[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:08]
GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE FEBRUARY 5TH, 2025 MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.
. NO, NO, NO, I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT NO. COMMISSIONER MERZ, PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT. READY? READY. BEGIN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
THANK. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM FOR THE APPROVALS ARE THE
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 15TH, 2025 MEETING. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE JANUARY 15TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. MR. CHAIR? YES, WE DID NOTICE ONE TYPO UNDER THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.SO IF THAT COULD BE INCORPORATED INTO ANY MOTION FOR APPROVAL, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? DO I HAVE A MOTION? OH, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. I JUST HAD A QUESTION.
IS THAT APPROPRIATE NOW, OR SHOULD WE DO THE MOTION FIRST? I WOULD GO AHEAD. IT'S UP TO THE CHAIR. BUT IF IT'S A QUESTION, WE CAN TAKE IT NOW.
TAKE IT NOW. OKAY. THE QUESTION WOULD BE ON PAGE THREE.
IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC AWARENESS AND INPUT.
I WONDERED WHAT WHEN THAT MIGHT COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO THAT WAS THE REALLY ONLY QUESTION. IT'S NOT THAT IT'S WRONG.
IT'S JUST COULD WE IS THERE A DATE THAT MAYBE WE COULD AIM FOR? WHAT I WOULD PROBABLY RECOMMEND IN THIS CASE, SINCE THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT, THAT WE ASK FOR A PRESENTATION, JUST MAYBE ON SEQUA OR THE NEW PROCESS, AS THAT HAS NOW BEEN APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE NOTES THAT PLANNER LARDY HAD SUGGESTED.
EXCELLENT. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. COMMISSIONER STINE.
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STINE.
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 15TH, 2025 MEETING.
7-0. THANK YOU. OKAY. THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT. WE WILL REQUIRE A REQUEST TO SPEAK REFORM TO ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS.
REQUEST TO SPEAK. FORMS MUST BE TURNED IN TO THE MINUTES CLERK.
THIS WILL ALLOW SPEAKER TIME TO MANAGE IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER.
ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES UNLESS TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.
SPEAKERS MAY NOT GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANOTHER PERSON.
GROUP TIME WILL BE PERMITTED FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
THE REPRESENTATIVE MUST IDENTIFY THE GROUP AND AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS OF THAT GROUP MUST BE PRESENT.
THE BROWN ACT ALLOWS ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
PLEASE TREAT OTHERS WITH COURTESY, CIVILITY AND RESPECT.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED, UP TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES.
NO ACTION CAN OCCUR ON THESE ITEMS. MINUTES. CLERK.
[00:05:01]
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS FOR NON LISTED ITEMS? NO, VICE CHAIR, WE DO NOT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.EVERYONE WILL DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN.
I WILL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES THE COMMISSION WILL BE FOLLOWING FOR THIS EVENING'S PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPENED. STAFF WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.
PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CLARIFY QUESTIONS ON STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
THE APPLICANTS MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION AND RESPOND TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.
THEY'LL HAVE TEN MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.
AFTER ALL, THOSE WANTING TO SPEAK HAVE DONE SO, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE CLOSED.
APPLICANT AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO ISSUES OR QUESTIONS RAISED.
THE COMMISSIONERS WILL THEN DISCUSS THE ITEM AND THEN VOTE.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND GO TO ITEM NUMBER ONE, AND I WILL INDICATE TO HEAR AND ASK
[1. PALOMAR AIRPORT AND AVIARA OFFICE PROJECT - SDP 2023-0022/CDP 2023-0034]
MR. LARDY IS IF HE WOULD PRESIDE, IF HE WOULD GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER ONE.SURE, ABSOLUTELY. I CAN DO THAT. BEFORE I DO THAT, I'LL ASK FOR EX PARTE.
BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I DO WANT TO INTRODUCE.
WE HAVE POONAM PRAHLAD. SHE IS JOINING US AS AN OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE ADVISING US WHILE THEY GO THROUGH RECRUITMENT TO REPLACE THE FULL TIME ATTORNEY. SO THANK YOU FOR HAVING HER JOIN US AND ANY QUESTIONS SHE'LL BE HAPPY TO HELP WITH.
WELCOME. AND IN FACT, WE DO WANT TO INTRODUCE ALSO OUR NEW COMMISSIONER MR. BURROWS. WELCOME ABOARD. WE APPRECIATE HAVING YOU HERE.
OKAY, MR. LARDY, SO IF WE COULD HAVE EX PARTE.
I'M SORRY. EX PARTE. ANY EX PARTE ON ITEM NUMBER ONE.
YES. I MEAN, IN THE SENSE THAT I'VE BEEN TO THAT LOCATION HUNDREDS OF TIMES.
WAS BY IT TODAY. COMMISSIONER BURROWS. COMMISSIONER FOSTER.
COMMISSIONER MERZ. YEAH, I VISITED THE SITE. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY BOUGHT CHRISTMAS TREES AND PUMPKINS THERE, I THINK. RIGHT. I THINK WE ALL HAVE. COMMISSIONER STINE.
YES, I'VE DRIVEN BY THERE PROBABLY 100 OR MORE TIMES, AND I DROVE BY THERE SLOWLY AND PARK TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT THIS AFTERNOON JUST BEFORE COMING TO THE COMMISSION MEETING.
THANK YOU. AND I ALSO VISITED THE SITE AS WELL.
MR. LARDY, NOW YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU. GREAT.
THANK YOU. HERE TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION IS ASSOCIATE PLANNER LAUREN IZAGUIRRE.
AND JOINING HER AT THE STAFF TABLE IS LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING MANAGER JASON GELDART.
GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. ITEM ONE ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IS THE PALOMAR AVIARA OFFICE PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN AVIARA PARKWAY.
THE OPEN SPACE PORTION OF THE LOT IS WITHIN THE LAUREL TREE LANE PRESERVE, WHICH IS PROTECTED BY A CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND FUNCTIONS AS A 70 FOOT WIDE BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROJECT SITE AND THE ENCINAS CREEK TO THE SOUTH.
THE LAUREL TREE LANE PRESERVE IS MANAGED BY THE SAN DIEGO HABITAT CONSERVANCY.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MELLOW TWO SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND IS WITHIN THE APPEALABLE AREA OF THE COASTAL ZONE AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PALOMAR AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA. IN SEPTEMBER 2007, THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A PREVIOUS PROJECT ON THE SITE, THE KELLY JRM OFFICE PROJECT, WHICH WAS A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 85,000 SQUARE FOOT, THREE STORY, 43 FOOT TALL OFFICE BUILDING ON THE PROJECT SITE.
THE SOUTH QUARTER OF THE PROPERTY, CONTAINING THE ENCINAS CREEK AND ITS ASSOCIATED SENSITIVE HABITAT AND WETLAND BUFFER, WERE LEFT UNDISTURBED. BY THIS TIME, THE ADJACENT PROJECT, THE BILTMORE 2020 FOUR HOUR FITNESS HAD ALREADY RECEIVED APPROVALS FROM THE WILDLIFE AGENCIES FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS OF THE LAUREL TREE LANE CREEK CROSSING AND FOR THE HABITAT RESTORATION OF THE CREEK AREA.
THESE CREEK AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN FULLY COMPLETED.
[00:10:08]
MRP. THE CURRENT PROJECT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A REQUEST FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 62,600 SQUARE FOOT, THREE STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING.THE BUILDING WILL BE 42FT TALL AND CONTAIN 50 CONTAIN A 50 FOOT, 52 FOOT TALL ARCHITECTURAL TOWER, A SURFACE PARKING LOT WITH 316 SPACES AND 2702FT² OF OUTDOOR EATING AREAS.
ALL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT, WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH PORTION OF THE OF THE LOT ENTIRELY OUTSIDE OF THE OPEN SPACE AREA. NO CHANGES OR IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED TO THE SOUTH QUARTER OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE.
AL UCP. THE UCP IDENTIFIES OFFICE BUILDINGS, INCLUDING MEDICAL OFFICES, WITHIN SAFETY ZONE SIX, WHICH ARE SHOWN IN YELLOW ON THIS SLIDE AS COMPATIBLE WITH AIRPORT USES AND CONDITIONALLY COMPATIBLE IN SAFETY ZONES TWO.
SHOWN IN PURPLE AND FOUR. SHOWN IN ORANGE. OFFICES ARE ALLOWED IN SAFETY ZONES TWO AND FOUR ONLY IF THE DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH EITHER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO OR THE MAXIMUM INTENSITY AND LOT COVERAGES AS SPECIFIED IN THE UCP.
THE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LCP AIRSPACE PROTECTION SERVICES, BECAUSE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE, INCLUDING THE ARCHITECTURAL TOWER, IS BELOW THE HEIGHT THAT REQUIRES NOTIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE FAA.
DESPITE THIS, THE PROJECT NOTIFIED THE FAA WHO REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND DETERMINED THAT THE DESIGN WOULD NOT EXCEED OBSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND WOULD NOT RESULT IN A HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION. THE PROPOSED BUILDING HAS A VARIETY OF WALL ANGLES AND OFFSETS TO PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL RELIEF.
THE BUILDING ALSO INCORPORATES VERTICAL WALL FEATURES AND PARAPETS WHICH RESEMBLE A MODERN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, INCLUDING A 52 FOOT TALL ARCHITECTURAL TOWER.
THE PROJECT INCLUDES SURFACE PARKING, A TRASH ENCLOSURE, AND ENCLOSURE AND MECHANICAL ENCLOSURE.
THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES LANDSCAPING AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING.
THE SITE PERIMETER AND WITHIN THE PARKING LOT.
HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL ELEVATIONS AND RENDERINGS SHOWING THE GENERATOR.
MECHANICAL ENCLOSURE. AND THEN JUST A FEW MORE RENDERINGS.
CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162 THROUGH 15164. SET FORTH THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, IF ANY, TO BE COMPLETED WHEN THERE IS A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND OR PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR, COVERING THE PROJECT FOR WHICH A SUBSEQUENT DISCRETIONARY ACTION IS REQUIRED.
IF AN EXAMINING FUTURE ACTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA, THE CITY FINDS NO NEW EFFECTS COULD OCCUR OR NO NEW MITIGATION MEASURES WOULD BE REQUIRED OTHER THAN THOSE ANALYZED AND OR REQUIRED IN THE PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT, AND THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE.
