[00:00:05]
>> PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 21ST, 2025.
[CALL TO ORDER]
THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT.MINUTES CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE ROLL.
>> PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BURROWS, WOULD YOU DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE?
>> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 7TH, 2025 MEETING.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS BY ANY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO THE MINUTES OF MAY 7TH? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.>> I JUST WANTED TO ASK STAFF ON PAGE THREE IN RESPONSE TO THE RE EVALUATION OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD IN CEQA.
IS THAT ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO GET IT ON THE AGENDA? HAVE WE GOT A DATE CERTAIN FOR THAT OR I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT.
IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE, AND IF WE NEED TO ADD MORE TEXTS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE IT NOTED AS AN AGENDA ITEM, A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, POSSIBLY.
>> YEAH, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO ADD THAT AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, IT BE BROUGHT UP UNDER ITEM 2 ON TODAY'S AGENDA AND BE ADDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ADDITIONS OR FROM THE MINUTES? MAY WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 7TH.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, MOVES THE MOTION.
MAY I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER BURROWS, SECONDS THE MOTION. PLEASE VOTE.
THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT THIS EVENING.
SPEAKER FORM WILL BE REQUESTED, AND PLEASE PROVIDE THAT TO OUR MINUTES CLERK AND FROM THERE, THIS WILL ALLOW THE SPEAKER TIME TO MANAGE MORE EFFICIENT TIME FOR THE ITEM.
ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN 3 MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIR PERSON.
SPEAKERS MAY NOT GIVE ADDITIONAL TIME TO OTHERS.
GROUP TIME WILL BE PERMITTED ON IMUS LIST ON THE AGENDA.
THE REPRESENTATIVE MUST IDENTIFY THE GROUP AND AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE MEETING IN WHICH THE PRESENTATION IS BEING MADE.
THOSE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF GROUP HAVE 10 MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS CHANGED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.
THE MINUTES CLERK WILL CALL THE NAMES OF THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN THE ORDER THEY REQUEST TO SPEAK ARE RECEIVED.
IN ACCORDANCE TO THE BROWN ACT, THAT ALLOWS MEMBERS 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 ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE AGENDA.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED UP TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
ALL OTHER NON AGENDA ITEMS 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 SPEAKER SLIPS FOR NON AGENDA ITEMS?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE THAT.
SEEING NONE, WE'LL BEGIN WITH TONIGHT'S HEARING.
IF EVERYONE WILL DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN, I'LL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES, THE COMMISSION WILL FOLLOW IN THIS EVENING'S PUBLIC HEARINGS.
PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPENED.
STAFF WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY HAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS TO ASK OF STAFF AFTER THAT.
THE APPLICANTS WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTS, RESPOND TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM THOSE COMMISSIONERS.
THEY WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION.
THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL THEN BE OPENED.
A TIME LIMIT OF 3 MINUTES IS ALLOTTED FOR EACH SPEAKER.
AFTER ALL THOSE WANTING TO SPEAK HAVE DONE SO, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERRY WILL BE CLOSED.
THE APPLICANT AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THOSE ISSUES OR QUESTIONS THAT ARE RAISED.
THE COMMISSIONERS WILL THEN DISCUSS THE ITEM AND THEN VOTE ON THAT.
[00:05:02]
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL THEN BE CLOSED.CERTAIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ARE FINAL, BUT THEY MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE PROCEDURES IN THE BACK OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD NOW AND OPEN UP FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1,
[1. JEFFERSON STREET HOMES – CT 2024-0004/PUD 2024-0004/CDP 2024-0021 (DEV 2024-0012)]
BUT BEFORE DOING SO, ARE THERE ANY EX PARTE FROM COMMISSIONERS ON ITEM NUMBER 1? COMMISSIONER MERS?>> I DROVE BY THE SITE AS WELL.
>> MR. LARDY, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THE ITEM?
>> YES. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
HERE TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION ON SITE, AS SENIOR PLANNER KYLE VAN L.
>> THANK YOU, MR. LARDY. THE PROJECT BEFORE US TONIGHT IS THE JEFFERSON STREET HOMES PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND BUENA VISTA WAY.
IT IS A PROJECT SITE THAT IS JUST OVER FIVE ACRES, CURRENTLY CONSISTING OF TWO LOTS, EACH WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS ON EACH LOT.
IT IS IN THE R-15 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND IS AN R-3 ZONING, WHICH ALLOWS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THIS LOCATION IS ALSO A COASTAL ZONE PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.
THE PROJECT PROPOSES THE DEMOLITION OF THE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR NEW STRUCTURES.
THERE WILL BE 12, 3 STORY CONDOMINIUMS IN THOSE STRUCTURES.
PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A DENSITY BONUS, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THREE ADDITIONAL UNITS IN EXCHANGE FOR ONE UNIT BEING DEDICATED TO VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
CONSISTENT WITH DENSITY BONUS LAW, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED ONE CONCESSION AND SIX WAIVERS FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
HERE'S A SITE PLAN OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
AGAIN, LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND BUENA VISTA WAY, THAT IS FOUR TRIPLEX STRUCTURES.
