May 07, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting

YOU HAVE TO DRIVE OUT OF THE PARK. GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:10]

AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE COMMENTS OR ADDITIONS TO THE MINUTES OF APRIL 2ND? OKAY. SEEING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 2ND.

YOU HAVE A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

COMMISSIONER HUBINGER MAKES THE MOTION. CAN I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER MERZ MAKES A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.

I COULDN'T COUNT. YEAH. WE HAD I THINK THERE WAS COMMISSIONERS THAT WERE NOT HERE, SO THEY ABSTAINED.

YES, SIR. OKAY. GO AHEAD.

CAN YOU DO A VOICE VOTE, PLEASE? . THANK YOU. FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES WILL BE FOLLOWED. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE'LL REQUIRE A REQUEST SLIP FORM, INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS.

REQUEST TO SPEAK MUST BE TURNED INTO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE TERM OF THE ITEM COMMENCING.

THIS WILL ALLOW SPEAKER TIME TO MANAGE A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER.

ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.

SPEAKERS MAY NOT GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANY OTHER SPEAKER GROUP.

TIMES WILL BE PERMITTED FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA; THE REPRESENTATIVE MUST IDENTIFY THE GROUP.

AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE MEETING AT WHICH THE PRESENTATION IS BEING MADE.

THOSE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF A GROUP HAVE TEN MINUTES.

UNLESS THE TIME IS CHANGED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.

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

THE BROWN ACT ALLOWS ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY PROVIDING COMMENTS AS PROVIDED IN THE FRONT OF THIS AGENDA.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RESERVE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED, UP TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES IN THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.

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

NO ACTION CAN OCCUR ON THESE ITEMS. MINUTES. CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SLIPS? NO NON-AGENDA ITEMS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL PROCEED ON WITH THE HEARING THEN.

IF EVERYONE WOULD DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN, I'LL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMISSION THAT WILL FOLLOW THIS EVENING'S PUBLIC HEARING. PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPENED. STAFF WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.

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

THE APPLICANT WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION RESPOND TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM THOSE COMMISSIONERS.

THEY WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY WILL THEN BE OPENED. ANY TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES IS ALLOTTED TO EACH SPEAKER.

AFTER 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 ITEMS 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.

[00:05:08]

[1. CARLSBAD BLVD HOMES - PUD 2024-0006/CDP 2024-0028/MS 2024-0006 (DEV2024-0003)]

BUT FIRST I WANT TO DO EX PARTE. SO, IF WE CAN HAVE EX PARTE FROM COMMISSIONERS IN REGARD TO ITEM NUMBER ONE.

COMMISSIONER MERZ, I VISITED THE SITE. COMMISSIONER BURROWS I VISITED THE SITE AS WELL.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND DRIVE BY WEEKLY.

COMMISSIONER STINE I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND FREQUENTLY DRIVE BY IT.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. DRIVE BY IT.

YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE? DRIVE BY AND I DROVE BY AS WELL.

MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU GO AHEAD AND PLEASE INTRODUCE THE ITEM.

YES. HERE TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION FOR CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.

BOULEVARD HOMES IS ALEX ALLEGRA. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS ALEX ALLEGRA, ASSOCIATE PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DIVISION.

THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A REQUEST FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR A TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 5211 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.

EXCUSE ME. THE PROJECT SITE IS A VACANT LOT LOCATED JUST NORTH OF SHORE DRIVE OFF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.

THE PARCEL IS APPROXIMATELY 6000FT², JUST UNDER 0.14 ACRES IN SIZE.

THE SITE IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MULTIPLE, OR RDM, AND IS WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE COASTAL ZONE.

THE LOT IS LOCATED IN THE MIRAMAR NEIGHBORHOOD, SURROUNDED BY A MIX OF SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

THE PROJECT PROPOSES A TWO UNIT AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT.

EACH RESIDENCE IS THREE STORIES AND INCLUDES PRIVATE ROOFTOP DECKS WITH ELEVATOR ACCESS.

VEHICULAR ACCESS IS PROPOSED VIA TWO SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS, ALLOWING EACH UNIT ITS OWN GARAGE AND ENTRY ORIENTATION.

A CEQA DETERMINATION WAS PREVIOUSLY MADE FOR THIS PROJECT.

AS SUCH, NO ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION IS REQUESTED OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT.

WITH THAT OVERVIEW IN MIND, THE NEXT FEW SLIDES WILL TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SITE LAYOUT AND UNIT DESIGN.

THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THE LAYOUT OF THE TWO ATTACHED UNITS, WITH CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AT THE TOP OF THE IMAGE AND DRIVEWAYS LEADING TO EACH UNIT'S TWO CAR GARAGE. THE UNITS ARE MIRRORED IN LAYOUT AND SHARE A CONNECTION AT THE GROUND LEVEL, WITH A TEN FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN UPPER LEVELS.

EACH RESIDENCE IS APPROXIMATELY 3343FT² AND INCLUDES FOUR BEDROOMS, THREE BATHROOMS, A GROUND FLOOR BONUS ROOM, AND PRIVATE BALCONIES ON THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS.

AS MENTIONED, EACH UNIT ALSO FEATURES A PRIVATE ROOFTOP DECK WITH ELEVATOR ACCESS.

IN TOTAL, EIGHT ONSITE PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED, MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH RESIDENT AND GUEST PARKING.

THE ARCHITECTURE FEATURES A CONTEMPORARY THREE STORY DESIGN WITH FLAT ROOFS.

EACH UNIT IS DESIGNED AS A DISTINCT VOLUME WITH SEPARATE ENTRIES AND BALCONIES FACING THE STREET.

THE FOLLOWING SLIDES WILL HIGHLIGHT KEY ARCHITECTURAL PERSPECTIVES, INCLUDING STREET FACING VIEWS FROM CARLSBAD BOULEVARD THAT ILLUSTRATE HOW THE PROJECT INTEGRATES WITHIN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS RENDERING SHOWS THE PROJECT IS VIEWED FROM THE STREET.

YOU CAN SEE HOW EACH UNIT HAS A DIFFERENT FACADE TREATMENT, WHICH HELPS BREAK UP MASSING AND MAINTAIN VISUAL INTEREST ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE.

THIS VIEW GIVES A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, SHOWING THE TRANSITION TO ADJACENT STRUCTURES.

THE SITE'S TOPOGRAPHY SLOPES DOWNWARD FROM EAST TO WEST, SO THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT APPEARS REDUCED FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE.

EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT INCLUDES THREE STORIES AND ROOFTOP ELEMENTS.

THESE ROOFTOP FEATURES INCLUDE. THE ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE ARE CENTRALLY LOCATED AND STEPPED BACK FROM THE EDGES, HELPING TO REDUCE THEIR VISUAL PROMINENCE FROM THE STREET LEVEL. THIS CLOSE UP SHOWS THE ARTICULATION AND MATERIAL VARIATION AT THE GARAGE AND ENTRY LEVELS.

AS WITH PREVIOUS RENDERINGS, THE DESIGN SEPARATES THE UNITS VISUALLY WHILE MAINTAINING A COHESIVE APPEARANCE.

THIS ANGLE GIVES A BETTER LOOK AT THE UNIT ON THE NORTH SIDE, AND THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY ON THAT END OF THE SITE.

FROM THIS AERIAL VIEW, YOU CAN BETTER SEE THE OVERALL MASSING AND HOW THE PROJECT IS ORIENTED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COASTAL BACKDROP.

THE TWO UNITS ARE ATTACHED ONLY AT THE GROUND FLOOR, WITH THE TEN FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE UPPER LEVELS.

THIS DESIGN RESULTS IN A PHYSICAL BREAK BETWEEN THE UPPER LEVELS, WHICH PROVIDES A VISUAL CORRIDOR SEAWARD AND REDUCES THE OVERALL BUILDING MASSING ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE. STAFF RECEIVED TWO WRITTEN COMMENTS DURING THE INITIAL PUBLIC NOTICING PERIOD.

THE PRIMARY CONCERNS INCLUDE BUILDING HEIGHT, PARAPET DESIGN, DENSITY, AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET. CONTINUING TO EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND THE PROPOSED THREE STORY STRUCTURE AND

[00:10:02]

THE FOLLOWING SLIDES RESPOND TO THOSE PUBLIC CONCERNS WITH ADDITIONAL DETAIL ON BUILDING HEIGHT, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT.

IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC CONCERNS ABOUT HEIGHT, STAFF CONFIRMS THAT THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE RDM ZONE.

THE MAIN STRUCTURE MEASURES 34FT, SEVEN AND 5/8 INCHES TO THE TOP OF THE ROOF RAILING.

THE ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE PROJECTS ABOVE THAT TO A HEIGHT OF 40FT, SEVEN AND 5/8 INCHES.

THIS IS ALLOWED UNDER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2146.

020, WHICH PERMITS NON-HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES SUCH AS ELEVATOR ENCLOSURES TO EXTEND ABOVE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT.

AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE SITE SLOPES DOWNWARD FROM EAST TO WEST, SO THE BUILDING APPEARS LOWER IN HEIGHT WHEN VIEWED FROM CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.

IN TERMS OF LAND USE AND DENSITY, THE PROJECT ALIGNS WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED ON A 0.14 ACRE INFILL LOT.

LOT 33, WITHIN THE ORIGINAL TERRAMAR UNIT NO I SUBDIVISION RECORDED AS MAP NUMBER 2696.

IT'S THE LAST REMAINING UNDEVELOPED LOT ALONG THIS SECTION.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RDM AND DESIGNATED R 15.

IN THE GENERAL PLAN, ALLOWING 11.5 TO 15 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AT TWO UNITS.

THE PROJECT PROPOSES A DENSITY OF APPROXIMATELY 14.5 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE ZONING AND THE CITY CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. WHILE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF UNITS.

THE ZONING ALLOWS UP TO TWO UNITS ON THIS LOT, AND SIMILAR TO UNIT CONFIGURATIONS, ALREADY EXIST ALONG THIS SECTION OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN THE NORTH AND SOUTH ENDS OF SHORE DRIVE.

FINALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND MINOR SUBDIVISION AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

IN ADDITION, STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED A MINOR CORRECTION TO CONDITION NUMBER 18 OF THE RESOLUTION TO CLARIFY THE PROJECT'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN LIEU FEE REQUIREMENT.

THIS CORRECTION IS DOCUMENTED IN THE ERRATA MEMO INCLUDED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION.

WITH THAT STAFF'S PRESENTATION IS CONCLUDED, THE APPLICANT AND PROJECT TEAM ARE HERE AND AVAILABLE, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION OR RESPOND TO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. EXCELLENT PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONERS. ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME ON THIS ITEM.

OKAY. SEEING NONE. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? KURT MOLLER ARCHITECTS. I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PRESENTATION PREPARED.

I'M SORRY. CAN YOU PAUSE UNTIL THE MICS ON? OH.

I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. THERE WE GO. MY NAME IS KIRK MULLER WITH CAM ARCHITECTS.

I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT I FEEL IS NECESSARY TO SHARE.

ALEX'S PRESENTATION WAS PERFECT. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE MAY HAVE.

OTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER. APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

SURE. HOW LONG HAS THE LOT BEEN VACANT? FOREVER.

I DON'T THINK ANYTHING HAS EVER BEEN BUILT ON IT.

OKAY. SO. THE PLANNER MENTIONED IT WAS AN INFILL LOT.

BUT ARE THE CEQA DETERMINATION IS DIFFERENT. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY? IT SHOULD BE. I DON'T KNOW IF INFILL IS THE RIGHT TERM.

ALEX, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SHARE ON THAT? I KNOW IT'S NEVER BEEN BUILT ON.

NEVER BUILT. OKAY. YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD, I THINK THE PLANNER WAS REFERRING TO INFILL AS SORT OF A TERM OF ART WITH RESPECT TO IT WAS SURROUNDED BY ITEMS. THE CEQA EXEMPTION WAS NOT THE INFILL EXEMPTION WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, BUT BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE AS A CLASS THREE EXEMPTION WAS CONSIDERED AND USED, AND THAT WAS USED IN THE DETERMINATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL STRUCTURES.

BUT SINCE IT'S NEVER BEEN BUILT ON, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY TINY.

SO THAT'S WHY IT'S A QUESTION, BUT OKAY. SO, AND THIS WAS, SO CLASS THREE EXEMPTION INCLUDES THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO HABITAT, HABITAT OR ANYTHING SO CLOSE TO THE OCEAN.

CORRECT. BECAUSE IT'S NEVER BEEN BUILT ON. DID WE KNOW THERE'S NO HABITAT? HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? THE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, FOR THE QUESTION.

OUR STAFF BIOLOGIST WAS INFORMED OF THIS PROJECT EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS, I BELIEVE FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR,

[00:15:06]

AND SO BACK TO MR. MUELLER. TWO DRIVEWAYS ON ONE LOT.

AND BEING SUCH A BUSY STREET WHY WAS THAT OPTION CHOSEN? WELL, WHAT WE WANTED TO DO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REALIZED IN OUR, OUR SITE PLAN THAT WE HAVE TURNAROUNDS PROVIDED SO SOMEONE COULD BACK OUT OF THEIR GARAGE INTO THE TURNAROUND AND DRIVE STRAIGHT OUT ONTO THE STREET.

WE FELT THAT EACH WE WANTED EACH HOME TO FEEL LIKE IT WAS STANDING ALONE, THAT IT WAS MORE OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WHILE THE GARAGE IS JOINED.

WE FELT THAT WE WANTED IT TO FEEL MORE PRIVATE.

THAT AREA FEELS LIKE IT WARRANTS MORE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AND WE WANTED TO MAKE IT FEEL LIKE THAT FROM THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES AND EXITS AS WELL.

I APPRECIATE THE IDEA OF THE TURNAROUNDS, BUT I ALSO YOU KNOW, VIEWED THIS AS A SERIES OF TOWNHOMES TO, TO TOWNHOMES. SO SO AND BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A BUSY STREET AND THOSE PLANTERS WILL PROBABLY BE DRIVEN OVER MORE THAN THEY'LL BE MAINTAINED.

SO, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT MAYBE ONE DRIVEWAY WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT FOR THE TWO UNITS.

BUT WE CAN MOVE ON. THERE WAS THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE AS SPECIFIC TO THE FIRST LEVEL WITH THE GARAGE LOCATED. AND IT SAYS YOU HAVE A BONUS ROOM THAT HAS A SINK.

AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WITH THE SEPARATE ENTRY THAT YOU HAVE INDICATED HERE ON PAGE 82.1 WHY THIS WASN'T CONSIDERED. BOTH UNITS TO WITH THE BONUS ROOM TO HAVE AN ADU, IT'S POTENTIALLY ABLE TO BE CONVERTED IN THE FUTURE.

BUT AT THIS STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S WE AREN'T ABLE TO CALL IT AN ADU AT THIS LEVEL.

IF THE BUYER, THE FUTURE BUYER, WANTS TO TURN IT INTO AN ADU, WE'RE GOING, WE'RE GOING TO SET IT UP SO THAT IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE AN ADU IN THE FUTURE. SO YOU REALIZE WE HAVE A HOUSING ELEMENT.

WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO BE ABLE TO GET AS MANY UNITS.

AND IN THE RECENT DATA THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

WE'RE SLOW IN REACHING OUR HOUSING REQUIREMENTS.

WE NEED 4000 UNITS, AND WE'VE BUILT ONLY 84 THIS YEAR, SO.

WOW. SO, IT WOULD REALLY HELP US OUT IF THESE COULD BE SOMEHOW, MAYBE PART OF THAT OPPORTUNITY TO BE PERMITTED AS AN ADU, BECAUSE I THINK THAT YOU KNOW, WE ARE LOOKING AT YOU KNOW, ABOUT A FIVE YEAR PROGRAM FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, BUT STILL 4000 UNITS IS GOING TO BE TOUGH TO GET.

SO, AN ADU USE COUNT WITH THAT REQUIREMENT. I BELIEVE THE CODE REQUIRES THAT THE STRUCTURE BE BUILT AND THEN A SEPARATE PERMIT FILED FOR AN ADU. I THINK AT THIS EARLY STAGE, WE HAD ORIGINALLY CALLED IT AN ADU AT ONE POINT, AND WE WERE ASKED TO TAKE THE LABEL OFF TO COMPLY WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS.