THE CITY CAN APPROVE THE ACTIVITY AS BEING WITHIN THE SCOPE COVERED BY THIS PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT, AND NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A CEQA ANALYSIS WHICH SHOWS THAT THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUS KELLY JRM OFFICE PROJECT ND, WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN 2007 BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE ANALYSIS DETERMINED THAT THE UPDATE TO THE DETAILS OF THE REQUEST, REQUIRING ADDITIONAL, FURTHER DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL BEFORE YOU TODAY, WOULD NOT RESULT IN NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OVER AND ABOVE THOSE DISCLOSED IN THE PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT. THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT.
[00:15:07]
THE PALOMAR RIVIERA OFFICE PROJECT WILL MEET MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXPECTED TO INCREASE STREET PARKING.THE TDM MANAGEMENT. THE TDM STRATEGIES ARE STANDARDS FOR THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, IN WHICH THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH AND IS NOT A REQUIREMENT UNDER CEQA. THE PROJECT PROVIDED A DRAFT TDM PLAN FOR THE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW AND IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN AN APPROVED AND IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN APPROVAL OF A FINAL TDM PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT.
ONE COMMENT FROM A NEARBY OWNER STATED THAT THEY WERE NOT PROPERLY NOTIFIED OF THE PROJECT, ALTHOUGH CITY COUNCIL POLICY 84, WHICH OUTLINES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PUBLIC OUTREACH REQUIREMENTS, WERE RECENTLY UPDATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED IN JULY OF 2023 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE UPDATED POLICY AND IS SUBJECT TO THE PREVIOUS POLICY.
AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, THE APPLICANT WAS REQUIRED TO SEND OUT AN EARLY PUBLIC NOTICE, POST A SIGN ON THE PROJECT SITE, AND COMPLETE ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH. THE APPLICANT SENT OUT A NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 600 FOOT RADIUS AND OCCUPANTS WITHIN A 100 FOOT RADIUS POSTED A SIGN ON THE SITE AND HELD A COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETING ON JANUARY 29TH, 2024.
THE ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH REPORT IS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT AS EXHIBIT THREE.
IN ADDITION TO THE PUBLIC OUTREACH COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT, THE CITY SENT OUT TWO NOTICES OF PUBLIC HEARING ONE ON JANUARY 2ND, 2025, FOR THE CONTINUED HEARING, THE CONTINUED PC HEARING ON JANUARY 15TH AND ONE ON JANUARY 23RD.
FOR TODAY'S HEARING, PURSUANT TO CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 2154 060.
STAFF HAS REVIEWED AND VERIFIED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN QUESTION. PROPERTY OWNER IN QUESTION WAS SENT BOTH NOTICES OF PUBLIC HEARING. SOME COMMENTS RECEIVED LISTED CONCERNS WITH RELYING ON THE PREVIOUS PROJECTS AND AS IT RELATES TO TRANSPORTATION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
A NEW TRAFFIC STUDY USING UPDATED TRAFFIC DATA WAS PROVIDED FOR THE PROJECT.
THE UPDATED STUDY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE STUDY AREA, INTERSECTIONS AND STREET SEGMENTS WOULD MEET THE ESTABLISHED, ESTABLISHED LEVEL OF SERVICE PERFORMANCE STANDARD OF D OR BETTER DURING PEAK HOURS.
THEREFORE, NO NEW SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS WERE IDENTIFIED.
NO ADDITIONAL PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES ARE NEEDED, AND THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT AS IT RELATES TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC. TWO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS LISTED CONCERNS THAT THE PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT ANALYZED A GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING.
WHILE THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING.
THE CONCERNS RAISED WERE THAT A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING WILL GENERATE MORE AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS THAN A GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING DUE TO PATIENTS TRAVELING TO AND FROM THE SITE, AND AS A RESULT, THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE IN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CAUSED BY THE PROJECT.
AT THE TIME OF THE APPROVAL, THE PREVIOUS OFFICE PROJECT AT THE TIME OF THE APPROVAL OF THE PREVIOUS OFFICE PROJECT, THE DEVELOPMENT AREA WAS ZONED PLANNED INDUSTRIAL QUALIFIED OVERLAY DEVELOPMENT ZONE, WHICH IS PMQ FOR SHORT AND WAS WITHIN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION. THE PMQ PORTION OF THE LOT WAS LATER REZONED TO OFFICE, AND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGED FROM PI TO OFFICE AS PART OF THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. IN JULY 2015, THE CITY ALSO UPDATED UPDATE ALSO ADOPTED A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN THAT OUTLINES ACTIONS THAT THE CITY WILL UNDERTAKE TO ACHIEVE ITS PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF STATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTIONS.
A PROJECT'S INCREMENTAL CONTRIBUTION TO CUMULATIVE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION EFFECTS MAY BE DETERMINED NOT TO BE CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERED IF IT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CAP.
AS THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH PROJECTIONS UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CAP.
[00:20:03]
AND IT'S WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT.WHEN AN EIR OR NHD IS ADOPTED FOR A PROJECT, ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, AS OUTLINED IN SECTION 151662, MUST BE MADE IN ORDER TO REQUIRE A SUBSEQUENT DOCUMENT.
THESE FINDINGS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE WHOLE RECORD.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN DETERMINE A SUBSEQUENT DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED.
HOWEVER, THEY WOULD NEED TO SPECIFY TO STAFF WHAT THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS TO EITHER REMAND BACK TO STAFF OR PREPARE RESOLUTIONS FOR DENIAL THAT AN APPLICANT COULD THEN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE FINDINGS ARE AS SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE AND AS FOLLOWED.
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES ARE PROPOSED IN THE PROJECT, WHICH REQUIRE MAJOR REVISIONS OF THE PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT DUE TO THE INVOLVEMENT OF NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OR A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE SEVERITY OF PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS.
TWO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES OCCUR WITH RESPECT TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WITH RESPECT TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE PROJECT IS UNDERTAKEN, WHICH WILL REQUIRE A MAJOR REVISION OF THE PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT DUE TO THE INVOLVEMENT OF NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OR A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE SEVERITY OF PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS.
OR THREE NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE, WHICH WAS NOT KNOWN AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN KNOWN WITH THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE AT THE TIME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS CERTIFIED OR AS COMPLETE, OR THE END WAS ADOPTED, SHOWS THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE ONE OR MORE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS NOT DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
MITIGATION MEASURES OR ALTERNATIVES, WHICH ARE CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE ANALYZED IN THE PREVIOUS DOCUMENT, WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE ONE OR MORE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT THE PROJECT PROPONENT DECLINED TO ADOPT MITIGATION MEASURES OR ALTERNATIVES.
STAFF IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE CORRESPONDENCE.
THE PROJECT WAS ANALYZED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ALL RELEVANT CITY CODES AND STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND THE PALOMAR AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN.
THE FULL ANALYSIS IS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT AS EXHIBIT FOUR.
AS SUCH, FOR THE REASONS SPECIFIED HERE AND IN THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO AVAILABLE ALONG WITH THEIR CONSULTANT.
THANK YOU. EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. TRULY APPRECIATE.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANKS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE IMAGE OF THE PREVIOUS PROJECT.
SO. 43FT, 51 PROJECTIONS. SO. AND WE'RE PROPOSING WHAT'S THE PROPOSAL FOR THE HEIGHT WITH THIS ONE? 42FT TALL WITH 52 FOOT ARCHITECTURAL TOWER.
SO IT'S ALMOST THE SAME. CORRECT. OKAY. HOW MANY PARKING SPACES? THIS THE CURRENT PROJECT BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE PREVIOUS PROJECT.
I'LL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK. I JUST NEED A MOMENT TO DO THAT.
AND WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN OUR CODE BETWEEN OFFICE AND MEDICAL OFFICE? HOW DO WE DIFFERENTIATE THAT? DO WE DIFFERENTIATE IT? WE DIFFERENTIATE IT WITH RESPECT TO THE TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THEY DO BOTH HAVE DIFFERENT TRIP GENERATIONS.
YOU'LL FIND A LOT OF CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS OFFICES.
THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THEY NOT BE RETAIL IN NATURE.
SO PRIMARILY EMPLOYEES NOT BE IN OFFICE WHERE THEY'RE BRINGING IN RETAIL TYPE PEOPLE.
THE OFFICE ZONE IS A BROADER USE THAT DOES ALLOW OFFICES LIKE A MEDICAL OFFICE AND OTHER TYPES OF THINGS THAT ARE MORE RETAIL IN NATURE, SUCH AS OTHER MEDICAL TYPE USES, CHIROPRACTORS, THAT KIND OF THING, AS WELL AS OTHER RETAIL USES IN THE OFFICE ZONE.
[00:25:03]
SO TO UNDERSTAND THIS THE PRIOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FROM 2007, WHICH IS ALMOST 20 YEARS OLD, WAS ADOPTED BEFORE OUR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE IN 2015, WHICH CHANGED THE ZONING.IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. AND IT ALSO CAME INTO PLAY BEFORE OUR CLIMATE ACTION REQUIREMENTS.
IS THAT ALSO CORRECT? THAT IS ALSO CORRECT. SO AND IT SAYS THAT NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE, ONE OR MORE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS COULD BE SEVERE.
SO I GUESS MY CONCERN IS THAT WE'RE USING A 20 YEAR OLD DOCUMENT THAT ISN'T EVALUATED FOR THE SAME PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THEM IN 2007, AND WE'VE ADOPTED OUR REVAMPED OUR GENERAL PLAN AND OUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN. SO AND THE LOT HAS BEEN VACANT FOR NOW, 20 MORE YEARS.
SO I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW CAN WE USE THE SAME OLD INFORMATION AND WHAT HAVE HAS THIS NEW PROJECT BROUGHT TO US THAT COULD HELP US UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN THE 2007 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEN WE HAVE ALL THESE NEW THINGS HAPPENING? WHAT OUR ANALYSIS IS, WAS BASED UPON THE IMPACTS RELATED TO THE REVISED PROJECT.
AND SO IT LOOKED AT WHAT IS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONE AND WENT THROUGH EACH OF THOSE TOPIC AREAS THAT WERE STUDIED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OR, SORRY, THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND OUR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF IT, THAT THERE WAS NOT NEW SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION OR NEW IMPACT THAT IS UP FOR THE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DECIDE.
THIS IS A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ASSOCIATED WITH APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE AND THEIR CONSULTANT IF THEY WANT TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
AND THEN I'LL ALSO ASK IF CITY ATTORNEY REPRESENTATIVE WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
I HAVE ONE MORE QUICK QUESTION. SO ON THE FRONT PAGE IT TALKS ABOUT THE CEQA DETERMINATION AND IT'S OTHER BASED ON THAT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE MITIGATING THE MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROGRAM FROM 2007.
