JUST A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT'S DETERIORATED SUBSTANTIALLY.
AND MY CONCERN IS AND I SHARED THE GEOTECHNICAL EXPERTS CONCERN THAT IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING WITH NATURE DOING WHAT NATURE HAS AND TIDES COMING IN AND OUT, WE COULD SEE A COLLAPSE THERE AND A TRAGEDY.
SOMEBODY COULD HURT OR GOD FORBID, BEING KILLED.
SO THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED ASAP.
AND I'M SO APPRECIATIVE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COME FORWARD TO, TO MAKE THIS APPLICATION, AND I AM ENTHUSIASTIC IN SUPPORT OF IT.
IT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND IT'S CRITICAL FOR PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS IN THAT AREA.
SO I AM A I'M A PLUS IN SUPPORT OF THIS ONE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? THANK YOU.
I'M NOT AGAINST REPAIRING THE STAIR.
IT'S SORT OF EVIDENCE FROM THIS STAIR.
NOW YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE PIER AND HOW IT'S DETERIORATED.
BUT BEFORE YOU REALLY COULDN'T SEE THAT.
AND SO IT MAYBE WASN'T AS MUCH OF A CONCERN.
I AM A LITTLE NERVOUS THAT YOU KNOW, AND NO DISRESPECT TO THE OWNER, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA THAT THIS BLUFF ISN'T GOING TO GO AWAY EVENTUALLY IS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, A, YOU KNOW MAYBE NOT IN MY LIFETIME, BUT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THAT THAT'S THE CHANCE WE TAKE WITH ALL OF THESE PROJECTS.
THE DIFFICULTY THAT I SEE IS YOU DO THIS RESTABILIZATION OF THIS AREA.
IT WORKS FOR A WHILE, BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER STORMS AND WHATEVER THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING STILL MAY NOT MITIGATE WHAT THE COAST IS LIKELY TO OR POTENTIALLY GOING TO DO.
NOW IT'S ANYBODY. SO YOU KNOW, WHICH ALSO BEGS THE QUESTION OF WHY ISN'T IT ACCESSIBLE? WHY ISN'T THERE ANY KIND OF ACCESSIBLE ACCOMMODATION FOR WHEELCHAIRS? SO THAT'S REALLY THE CONCERN I HAVE IS I, YOU KNOW, IF YOU COVER IT ALL UP, EROSION IS STILL GOING TO HAPPEN.
BUT I CAN'T REALLY SAY THAT REPAIRING THE STAIRS IS A BAD, BAD SITUATION.
I THINK IT'S NECESSARY FOR THE RESIDENTS.
[02:10:02]
YES, I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE PROJECT.I THINK MISS HARKER DID A GREAT PRESENTATION AND ALSO VERY MUCH ENJOYED MR. CRAMPTON'S PRESENTATION.
EXCELLENT JOB EXPLAINING, ESPECIALLY COMING FROM MANY YEARS AGO IN A GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND.
I FOUND IT VERY INTERESTING AND WELL PUT TOGETHER.
SO I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE PROJECT.
AND KIND OF AN INTERESTING ASIDE, MY UNCLE OWNED A PROPERTY UP IN SEA RANCH, AND I ACTUALLY GOT TO MEET THE WIDOW OF THE DEVELOPER WHO DID THE PROJECT THAT TRIGGERED THE COASTAL ACT, AND SHE TOLD ME THE WHOLE STORY OF HOW THEY DEVELOPED IT.
BECAUSE THAT'S THAT WAS THE START OF THE COASTAL ACT AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION.
SO IT'S KIND OF A COOL EXPERIENCE.
SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROJECT.
BUT I THOUGHT I'D SHARE THAT LITTLE STORY.
SO BUT I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE PROJECT AND I'LL BE VOTING FOR IT.
GREAT. SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I TOO SUPPORT THE PROJECT.
YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS EROSION IS LIKE RUST.
IT NEVER SLEEPS AND GOD WILLING, IT'D BE NICE IF WE COULD PREDICT THE FUTURE IF THIS FIX WOULD WORK.
I THINK REASONABLE MINDS ARE IN SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT ON THIS, SO I WOULD FULLY SUPPORT THIS.
AND IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, I'D LIKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION.
WE MAY WE HAVE A SECOND, COMMISSIONER MEENES.
THE RESOLUTION PASSES FIVE-ZERO.
COMMISSIONERS KAMENJARIN, STINE, LAFFERTY, MEENES AND MERZ HAVE VOTED TO APPROVE THIS.
COMMISSIONER DANNA AND HUBINGER ARE ABSENT.
WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE A REPORT FROM ANY COMMISSIONER? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. HAPPY HOLIDAYS.
THANK YOU. IS THERE A REPORT FROM THE CITY PLANNER?
[CITY PLANNER REPORT]
YES. PREVIOUSLY, IT WAS REPORTED THAT WE WOULD BE TENTATIVELY CANCELING THE DECEMBER 18TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.BUT I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT WE DO HAVE BUSINESS.
SO WE WILL BE CONVENING ON DECEMBER 18TH.
OKAY. ANYTHING FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY? NOTHING FROM ME. I HOPE EVERYONE HAD A GREAT THANKSGIVING AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS.
GREAT. AND I WANT TO THANK AND CONGRATULATE STAFF AGAIN.
LAST WEEK I GOT THEM ON TUESDAY WHICH WAS SHOULD BE HERALDED I MEAN.
SO THANK STAFF AND THE CITY FOR THAT.
MEETING'S ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.