WHO ASKED YOU? I THINK THAT WAS A WAS THAT A PLANNING COMMENT, ALEX ORR, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

I MEAN, EXCUSE ME. DIRECTOR. PLANNING DIRECTOR, PLEASE.

YEAH. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE SPECIFIC HISTORY OF THE COMMENT, BUT WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT AN ADU WOULD REQUIRE A SEPARATE MINOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FILED. IT'S OFTEN THAT WE SEE PROJECTS LIKE THIS, AND YOU SEE A FACE KIND OF GRAYED OUT THAT SAYS FOR THE ADU.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE THOSE MINOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ARE ISSUED AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL BECAUSE OF STATE REQUIREMENTS ON ABLE TO HAVE HEARINGS FOR ADUS.

IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THE OWNER WISHED TO PURSUE, WE COULD PURSUE THAT IN PARALLEL AND CHANGE THAT WHEN THEY MOVE TO BUILDING PERMITS, AND THEN THEY OBVIOUSLY WOULD NEED TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT AS WELL.

FOR THE ADU, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE INTERIOR CHANGES, SUCH AS PROVISIONS OF AT LEAST AN EFFICIENCY KITCHEN OR A KITCHEN, DEPENDING UPON WHAT TYPE OF ADU IS ULTIMATELY SELECTED.

BUT THE QUESTION. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR YOU IS, IS THIS AN ALL ELECTRIC BUILDING? NO, THE GAS IS, IS PRESENTED OR BEING PROPOSED FOR THE BUILDING ALSO.

OKAY. BUT THIS PARTICULAR UNIT DOES NOT HAVE ANY GAS.

YES, IT WILL HAVE GAS. IT WILL HAVE GAS. THERE WILL BE GAS RUN FOR FUTURE.

WE'RE GOING TO SET IT UP SO THAT IT COULD BE CONVERTED TO AN ADU EASILY.

WE'LL RUN ALL THE UTILITY BACKGROUNDS WILL BE AN ELECTRIC PANEL.

ALL OF THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR AN ADU IN PLACE.

[00:20:02]

YEAH. YOU KNOW, RIGHT AWAY. SO, THAT'S REALLY THE THOSE ARE THE BIGGEST CONCERNS I HAVE.

EXCEPT FOR JUST A BRIEF QUESTION ABOUT WHY YOU DECIDED TO MAKE THEM SO DIFFERENT.

WELL, THE FACADES, WE WANTED THEM TO READ, LIKE, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.

I KNOW THEY'RE CONNECTED AT THE GARAGE, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH A UNIQUE LOOK ALONG CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.

THERE ARE SOME HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED RECENTLY THAT LOOK VERY NICE, AND WE DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW THE SAME PATH AS THOSE HOMES.

YOU KNOW, WHILE I LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK, WE WANTED TO CREATE SOMETHING UNIQUE.

IT'S A HEAVILY TRAVELED ROAD AND WE WANT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE PROUD OF.

AND I THINK THAT OTHER PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WILL ENJOY LOOKING AT AS THEY PASS BY THERE ON THEIR ROUTINE DRIVES.

SO I THINK THAT'S THE BEST I CAN DO FOR THAT EXPLANATION.

OKAY. WELL, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAY, YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THESE INNOCUOUS COASTAL MODERN ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENTS.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION. AND YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY TWIN HOMES ARE A VERY HISTORIC THING IN OUR, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, ESPECIALLY IN THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO AREA.

YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY, NOT ONLY DO THEY MIRROR, BUT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A SIMILAR VOCABULARY.

AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M, YOU KNOW NOT SAYING YOU SHOULDN'T BE CREATIVE.

I'M JUST ASKING WHY THEY'RE NOT A LITTLE MORE SIMILAR, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY MOST OF OUR TWIN HOMES ARE SIMILAR.

SO, THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD HAVE.

BUT THANK YOU FOR THIS PRESENTATION. YEAH. THANK YOU.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY MINUTES.

CLERK. ARE THERE ANY SLIPS FOR TESTIMONY BY THE PUBLIC? NO, CHAIR THERE IS NOT. OKAY, THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PORTION OF THE AGENDA.

DOES STAFF HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY STATEMENTS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE GIVEN THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION? NO CHAIR MEANS NOTHING. OKAY. GOOD. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? OKAY. WE'LL NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AMONGST OURSELVES HERE.

COMMENTS. DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER MERZ. SO, IN VISITING THE SITE AND THE PRESENTATION, ONE THING I REALLY LIKED ABOUT IT WAS THE DESIGN OF THE GAP BETWEEN THEM, THE TEN FOOT GAP.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS I LIKED THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE ON THE STREET, IT ISN'T THAT FEELING OF A LARGE MASSING THAT GOES WITH.

AND ALSO, TOO, IS THE FACT THAT IT SLOPES DOWN.

I DIDN'T LOOK ON THE SITE PLAN TO SEE HOW FAR IT SLOPES DOWN, BUT JUST THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING, TOO, IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT THAT DOES SLOPE DOWN QUITE A BIT. SO ALTHOUGH IT IS WITHIN THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, IT DOES GATHER THE BENEFIT OF THAT.

BUT I LIKE THE FACT THAT AGAIN, I DEAL WITH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF UGLY, PLAIN INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AS PART OF MY WORK.

SO I DON'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT ARCHITECTURE, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT IT, THERE'S SOME THINGS I REALLY LIKE. I THOUGHT THE DESIGN OF PARTICULARLY THEY'RE BOTH DIFFERENT LOOKING WITH A SUBSTANTIAL GAP BETWEEN THE TWO AS YOU'RE GOING ALONG.

IT ALSO GIVES YOU A FEEL OF BEING ABLE TO SEE THROUGH TO THE OCEAN, TOO.

SO, I LIKE THAT ABOUT AND I LIKE THE DESIGN, AND I'LL SUPPORT THE PROJECT.

COMMISSIONER BURROWS, I APPRECIATE THAT THE PROJECT WAS DESIGNED TO HELP REDUCE THE BUILDING'S VISUAL BULK AND MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH THE SCALE AND CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, THANKS.

I SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY ASKED THIS DURING PLANNING QUESTIONS, BUT IF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WERE ADDED TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT PHASE, WOULD IN LIEU FEES BE APPLICABLE? OR HOW WOULD THAT HOW WOULD THAT BE STRUCTURED? AND WOULD THEY BE WAIVED? WHAT HOW DOES THAT WORK? THEY WOULD STILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THEIR IN-LIEU FEES.

BASED UPON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PRIMARY HOMES, THE ADUS THEMSELVES WOULD LIKELY NOT BE ABLE TO, REQUIRED TO PAY THE IN LIEU FEES BECAUSE THEY'D LIKELY WOULD BE UNDER THE LEVEL SQUARE FOOTAGE WISE, THAT ARE REQUIRED TO PAY MOST FEES, WHICH IS 500FT².

THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION. COMMISSIONER STINE, THANK YOU.

I THINK IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE PROJECT. IT'S NICE.

AND WITH THE BE ABLE TO VIEW BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS, I THINK IS IS A AN ESTHETIC FACTOR THERE.

IN TERMS OF WHAT OUR PURVIEW IS AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAVE BASICALLY A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

I LOOK THROUGH THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. IT DOES HAVE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS.

THE TWO THINGS WE ALWAYS LOOK TO ARE VIEW ISSUES.

THERE REALLY ARE NONE FROM ANY PUBLIC AREAS SUCH AS A PARK.

[00:25:01]

ANYHOW, IT'S BACK A LITTLE BIT A WAYS ON BUSY CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.

SO THERE'S REALLY NO VIEW ISSUES HERE. AND IN TERMS OF ACCESS ISSUES, SIMILARLY THERE'S NO ACCESS ISSUE.

THERE'S NO TRAIL DOWN TO THE BEACH. THERE ARE TRAILS DOWN TO THE BEACH ON THE SIDE, AWAY FROM THE LOT, BUT NOT SO. NOT ON THIS LOT ITSELF. SO NO WAY IS THIS GOING TO IMPAIR ANY PERSON'S ACCESS AND ABILITY TO GET DOWN TO THE BEACH. SO I THINK IT PASSES EASILY THE CRITERIA WE HAVE FOR THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

AND WITH RESPECT TO THE MINOR SUBDIVISION MAP THERE'S NO EASEMENT ISSUES, THERE'S NO EXTERNAL IMPACT ISSUES, BIOLOGICAL ISSUES, ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT.