AND IT ALSO SAYS THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY.
SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE MAKE A DECISION BECAUSE THIS IS SAYING WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT THIS 2007 REPORT, BUT THEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
SO AND BECAUSE ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE CHANGED IN THAT 20 YEAR TIME FRAME I 'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE VOTE ON SOMETHING FROM 2007. I GUESS THAT'S REALLY THE UPSHOT OF THE QUESTION.
SO IT IS TOUGH TO IMAGINE THAT WE WOULD RELY ON SOMETHING THAT'S OLDER.
BUT CEQA IS WRITTEN AND IS THE INTENT OF CEQA IS THAT ONCE AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED AND IN THIS CASE THE 2007 MND, UNLESS THERE ARE PROJECT REVISIONS OR CHANGES THAT MEET SOME OF THESE SECTION 15162 REQUIREMENTS THE LAW IS THAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO RELY ON THAT PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
SO WHAT YOU ALL, AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DO IS YOU NEED TO DETERMINE IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THESE CHANGES OR REVISIONS FALL WITHIN ONE OF THESE CATEGORIES OF SECTION 15162 A, B OR C AND AND THAT'S WHEN IT COMES INTO PLAY IS IF THERE WERE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, THERE'S NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE.
THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO DETERMINE.
AND IF YOU FIND THAT THESE PROJECT CHANGES OR REVISIONS FALL WITHIN ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES, THEN YOU WOULD YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY THAT I DON'T YOU WOULD REMAND BACK TO STAFF TO SAY, WE DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN MAKE THESE FINDINGS, AND YOU CAN ASK FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS TO BE DONE.
DOES THAT HELP? I THINK THAT HELPS. THANK YOU.
AND THERE'S LET'S SEE. SO I ASKED THE OFFICE.
I ASKED THAT THERE WAS ONE OTHER QUESTION. COMMISSIONER STINE, YOU SHOULD ASK YOUR QUESTIONS.
AND IF YOU DON'T MIND COMING BACK TO ME, I APPRECIATE IT.
[00:30:02]
WELL, COMMISSIONER, WE'LL COME BACK. COMMISSIONER STINE.COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, JUST TO ANSWER YOUR PREVIOUS QUESTION REGARDING PARKING.
SO THE PREVIOUS OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSED 340 SPACES.
IT WAS SUBJECT TO A PARKING RATIO OF ONE SPACE FOR 250FT² OF GROSS FLOOR AREA.
THIS CURRENT OFFICE BUILDING, MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING, IS PROPOSING 313 SPACES AND IS SUBJECT TO A PARKING RATIO OF ONE SPACE PER 200FT² OF GROSS FLOOR AREA.
THE PARKING RATIO IS ONE SPACE PER 200FT². COMMISSIONER STINE.
THANK YOU. IN FACT, I ALSO SHARED SOME OF COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY'S CONCERNS, AND I WANTED TO DRILL DOWN INTO THE CEQA ISSUE BECAUSE THIS IS A PROJECT WHERE THE COMMISSION, ACCORDING TO THE STAFF REPORT, IS MAKING AN ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.
OKAY. SO IN LIGHT OF THAT, I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT WITH IT TOO.
IT'S OBVIOUS THAT SINCE 2007, A LOT HAS CHANGED IN TERMS OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AND STANDARDS, GREENHOUSE GASES AND A WHOLE PLETHORA OF THINGS.
BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIRMING THE CEQA ANALYSIS HERE, WE'RE RELYING UPON THE OLD PROJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECK. CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT.
AND ARE WE FOCUSING, MA'AM, ON THE IMPACT ISSUES? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE WE SAYING WE'RE COMPARING THE OLD PROJECT WHICH WHICH WAS A 62,600 SQUARE FOOT, THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH THE. EXCUSE ME, THAT'S THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
I GOT THAT REVERSED. OKAY. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
THIS ONE IS NOT NEARLY AS LARGE. IT'S 62,600FT², ABOUT THE SAME HEIGHT.
BOTH OF THEM THREE STORIES. SO I'M TRYING TO BREAK IT DOWN INTO KIND OF NON-TECHNICAL SPEAK HERE.
ARE WE SAYING THAT WE REALLY COMPARE THE TWO? AND BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING DRAMATICALLY MORE INTENSE OR DIFFERENT ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAN THE OLD ONE, THEREFORE THERE'S NOTHING NEW THAT WE HAVE TO DO A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.
IS IS THAT KIND OF WHAT WE'RE SAYING, OR AM I MISSING THE POINT? SO IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE SLIDE IS UP THERE, 15162, YOU ARE CORRECT.
AND YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS CURRENT PROJECT.
AND ARE THESE CURRENT? IS THE CURRENT PROJECT, ARE THE EFFECTS AND IMPACTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT? DO THEY MEET ANY ONE OF THE THREE OF 15162? AND THAT'S SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS YOU WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT.
SO ONE SAYS SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES ARE PROPOSED IN THE PROJECT THAT WILL REQUIRE MAJOR REVISIONS OF THE PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT DUE TO THE INVOLVEMENT OF NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OR A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE SEVERITY OR OF PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS.
OR TWO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES OCCUR WITH RESPECT TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN, WHICH WILL REQUIRE MAJOR REVISIONS OF THE OF THE PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT DUE TO THE INVOLVEMENT OF NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE. AND THEN AND THEN THREE NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE WHICH HAS NOT WHICH WAS NOT KNOWN AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN KNOWN WITH THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE AT THE TIME OF THE PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
SO YOU WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE TO SATISFY IF YOU IF YOU ARE, YOU DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER YOU CAN MAKE THIS FINDING. YOU WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THESE AND SEE IF THE EFFECTS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPACTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU ARE SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION OR MAJOR REVISIONS OR ANY OF THESE THINGS THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH.
AND IN DOING SO, WE'RE REALLY COMPARING THE TWO PROJECTS, ARE WE NOT CORRECT? OKAY. AND IN THAT RESPECT, I'M SEEING THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSIDERABLY SMALLER THAN THE 2007 PROJECT IN OVERALL
[00:35:02]
SIZE. BUT I'M SEEING A DIFFERENCE. THE OTHER PROJECT WAS A GENERAL OFFICE AND THIS IS MEDICAL OFFICES.SO MY QUESTION FOR FOR A CITY PLANNER WOULD BE HOW, IF AT ALL, DOES OUR CODES, OUR CITY STANDARDS, DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN MEDICAL OFFICE IMPACTS AND JUST STANDARD GENERAL OFFICE IMPACTS? IS THERE A DIFFERENCE AND IF SO, WHAT IS IT? OUR CODES DO HAVE A DIFFERENCE IN PRIMARILY IN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS BECAUSE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS FOR ANY PROJECT, WE LOOK AT FIRST WHAT'S SORT OF THE BULK AND SCALE.
AND AS YOU'VE ALLUDED TO, THE SIZE OF IT IS SLIGHTLY SMALLER.
THE HEIGHT IS A LITTLE BIGGER, THE PARKING IS ABOUT THE SAME.
AND SO IN OUR STUDY THAT WE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE FINDING, THE RECOMMENDED FINDING OF CONSISTENCY, WE DID LOOK AT WHAT IS THE DIFFERENT TRIP GENERATION NUMBER.
03,100 I APOLOGIZE 3,100. SO APPROXIMATELY DOUBLE.
BUT OUR TRAFFIC STUDY LOOKED AT THAT AND HOW IT WOULD GO THROUGH THE NETWORK, LOOKING AT REAL COUNTS FROM TODAY'S SITUATION AND HOW THAT WOULD ALSO IMPACT PEAK HOUR TRIPS, BECAUSE AN OFFICE DOES AFFECT PEAK HOUR TRIPS DIFFERENTLY THAN A MEDICAL OFFICE, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE CUSTOMERS THROUGHOUT THE DAY INSTEAD OF EMPLOYEES ARRIVING IN THE MORNING AND THE EVENING. OUR STUDY LOOKED AT THAT AND DID COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO IMPACT CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS FINDINGS OF THAT TRAFFIC STUDY, AND THAT'S INCLUDED IN OUR EXHIBIT.
8 AND THERE IS A TRAFFIC PAGE SUMMARY. I'LL FIND THE PAGE NUMBER PAGE IN THE STAFF REPORT, IF YOU COULD.
MIC] IT IS PAGE [INAUDIBLE]. WELL, IT'S 35 OF THAT DOCUMENT.
THERE IS A PAGE STAMP OVER. YEAH, IT'S 35 OF THAT ATTACHMENT.
SO THAT'S OPERATIONALLY HOW THE PROJECTS CHANGE.
AND WHAT WE FOCUSED OUR REVIEW ON IS OPERATIONALLY THE PROPOSED SCOPE.
DO WE THINK IT MEETS THESE FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION? AND BASED ON OUR EVALUATION, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT IT DOES NOT.
AND LIKELY WHAT WE WOULD LOOK AT IS, WOULD THIS BE A PROJECT THAT'S ELIGIBLE FOR SORT OF THE NEXT PHASE OF, OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, WHICH IS A DOCUMENT CALLED AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUS DOCUMENT? AN ADDENDUM COULD BE DONE TO A PREVIOUS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR AN EIR THAT IS SORT OF ADDRESSED AS MINOR CHANGES.
IT'S A DIFFERENT SECTION OF CEQA RELATED TO HOW YOU TEAR OFF OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS.
OKAY, LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PROJECT HERE, WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE STAFF REPORT, IS GOING TO GENERATE ALMOST TWICE THE NUMBER OF DAILY TRIPS AS THE PREVIOUS PROBLEM.
DO I UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT? WE'RE SAYING THERE'S NO NEW INFORMATION.
[00:40:03]
BUT I THINK MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR THIS TOPIC AREA, WE'RE SAYING THERE'S NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS UNDER THE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD OF D OR BETTER THAT IS APPLIED AND WAS APPLIED TO THE 2007 PROJECT.OKAY. SO AM I UNDERSTAND THEN EVEN THOUGH THE IMPACTS ARE CONSIDERABLY HIGHER, CONSIDERABLY HIGHER IN TERMS OF THE DAILY TRIPS, WE'RE SAYING IT DOESN'T TRIGGER ANY TRAFFIC IMPACTS, CONGESTION, IF YOU WILL, THAT WOULD EXCEED THE D STANDARD THAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD UNDER THE OLD PROJECT. IS THAT IS THAT FAIR? I THINK WHAT WE WOULD SAY IS THAT THE THE NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED IS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER.