THERE ARE TWO FLOOR PLANS PROPOSED, EACH ABOUT 2,300 SQUARE FEET.
EACH UNIT WOULD HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE AND ROOF DECK.
THERE IS ONE ONSITE PARKING SPACE.
THERE IS STREET TREES INCLUDED WITH THE PROJECT, AS WELL AS A SIX FOOT DEDICATION ON JEFFERSON STREET FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY.
IN TERMS OF THE DENSITY BONUS CALCULATION, FOR THE 0.542 ACRE SITE AT 15 DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE, ALLOWS FOR NINE UNITS AS A BASE NUMBER OF UNITS.
ONE, UNIT WILL BE DEDICATED TO VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, WHICH IS 11% OF THE BASE UNITS.
THAT 11% ENTITLES THE PROJECT TO A 35% DENSITY BONUS.
THAT DENSITY BONUS WOULD ALLOW UP TO FOUR ADDITIONAL UNITS FOR A TOTAL OF 13 UNITS ALLOWED, AND THE PROPOSAL IS FOR 12 UNITS.
THE CONCESSION REQUESTED IS A CONCESSION TO ELIMINATE THE FIVE FOOT STREET DEDICATION ALONG BUENA VISTA WAY, WHICH WAS INITIALLY REQUESTED OF THE PROJECT AND THERE ARE SIX WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THAT IS A REDUCTION IN THE TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, REDUCED TO FIVE FEET, A REDUCTION IN THE 20-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE, REDUCED TO 18 FEET 9 ", A REDUCTION FROM THE TEN FOOT STREET SETBACK ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE ALONG BUENA VISTA WAY, REDUCED DOWN TO FOUR FEET 9 ".
THERE'S ALSO A WAIVER TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR COMMUNITY RECREATION SPACE THAT APPLIES TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, AS WELL AS A TEN FOOT BUILDING SEPARATION REDUCTION TO SIX FEET, AND THAT IS FOR THE UPPER STORIES.
THERE'S ALSO A LIMIT ON THE SIZE OF PLANER BOXES THAT HOW FAR THEY CAN EXTEND INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS AND YARDS, TYPICALLY LIMITED TO 42 " IN HEIGHT WITH A TWO FOOT INTRUSION.
THE PROPOSAL IS 36 " IN HEIGHT INTRUDING INTO THE SETBACKS THREE FEET, 3 ".
HERE IS AN ELEVATION OF THE PROJECT PROVIDED WITH THE PROJECT PLANS.
THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO PROVIDED SOME UPDATED RENDERINGS.
THE BOTTOM PICTURE IS THE SITE AS VIEWED FROM JEFFERSON STREET.
THE UPPER PICTURE WOULD BE FROM BUENA VISTA WAY, SHOWING THE DRY AISLE, AND HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL RENDERINGS.
THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A CEQA DETERMINATION FOR EXEMPTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS IS A PROJECT WHERE THE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND APPLICABLE STUDIES AND FINDS THAT THE PROJECT BELONGS TO A CLASS OF PROJECTS THAT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM REQUIREMENTS TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT.
THIS APPLIES TO INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
IN SUPPORT OF THE INFILL EXEMPTION, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A NUMBER OF STUDIES TO VERIFY THEIR QUALIFICATION FOR THE EXEMPTION,
[00:10:03]
THAT INCLUDES VEHICLE MILE TRAVELED, NOISE STUDY, AIR QUALITY STUDY, A HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT, AN ARCHOLOGICAL SURVEY, AND A PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT.STAFF DOES FIND THAT THE PROJECT IS APPLICABLE TO THE INFILL EXEMPTION, AND THE PROJECT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS.
WITH THAT, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CEQA EXEMPTION AND APPROVING THE TENTATIVE TRACK MAP PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE PROJECT BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS.
I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME BY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
THE QUESTION I HAVE IS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION, WAS THE CEQA DOCUMENT SINCE YOU SAID THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE CEQA DETERMINATION MADE? IS IT SEPARATE FROM THE RESOLUTION OR HAS IT BEEN COMBINED?
>> YES. THE LANGUAGE FOR THE CEQA DETERMINATION IS INCLUDED WITH THE RESOLUTION IS NOT A SEPARATE RESOLUTION.
THAT IS SET UP IN THE RESOLUTION IN ORDER OF OPERATIONS THERE, WHERE YOU WOULD BY ADOPTING THE RESOLUTION, FIRST IS THE ADOPTION OF THIS CEQA EXEMPTION AND THEN THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECT.
THE STAFF REPORT INCLUDES A DRAFT NOTICE OF EXEMPTION THAT THE STAFF WILL FOLLOW IF THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.
>> IF I COULD JUST ADD ON THAT.
IN THE LAST MEETING, THERE WAS QUESTIONS ON WHETHER THERE COULD BE SEPARATE RESOLUTIONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT AND THE DETERMINATION OF CEQA.
WE DID EVALUATE THAT. WE ALSO TALKED TO THE CITY CLERK, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO SEPARATE.
WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH HOW THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHED THE PROCEDURES FOR THE CEQA EXEMPTIONS WHEN THAT AUTHORITY WAS REMOVED FROM THE CITY PLANNER AND SO FOR CEQA EXEMPTIONS, WE'LL BE HAVING A RESOLUTION THAT INCLUDES THE EXEMPTION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE THEY'RE RELATED FOR ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS SUCH AS AN M&D OR CERTIFICATION OF AN EIR.
WE WILL KEEP THOSE AS SEPARATE DOCUMENTS BECAUSE THE COMMISSION WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND NOT THE PROJECT, DEPENDING ON THE SPECIFIC SITUATION.
>> IS THAT CONCURRENT WITH THE ATTORNEY'S UNDERSTANDING?
>> IT IS. COMMISSIONER, IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM, BUT IT IS A STANDARD PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, AND PARTICULARLY WITH NOTICES OF EXEMPTION TO INCLUDE THEM WITHIN THE BODY OF THE RESOLUTION.
>> WELL, I THINK THAT WAS THE REASON THEY SEPARATED IT, THIS COUNCIL SEPARATED IT, BECAUSE OF THE PROJECT THAT OBVIOUSLY NO ONE WAS HAPPY THAT GOT APPROVED.
THIS IS WHY I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S NOT SEPARATE BECAUSE THAT WAS ALSO AN EXEMPTION, AND AND IT GOT APPROVED AND WE WEREN'T ABLE TO DISCUSS IT.
THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED WITH IS MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ALSO NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THE WORK PLAN.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS PROJECT IS THE EXAMPLE THAT WE'RE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THIS WILL CONTINUE TO BECOME AN ISSUE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THIS EXEMPTION ATTACHED TO THE RESOLUTION IS, THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
>> BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A PROJECT APPROVAL WITHOUT A CEQA DETERMINATION OF SOME SORT.
HAVING THE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION OR THE FINDING OF EXEMPTION CONTAINED WITHIN THE BODY OF THE RESOLUTION IS ACTUALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA AND IS A PRACTICES FOLLOWED BY MOST MUNICIPALITIES.
>> IF I COULD JUST CLARIFY AND MAYBE DIFFERENTIATE THIS BETWEEN THE OTHER PROJECT.
THE EXEMPTION FOR THAT OTHER PROJECT WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE UNDER THE CARLSBAD CODE, THE CITY PLANNER HAD TO APPROVE IT PRIOR TO THAT.
THIS EXEMPTION IS A DRAFT EXEMPTION.
IT IS ON THE AGENDA. IT IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD ASK QUESTIONS, OR IF IT THOUGHT THE FINDINGS COULD NOT BE MADE FOR THAT COD REMAND, THIS PROJECT OR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITH A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION BACK TO STAFF FOR EITHER FURTHER REVIEW OR FINDINGS RELATED TO THAT.
BUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING PROCEDURALLY IS THAT WE CANNOT APPROVE THE PROJECT WITHOUT A FINDING UNDER CEQA, THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF EXEMPTION IS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE PRIOR TO APPROVE THE PROJECT,
[00:15:03]
WHICH IS ALSO OUR RECOMMENDATION.>> THIS IS A CONCERN. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER STEIN?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE WAIVERS THAT ARE SOUGHT HERE, PARTICULARLY NUMBERS FOUR AND FIVE, FOUR HAS TO DO WITH A WAIVER OF ANY COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL SPACE IN THE COMPLEX.
FOR A PROPOSED COMPLEX OF THIS SIZE, IS IT COMMON OR UNCOMMON THAT COMPLEX LIKE THIS WOULD HAVE A LITTLE MINI GYM, ROOM FOR A PING PONG TABLE, SOME TYPE OF RECREATIONAL OUTLET.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT FOR A PROJECT OF THE SIZE THAT DIDN'T UTILIZE DENSITY BONUS AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT.
WE WOULD USUALLY SEE LIKE A SMALL TABLE AND BARBECUE GRILL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT COULD BE COMMUNALLY USED OR SOME OTHER AMENITY LIKE THAT FOR THE COMMUNITY RECREATION SPACE.
I THINK RECREATION IS MORE OF A STANDARD FOR OPEN SPACE AND UTILIZED OPEN SPACE.
>> ABSENT THE WAIVER ISSUE, WE GENERALLY SEE SOMETHING OVERALL BIG PICTURE?
>> OKAY, AND IN THIS CASE, WHERE IS THE CLOSEST RECREATIONAL AREA, A PARK, SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE COULD GO OUT AND RELAX AND ENJOY.
IS THERE ANYTHING CLOSE BY WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OR WHERE WOULD IT BE?
>> THE COAST IS PROBABLY A POPULAR ONE, BUT MCGEE PARK WOULD BE WEST OF HERE.
>> THAT BODY WATER THERE, I'M SORRY, IS THAT THE LAGOON OR IS THAT THE OCEAN?
>> DOWN TO THE LAGOON, WHEN I SEE THE AREAS IN GREEN, THOSE ARE PARK AREAS?
>> THAT'S OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION.
USUALLY, THAT'S THE AREA BETWEEN WHERE THE WATER STARTS OR WHERE THE SEA LEVEL CHANGES WITH THE TIDE.
>> IN TERMS OF PARKS, I KNOW THERE'S THE HOSP GROVE PARK A LITTLE WAYS TO THE NORTH AND A LITTLE BIT TO THE EAST OF THERE.