THEY'VE CONDITIONED IT TO AVOID ANY URBAN RUNOFF OR SOIL EROSION ISSUES.

SO WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF THAT. SO, I MY FEELING IS, IS WITHIN OUR PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

I THINK THIS IS AN EASY. YES, COMMISSIONER FOSTER, IT'S ALWAYS EASY TO GO AFTER COMMISSIONER STINE BECAUSE HE RECAPS EVERY DETAIL WHICH I WHICH I APPRECIATE. I'M SURE OTHERS DO SO. I MEAN, THERE'S NOT TOO MUCH TO ADD TO THAT.

I'LL JUST GIVE MY OPINION OF THE MATTER, BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY KUDOS TO ALEX.

LIKE THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. EASY TO FOLLOW.

VERY, VERY, VERY GOOD. ESPECIALLY. ANYWAY, I JUST THOUGHT YOU DID A GREAT JOB.

AND THEN AND THEN, IN MY OPINION, THE PROJECT ITSELF, I THINK, MR. MUELLER, I THINK YOU DESIGNED A BEAUTIFUL, YOU KNOW, TWO BEAUTIFUL HOMES.

AND I PERSONALLY LOVE THE ARCHITECTURE. I LOVE HOW THEY DON'T MATCH.

I LOVE THE SPACE IN BETWEEN. LIKE, I THINK I THINK YOU DID A BRILLIANT JOB.

SO, I MEAN, EASILY I SUPPORT THE PROJECT. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER, YOU GUYS DID A GREAT JOB.

I SUPPORT THE PROJECT. WELL DONE. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION OF STAFF.

AT THE ELEVATION. THE ELEVATION OF THE LOT ITSELF, FROM THE STREET LEVEL TO THE REAR OF THE LOT, THE REAR OF THE LOT IS LOWER. AND SO THEREFORE, FROM AN APPLICANT STANDPOINT, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT IS BEING DONE IN REGARD TO DRAINAGE ON THE LOT ITSELF. COMMISSION. DO YOU? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

CHAIR MEENES ENGINEER MANAGER JASON GELDER IS HERE TO ANSWER THAT.

GREAT. THANK YOU, SIR. JASON GELDER YES, THE DRAINAGE IS THIS IS IT'S A GOOD SITUATION.

IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT HAS DECIDED TO CONNECT TO A DRAIN LINE THAT'S IN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, AND THE ELEVATION IS SUCH THAT THAT THEY CAN DRAIN FROM THE LOWEST POINT AND GRAVITY FLOW BACK TO THE TO THE MAIN DRAIN LINE.

SO THERE WON'T BE ANY FLOW TO THE NEIGHBORS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

EXCELLENT. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARITY. ALSO, I'D LIKE TO SAY, MR. MUELLER, YOU DID AN EXCELLENT JOB. I ALSO LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING BOTH OF THEM LOOK LIKE INDEPENDENT HOMES.

FROM AN ELEVATION STANDPOINT, THE ARCHITECTURE IS EXCELLENT, SO I'M VERY, VERY HAPPY WITH THAT AS WELL.

SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ASK, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONER FOSTER THAT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING. SO, THERE'S NO SUMP PUMPS REQUIRED.

NO. AND I THINK COMMISSIONER BURROWS, I THOUGHT THERE, WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT IT, I WAS CONFUSING WITH ANOTHER PROJECT.

BUT NO IN THIS CASE IT ACTUALLY IS ABLE TO GRAVITY FLOW.

SO OKAY. YEAH. WHICH IS EXCELLENT FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN.

EXCELLENT. THAT'S AWESOME. YEAH I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

ANYTHING ANY ANYTHING FURTHER? OKAY. I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT AS MR. ALLEGRA HAD INDICATED THAT A SECRET DETERMINATION HAS ALREADY BEEN ISSUED BECAUSE THIS WAS PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL ACTION A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.

SO THEREFORE, THAT DETERMINATION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE CITY PLANNER.

SO THEREFORE, WITH A MOTION, I'D LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER STINE SECOND.

IF WE COULD JUST. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I DO BELIEVE THERE WAS AN ERRATA.

SO CAN WE JUST MAKE A POINT TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE MOTION? THANK YOU. I WILL MODIFY THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE ERRATA.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. COMMISSIONER BURROWS MADE A SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. UNANIMOUS SEVEN ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO

[2. RYAN REMODEL - CDP 2024-0007 (DEV2024-0028)]

[00:30:02]

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. LARDY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER TWO FOR US? OH. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU. EX PARTE, I ALWAYS FORGET THAT ONE.

COMMISSIONER MERZ. I VISITED THE SITE, COMMISSIONER BURROWS.

I VISITED THE SITE AS WELL. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

COMMISSIONER STINE. I DROVE BY THE SITE ON THE WAY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND I ALSO DROVE BY THE SITE AS WELL.

MR. LARDY, THANK YOU. SURE. HERE TO GIVE OUR STAFF PRESENTATION IS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR STRONG? THANK YOU, CITY PLANNER LARDY. AND GOOD EVENING.

COMMISSION. THIS AGENDA ITEM IS A REMODEL OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON OCEAN STREET.

IT REQUIRES A MAJOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE ENTITLEMENT.

PRIOR TO TAKING FINAL ACTION OF THE DECISION MAKING BODY, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE DETERMINATIVE BODY NEEDS TO MAKE A CEQA FINDING.

SO LIKE THE FIRST PREVIOUS ITEM, THAT DECISION HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE.

THE CITY COUNCIL HAD ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE THAT PUTS THE COMMISSION, OR IN THIS CASE, THE FINAL DECISION MAKING BODY, TO CONCURRENTLY MAKE THAT DETERMINATION FOR EXEMPTIONS.

SO I'LL COVER THAT DURING THE PRESENTATION BUT JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT CONTEXT PRIOR TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT.

THANK YOU. THE PROJECT IS AN EXISTING 2300 SQUARE FOOT HOME.

THE APPLICATION INCLUDES THE DETAILS REQUEST FOR TWO MAIN COMPONENTS.

ONE IS ADDITIONS TO THE PRIMARY UNIT. SO, THE TOTAL PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE ADDED IS 998FT².

THAT INCLUDES 188FT² ADDED TO THE SECOND STORY AND 810FT² ADDED TO THE THIRD STORY. THE FIRST FLOOR HAS AN AREA OF ABOUT 700FT² THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE CONVERTED TO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LAW AT THE STATE LEVEL HAS LEGISLATIVE AS SUCH THAT THE RECENT CHANGES REQUIRE MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT APPLICATIONS.

SO CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS APPLICATION, THE PROPERTY OWNER SUBMITTED REQUEST FOR MINOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THAT CONVERSION, AND THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED SHORTLY AFTER THE CONSIDERATION OF THE MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE R-3 ZONE, WHICH IS A MULTI-FAMILY ZONE.

IT'S ALSO LOCATED IN THE BEACH OVERLAY ZONE AND IN THE MELLOW TWO SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN.

THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT IS SUBMITTED FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION INCLUDES AN ANALYSIS OF CONSISTENCY WITH EACH OF THOSE PLANNING DOCUMENTS. AND THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ITSELF WILL MEET THE REQUISITE FINDINGS TO ISSUE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS UNDER THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

THE EXISTING TWO STOREY RESIDENCE IS LIKE I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, IS PROPOSED FOR THE REMODELING AND THE THIRD STOREY ADDITION.

ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE OCCURRING WITHIN THE EXISTING ENVELOPE.

THE LOT COVERAGE OF OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE.

SO THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS INTO ANY EXISTING YARD SPACES.

IT'S ALL VERTICAL IMPROVEMENTS. I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY IN THE PRESENTATION THAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ON THE FIRST FLOOR ARE ENTIRELY RELATED TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT CONVERSION.

SO ANY REFERENCES IN THIS PRESENTATION OR IN THE STAFF REPORT ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.