AND BY SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER, I MEAN JUST THE NUMERIC VALUE.
BUT TRANSPORTATION IN 2007 AND UP AND UP UNTIL THE YEAR 2020 WAS REGULATED BY LEVEL OF SERVICE, WHICH IS A LEVEL OF TRANSPORTATION DELAY. AND SO WHEN YOU TAKE THOSE TRIPS AND PUT THEM INTO THE NETWORK, WHAT IS THE CAPACITY ON AVIARA? WHAT IS THE CAPACITY ON PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD? IS IT IMPACTING THOSE DIFFERENTLY THAN THE PREVIOUS STUDY AND OUR STUDY AND OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT, NO, IT IS NOT HAVING A DIFFERENT IMPACT. IF THERE WAS A DIFFERENT TRAFFIC NUMBER AND THERE WAS AN IMPACT, IT COULD BE A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. OR IF THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL THEME PARK, I'LL SAY BUILT.
I MEAN, LEGOLAND WAS UP AND OPERATIONAL AT THE TIME, BUT IF THERE WAS, IF THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENING IN THE NETWORK THAT WAS CHANGING HOW THOSE ROADS OPERATE, IT COULD CHANGE THINGS. BUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, WHILE IT IS A 20 YEAR PERIOD OF TIME, EIR IS AN NDS DO NOT EXPIRE. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON TO GO TEAR OFF OF DOCUMENTS AT THAT AGE OR POTENTIALLY EVEN OLDER.
AND SO WHEN WE FOCUSED ON THE IMPACTS, THAT WAS OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THERE'S NO NEW IMPACT.
SO EVEN WITH THE LARGER NUMBER OF DAILY TRIPS BY QUITE A BIT, IT STILL DOESN'T LEAD TO A CONGESTION LEVEL OF CONGESTION THAT WOULD GET US INTO FROM A D TO, IS THERE AN F? IS THAT THE.
IS THAT THE MOST CONGESTED STANDARD? THERE IS AN F.
YES. OKAY. SO WE HAVEN'T GONE WE'RE STILL IN THE BALLPARK.
STILL PASSING GRADE. WE HAVEN'T FAILED. RIGHT? YES. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE REASON. OKAY. BECAUSE I WAS TROUBLED BY THIS.
BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO ME THAT YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT MEDICAL.
YES IS DIFFERENT AND IT IS GENERATING MORE, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO REDUCE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE DRIVING, FOR EXAMPLE, ON AVIARA, WHICH IS HEAVILY, PARTICULARLY AROUND RUSH HOUR TIME.
IT'S NOT GONE THAT FAR, RIGHT? YES. THAT IS OUR CONCLUSION.
OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I HAVE A REAL QUICK QUESTION, MR. LARDY THEN. SO FOR EXAMPLE, I'M JUST USING AS AN EXAMPLE.
BUT TAKING THAT NUMBER, IF THIS WERE AN OFFICE BUILDING VERSUS A MEDICAL BUILDING, AND IT STILL HAD THE 30 OR THE 3,100 OR 31,000 NUMBER, IF IT WERE WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME OF THE DAY BEING SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIC TIMES, LIKE AN OFFICE BUILDING OF 8 A.M.
AND 5 P.M. VERSUS IT BEING SPREAD OUT ALL DAY, THAT'S REALLY THE DIFFERENTIATION.
IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER IF THEY HAD ANY COMMENT ON THAT, AND I DO BELIEVE THEY ARE HERE. I WOULD SAY THAT IF AN OFFICE BUILDING THAT GENERATED APPROXIMATELY DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF TRIPS WOULD ALSO BE APPROXIMATELY DOUBLE THE SIZE, WHICH WOULD LIKELY REQUIRE MORE PARKING, MAYBE SOME SORT OF STRUCTURED PARKING. SO I THINK IT IS DIFFICULT TO TO SORT OF RUN THAT ANALOGY OUT.
YOUR NAME AND THE FIRM THAT YOU WORK FOR, RAMON LOPEZ, LLG ENGINEERS.
THANK YOU. YEAH, WE PREPARED THE UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THIS PROJECT.
AND THE ORIGINAL STUDY FROM 2007. WE DIDN'T JUST TAKE THOSE NUMBERS.
WE DID ALL NEW TRAFFIC COUNTS. WE TOOK ACCOUNT OF ALL THE NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NEXT FEW YEARS THAT ARE IN THE PIPELINE THAT ARE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE, CUMULATIVE PROJECTS. SO WE UPDATED ALL OF THAT TO CURRENT CONDITIONS.
YEAH. AND I THINK I CAN ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE COLOR ON AS FAR AS HOW THE DAILY TRIPS CAN BE SO SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER, BUT WE'RE NOT SEEING A NEW IMPACT. THE DAILY TRIPS, ADT, THAT'S TRIPS THAT OCCUR OVER A 24 HOUR PERIOD.
[00:45:03]
SO THE WHOLE DAY WHAT WE LOOK AT IN THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING WORLD, PARTICULARLY IN UNDER THE LEVEL OF SERVICE PARADIGM THAT WE'RE USING HERE, IS THE AM AND PM PEAK PERIOD. SO THOSE ARE THE MOST CONGESTED PERIODS, RUSH HOUR.NOT THAT OFFICE IS LIKELY TO HAVE MUCH TRIPS AT 8 P.M., BUT SAY A TRIP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY IS NOT LIKELY TO HAVE AS MUCH OF EFFECT ON THE SYSTEM AS ONE AT 8 A.M. OR 5 P.M.. AND SO AS, AS MR. LARDY MENTIONED, THE MEDICAL OFFICE TRIPS ARE, THEIR HIGHER, BUT THEY'RE MUCH MORE SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
A SMALLER PROPORTION OF THEM OCCUR DURING THOSE CRITICAL AM AND PM PEAK PERIODS.
SO THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE IN FACT, WITH THIS TRIP THIS PROJECT AS PROPOSED, THE TOTAL TRIPS DURING THE MORNING RUSH HOUR ARE ACTUALLY LOWER THAN THE OFFICE BUILDING THAT WAS STUDIED IN 2007, THE PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN THE PM PERIOD, THEY ARE HIGHER, BUT IT'S MUCH, MUCH LESS THAN DOUBLE.
SO WE'VE WE PLUGGED ALL THAT IN AND ANALYZED IT WITH CURRENT TRAFFIC NUMBERS AND THAT WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE NO NEW IMPACTS UNDER THE LEVEL OF SERVICE. SO YOU'RE SO YOU SAY THE NUMBER DURING THE EVENING HOURS OR LATE AFTERNOON HOURS IS LARGER.
I DO HAVE THE HAVE THE NUMBERS HERE. FOR THE ORIGINAL OFFICE BUILDING, THERE WAS 221 TRIPS ESTIMATED DURING THE EVENING HOURS. FOR THE PROPOSED IT'S 344. SO LESS THAN DOUBLE.
YOU KNOW, IF THE DIRECTIONAL PEAK, IF YOU WILL, THAT'S A FACTOR IN THE ANALYSIS AS WELL.
SO THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT MORE EVEN IN AND OUT AS WELL.
SURE. SO, SO WHEN YOU DID THIS SO YOU'RE COMPARING THE STUDY FROM THE LAST TIME TO THE STUDY THIS TIME, RIGHT. YOU DID A TRAFFIC STUDY BEFORE IN 2007? CORRECT. IT WASN'T LG THAT DID IT YEAH. AND WERE ALL THE ROADS THE SAME. SO. I MEAN I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH THE THIS NETWORK WAS BUILT OUT.
WE, YOU KNOW, WE CONFIRMED ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE ROADS, RIGHT? YOU CONFIRMED THE CURRENT CONDITION. CONDITIONS.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE THE THE ROADS, THE LANES, THE LIGHTS, ALL THOSE.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT YOU DO IS YOU WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU YOU SORT OF WAIT THE RUSH HOUR MORE THAN THE THE MIDDLE HOURS. RIGHT? AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT THAT SKEWS THE NUMBERS BECAUSE THERE'S NOT AS MUCH ACTIVITY WITH THIS BUILDING IN THE RUSH HOURS. THERE'S MORE SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
SO IT'S MORE OF A BALANCED FLOW OF TRAFFIC AS COMPARED TO MAYBE SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE WORK RELATED BUILDING. IS THAT FAIR? THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY, THANKS.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. APPRECIATE IT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, COMMISSIONER. OKAY. EXCELLENT. DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO MAKE ANY PRESENTATION? AND WHEN YOU GET UP THERE, IF YOU COULD PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND FIRM. THANK YOU. YEAH. I AM NOT THE APPLICANT.
I AM THE CEQA CONSULTANT. MY NAME IS KIM BERANEK WITH BERANEK CONSULTING GROUP.
WE ASSISTED STAFF WITH PREPARING THE CEQA DOCUMENT, AND I THOUGHT I'D JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE QUICK KIND OF EXPLANATION, BECAUSE IT DOES SOUND REALLY COMPLICATED WHAT WE'VE DONE.
IT'S NOT REALLY AS MUCH LIKE AN APPLES TO ORANGES COMPARISON AS YOU SUGGESTED.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO AND WHEN WE WHEN WE KIND OF LAYER ON MORE UPDATED INFO TO THE POINT OF COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, DID YO KNOW A LOT OF THINGS HAVE HAPPENED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS IN CARLSBAD.
AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID WAS HAVE AN UPDATED BASELINE ENVIRONMENT, ESTABLISHED, AN UPDATED TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS COMPLETED. AND FROM THOSE THOSE TWO UPDATES, THERE WAS AN ANALYSIS THAT SHOWED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM THRESHOLD
[00:50:10]
OR GOAL OF LEVEL SERVICE D WOULD BE WOULD BE ACHIEVED.AND THIS ALSO SAYS LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. LIKEWISE WITH REGARD TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS PROJECT, WE DIDN'T JUST GO BACK TO THE OLD GENERAL PLAN.
WE ACTUALLY APPLIED THE NEW GENERAL PLAN AND ITS RELATED POLICIES TO THE NEW PROJECT.
SO AGAIN, LAST TIME THERE WASN'T A LAND USE IMPACT PER SE AS IT RELATED TO GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE.
AND THAT'S FINE. THAT'S THE BAR THAT WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF MEASURE THIS NEW PROJECT WITH.
AND AS PART OF THAT, THE PROJECT HAS A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST.