IN TERMS OF PARKS, WOULD THAT BE THE CLOSEST ACTUAL PARK?
>> I'M NOT TOTALLY SURE, BUT IF YOU CAN THINK OF ONE, THAT MIGHT BE THE CLOSEST.
>> I JUST HAPPENED TO DRIVE BY AND I KNOW STILL WAS CLOSE.
I HAD TO TURN AROUND AT HOSP GROVE PARK.
THE OTHER ISSUE IS MORE OF A SAFETY ISSUE, A FIRE ISSUE.
NUMBER 5, THEY'RE SEEKING TO REDUCE THE BUILDING SEPARATION FROM 10 FEET TO 6 FEET.
ISN'T 10 FEET IN THE STANDARD FOR FIRE SAFETY PURPOSES? ISN'T THAT THE REASON WE HAVE THE 10 FOOT OR IS IT MOBILITY VEHICLE TURNAROUND OR A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH?
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS CONNECTED TO A FIRE SAFETY STANDARD WHERE CERTAIN BUILDING TYPES WOULD NEED TO BE SEPARATED BY AT LEAST 10 FEET, 5 FEET INSTRUCTION.
WITH I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE OF THIS PROJECT, BUT TYPICALLY THE BUILDING CODE, IF BUILDINGS ARE CLOSER REQUIRES A HIGHER FIRE RATING IN THE WALLS IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE CLOSER.
I WILL SAY THAT WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE AN ALLOWANCE FOR ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS TO INTRUDE INTO THAT 10 FOOT SEPARATION SPACE.
PART OF THAT IS THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AND DON'T INCLUDE FLOOR SPACE.
YOU COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A PROJECT DESIGNED VERY SIMILAR LOOKING TO THIS WHERE THOSE ARCHITECTURAL POP OUTS COME OUT BUT DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE FLOOR AREA BEHIND THOSE WALLS, IT WOULD BE JUST TWO FEET OF SPACE THERE.
BECAUSE THERE IS USABLE FLOOR AREA WITHIN THAT TWO FOOT EXTENSION FROM THE MAIN WALL, THAT IS WHY THIS IS REQUIRED, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> MINE IS NOT SO MUCH IN THE STEADY CONCERN.
HAS OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE MARSHAL LOOKED AT THIS AND IMPOSED ANY PARTICULAR WHETHER IT'S SPRINKLING, WHETHER IT'S PARTICULAR COMPOSITION OF THE WALLS, SOMETHING TO ADDRESS A POTENTIAL FIRE HAZARD IN THE AREA?
[00:20:01]
>> THE FIRE MARSHALL HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT THAT INCLUDES A FIRE SAFETY PLAN IN THE PROJECT.
THEY WOULD HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT ON ITS INITIAL AND SECOND SUBMITTAL.
>> CAN YOU POINT OUT IN THE RESOLUTION, ARE THERE ANY SPECIAL PROVISIONS OR CONDITIONS THAT THIS APPLICANT HAS TO ABIDE BY TO ADDRESS A POTENTIAL FIRE SAFETY ISSUE WHEN YOU'RE GOING FROM 10 FEET TO 6 FEET? IS THERE ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR?
>> THAT WOULD TYPICALLY NOT BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, IT WOULD BE PART OF THE BUILDING PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED BY BUILDING CODE.
IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CONDITIONED THROUGH THE BUILDING REVIEW PROCESS FOR BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE, THEY WOULD SHOW THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, WHICH WOULD DICTATE THE I BELIEVE THE AMOUNT OF FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE RESISTANCE IN THOSE WALLS.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN THOSE CONDITIONS.
>> BUT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE COVERED AND THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS BEFORE THE APPLICANT CAN POOL BUILDING PERMIT.
>> ABSOLUTELY. IF THERE WAS ADDITIONAL FIRE REQUIREMENTS FOR AGAIN, FIRE RATED WALLS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN THAT WOULD BE IDENTIFIED FOR FULL COMPLIANCE DURING THE BUILDING REVIEW PROCESS?
>> BECAUSE THAT'S MY UNDERLYING CONCERN.
GOD FORBID, THERE IS A FIRE THERE WITH THOSE BUILDINGS SO CLOSE.
WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THE FIRE ARTIFICIALLY SPREAD AND INFLAME THOSE OTHER BUILDINGS IF WE CAN AVOID THAT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WISHING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER FOSTER.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE DENSITY BONUS CALCULATION? THE FIRST BULLET POINT.
WHERE IT SAYS 8.13, IS THAT THE ACTUAL CALCULATION AND THEN IT GETS ROUNDED UP TO NINE?
>> YES. FOR ANY DENSITY BONUS PROJECT, ALL FRACTIONAL UNITS ARE ROUNDED UP PER STATE LAW.
>> ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT? WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? AS YOU APPROACH, YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. CHAIR MEENES.
GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I SERVE AS VICE PRESIDENT OF FORD PLANNING FOR RINCON HOMES.
AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, BUT WE HAVE SOME NEW MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
RINCON IS CARLSBADS LOCAL HOMEBUILDER.