THE PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR ADDITION OF 188FT² IS PROPOSED IN THE KITCHEN AREA, WHICH IS SHOWN WITH THE HATCHED AREA.

IT'S CONFIGURED TO LOOK LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF AN L REVERSE L, AND THEN THE PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR PLAN IS TO ACCOMMODATE A MASTER BEDROOM AND MASTER BATHROOM, AND THESE ARE ALL NEW IMPROVEMENTS ON THE THIRD STORY.

THE R-3 ZONING DESIGNATION HAS A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35FT.

THE BEACH OVERLAY ZONE HAS A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 30FT.

THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WILL TAKE THE EXISTING 22 FOOT STORY STRUCTURE AND INCREASE IT EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT, AS SHOWN ON THIS DIAGRAM OF THE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST ELEVATIONS, TAKING IT TO THE 30FT LIMIT, WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BEACH OVERLAY ZONE.

THERE IS A HEIGHT, PROTRUSION, OR ENCROACHMENT TO ACCOMMODATE A CHIMNEY WHICH ISN'T ALLOWED.

ENCROACHMENT. PURSUANT TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.

THE SIMULATION REPRESENTS WHAT THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS WOULD LOOK LIKE ONCE IMPLEMENTED.

THE SITE IS ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING THREE STORY STRUCTURE.

[00:35:04]

THAT SITE IS ACTUALLY UNDER ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION FOR ANOTHER THREE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

AND ALSO, TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST IS ANOTHER THREE STORY STRUCTURE.

THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT UNLIKE ANY OTHER RECENT DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEEN OCCURRING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THERE IS A BLENDED MIX OF ONE AND TWO STORY AND MOST RECENTLY, THREE STORY STRUCTURES.

TO REMOVE ANY UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IS TAKING ACTION ON STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THE MOTION TO AMEND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND CHANGE THE TITLE OF THE RESOLUTION.

AND I'D LIKE TO JUST CLARIFY WHAT THAT AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN.

BUT THE OBJECTIVE IS JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS TAKING FINAL ACTION ON THE CEQA DETERMINATION.

IT IS LISTED AS THE SECOND DETERMINATION AND THE RESOLUTION BODY, BUT MAKING THE CHANGE WILL JUST MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR AND MIGHT SET A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE PROJECTS. SO IF THE MOTIONER WAS INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT, THE RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE WOULD READ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CEQA EXEMPTION DETERMINATION AND A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITION AND REMODEL OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LOCATED AT 2678 OCEAN STREET WITHIN LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE ONE.

THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION, AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. EXCELLENT.

MR. STRONG, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU GETTING INTO THE WEEDS IN REGARD TO CEQA.

THAT'S EXCELLENT. NOW, YOU TOOK ALL OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY AWAY.

AND I'M GLAD YOU DID, BECAUSE YOU SAID IT MUCH MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I WOULD HAVE. APPRECIATE THAT. SO MINUTES.

CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY LETTERS OF THAT HAVE COME IN OR EMAILS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE IN REGARD TO THIS PROJECT? NO, WE HAVE NOT. OKAY. JUST FOR THE RECORD, THERE IS A CORRESPONDENCE INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA PACKET THAT WAS ALREADY PROVIDED AND PUBLISHED WITH THE REPORT, AND THAT IS A LETTER OBJECTION TO THE STORY OR ADDING ADDITIONAL STORIES TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.

EXCELLENT. COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER MERZ? YEAH. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION ON THE ONES YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE TWO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, THE 30 AND A 35 FOOT. AND SO, I GUESS THE RULES HAVE TO GO TO THE LOWER OF THE TWO.

IS THAT IS THAT HOW THAT WORKS OR. CORRECT. SO BECAUSE THE CITY IS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE OR PORTIONS OF THE CITY'S JURISDICTION IS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE, THERE IS A BALANCE OF COMPETING OBJECTIVES.

SO LOCAL LAND USE CONTROL, WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL IS CLEARLY IN CONTROL OF.

AND THEIR FORMATION OF POLICY WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE R-3 ZONING DESIGNATION, WHICH SETS FOR UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY, IN THIS CASE BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35FT. THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS ALSO IN THE OVERLAY ZONE, WHICH IS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED. IT'S NOT JUST EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE CITY'S JURISDICTION, AND THAT INVOLVES THE COASTAL COMMISSION REVIEWING AND CERTIFYING NOT ONLY THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN, BUT THE PROGRAM AS ITSELF. ANY IMPLEMENTING PLANS AND DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE.

SO THROUGH OVER THE YEARS WITH THAT INTERFACE BETWEEN THE TWO JURISDICTIONS THERE WAS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR OVERLAY ZONE TO APPLY IN THOSE AREAS WHERE THERE WAS MORE SENSITIVITY TO US THAT A CHARACTER OR TO PERSPECTIVES OF, OF PUBLIC VIEWS. AND SO, COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONE OF 35FT RUNS AFOUL WITH THE BEACH OVERLAY ZONE. SO, IN THIS CASE, THE CITY WOULD BE IMPLEMENTING THE MORE RESTRICTIVE OF THE TWO.

THE BEACH OVERLAY ZONE IS APPLIED IN MULTIPLE ZONING DISTRICTS SO IT APPLIES ACROSS DIFFERENT PROPERTIES.

BUT THAT GEOGRAPHIC AREA IS MAPPED OUT THROUGH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE ON ONE SLIDE WHERE IT SHOWED THE THREE DIFFERENT STORIES.

I REMEMBER IN THE BRIEFING TO THAT THIRD STORY WAS KIND OF STUCK AT SEVEN FEET, WHICH IS AND I GUESS I HAD TO DO THAT TO MEET THAT 30 FOOT REQUIREMENT.

RIGHT. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THEY WERE STUCK DOING, RIGHT? I MEAN, STUCK BEING MY WORDS, NOT THEIRS.

BUT I MEAN, THAT'S THE BASIS OF THE REQUEST TO CONFORM WITH THE ZONING STANDARDS OF THE BEACH OVERLAY ZONE.

IT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THAT. I WAS JUST KIND OF CURIOUS BECAUSE, I MEAN, I MEAN, JUST THIS IS JUST SORT OF A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION, BUT, YOU KNOW, WITH A SEVEN FOOT CEILING.

YOU KNOW THE APPLICANTS IN THAT SITUATION. HOW? I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORD THIS. HOW HARD WOULD IT BE TO HOW BIG A DEAL TO GET A VARIANCE TO SAY,

[00:40:04]

AND THAT'S NEVER GOING TO CHANGE. ON THE 30FT.

THE 30FT IS A STANDARD ESTABLISHED NOT ONLY BY THE CITY, BUT THROUGH THE COASTAL COMMISSION CERTIFICATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PORTION OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. SO IT IS A RIGID STANDARD ESTABLISHED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE.

IN ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE, CERTAIN FINDINGS NEED TO BE MADE.

AND CERTAINLY THIS COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE APPEALED TO THE COMMISSION ITSELF.

THE SEVEN FOOT CEILING LIMIT IS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF THE BUILDING CODE.

SO THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE ESTABLISHES MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND IN THIS CASE, IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THERE NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST A MINIMUM STANDARD FOR CEILING HEIGHT.

SO IT COMPLIES WITH THAT BARE MINIMUM. SO IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE BEFORE, BUT I DO THINK WITH THE RECENT THREE STORY DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS BEEN OBSERVED, AT LEAST IN THIS AREA WHERE THERE IS THAT BEACH OVERLAY ZONE, THAT WAS BRAND NEW CONSTRUCTION OR A TEAR DOWN AND REDEVELOPMENT, IT WASN'T A REMODEL. SO, THE APPLICANT OR PROPERTY OWNER WORKED WITHIN THE CONFINES OF TRYING TO KEEP WHAT'S ALREADY THERE IN PLACE.

THE FIRST STORY AND SECOND STORY AND THAT CLEARANCE HEIGHT, WHICH MADE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT TO ACCOMPLISH A THIRD STORY WITHIN THE REMAINING HEIGHT ALLOWANCE OF THAT ZONE. SO RIGHT WHERE IF IT WAS NEW CONSTRUCTION, THEY COULD EVEN THAT OUT, BUT THEY WERE ALREADY STUCK WITH THE FLOOR, AND CEILING PLATES WOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED IN THE LOWER LEVELS TO ACCOMMODATE MORE SPACE.