THE PROJECT'S DESIGN HAS INCORPORATED THE NECESSARY INGREDIENTS IN THAT CHECKLIST TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WOULDN'T CAUSE, DESPITE THE INCREASE IN MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS, IT WOULDN'T INCREASE YOUR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ABOVE LEVELS THAT ARE SUBSTANTIAL OR CAUSE A NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. SO FOR EACH OF THE DIFFERENT 18 TOPICS IN THIS CEQA CHECKLIST, I KNOW THIS IS REALLY TECHNICAL, SO I APOLOGIZE, BUT WE'VE ACTUALLY GONE BACK AND REALLY PUT ON TODAY'S LENS AND LOOKED AT IT AS IT RELATES TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT WHAT WAS SAID LAST TIME AND DO WE FIT WITHIN THAT BOX? AND THE ANSWER IS YEAH WE DO. SO IT SEEMS KIND OF COUNTERINTUITIVE.
WE HAVE ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH AND BROUGHT IT CURRENT AND VALIDATED THE PRIOR ANALYSIS.
SO I JUST I HOPE THAT MAKES SOME SENSE. BUT THAT THAT WAS WHAT WE DID.
WE DON'T JUST TAKE THE OLD AND SAY LOOKS GOOD.
SO WE JUST BRING IT TO TODAY'S STANDARDS. COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE? COMMISSIONER STINE. THANK YOU. YES, IT IS A HIGHLY TECHNICAL THING AND WE WANT TO AVOID OUR EYES GLAZING OVER HERE BECAUSE IT GETS VERY, VERY TECHNICAL. I WANT TO TRY TO BREAK IT DOWN INTO A NON-TECHNICAL.
IF WE SET ASIDE THE CATEGORIES FOR A MINUTE, I KNOW WE HAVE CATEGORIES.
IS IT A THROUGH F? IS IT. WE HAVE IT A? A THROUGH W.
A THROUGH D OKAY A IS OH YOU MEAN IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC.
YES. A THROUGH F YES. JUST LIKE SCHOOL GETTING YOUR GRADES AT SCHOOL.
YES. YOU DON'T WANT TO FAIL D IS NOT GREAT, BUT IT'S NOT FAILING.
OKAY. IF WE SET THE LETTER GRADES ASIDE, ARE WE STILL SAYING THAT BECAUSE MEDICAL OFFICE IS GOING TO GENERATE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF NEW DAILY TRIPS? IN DOING SO, SETTING ASIDE THE D RATING OR THE LETTERS AT ALL.
BUT BUT AREN'T WE ALSO SAYING, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THEY'RE GOING TO BE MORE CARS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE MORE VEHICLES THAT WOULD BE GENERATED FROM THIS PROJECT THAN THE OLD PROJECT THAT ARE GOING TO BE ON AVIARA PARKWAY.
RIGHT. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. A LOT MORE. RIGHT? WELL, YEAH.
I MEAN, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1,700 AND 3,100, BUT I CAN'T DO THAT MATH.
RIGHT. CORRECT. BUT BUT IT DOESN'T TRIGGER YOUR THRESHOLD WITH REGARD TO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
SO YES, IT DEFINITELY, DEFINITELY DISCLOSED THAT THERE'S MORE TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO BE CIRCULATING AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT, BUT IT DOESN'T RESULT IN A NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
OKAY. BUT IT'S STILL TRAFFIC IS TRAFFIC, BUT IT'S MORE INTENSE.
BUT THE THRESHOLD IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T, BECAUSE BEFORE IT WAS THERE WAS NO IMPACT.
AND THIS TIME THERE'S NO YOU KNOW, THERE ISN'T A MITIGATION OBLIGATION.
SO SO IT'S SO IT IS APPLES AND APPLES IN THAT SENSE.
CORRECT. IT'S THE SAME THRESHOLD THAT'S ACHIEVED. OKAY THANKS.
COMMISSIONER MERZ. SO, I MEAN, FROM A, YOU KNOW, THE INTERESTING LITTLE BACK OF THE NAPKIN MATH I DID WAS, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT THE OLD BUILDING WAS 85,000 AND 340 PARKING SPACES.
AND IN OUR, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL THING, WE LOOK AT THAT'S A PARKING RATIO OF 4 PER 1,000, 4 SPACES PER 1000FT², RIGHT? THE NEW PROJECT IS 313 ON 62 600FT². THAT'S FIVE PER 1,000.
[00:55:03]
SO JUST AT FACE VALUE, 5 PER 1,000 ON MEDICAL.THAT SOUNDS RIGHT TO ME. 4 PER 1,000 SOUNDS RIGHT ON AN OFFICE BUILDING.
I THINK TO IF I UNDERSTAND, JUST IN VERY GENERAL QUALITATIVE TERMS TO WHAT COMMISSIONER STINE WAS SAYING, IS THAT, YEAH, THE NUMBER OF TRIPS GO UP, BUT A TRIP AT 10:00, 11:00, 1:00, 2:00, IN AND OUT.
THAT'S TOTAL TRIPS ARE HIGHER. BUT THE THE BUILDING, THE 85,000 HAD 340 PARKING SPACES.
THAT'S A LOT OF TRIPS. RIGHT? 8:00 AND RIGHT 5:00.
YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. SURE. COMMISSIONER. OH, SORRY.
HUBINGER. YEAH. WELL, FLOW IS IMPORTANT HERE, I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT, RIGHT? YEAH. I MEAN, I MEAN, ABSOLUTE NUMBERS. THERE'S MORE TRIPS, BUT WE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT THE FLOW OF THE TRIPS WILL BE SPREAD OUT MORE THROUGHOUT THE DAY, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, YOUR DOWNTIME FOR TRAFFIC IS BETWEEN 10 AND 3.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE NUMBERS ARE MISLEADING WHEN THEY'RE BUNCHED UP AS TO TOTALS.
YEAH. THE TOTAL. YEAH, EXACTLY. BUT IT IS DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT MORE EVENLY.
WELL, AND THE OTHER THING TOO IS WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT ANY ONE SPECIFIC TIME, LET'S SAY IT HAPPENS TO BE 11:00 IN THE MORNING, THAT NUMBER AT 11:00 IN THE MORNING, WITH THE NUMBER OF TRIPS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR NEW PROJECT, MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT THE SAME OR LESS AT 11:00 IN THE IN THE MORNING.
SO IT IS SPREAD OUT. SO THE IMPACT IS AT ANY SPECIFIC TIME.
IS IT GREATER THAN NOT? IT IS. BUT YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT AS CAPACITY.
SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE BASELINE CONDITIONS SO YOU KNOW AT 11:00 IN THE MORNING, THERE'S WAY LESS PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, ON THE ROAD. SO THERE'S MORE CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE ADDITIONAL TRIPS.
YOU. PERFECT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
SO THERE'S ONE EXIT, RIGHT? SO THERE'S NO OTHER EXIT. SO WE'RE NOT PROVIDING ANY KIND OF RELIEF ON, IT'S ALL GOING TO GO TO THAT CUL DE SAC.
IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S THE DESIGN.
YEAH. WAS THAT THE WAY THE OLD PROJECT WAS? YEAH.
OKAY. SO I GUESS THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE DESIGN IS SIGNIFICANT AND THAT DOES SEEM TO CREATE A CONCERN, AND I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY A RHETORICAL QUESTION, BUT WHY NOT JUST FILE AN AMENDMENT IF YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT? WELL, I THINK OUR THE WAY WE STUDY IT UNDER CEQA IS THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED IN THE PRIOR DOCUMENT COMPARED TO THE CONCLUSIONS THAT WE EXPECT TO RECEIVE NOW.
SO WE'RE KIND OF SO WE'RE COMPARING KIND OF THE SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION.
THERE'S JUST NOT IMPACT. SO I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
YOU KNOW, THE CAPACITY OF LAUREL TREE WILL BE AFFECTED.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY'VE STUDIED, BUT THE THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS COMPLETED CONCLUDED THAT THE THE CITY'S GOALS FOR LEVEL OF SERVICE AT INTERSECTIONS DURING PEAK HOUR WOULD BE MET AND NOT BUSTED BY THIS PROJECT.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FOSTER. YEAH, JUST A OKAY.
SO MY INTERPRETATION, JUST LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS, JUST LIKE COMMISSIONER MERZ DID.
CORRECT. STAFF. YES. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN THE PARKING RATIO INCREASED FROM APPROXIMATELY COMMISSIONER MERZ SAYS 4, MY CALCULATIONS 3.72. BUT YEAH, THE SAME THING.
FOSTER SPEAK. SO SO THE. OKAY, SO THE PARKING RATIO INCREASE FROM 3.72 TO 5.1.
PARKING RATIO INCREASED BY 1.5 APPROXIMATELY.
BUT BUT THEN IT'S NOT COMING IN THROUGH, YOU KNOW, RUSH HOUR TIMES.
IT'S SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT THE DAY. OKAY. THAT'S IT, THAT'S IT.
I'M JUST TALKING OUT LOUD, I GUESS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.
THANKS. COMMISSIONER MERZ. SORRY FOR SPEAKING OUT OF TURN THERE.
[01:00:08]
SO IT'S 92% OF IT. SO THE ONE WAS AND THEN SO YEAH.SO I TOOK 73%. IT'S 73.6%. SO BUT YEAH THE TOTAL IT'S 92% OF WHAT THE OLD ONE WAS BUT DIFFERENT USE.
SO YEAH. SORRY AGAIN FOR SPEAKING OUT OF TURN THERE.
ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATIONS FROM STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME? OKAY, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MADAM CLERK, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS? NO, VICE CHAIR, THERE'S NOT. OKAY. THAT BEING THE CASE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT WERE STATED THAT WAS RAISED BY COMMISSIONERS? NO, NOT AT THIS TIME. BUT IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THEM.
MR. GELDERT. YOU SEEM TO BE KIND OF. WELL MOVING AROUND A LITTLE BIT THERE.
THERE ARE AND YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE THRESHOLDS THAT WE HAVE THE A, B, C, D, E AND F, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. AND THAT'S DEFINED.
AND THAT'S HOW YOU DETERMINE WHETHER THERE'S AN IMPACT OR NOT.
SO THERE MAY BE MORE VEHICLES ON THE ROAD, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE'S AN IMPACT.
AND I JUST WANT TO REITERATE WHAT WAS SAID BEFORE.
OKAY. COMMISSIONER STINE. MR. CHAIR, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE APPLICANT MAKE A PRESENTATION.
I WAS JUST THINKING WE MAY HAVE JUMPED THE GUN A LITTLE BIT.
MY NAME IS JAMES MCCANN. I'M A PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE APPLICANT.