OUR COMPANY WAS FORMED HERE AND IS BASED HERE, OUR PARTNERS LIVE HERE, AND WE'RE HEAVILY INVESTED IN THE COMMUNITY, AND WE CARE VERY DEEPLY ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE PRODUCE HERE? THIS WILL BE OUR 10TH PROJECT IN THIS AREA OF THE CITY.
GENERALLY, IN THE VILLAGE AREA, WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.
WE'RE EXCITED TO DELIVER ANOTHER GREAT FOR SALE HOUSING PROJECT HERE ON THE JEFFERSON STREET CORRIDOR.
WE'VE WORKED REALLY DILIGENTLY WITH STAFF, AND WE THANK STAFF FOR ALL THEIR COOPERATION OVER THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF TO REFINE THE PROJECT PROPOSAL, AND WE'RE AGAIN EXCITED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY HERE TO DELIVER NEW FOR SALE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES.
A COUPLE OF JUST THINGS I'LL MENTION, COMMISSIONER STINE THAT SOME GREAT QUESTIONS ABOUT FIRE SAFETY.
IN ADDITION TO THE BUILDING CODE, ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS WILL BE FULLY SPRINKLED ON ALL LEVELS.
THE FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS THAT YOU SEE IN NEW MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ARE QUITE ROBUST.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAVE WHAT ARE CALLED FIRE RATINGS ON BOTH OF OUR EXTERIOR OR INTERIOR WALLS.
THAT MEANS THAT THOSE WALLS CAN WITHSTAND FOR 1 HOUR IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE.
FIRE WOULD HAVE TIME TO RESPOND, THEY WOULD HAVE TIME TO GET ON SCENE TO THE PREMISES AND RESPOND TO ANY FIRE INCIDENT.
OF COURSE, WE MEET THE MINIMUM BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR SEPARATION THERE.
THERE'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION, JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO RESPOND TO THAT.
OUR TEAM IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> AT ALL THAT YOU HAVE OF THE APPLICANT, AS LONG AS HE IS STANDING THERE, COMMISSIONER STINE.
>> MR. FRANKEL, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THE FIRE SAFETY ISSUE.
THAT'S A REAL CONCERN FOR ME BECAUSE IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE FROM 10-6.
IT'S NOT LIKE 6 INCHES. THAT'S FOUR FEET.
THE OTHER ISSUE I HAD THAT IS THIS ISSUE OF RECREATIONAL AREA, WAS THERE ANY THOUGHT MR. FRANKEL GIVEN TO PROVIDING SOME TYPE OF A LITTLE PICNIC TABLE, A LITTLE ROOM FOR A PING PONG GAME, SOMETHING THERE ON SITE.
>> SURE. I'LL MENTION FIRST THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF PRIVATE RECREATIONAL SPACE IN THE PROJECT.
WE HAVE BETWEEN ABOUT 700-750 SQUARE FEET OF PRIVATE RECREATIONAL SPACE,
[00:25:01]
OUTDOOR SPACE PER UNIT HERE.WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT, THE SCALE, WHO YOUR LIKELY BUYERS ARE, WHAT THE DEMOGRAPHIC WILL BE, WHAT WOULD THEY PREFER? WOULD THEY PREFER TO HAVE A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL SPACE, AND OPPORTUNITY OR WOULD THEY PREFER TO HAVE SOME TOT LOT OR BARBECUE AREA? WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT COMMISSIONER, UNFORTUNATELY, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ANY RECREATIONAL SPACE AND STILL BE ABLE TO FIT THE UNITS AS THEY WERE DESIGNED.
BUT AGAIN, THE PROJECT DOES HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF PRIVATE RECREATIONAL OUTDOOR AREA FOR THE RESIDENTS.
>> DOES THAT CONSIST OF BALCONY AREAS WHERE YOU COULD GO OUT AND SOCIALIZE AND THAT THING?
>> YES, SIR. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
IT'S BALCONIES AS WELL AS THE ROOFTOP DECK.
>> HOW ABOUT THE ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT.
DOES IT HAVE ANY RECREATIONAL SPACE IN IT?
>> IT DOES. THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT IS IDENTICAL TO THE OTHER MARKET RATE UNITS, AND WE'LL HAVE BOTH BALCONIES, AS WELL AS ROOFTOP DECK, AS WELL AS A PATIO ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
>> COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, QUESTION OVER THE APPLICANT.
>> THANK YOU. THE FIRST QUESTION I HAVE IS IT TAGS ON TO THE ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, BUT I HOPE THAT MAYBE YOU COULD PUT UP THE SITE PLAN WITH THE 4'6" SETBACK THAT WAS REDUCED BECAUSE AND THAT'S AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT 4'6" SETBACK REDUCTION?
>> THE BOTTOM SETBACK, I BELIEVE IS 5 FEET, AND WE HAVE 4'9" ON THE NORTH PROPERTY.
>> 4'9". I THOUGHT IT WAS 4'6".
IS IT UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WOULD PEOPLE BE WALKING THERE OR WHAT WOULD BE HAPPENING IN THAT LOCATION?
>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FULL CURB GUTTER SIDEWALK AS WELL AS PARKWAY AND LANDSCAPE ON BOTH SIDES.