YEAH, IT WAS JUST MORE OF A CURIOSITY ON MY STANDPOINT. YOU LOOK AT IT AND YOU THINK, GEE, I WONDER HOW THAT. BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT IT IS ON THAT.

SO, OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

THANKS. AND TO TAG ON TO THAT THERE'S A PUBLIC PARK RIGHT THERE.

RIGHT. WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE OR BE VERY MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO GO THROUGH COASTAL COMMISSION TO OBSTRUCT THOSE VIEWS. SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S LOWER, GOING ABOVE THAT WOULD STILL BE AGAINST WHAT THE, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION WOULD BE. IS THAT A CORRECT ASSUMPTION OR THERE'S SEVERAL WAYS TO LOOK AT VISUAL IMPACTS.

ONE IS THE IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, LIKE AS IT EXISTS TODAY AND THEN AS IT WOULD IMPACT THE PLANNED BUILDOUT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. SO COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS IMPLIES THAT THERE WOULD BE NO VISIBLE IMPACT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF AN AREA, BECAUSE THE IDEA IS THAT ALL THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THAT ZONE, OR IN THIS CASE THE OVERLAY, WOULD BE ACHIEVING SOME DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THAT ENVELOPE THAT'S ESTABLISHED BY THAT FRAMEWORK.

IN TERMS OF IMPACT ON THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT I DID MENTION IN THE PRESENTATION THAT PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH ARE ALL GOING TO BE THREE STOREYS AND AT THAT 30 FOOT LIMIT AS WELL.

THE PARK ITSELF IS SITUATED MAYBE ABOUT 15FT ABOVE THIS SITE.

SO THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A TERRORIST OR GRADUATED SLOPE INCREASE.

BUT CERTAINLY, IF YOU START INCREASING BUILDING HEIGHT AND DEFINITELY GO ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT'S ESTABLISHED BY CODE THROUGH A VARIANCE, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE SCRUTINY PERHAPS MORE ELEVATED REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE WITH SOME OF THOSE POLICIES IN THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

AND WHETHER OR NOT THE FINDINGS COULD EVEN BE SUPPORTED.

SO, YEAH, IF I COULD JUST ADD ON BRIEFLY, WE HAVE ISSUED VARIANCES IN THIS BLOCK, BUT NONE THAT I'M AWARE OF RELATED TO HEIGHT.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PROJECTS IN THIS AREA THAT YOU'VE SEEN WITHIN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

SO, BUT ALL OF WHICH HAVE COMPLIED WITH THAT 30 FOOT LIMIT WITH A ROOF PITCH.

SO IT'S SORT OF A TWO PART STANDARD IS IT'S 24FT OR 30FT WITH A 3 TO 12 ROOF PITCH.

AND THE DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA HAS WORKED WITHIN THAT.

WE'D HAVE TO PROVE WHY THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS BEING DEPRIVED OF SOMETHING AND DIFFERENT THAN THOSE OTHER PROJECTS.

AND THAT KIND OF GOES TO MY NEXT QUESTION. NO SIDEWALKS ARE BEING PROPOSED FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.

I DO NOT BELIEVE SO, NO. BECAUSE THAT'S A CONTINUOUS VARIANCE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO WHERE WE NEVER GET SIDEWALKS OVER THERE.

WHICH IS A, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S LOTS OF PEOPLE THERE WALKING, BUT SO IT WOULD BE IT'S CONDITIONED, CORRECT, IN THE RESOLUTION. I'D ASK IF ENGINEERING MANAGER GILDER COULD COME UP AND DISCUSS.

[00:45:08]

AND THEN LET ME ASK YOU, LET ME ASK MY THIRD QUESTION.

CAN WE VOTE ON THIS CDP FIRST AND OR THE CEQA FIRST AND THE CDP SECOND? CAN WE DO THAT, OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE ALL IN ONE? I THINK THE RESOLUTION HAS BOTH OF THEM IN ONE.

SO YOU WOULD NEED TO DO IT ALL IN ONE. AND I DO RECOMMEND THAT TO FOLLOW MR. STRONG'S RECOMMENDATION ON HOW TO WORD IT, BUT ALSO TO DO THIS IF YOU IF YOU SAY I ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION, IT SHOULD APPROVE THE CEQA AND THEN APPROVE THE CDP IN THAT ORDER.

RIGHT. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD CONTINUE? SORT OF. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD NOW THAT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE OTHER CEQA DETERMINATIONS? IS IT SOMETHING WHERE WE COULD HAVE THE RESOLUTION WRITTEN, WHERE THEY COULD BE TWO VOTES AS OPPOSED TO A SINGLE VOTE? MOSTLY BECAUSE SOMETIMES WE AGREE WITH THE CEQA, BUT WE KNOW MAYBE THE PROJECT ISN'T WHAT WE HAD HOPED.

SO IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE IT BE SEPARATE IN THE FUTURE? I'M NOT ASKING FOR TODAY. YEAH, I THINK WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

WE TYPICALLY IF IT'S AN EIR CERTIFICATION, WE DO SEPARATE THEM.

SO, I THINK WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT FOR AN EXEMPTION.

WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO SEPARATE BECAUSE IT'S OFTEN INTERTWINED.

BUT HOW ABOUT WE COULD LOOK AT THAT FOR OUR NEXT PROJECT AND REPORT BACK ON POTENTIAL OPTIONS.

I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. THAT WAS EXCELLENT, MRS .

LAFFERTY, BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD EARLIER AS WELL, WONDERING HOW WE SHOULD DEAL WITH THAT SEPARATION.

RIGHT. AND IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO COME UP.

SO MAYBE WE WANT TO SORT OF HAVE A SEPARATION OF STATE AND LOCAL JUST TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN YOU KNOW, DO OUR DILIGENCE, I SUPPOSE. GOOD COMMENT.

EXCELLENT COMMENT. ANYTHING FURTHER? MR. GILDER'S GOING TO ASK MY SIDEWALK QUESTION.

YEAH. SO, THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE DOES REQUIRE IMPROVEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS, BUT FOR BUILDING ENLARGEMENTS, NOT FOR ADDITIONS THAT WILL GO VERTICAL. SO, IN THIS CASE, THEY DIDN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENT OR THE TRIGGER TO REQUIRE IMPROVEMENTS OR DEDICATIONS. REALLY WHAT'S THE TRIGGER. BECAUSE IT'S 1000FT², RIGHT.

THIS PROJECT IT'S AN AMOUNT OF BUILDING ENLARGEMENT PER EVALUATION.

I THINK THE VALUATION IS NOW AROUND 100 AND I CAN'T REMEMBER.

WE JUST ADJUSTED. IT'S ABOUT 120, 130,000. BUT THEY'RE NOT ENLARGING THE BUILDING.

IT'S OF THE PORTION OF THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE BUILDING ON THE GROUND FLOOR, THE FOOTPRINT.

IF YOU'RE ADDING A SECOND STOREY, WE DON'T IMPOSE THAT ON THE FOR THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

WOW. THAT'S INTERESTING. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE.

THANK YOU. MR. STONE, WILL YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THIS PROJECT AND MCGEE PARK AND ANY POTENTIAL VIEW OBSTRUCTION ISSUES FROM MCGEE PARK, LOOKING WESTWARD TOWARD THE OCEAN? I WENT OUT TO THE SUBJECT SITE AND TO THE MCGEE PARK AND STOOD AT DIFFERENT AREAS OF MCGEE PARK.

THE SITE ITSELF IS OBSTRUCTED FROM THE PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT LOT.

THERE IS A VERY SMALL SIGHTLINE WHICH WOULD BE VERY DUE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

BUT IT'S A VERY NEGLIGIBLE AREA, AND IT'S OBSTRUCTED BY A THREE STORY STRUCTURE THAT'S BUILT ON GARFIELD. SORRY. SO, IN TERMS OF THIS PROJECT INCREASING THE MAGNITUDE OF ANY OBSTRUCTION, YOUR ANSWER WOULD BE NO. I WOULD SAY NO. YES.

THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. MINUTES.

CLERK. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE THIS EVENING? NO, WE DO NOT.