I GUESS FIRST THING I'LL SAY IS APOLOGIES FOR THE CHRISTMAS TREES AND PUMPKIN PATCHES GOING AWAY, IF THAT IF THE PROJECT ENDS UP GOING FORWARD.
BECAUSE WE ALL DO LIKE SHOPPING FOR THOSE THERE.
I THINK MOST EVERYTHING'S BEEN SAID. THANK YOU, LAUREN, FOR THE FOR THE PRESENTATION.
THEY'RE THE TWO THINGS I WANT TO TOUCH ON ARE THE PROJECTS CONDITIONED UPON A FEW PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, ONE OF WHICH IS A SIDEWALK THAT WILL BE BUILDING ALONG PALOMAR PORT ROAD.
AND THEN THE SECOND THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS THAT YOU KNOW, AS I'M SURE YOU ALL ARE AWARE, THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY THERE.
AND THEORETICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE SERVICES THAT WILL SERVICE, YOU KNOW, CARLSBAD AS A WHOLE, BUT ALSO THOSE RESIDENTS NEARBY THAT MAY NOT BE GETTING IN CARS THAT MAY BE WALKING TO THE PROJECT.
SO THERE'S THERE'S SOME BENEFITS IN THAT REGARD.
MY NAME IS RAY FOX. MY COMPANY IS RAYMOND FOX ASSOCIATES.
SO WE KIND OF WOULD BE CONSIDERED EXPERTS MAYBE AT THIS PROJECT.
SO I'M I'LL BE THE PRETTY PICTURE GUY LESS THAN THE DETAIL.
BUT I DID WANT TO EMPHASIZE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN SPEAKING ABOUT ALREADY.
AND THAT IS WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU HAD A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT AT 5:00 OR 4:30 OR 8:00 OR 8:30? SO JUST EMPHASIZE WHAT WE'VE ALL BEEN SAYING IS ALL THAT TRAFFIC COMES BETWEEN 9:00 AND 03:30.
SO, SO JUST TO SPEAK BACK TO THAT SAME IMPACT ISSUE.
SO OTHER THAN THAT, I'M JUST HERE TO MAYBE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THE BUILDING. AGAIN, WE I THINK THE EMPHASIS, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, IS IT'S A MUCH SMALLER BUILDING.
THE PARKING RATIO IS BASED ON MEDICAL, WHICH IS MORE.
I THINK WHAT WE ANTICIPATE WHICH WILL FACTOR INTO THIS PROJECT PROBABLY EVENTUALLY IS WE'VE DONE A LOT OF STUDIES AS THE ARCHITECTURAL FIRM DOING HEALTH CARE, WHAT KIND OF SPECIALTIES WE'LL HAVE THERE. HIGH, HIGH IMPACT SPECIALTIES LIKE PEDIATRICS PROBABLY WON'T BE THERE.
WE'LL HAVE A SURGERY CENTER MAYBE, WHICH IS VERY LOW IMPACT.
SO THOUGH WE HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARD OF 5 SPACES PER 1,000.
I THINK SHE'S THE ONE WHO RAISED HER HAND.
COMMISSIONER STINE. THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE CLARIFICATIONS IN TERMS OF SPREADING THE USE.
WELL, MY EXPERIENCE, IN FACT, RECENT EXPERIENCES.
I'VE HAD MANY MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS, ACTUALLY, AT 8:00.
SOME OF THEM ARE EARLY. OKAY. YOU'RE A LUCKY MAN.
I KNOW, BECAUSE IF IT'S LATER IN THE DAY, YOU ALWAYS WAIT.
RIGHT. OKAY. SO S O YES. SO I HAVE TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE WITH YOU THERE.
[01:05:05]
BECAUSE IF, IF THE IF THEY HAVE IN THIS ASSUMING THE PROJECT IS APPROVED AND GETS BUILT, IT SEEMS TO ME, IF MY EXPERIENCE IS ANY INDICATION, THERE MIGHT BE SOME AT 8:00, AND THAT'S KIND OF DURING THE RUSH HOUR.ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A 5:00 APPOINTMENT? PROBABLY.
IS IT GOING TO BE A 7:30 ONE? PROBABLY. YES. THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE NOT IN THAT TIMEFRAME.
I GET THAT, I DO. I'M NOT TRYING TO QUIBBLE. THE OTHER THING, WAS THERE EVER A CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO HAVING ANOTHER ACCESS POINT, ENTRY AND ENTRY POINT ALONG AVIARA PARKWAY? WE ONLY HAVE THE ONE.
CITY STAFF, CITY STAFF WOULD NOT ALLOW. THAT WAS NOT OKAY BECAUSE THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE BECAUSE THIS LAUREL TREE LANE IS GOING TO BE RIGHT NOW THERE ARE YOU KNOW, THERE ARE APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND YOU HAVE TO GO THERE TO GO TO THE 24 HOUR FITNESS.
THERE'S A LOT OF USE OF THAT SMALL CUL DE SAC RIGHT NOW.
AND WITH THIS MEDICAL BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO ADD EVEN ADDITIONAL USE.
SO IT IS WHERE IT IS BECAUSE OF THE STAFF AND INPUT.
SO. OKAY. [INAUDIBLE] IN REGARDS TO THE AVIARA ENTRANCE, THEIR THEIR SUBJECT, THEIR SITE IS CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION OF AVIARA AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD.
SO THAT WOULD CREATE AN INTERFERENCE ISSUE. SECONDLY, WE TRY TO LIMIT NUMBER OF INTERFERENCE POINTS, DRIVEWAYS AND SUCH ON THROUGH ROADS OR WHAT WOULD WE CALL THEM? ARTERIAL ROADS SUCH AS AVIARA AND ESPECIALLY ON PALOMAR ROAD.
SO TAKING IT FROM LAUREL TREE WAS THE WAS THE ONLY OPTION FOR THIS PROJECT.
ALSO THERE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THEIR TRAFFIC FLOWS, AS YOU GUYS WERE MENTIONING, THE FLOWS ARE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE WHAT THE APARTMENTS WILL AND THE HOUSING WILL PRODUCE. SO PEOPLE IN THE MORNING FROM THEIR HOUSES, THEY'RE GOING, THEY'RE LEAVING. SO THEY'LL BE TRAVELING OUT OF LAUREL TREE WHILE THE MEDICAL OFFICE WORKERS AND PEOPLE ARE COMING IN.
SO THEY'RE NOT SHARING THE SAME LANES AT THE SAME TIME.
OKAY. YEAH, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND. ON PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IT'S TOO BUSY.
BUT YOUR ANALYSIS OF THAT EVEN ON AVIARA PARKWAY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN I WAS BY THERE TODAY, THERE IS A RIGHT HAND TURN LANE AS YOU'RE GOING NORTHBOUND ON AVIARA AND YOU WANT TO TURN RIGHT ON ON PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, YOU CAN GET THE RIGHT HAND LANE.
BUT EVEN JUST BEFORE THAT RIGHT HAND TURN LANE, IN OTHER WORDS, A LITTLE BIT NORTH OF THERE, THERE WAS NO SPACE FOR A SAFE RIGHT HAND TURN LANE INTO THIS PROJECT.
THAT SPACE WOULD REQUIRE MORE RIGHT OF WAY, AND IT WOULD GO INTO THOSE APARTMENTS.
SO THERE WOULD BE. AND THAT'S NOT JUST THE RIGHT TURN IN.
IT'S ALSO THE PEOPLE LEAVING. THERE WOULD BE A CONFLICT POINT THERE AT AN INTERSECTION.
AND THEN WE SAW SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ON THE SCREEN.
SO WHICH IS CORRECT? WHAT ARE WE VOTING ON? SO I'M NOT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE LOOK LIKE.
SO THEY SHOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME. CAN I SEE WHAT YOU HAVE? I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. I'M NOT SURE WHY THERE SEEM DIFFERENT TO YOU.
THEY SEEM INCREDIBLY DIFFERENT, THAT'S WHY. AND THERE'S NO FRONT DOOR ON AT ALL ON PALOMAR, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE CREATING AN ENTRANCE FROM THAT BUS STOP SOMEHOW.
THERE IS A THERE IS AN ENTRANCE ON THE BACK SIDE.
[01:10:02]
IT'S IT'S THE BACK SIDE. WE WANT PEOPLE TO COME IN THE FRONT DOOR OF THE BUILDING. BUT IT'S NOT THE BACK SIDE TO MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN CARLSBAD.THE FRONT. BECAUSE THE PRIMARY. BECAUSE THE BECAUSE THE.
YEAH. PLEASE GO AHEAD. WILL YOU PROVIDE YOUR NAME AGAIN.
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME. JAMES MCCANN. WITH THE WITH THE APPLICANT.
AND WE DISCUSSED ENTRY INTO THE BUILDING ON THAT SIDE.
AND WE'RE GIVEN DIRECTION FROM STAFF NOT TO DO SO.
WOW. YEAH. WELL, I'M LIKE I SAY I IT'S IT LOOKS LIKE THREE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS TO ME, BUT I AM NOT THE ARCHITECT. SO THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS IT'S A SEA OF PARKING.
AND HOW ARE WE MITIGATING RUNOFF TO THAT CREEK? YEAH. THANK YOU. SEVERAL TIMES WE HAVE THREE DRAINAGE BASINS ON THE SIDE YARDS ALONG PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND AVIARA PARKWAY.
AND SO ALL ALL OF THE STORMWATER IS DIRECTED TO ONE OF THOSE THREE BASINS.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS RUNOFF AND IT WILL GO INTO THE CREEK? IT WILL. YES. THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING STORM DRAIN STRUCTURE THERE THAT TAKES WATER FROM THE SITE TODAY INTO THE CREEK.
SITE IS A DIRT LOT, THANKS. COMMISSIONER MERZ. YES. JUST CURIOUS.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS. I'M SORRY. OH. I'M SORRY.
YES. YOU MENTIONED THAT THE USES. I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW YOU PROJECTED WOULD BE LIKE MAYBE SURGERY, BUT NOT PEDIATRICIANS AND THAT TYPE OF THING. I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW YOU SORRY. RAY FOX. SORRY. WORKING IN THE IN THE CITY FOR 45 YEARS AND BROKERS AND SO ON YOU GET A SENSE OF WHAT KIND OF MIX. WHEN WE PUT THIS BUILDING TOGETHER, WE HAD A AS WE TALK ABOUT FOOTPRINTS AND WHAT'S ON THE GROUND FLOOR, AND WE ANALYZE THAT WHAT'S LIKELY TO HAPPEN. SO THERE'S A LOT OF HEALTH CARE BROKERS IN TOWN THAT WE'VE CONSULTED, AND YOU MIGHT KNOW SOME OF THEM. THAT'S WHERE ALL THAT COMES FROM, KIND OF.