THERE'S CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS NOT PERMITTED IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.
WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR FRONTAGE, WHEN WE HAVE TO INCORPORATE THINGS LIKE TRANSFORMERS AND BACKFLOWS, AND OTHER PIECES OF INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT WAS PRIMARILY THE REASON FOR THE WAIVER THERE IS THAT WE HAVE TO FIT CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE TO SERVE THE BUILDINGS THAT ISN'T ALLOWED IN THE RIGHT AWAY.
IF WE DIDN'T WAIVE THAT SETBACK, THAT INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BE LOCATED IMPERMISSIBLY IN THE RIGHT WAY.
>> HOW WOULD ONE ACCESS THAT LOCATION IF THERE'S EQUIPMENT THERE THAT NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED?
>> THERE WILL BE A SIDEWALK ON BOTH OF THESE STREETS?
>> NOT ON EITHER SIDE, VERTICALLY.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CLOSE SETBACK AT THE BOTTOM.
>> I'M SORRY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SOUTHERN AREA. TO THE SOUTH.
ACCESS TO THE FRONT IS PROVIDED ON THE WEST AND THE EAST SIDE, OF COURSE, VEHICULAR ACCESS THROUGH THE CENTER.
THERE'S LANDSCAPING, THERE'S A WALL AND THERE WILL BE A GATE ON THE VERY BOTTOM OF BUILDING B THAT WILL JUST PROVIDE MAINTENANCE ACCESS, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
THAT'S NOT AN ACCESS POINT, THAT'S NOT ACCESS TO YOUR UNIT.
THERE'LL BE AGAIN, FENCING AND SOME LANDSCAPE IN THERE, BUT IT WILL BE ACCESSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE CREWS.
>> ACCESSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE CREWS.
THAT LEADS ME INTO THE NEXT QUESTION.
WITH A MULTI FAMILY DESIGNATION NOW, YOU HAVE ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
HOW ARE YOU PLANNING ON MEETING THOSE WITH WALK UPS?
>> SURE. WE, OF COURSE, ARE GOING TO MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH CALIFORNIA ACCESSIBLE BUILDING CODE, AND AS WELL AS ADA.
IF YOU WANT TO GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THOSE, OUR LEAD ARCHITECT KIRK MOELLER IS HERE, AND I THINK HE COULD TALK ABOUT THE ACCESSIBLE UNITS, HOW WE WORK WITH TRANSITIONS IN BETWEEN THE DRIVE AISLE AND THE DOORS, OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT, TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE CAN ACCESS THEM, BUT THE SHORT ANSWER AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL IS THAT WE'RE REQUIRED BY CODE TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE PASSIVE TRAVEL TO SOME OF THESE UNITS, AND WE WILL BE DOING THAT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO MR. MOELLER AFTER.
BUT THAT REDUCED 4'9 PASSAGE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DRAWING THAT'S BEING SHOWN HERE ISN'T A LOCATION WHERE ANYONE WOULD NEED TO ACCESS IT THAT POTENTIALLY WAS IN A WHEELCHAIR?
>> CORRECT. THAT IS NOT AN ACCESSIBLE PATH TO TRAVEL.
>> BECAUSE OTHERWISE, IT'D HAVE TO BE FIVE FEET.
>> HAS A CONVERSATION ABOUT EXTERIOR SPRINKLERS BEEN DISCUSSED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS BUILDING.
>> THE INTERIOR SPRINKLERS THAT ARE PROPOSED MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CODE.
THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY CONVERSATION TO DATE ABOUT EXTERIOR SPRINKLERS.
>> YOU DID MENTION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CODE.
I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. THANK YOU.
[00:30:06]
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS MR. FRANKEL? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY DO YOU WANT MR. MOELLER TO COME UP?
>> I'D LIKE HIM TO ANSWER THE IDA QUESTION. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
THIS PROJECT IS A FOR SALE PROJECT, AND PROJECTS THAT ARE FOR SALE, IF THEY HAVE THREE UNITS OR LESS, THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ACCESSIBLE UNITS WITHIN ANY OF THE BUILDINGS.
IF IT'S A FOR RENT PROJECT, THEN TWO UNITS OR LESS DO NOT REQUIRE ADA ACCESSIBILITY.
THIS PROJECT DOES NOT REQUIRE ADA UNITS.
THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO ADA PARKING OR ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS WITHIN EACH UNIT.
WE DO NOT HAVE ADA PROVISIONS MADE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
BUT AS FAR AS ACCESSIBILITY GOES, EACH PROJECT WILL BE ACCESSIBLE WITH A FRONT DOOR AND A GARAGE PARKING STALL AND DOOR SO THAT STANDARD ACCESSIBILITY PROVISIONS ARE MET PER THE CODE.
>> THE BUILDINGS WERE SPECIFICALLY SEPARATED SO YOU'D MEET THAT THREE UNIT THRESHOLD TO AVOID ADA?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU.
>> MR. MOELLER, I APPRECIATE THAT. I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT WE DID RECEIVE SOME LETTERS IN REGARD TO THIS I GUESS TO THAT PROJECT.
I WANT TO MAKE THAT NOTE. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.