OKAY. I'LL OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY. ARE THERE ANY SLIPS THAT ARE REQUESTED? NO, CHAIR, THERE IS NOT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY WITH THAT? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. SO IT'S VERY INTERESTING THAT WE DON'T IMPOSE FEES.

IF THEY BUILD, THEY ADD SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE SAME ENVELOPE.

IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY OUR SINGLE STORIES ARE ALL TURNING INTO SOMETHING LARGER.

[00:50:08]

I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT SURE HOW TO ANSWER THAT. THAT THIS POLICY OR THIS CODE WAS PUT IN PLACE BY COUNCIL PURPOSELY.

AND THIS WAS WRITTEN PURPOSELY FOR BUILDING ENLARGEMENTS THAT TAKE MORE SPACE.

AS FAR AS GOING VERTICALLY, THAT WAS. KNOWN AND THAT WAS NOT CONSIDERED.

IF YOU IF YOU ADD VERTICALLY OR ADD OR DO INTERIOR ADDITIONS OR INTERIOR WORK, THAT WAS EXCLUDED.

AND I THINK THAT WAS DONE ON PURPOSE, JUST TO NOT CREATE ANOTHER BURDEN FOR SOMEONE TRYING TO JUST IMPROVE THEIR, THEIR HOUSE. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. I WOULD SAY FOR THE MOST PART, SECOND AND THIRD STORY ADDITIONS TYPICALLY DO RESULT IN HORIZONTAL EXPANSIONS. TYPICALLY, IT'S BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL MATTER RELATED TO THE FOUNDATION EXISTING FOUNDATION OF HOMES.

SO, THE APPLICATION IS CONCEPTUAL, AND THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWING PHASE, THEY MAY LEARN SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

BUT IF SOMETHING DOES REQUIRE A HORIZONTAL EXPANSION, THEY WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION AND BE SUBJECT TO ANY APPROPRIATE POLICIES. BUT FOR THE MOST PART, SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TYPICALLY DO RESULT IN SOME SORT OF HORIZONTAL EXPANSION.

WELL, I, I GUESS I DON'T SEE THAT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY CAN JUST AS EASILY DIG AND UNDERPIN AND DIG UNDER THE EXISTING FOUNDATION TO REINFORCE THE FOUNDATION SO THAT THEY CAN GO UP. SO, I MEAN, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS IS NOT MINOR CONSTRUCTION WHEN YOU'RE ADDING A COUPLE STORIES, RIGHT? SO, I'M JUST WONDERING, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE GETTING INTO HAIRSPLITTING, I SUPPOSE, WITH THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ADDING A UNIT WHICH DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE, RIGHT? AND THEY ARE GAINING ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT.

BUT I DIDN'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, I'M TRYING TO GET A SIDEWALK IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH WE NEVER GET. SO, THAT'S REALLY MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE.

WE ARE GOING TO SEE THIS MORE AND MORE IS WHAT I GUESS I'M FEARING.

AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE AS A COMMUNITY CAN ENSURE THAT WE ALL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGE THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN AMENITIES REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AMENITIES AS WELL.

SO ANYWAY, THAT'S A QUESTION THAT I HOPE WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ASK FOR COMMISSION DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. COMMISSION DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER STINE OKAY.

I WAS LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS ONE.

AND I GO BACK. I DIDN'T SEE ANY TAKERS, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER MERZ MIGHT POSSIBLY WANT TO SAY SOMETHING.

OKAY. THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF I MAY? JUST TO REPEAT MYSELF FROM EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION ABOUT THE MODIFIED MOTION TO INCLUDE THE CEQA DETERMINATION LANGUAGE. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE TWO ISSUES HERE.

ONE IS THE CEQA DETERMINATION. AND I LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT THE STAFF REPORT.

STAFF IS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT AS A MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE.

THEY'VE GIVEN US THE SPECIFICS. THE CEQA SECTION SAYS IT SHOULD BE INCREASED NO MORE THAN 50% OF THE FLOOR AREA.

STAFF'S DONE A CALCULATION AND SAID THIS ONE WOULD INCREASE IT BY 42%.

SO, IT'S CLOSE, BUT IT ISN'T OVER THE 50% THRESHOLD.

SO, UNDER THOSE NUMBERS, I THINK IT CLEARLY FITS WITHIN THE CEQA GUIDELINES.

SO, I SEE NO FURTHER ISSUES ON THE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION WITH REGARD TO GETTING BEYOND THE CEQA REVIEW AND LOOKING TO THE CDP. THE ISSUE I HAD, OBVIOUSLY, FROM MY QUESTIONS WAS THAT A VIEW? MANY TIMES, WE HAVE CDP WHERE THERE ARE NO PUBLIC PROPERTIES IN THE AREA, SO WE REALLY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE LIKE IN THE PREVIOUS ONE.

WE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE. THIS ONE, WE DO HAVE AN ISSUE, AND THAT IS BECAUSE MCGEE PARK, A PUBLIC LANDS USED BY CITIZENS FOR RECREATION, IS FAIRLY CLOSE TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSED

[00:55:05]

HE ACTUALLY WALKED OUT THERE AND TOOK A LOOK AT IT, EYEBALLED IT.

AND BECAUSE MCGEE PARK IS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER AND THERE ARE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE AREA, I THINK STAFF HAS DONE ITS DUE DILIGENCE HERE AND DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT OR WOULD BE NEGLIGIBLE.

IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT THAT WAY. BY THIS ADDITION HEIGHT ADDITION.

SO, THERE'S NO ACCESS ISSUE HERE. THIS IS NOT RIGHT ON THE BEACH.

THIS IS ACROSS THE STREET. SO WE DO HAVE VIEW ISSUES, BUT I THINK STAFF HAS COVERED THEM.

AND THE SINGLE ISSUE, WHICH IS NOW WITHIN OUR PURVIEW, I THINK STAFF HAS DONE A GOOD JOB AND HAS SHOWN BY THE REPORT THAT THIS IS WORTHY OF THE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PROVIDED. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I CAN SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.

COMMISSIONER MERZ. COMMISSIONER BURROWS. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. OKAY WITH THAT? YEAH. I HAVE IN REGARD TO THE MOTION, MAYBE I'LL ASK FOR LEGAL COUNSEL IN THIS REGARD IN REGARD TO THE MOTION IN REGARD TO WHAT MR. STRONG HAD INDICATED REGARDING THE CEQA AND THE EXEMPTION ON CEQA.

AND OF COURSE, THEN COMMENTS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY IN REGARD TO THAT WILL BE SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE AS TO HOW THAT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN.

SO THEREFORE, AND I ASKING FOR A MOTION, THEN IT WOULD BE IN CONTEXT WITH WHAT MR. STRONG HAD RECOMMENDED. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MAY I HAVE A MOTION WITH COMMENTS MADE BY MR. STRONG REGARDING THE STRUCTURE OF HOW THAT MOTION WOULD BE WORDED.

WHO WISHES TO TAKE THAT ON? I WASN'T WRITING FAST ENOUGH, I GUESS.

COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER STINE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THIS ON? I'D LIKE TO DELEGATE THAT, BUT I GUESS I GUESS I KNOW THAT YOU'RE PROBABLY THE BEST ONE IN THIS REGARD.

WELL, I'LL GIVE I'LL GIVE YOU. STAFF HAS MADE CLEAR IN LEGAL COUNSEL'S MADE CLEAR WE HAVE TO INCORPORATE THAT.

SO I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTION WITH THE ADDITION OF APPROPRIATE APPROVING THE CEQA DETERMINATION OF A CEQA EXEMPTION. I'M ADDING THAT TO THE RESOLUTION IN THE STAFF REPORT.

ATTORNEY. THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. ARE YOU SATISFIED? YES, I AM SATISFIED. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER MERTZ MAKES THE SECOND.

I'LL SECOND. I APPRECIATE THE MOTION, MR. STEPHENS.

EXCELLENT WORK THERE ON THAT. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

PLEASE VOTE. IT'S NOT READY YET. OH.

OKAY. WE HAVE SIX VOTING. YES. AND RECUSED AS COMMISSIONER.

FOSTER. COMMISSIONER FOSTER, YOU MAY RETURN. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THIS REGARD. COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR RETURNING.