AND A LITTLE BIT OF A NEED IN THE AREA, TOO SO SO THAT'S WHERE IT COMES FROM.
COMMISSIONER FOSTER. I GOT A QUESTION. SO, SO IS THIS BUILT TO.
IS THIS A SPEC BUILDING? IT'S NOT BUILT TO SUITE.
IT'S A SPEC BUILDING. WE DO NOT HAVE TENANTS YET.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. OKAY, THANKS. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS WITHIN YOUR GROUP THAT WANTS TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE VERY MUCH. ALRIGHTY.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION, PUBLIC INPUT. NOTHING.
NOTHING FURTHER. AND I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONER STINE. OKAY, I'LL GET US STARTED.
WE GOT INTO A REAL TECHNICAL DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.
AND I THINK THAT WAS HELPFUL BECAUSE THAT IS ON OUR PLATE TONIGHT.
AFTER HEARING FROM SOME OF THE EXPERTS AND IN GETTING INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE.
I'M SATISFIED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE DAILY TRIPS FOR THIS PROJECT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE DAILY TRIPS THAT FOR THE 2007 PROJECT THAT WAS USED FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
IT'S IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THAT IT WOULD BE SPREAD OUT A LITTLE BIT.
AND AS THE EXPERT MRS. BARNETT INDICATED THAT AND I THINK STAFF HAS INDICATED WE MEASURE THE IMPACTS BY IMPACTS BY THRESHOLDS. IT'S KIND OF LIKE A GRADE IN SCHOOL.
SO I GUESS WE HAVEN'T REACHED THAT THRESHOLD THAT WE CAN HONESTLY SAY, AT LEAST I, IN MY JUDGMENT, THAT WE CAN SAY WE NEED TO START FROM SQUARE ONE, HAVE A NEW STUDY AND GO BACK.
I'M ALSO IMPRESSED BY THE FACT THAT THEY JUST DIDN'T ACCEPT THE PRIOR STUDIES AT FACE VALUE AND SAY, HEY, NOTHING'S CHANGED, LET'S JUST ADOPT THAT, NO.
THEY DID SIGNIFICANT NEW STUDIES OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF TODAY.
[01:15:09]
I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. SO WITH THAT EXPLANATION, I CAN BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ON THIS WITH, WITH WITH THAT EXPLANATION. IN TERMS OF THE PERMITS THAT ARE FOR US, THERE ARE TWO PERMITS THAT ARE BEFORE US.ONE IS THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. AND TO ME, THERE'S REALLY NO ISSUE THERE.
THERE'S NO ISSUE OF COASTAL ACCESS, THERE'S NO ISSUE OF COASTAL VIEW.
SO THAT IS AN EASY YES. ON THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ME.
IT GETS A LITTLE BIT TRICKIER ON THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
BUT THIS IS A PROJECT THAT IT'S WITHIN THE ZONING HERE.
SO IT'S NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE AREA. THE DESIGN HAS ADEQUATE PARKING, AND ALTHOUGH I WISH THERE WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE ANOTHER INGRESS AND EGRESS ROUTE OTHER THAN LAUREL TREE LANE, I THINK WE'RE BURDENING ALL THREE LANES SIGNIFICANTLY. BUT THE REALITY IS IT CERTAINLY COULDN'T GO ON PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD.
THERE'S TOO MUCH TRAFFIC THERE. AND AS OUR CITY ENGINEER, I THINK IS CORRECT IN EXPLAINING THAT IF WE WERE TO TRY TO SQUEEZE ONE IN ON AVIARA PARKWAY, THAT WOULD CREATE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS, MORE CONGESTION, MORE ACCIDENTS.
SO SO UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE GOT A REALLY BURDEN THIS LAUREL TREE LANE WITH ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC.
BUT I DON'T SEE ANOTHER WAY OF DOING THIS. SO IN TERMS AND I LOOKED AT THE FINDINGS FOR THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. YEAH I THINK IT MEETS THOSE STANDARDS.
SO I CAN SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. COMMISSIONERS.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. I THINK I'D LIKE TO SEE AN AMENDMENT.
WHO ACTUALLY CONTRACTS THESE DIFFERENT ANALYZES? SO, LIKE, WHEN THE ORIGINAL CEQA WAS DONE, WAS IT PRESENTED BY THE OWNER WHEN YOU DID THIS ANALYSIS NOW, WAS IT DONE BY THE OWNER, OR DOES THE CITY HAVE SOME KIND OF REQUIREMENT FOR WHO PRESENTS THIS INFORMATION TO US? CEQA INFORMATION. MR. LARDY. SURE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
SO THE THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT IN TITLE 19 IS THAT IF THERE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED, THE CITY TAKES OVER THE ENTIRE PROCESS, DOES THE CONTRACT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND HANDLES THAT AT THE APPLICANT'S COST. THE PRACTICE OF THE CITY AND PRETTY TYPICAL OF MOST JURISDICTIONS IS FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS OR PROCESSES LIKE THIS OF FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY ADDENDUMS. THE APPLICANT HIRES A QUALIFIED CONSULTANT. WE KEEP A LIST OF QUALIFIED CONSULTANTS.
WE ALSO RELY ON OTHER AGENCIES, SUCH AS THE COUNTY WHO HAS A LIST OF QUALIFIED CONSULTANTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, VMT, WE HAVE SOMEBODY WHO DOES THE REVIEWS ALL VMTS.
SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A MIXED BAG. BUT THE THING THAT IS CLEAR, IF THERE'S AN EIR THAT IS A CITY CONTROLLED ENTIRELY PROCESS LIKE YOU SAW ON THE THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT, AND THEN FOR OTHER PROJECTS, IT'S TYPICAL THAT WE GET DOCUMENTS AND THEN REVIEW THEM.
SO IS THIS A QUALIFIED CONSULTANT THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY YOU? YES. IN OUR OPINION, THIS IS A QUALIFIED CONSULTANT.
OKAY. AND THAT'S ON YOUR LIST. THAT IS ON OUR LIST.
I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION.
AND IF THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR AN ADDENDUM. I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DIDN'T DO IT.
[01:20:03]
ISN'T UP TO OUR CURRENT CODE AND ISN'T UP TO OUR CURRENT CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.BUT THERE IS THERE ARE STILL QUESTIONS. SO I GUESS THAT WILL BE THE THE VOTE, RIGHT. COMMISSIONER MERZ. YEAH. THANK YOU.
I THINK IF I STAND BACK AND LOOK, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION OF BEING 20 YEARS OLD, YOU KNOW, BACK IN ALMOST 20 YEARS IN 2007, THE 85,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WAS APPROVED.
THAT REQUIRED MORE LITTLE MORE PARKING SPACES THAN THE ONE THAT'S UP FOR TODAY.
AND THE OTHER THING, I GUESS FROM JUST A QUALITATIVE STANDPOINT, WE TALK ABOUT THINGS CHANGE, BUT ALSO TOO, IF YOU KNOW, THE BIG IMPACT IS CARS, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, IN THE WORLD THAT I LIVE IN, IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE IS CARS.
AND IT DOES APPEAR THERE'S ADEQUATE PARKING HERE.
AND SO I THINK THERE'S AGAIN, THOSE AREN'T HARD NUMBERS, BUT JUST QUALITATIVELY, IF I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE SAY THAT THEY THAT ANYONE CHALLENGES THE FINDINGS WERE MADE IN 2007. AND SINCE THAT PROJECT HAD SIMILAR OR, YOU KNOW, HIGHER IMPACT THAN THIS ONE AND WITH THE CHANGES IN CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY, I DON'T SEE THE I'M OKAY WITH IT.
BUT WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT IF WE ACCEPT THAT THE THE FINDINGS FROM 20 YEARS AGO, BASED ON WHAT WAS THERE AS OF TODAY, AND COMPARE THE TWO, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
AND SO I WOULD SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. COMMISSIONER FOSTER.
YEAH FIRST I JUST WANT TO SAY I THINK, I THINK STAFF DID AN EXCELLENT JOB VETTING EVERYTHING. AND THEN AS WELL AS APPLICANT, I THINK THEY DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. YOU KNOW TALKING ABOUT CAN WE HAVE AN ENTRANCE INTO THE PARCEL FROM AVIARA, LIKE I MEAN ALL THE GOOD QUESTIONS WERE ASKED BEFORE THEY EVEN SHOWED UP TODAY.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, APPLAUD EVERYONE AS PART OF THAT.
MY VIEW OF THE PROJECT, I THINK, BOY, THAT'S A TOUGH PARCEL TO BUILD ON.
I MEAN, THERE'S NOT MANY OPTIONS THERE. AND AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY WERE BACK IN 2007 AND WHERE THEY ARE NOW AGAIN, REDUCTION OF OF WE MOVED FROM OFFICE TO OFFICE MEDICAL, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A REDUCTION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AT 37%.
PARKING RATIO INCREASED TO 5.1. SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR OFFICE MEDICAL.
SO MAYBE THAT'S MY LITTLE MICROCOSM OF EXPERIENCE DRIVING ON THAT LITTLE STREET.
BUT TRAFFIC IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR ME. I WOULDN'T IMAGINE ONCE THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED AND YOU GET THE INFLOW OF OFFICE, MEDICAL PATIENTS AND STAFF AND EVERYTHING, I WOULDN'T ANTICIPATE THERE'D STILL BE AN ISSUE.
I THINK IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE WHOLE STAFF LOOKING AT THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, THE PROJECTS FOR APPROVAL, THE SPECIFICALLY THE LANGUAGE AROUND SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES AS NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT OR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN SEVERITY OF PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS.
I CAN FIND NEITHER, WHICH IS WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDED THE APPROVAL OF IT.
THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN MY OPINION.
SO I SUPPORT THE PROJECT. THANKS. I ALSO WAS CONCERNED EARLIER WHEN I FIRST READ THE STAFF REPORT, BUT THIS EVENING, I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDIES.
I ALSO WAS CONCERNED IN REGARD TO LAUREL TREE AND THE HAVING ONE EGRESS AND, AND EVENT AT THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION, ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER USES OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND RESIDENTIAL, AS WELL AS 24 HOUR FITNESS.
BUT I THINK THIS EVENING I THINK THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION AS WELL AS, OF COURSE, STAFF DID AS WELL. SO I COULD VERY EASILY SUPPORT THIS PROJECT AS WELL.
COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. YEAH, I, I YOU GUYS DID A GREAT JOB.
I STRUGGLE SOMETIMES ON THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE TO BE A GOALIE IN A HOCKEY GAME.
I WANT TO BE I'M GOING TO MIX MY SPORTS METAPHORS.
YOU'RE THE LANDOWNERS. YOU'RE THE PROPERTY OWNERS. YOU PAY TAXES.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO BE THE GOALIE HERE. ALL RIGHT.
THE OTHER THING IS WE CONSTANTLY FORGET THE CONSUMER.
[01:25:02]
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO DRIVE AN EXCEPTIONAL DISTANCE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THEIR THEIR MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS. SO THIS IS THIS IS IN SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.AND TO SLOW IT DOWN IS A DISSERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.
THEY MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH IT AND I SUPPORT IT.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER BURROWS. COMMISSIONER MERZ.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. COMMISSIONER STINE. MAY I HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE STAFF APPROVAL. I MOVE APPROVAL OF STAFF REC CEQA ASSESSMENT, AND THE TWO PERMITS, WHICH ARE THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
MAY I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. COMMISSIONER MERZ.
SECOND. COMMISSIONER STINE MADE THE MOTION. PLEASE VOTE.
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. THANK YOU. GREAT PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU APPLICANT. I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL RIGHTY. WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS.
[2. APPOINT NEW CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2025 CALENDAR YEAR]
THANK YOU LAUREN. APPRECIATE THAT. NO, NO. NUMBER TWO DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS IS NUMBER TWO.OKAY. RIGHT. OKAY. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS. ITEM NUMBER TWO.
MR. LARDY, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER TWO? YES. WELL, SEEING THAT WE HAVE A FULL SEVEN MEMBER COMMISSION HERE IN PRESENT THIS IS THE SELECTION OF THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE 2025 CALENDAR YEAR.
IT IS UP TO THE CHAIR AND THE COMMISSION TO FACILITATE AND TAKE THIS ACTION.
THANK YOU, MR. LARDY. WHAT I'M GOING TO PROPOSE THIS EVENING THAT WE DO FIRST IS THAT WE GO AHEAD AND SEPARATE OUT CHAIR AND FIRST AND THEN VICE CHAIR SECOND. SO WITH CHAIR WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS INDICATE THAT WHAT WE WILL DO IS WE WILL TAKE A CONSENT AND BASICALLY ASK THE COMMISSIONERS AS TO WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN IN THE CHAIR POSITION.
SECOND OF ALL, WE WILL THEN ASK FOR A NOMINATION OR NOMINATIONS FOR THE POSITION, AND THEN WE WILL ASK FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND, AND THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE VICE CHAIR THEREAFTER.
SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND INDICATE WOULD YOU PROVIDE TO ME OR TO THE AUDIENCE EXACTLY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN THE CHAIR POSITION? I KNOW I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE CHAIR POSITION TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION AND SERVE ALL OF YOU, AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC. IS THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THE POSITION OF CHAIR? MAY I HAVE A NOMINATION? YES. I'M GLAD TO MAKE A NOMINATION, BUT I THINK COMMISSIONER MEENES IS CERTAINLY WELL QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS OUR CHAIR. HE'S BEEN, IN EFFECT, OUR ACTING CHAIR FOR THE LAST SEVERAL MEETINGS.
SO HE'S EXPERIENCED, PROFESSIONAL, EVEN HANDED AND I THINK WOULD DO A MARVELOUS JOB.
SO I, I MAKE A MOTION THAT ROY MEENES BE OUR CHAIR FOR 2025.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OKAY. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STINE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.
MAY I HAVE A VOTE? UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO VICE CHAIR. SO WITH THE VICE CHAIR, WHO HAPPENS TO BE INTERESTED IN THE POSITION OF VICE CHAIR, AND IF YOU WANT TO INDICATE YOUR BY YOUR HAND OR WHOMEVER MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN THE POSITION OF VICE CHAIR FOR 2025.
AND SO, I MEAN, IF NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO BE VICE CHAIR, I COULD DO IT.
I GUESS IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE IS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN HERE A LITTLE BIT AND HASN'T SERVED IN THAT CAPACITY TO TAKE ON THAT EXPERIENCE. DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT? COMMISSIONER STINE.
[01:30:01]
YES. AND IN THAT REGARD, I THINK COMMISSIONER HUBINGER WOULD BE EXTREMELY WELL QUALIFIED.HE'S VERY LEVEL HEADED, SPEAKS VERY WELL. AND HE'S BEEN HERE SEVERAL YEARS.
THIS IS THE TYPE OF POSITION, WHETHER YOU'RE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, EXPERIENCE COUNTS.
WE REALLY WANT SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN IN THE TRENCHES FOR A WHILE.
AND COMMISSIONER HUBINGER HAS. AND I THINK HE CONDUCTS HIMSELF IN AN OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONAL WAY.
AND IF HE'D BE WILLING TO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO NOMINATE HIM.
I DO WANT TO MAKE ONE NOTE AS TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY, BEING THAT THERE IS NO INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE, I DID NOT ASK FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY OTHER THAN MR. GELDERT AND I DIDN'T THINK HE'D QUALIFY. SO THEREFORE.
IT IS. IT IS. SO DO WE HAVE A MR. STINE? I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONER STINE.
YES, I, I MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE. COMMISSIONER DAVID HUBINGER AS OUR VICE CHAIR FOR 2025.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. I'LL SECOND COMMISSIONER HUBINGER AS VICE CHAIR.
I'M SORRY. LOCK IT IN. THERE WE GO. UNANIMOUS.
DAVID, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE. GIVE HIM A WEDGIE.
WE'LL. WE'LL MAKE THAT DECISION LATER.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. WITH THAT IN MIND THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE EVENING. AND I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ASK IF THE ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY REPORTS TO MAKE THIS EVENING.
[COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTARY AND REQUESTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS]
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANK YOU. YEAH. THE JANUARY 29TH UNION TRIBUNE HAD AN ARTICLE ON, CARLSBAD AND HOPING TO ENCOURAGE HOME PRESERVATION.HISTORIC HOME PRESERVATION. AND SO THEY ARE REEVALUATING SOME OF THEIR MILLS ACT HISTORIC HOME CRITERIA AND POTENTIAL FEES THAT SORT OF GO ALONG WITH THAT.
BUT IF YOU DON'T KNOW, THE MILLS ACT IS A PROGRAM THAT IS A STATEWIDE PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS OWNERS OF HISTORIC HOMES TO HAVE A REDUCTION IN THEIR PROPERTY TAXES IF THEY QUALIFY FOR CERTAIN LOCAL REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY ABOUT 13 PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT THAT ARE PART OF OUR HISTORIC REGISTRY, BUT NOT PART OF THE MILLS ACT. SO WE'RE HOPING MAYBE SOME OF THESE CHANGES THAT CAME UP AT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION LAST MONTH WILL HELP TO INCENTIVIZE SOME OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION THAT'S REALLY NECESSARY.
AND THE FRONT FRONT PAGE OF THIS IS THE [INAUDIBLE] HOUSE, WHICH WAS BUILT IN 1887.
AND IT'S THE SAME ARCHITECT AS THE TWIN INNS DOWN IN DOWN RIGHT IN THE VILLAGE.
NO, HERE IN THE VILLAGE WHERE THE SAN DIEGO IS.
SO IT'S THE SAME. LET ME ADD ONE OTHER THING.
DEVELOPER. SINCE COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY HAS BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION, SHE HAS DILIGENTLY, PASSIONATELY BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE MILLS ACT AND INTRODUCING AND SUPPORTING THE MILLS ACT HERE IN CARLSBAD.
AND I WANT TO COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS IN DOING SO, BECAUSE I THINK SHE WAS ONE OF MANY, BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, CONTINUALLY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, KEPT BRINGING IT UP TO US, BRINGING IT UP TO US. AND I KNOW IN SAN DIEGO THE MILLS ACT IS USED QUITE OFTEN, AND WITH ALL THE HISTORICAL BUILDINGS IN SAN DIEGO AND NUMEROUS NEIGHBORHOODS. BUT WE IN CARLSBAD REALLY, I REALLY DID NOT TAKE THE BALL AND RUN WITH IT DOWN THE FIELD UNTIL PROBABLY IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
AND SO I REALLY HAVE TO SUPPORT AND REALLY COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN DONE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF, OBVIOUSLY, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, THE THE AND THE PREVIOUS PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
IT WOULDN'T HAVE COME TOGETHER WITHOUT THAT. SO SO AND THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY HAS ALWAYS KEPT A LOG OF THIS THING OF THESE THINGS, INCLUDING THE LIBRARY THAT'S KEPT A LOG OF THESE THINGS.
[01:35:02]
BUT BUT WE'RE STILL IN OUR INFANCY IN THIS PROCESS.SO IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE WITH A HISTORIC HOME, PLEASE ENCOURAGE THEM TO TRY TO APPLY FOR THIS, BECAUSE I THINK THEY COULD BENEFIT, AND OUR COMMUNITY DEFINITELY WILL BENEFIT FROM IT.
SO THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MERZ. OKAY, I'LL TAKE YOU OFF THE SCREEN THEN.
[STAFF COMMENTS]
WE DON'T HAVE ANY AGENDA ITEMS FOR FOR THAT ITEM AS WELL AS THE MARCH 5TH MEETING.WE DO HAVE A FEW ITEMS SCHEDULED CURRENTLY FOR MARCH 19TH AND BOTH OF THE MEETINGS IN APRIL.
SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO HAVE THOSE THOSE THREE MEETINGS.
SO THAT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. BUT WE'RE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT DATES IN APRIL.
AND THEN I'LL ALSO REPORT I BRIEFLY MENTIONED, BUT THE CITY COUNCIL DID APPROVE THE CHANGES TO TITLE 19 THAT CHANGED THE AUTHORITY RELATED TO THE CITY PLANNER DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTIONS.
BUT ONCE THOSE ALL MAKE IT THROUGH THE PROCESS, THAT THAT CHECKBOX WILL REMOVE ON THE AGENDA.
AND ALSO I WANT TO I WANT TO THANK OUR ATTORNEY THAT'S WITH US THIS EVENING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT? NO, I DO NOT. THANK YOU. WELL, JUST JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.
WITH THAT IN MIND, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND STAND.
THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION STANDS ADJOURNED,
AT WHAT TIME IS IT NOW? 06:00. ALMOST 6:36. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.