MADAM CLERK, DO YOU HAVE ANY REQUESTS FOR SPEAKERS?
>> WILL YOU GO AHEAD AND ASK SPEAKER NUMBER 1 TO COME TO THE PODIUM.
>> TIO SAN ANTONIO, CAN YOU PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM? THEN I WOULD ASK ELENA CORONA, AND COREY ALVAREZ TO LINE UP UNDER THE CLOCK PREPARED TO SPEAK NEXT.
>> BEFORE YOU SPEAK, EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS THAT THEY HAVE.
TO HELP SPEAKERS STAY WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT, THE MINUTES CLERK WILL ACTIVATE THE LIGHTED TIMER.
THE GREEN LIGHT MEANS TO SPEAK, THE YELLOW MEANS THAT YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE REMAINING, AND THE BLINKING RED LIGHT MEANS YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.
WOULD YOU PROVIDE YOUR NAME, PLEASE?
>> MY NAME IS TIO SAN ANTONIO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. COMMISSIONER.
>> THANK YOU FOR COMING IN THIS EVENING.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE THE TIME.
FIRST OF ALL, I LIVE ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S ON THE TOP PART.
I JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS WAIVER THAT YOU GUYS ARE GIVING THEM.
TEN FEET IS BIG AS FAR AS FIRE SAFETY. I'M AN ENGINEER.
THAT'S HUGE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE ISSUE THAT WE HAD IN THE PALISADES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT, DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT THE FIRE, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE NATURAL DISASTERS WHICH WE HAVE CLOSE BY HERE IN THE OCEAN, THAT'S A BIG CONCERN OF MINE.
GOING FROM 10-6, IT'S A BIG DEAL.
THEY MIGHT HAVE ALL THE FIRE SPRINKLERS IN THEIR SIDE.
IF THEY START AND THEN AMBER GOES INTO MY PROPERTY WAS BUILT IN 1940S, WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME THINGS THAT THEY DO.
I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER RIGHT NEXT TO IT, JUST SO YOU KNOW.
THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM OF MINE, NUMBER 2.
CAN YOU SHOW THE PROPERTY BEFORE THIS? OR THE CURRENT ONE, EXCUSE ME? YOU HAVE TWO PROPERTIES, ONE ON VISTA WAY AND ONE ON JEFFERSON.
ARE THEY BOTH MULTI-UNIT PROPERTIES? IS ONE CONSIDERED BUENA VISTA OR IS ONE CONSIDERED JEFFERSON OR BOTH? THEY'RE BOTH JEFFERSON, RIGHT?
>> THEY'RE BOTH ADDRESS FROM JEFFERSON.
>> EXCUSE ME, SIR. YOU HAVE TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ITSELF AND NOT TO THE STAFF.
>> I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE DENSITY THAT'S HAPPENING GOING FROM TWO UNITS TO 12.
THERE'S A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN THAT CARLSBAD HAD, I FORGOT WHEN IT STARTS,
[00:35:09]
BUT IT'S ONGOING SINCE 2015, AND A LOT OF IT IS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.THERE'S CLIMATE CHANGE AND THOSE THINGS.
I'M HOPING THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HERE MAKE SURE THAT THEY EVALUATE THAT CLIMATE ACTION PLAN OF CARLSBAD AND MAKE SURE IT COMPLIES WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE.
GOING FROM 2-12 UNITS, SOMEBODY MENTIONED ABOUT FIRST RESPONDERS. WE'RE MORE DENSE NOW.
NOW THAT'S A CONCERN OF GETTING FIRST RESPONDERS IN AND OUT OF THAT PLACE.
JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T VIOLATE ANY OF THE CLIMATE SENSITIVE INITIATIVES.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT FIRST RESPONDERS AND THE 10 FOOT IN CHECK. THANK YOU FOR [INAUDIBLE]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT SPEAKER.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CAN YOU PROVIDE YOUR NAME AGAIN, PLEASE?
>> THANK YOU. YOU NOW HAVE THREE MINUTES.
>> CARLSBAD VILLAGE IS A JEWEL OF A BEACH TOWN, UNLIKE OTHER BEACH CITIES WITH THEIR MATTING TRAFFIC, TOURIST PRICES, UNSIGHTLY STRUCTURES STACKED ON TOP OF EACH OTHER, AND AN UNFORTUNATE LACK OF ANY STIMULATING CULTURE.
CARLSBAD VILLAGE HAS STAYED QUAINT AND HOMEY.
YOU CAN FEEL IT WHEN YOU LOOK UP AT A TALL STRONG EUCALYPTUS TREE, WHEN YOU STOP TO TOUCH THE INTRICATE DETAIL OF AN OLD VILLAGE BUILDING OR WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THE FAMILIAR HUM OF A VINTAGE CAR DRIVING BY.
THE VILLAGE IS CHARMING BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN LIVED IN BY PEOPLE WHO CARE FOR IT, AND WE MUST CONTINUE TO CARE FOR IT.
I THINK ABOUT AN ARCHIVAL VIDEO I WATCHED OF THE TWIN INNS, WHERE PEOPLE WERE DANCING AND GATHERING THERE FOR THE LAST TIME, CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF THE VILLAGE CLASSICS THAT MAKE CARLSBAD CARLSBAD.