THAT WILL CONCLUDE OUR PUBLIC HEARING. ARE THERE ANY REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS?

[COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTARY AND REQUESTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS]

IS NOW THE RIGHT TIME TO ASK THAT? MR. LORDI? YES. QUESTIONS FOR YOU, MR. LORDI. I WAS HOPING YOU COULD EXPLAIN HOW THE DRIVE THROUGH BAND POLICY CHANGE IN THE RECENT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CAN NOW AFFECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SURE. IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE CHAIR, I CAN INCLUDE THAT IN MY DEPARTMENTAL REPORT.

COMMISSIONER COMMENT OR COMMENTS? YEAH. OKAY.

ARE THERE ANY JUST, I GUESS, POINT OF ORDER. DO YOU WANT TO CONCLUDE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS FIRST? YES, I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MERTZ.

NOTHING. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. SO HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

WE'RE MR.. I THINK MR. STRONG WILL BE ABLE TO CONFIRM, BUT IT'S MAY 12TH MONDAY.

SO THAT'S THE NEXT. AND THE WEBSITE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE DISCUSSED.

IS THAT CORRECT? OR. THAT'S THE HOPE. THERE WILL BE A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION ON THAT.

THAT'S ONE OF THE FOUR AGENDA ITEMS. GREAT. THANK YOU.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO AND I NOTED IN BOTH OF THESE STAFF REPORTS OR I THINK I NOTED THEM, THE TEN DAY CEQA DETERMINATION FOR EXEMPTION FOR PUBLIC REVIEW.

[01:00:01]

SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE IN THAT.

I GUESS I'D BE LOOKING FOR A LITTLE CLARIFICATION AND WE'LL BE CAREFUL BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.

IS IS EXACTLY WHAT THAT'S IN REFERENCE TO. THE PREVIOUS PROCESS HAD A CITY PLANNER DETERMINATION AND A TEN DAY APPEAL PERIOD, BUT THAT IS NO LONGER THE PROCESS. SO I THINK WE CAN EXPLAIN OUR PROCESS OF WHEN WE DO POST OUR CEQA EXEMPTIONS, WHICH WE'RE WHICH WERE ACTUALLY TRYING TO POST OUR DRAFT EXEMPTIONS MUCH IN ADVANCE OF THE TEN DAYS.

THAT'S ALL. COMMISSIONER. STINE. COMMISSIONER.

FOSTER. COMMISSIONER. ALL RIGHT. YOU'RE ON. YOU HAVE MANY THINGS TO TALK ABOUT TONIGHT.

[STAFF COMMENTS]

I'LL START FROM THE TOP. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COMMISSIONER BURROUGHS. SO THE CITY COUNCIL TOOK ACTION LAST WEEK ON THE DRIVE THROUGH ITEM. IN NOVEMBER, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECEIVED A PRESENTATION ON THE OPTIONS TO RECONSIDER THE BAN FROM THE 90S ON NEW DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT FACILITIES. THE CITY COUNCIL WAS PRESENTED A NUMBER OF OPTIONS, RANGING FROM DO NOTHING TO INITIATE STAFF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REVERSE THE PROHIBITION ON DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES WITH THE CITY COUNCIL TOOK ACTION ON IS WHAT WE CALLED OPTION TWO, WHICH WAS TO SIGNAL INTENT, AND POTENTIAL CONSIDERATION OF PRIVATE APPLICANTS TO PROPOSE DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES AND SITE SPECIFIC LOCATIONS, BUT WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY DIRECTION TO INITIATE A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REVERSE THE PROHIBITION ON NEW DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS.

SO WHAT THAT MEANS PRACTICALLY, IS A PRIVATE APPLICANT COULD SUBMIT A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THEMSELVES, AS WELL AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PROCEED WITH A SITE SPECIFIC DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT PROPOSAL.

SO IF ONE WAS SUBMITTED AND MOVED FORWARD, IT WOULD COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR RECOMMENDATION.

BUT BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE A CHANGE OF ZONING ORDINANCE, THAT'S A LEGISLATIVE ACTION THAT ONLY THE CITY COUNCIL CAN ACT ON.

SO THEY WOULD BE THE FINAL DECISION MAKER ON ANY SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ANY CEQA ITEMS RELATED TO THAT.

SO WHAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE? I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE BEFORE IS NOW POSSIBLE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. IF IT'S POSSIBLE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

STILL SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE SPECIFICS.

SO NOTHING IN THAT WAS BINDING ON THE CITY. THIS OR FUTURE CITY COUNCILS IN APPROVING SPECIFIC DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE IT'S A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

IT GOES IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IF IN THE EVENT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES A DETERMINATION OF APPROVAL, THEN IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL. AND THEN CITY COUNCIL IS LIKE A SECOND QUASI-JUDICIAL LAYER OF APPROVAL.

IS THAT CORRECT? IT WOULD NOT BE A QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTION.

IT PROBABLY WOULD INCLUDE IT, BUT IT WOULD BE A LEGISLATIVE ACTION AMENDING THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE BAN IS.

SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD JUST BE RECOMMENDING WHETHER TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE IT.

AND BECAUSE OF THE WAY OUR ORDINANCE IS STRUCTURED, ANY PERMITS, EVEN IF, FOR IF, FOR EXAMPLE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD LEND WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION NORMALLY BECAUSE IT INCLUDED THAT OTHER ACTION, EVERYTHING WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YOU'RE THINKING, COMMISSIONER FOSTER.

YEAH. WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF, LIKE, A SCENARIO. I MEAN, SO I GUESS, I GUESS THE WAY IT'S NOW STRUCTURED, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS OF HOW WE RESPOND TO THE APPLICANTS, I GUESS, IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. SO, BY EXAMPLE, ABC COMPANY WANTS TO PUT IN A FAST FOOD PLACE AT THIS CORNER ON TAMARACK AND WHEREVER. RIGHT.

[01:05:01]

HOW DID? HOW DID? HOW DID? I CAN. I JUST MAKE TWO BRIEF.

COULD I GET THAT LUCKY? THREE. IF I COULD JUST MAKE TWO BRIEF COMMENTS.

ONE IS THIS ITEM IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, SO WE SHOULD KEEP IT TO INFORMATIONAL AND BRIEF QUESTIONS.

WE COULD, WE COULD, I COULD, I CAN PICK YOUR BRAIN OFFLINE.

YEAH. SO, ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT FOR ME.

OKAY. THANK YOU. NOW YOU HAVE A SECOND ITEM TO DISCUSS.

YEAH, I ACTUALLY HAVE A COUPLE BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS. SECOND IS NEXT WEEK AT CITY COUNCIL.

THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE CONSIDERING TWO ACTION ITEMS TO CONSIDER.

THE COASTAL COMMISSION PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.

TWO SETS, ONE FOR THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO PLAN AREA AND ONE FOR THE CITYWIDE.

SO THAT'LL BE AT CITY COUNCIL. COASTAL COMMISSION DID HAVE MINOR SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS.

THIS WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOTH ITEMS SOMETIME LAST YEAR.

AND SO WE'D BE LOOKING TO FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THOSE SO THEY COULD GO INTO EFFECT INSIDE THE COASTAL ZONE IS OUR RECOMMENDATION.

AND THEN AT THE MAY MEETING. WE DO HAVE ONE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AS WELL AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM, AND SO THAT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY IF THERE WAS ANY INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS OR ITEMS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD REQUEST THEM AT THAT TIME.

AND WE COULD PUT IT ON THE WORK PROGRAM. SO THAT'LL BE INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA PACKAGE TO TAKE A LOOK AT.

AND, AND WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME.

WE ARE LOOKING AT LIKELY CANCELING THE JUNE 2ND MEETING.

BUT THEN HOLDING THE MEETING IN THE SECOND MEETING IN JUNE.

AND I KNOW EVERYONE IS VERY INTERESTED, BUT WE ARE STILL WORKING ON OUR JULY AND AUGUST SCHEDULE, SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET THOSE IN PLACE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THAT WE KNOW WHICH MEETINGS WE WILL BE HAVING.

THANK YOU. CITY ATTORNEY. NO COMMENTS. NO COMMENTS.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE 7TH OF MAY AT 6:08 P.M.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.