OVER THE YEARS, THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN LIFTED AND DEVELOPERS FROM OUTSIDE NORTH COUNTY HAVE MOVED IN QUICKLY TO LAND GRAB AND POP UP EYESORE STRUCTURES THAT PAY NO RESPECT TO THE ARCHITECTURE SURROUNDING THEM.
THESE UNITS ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ANY OTHER BIG BLAND BOX SUBURBAN UNIT.
THE PRIORITY HERE IS TO STUFF AS MANY PEOPLE ON TOP OF EACH OTHER WITH LITTLE REGARD TO QUALITY OF LIFE OR THE ETHOS OF CARLSBAD.
THE THREE STORY CONDOMINIUM SHOULD NOT BE BUILT BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT ADD VALUE AND ONLY WORSEN PROBLEMS THAT JEFFERSON STREET FACES.
JEFFERSON TRAFFIC IS ALREADY DANGEROUS ENOUGH.
WHAT WE NEED ARE SPEED BUMPS, NOT MORE VEHICLES.
JEFFERSON STREET PARKING IS CROWDED ENOUGH.
IF MULTIPLE PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN A UNIT, THAT MEANS MORE CARS WILL WIND UP PARKING ON THE STREET REGARDLESS OF A GARAGE.
THE NOISE FROM THE CONSTRUCTION FOR A PROJECT THIS LARGE WILL BE SO LOUD AND LONG THAT IT WILL HAVE A CONSIDERABLE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HEALTH AND DAILY LIVING.
THESE STRUCTURES WILL BLOCK OUT THE BIG, OPEN, BEAUTIFUL SKY AND SUN.
THE CONSTRUCTION WILL MOST LIKELY DAMAGE TREES AND PLANTS ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTIES.
THERE ARE PRIVACY CONCERNS SINCE PEOPLE NOW WILL BE ABLE TO LOOK DOWN ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY AND INTO NEIGHBORS WINDOWS.
THERE'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY HERE TO UPGRADE THE TWO ONE STORY HOMES THAT ALREADY EXIST, GIVE TWO LOCAL FAMILIES A PART OF HISTORY, A YARD, ROOM TO GROW, AND MAKE MEMORIES.
KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MOST SURROUNDING HOUSES ARE ONE STORY LOCAL FAMILY HOMES.
WE KNOW BUSINESSES AND HOMEOWNERS CAN RESPECT THE CHARACTER OF CARLSBAD, BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN IT.
WE'VE SEEN PROJECTS AND BUSINESSES THAT ALIGN WITH CARLSBAD AND ADD TO IT.
WE HAVE SEEN PROJECTS THAT KEEP THE BONES OF BUILDING AND TURN IT INTO AN INVITING BUSINESS.
WE ARE THE ONES LIVING HERE, SO OUR VOICES SHOULD BE THE ONES MOST REGARDED.
IF OUR COMMUNITY SAYS, DON'T TEAR DOWN OUR ONLY STORES, DON'T TEAR THEM DOWN.
IF OUR COMMUNITY SAYS ENOUGH BIG BOX UNITS, DON'T STEAMROLL MORE IN, RESPECT OUR COMMUNITY AND CARE FOR THIS VILLAGE, LIKE IT SHOULD BE CONSCIOUSLY CARED FOR BEFORE IT TURNS INTO SOMETHING COMPLETELY UNRECOGNIZABLE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT SPEAKER.
>> PROVIDE YOUR NAME, AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> HELLO, COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS COREY ALVAREZ.
I'VE ESSENTIALLY BEEN A RESIDENT OF CARLSBAD SINCE 1991 WHEN I WAS BORN.
OF COURSE, IN THIS TIME, I'VE SEEN MY FAIR AMOUNT OF CHANGE.
UNTIL RECENTLY, THE CHANGE HAS BEEN SLOW AND GRADUAL IN KEEPING WITH WHAT MAKES THE VILLAGE, WHAT IT IS.
IT WAS OF COURSE MUCH QUIETER BACK IN THE EARLY '90S WHEN I WAS BORN, QUIETER EVEN THEN BEFORE THAT.
[00:40:01]
WAS A QUIET LOCAL STREET FULL OF A FEW RESTAURANTS, THE VILLAGE GRILLE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE SHOREHOUSE AND HANDEL'S NOW STAND, WHICH TO THIS DAY, IS PROBABLY THE BEST BURGER I'VE EVER HAD.I DO MISS IT. THERE WAS A LARGE ANTIQUE MALL WHERE PURETACO AND NICK'S ON STATE NOW STAND ALONE WITH VARIOUS OTHER OFFICES AND MANY AUTO SERVICE SHOPS, QUAINT LITTLE HOMES DATING BACK TO THE '30S, '40S AND '50S.
CARLSBAD FOR A LONG TIME AT LEAST ECHOED THE STYLE OF ITS FORMATIVE YEARS, OF COURSE, BACK WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY KNOWN AS FRAZIER STATION, COURTESY OF ITS FOUNDER JOHN FRAZIER.
IT WAS ALL MOSTLY EMPTY FARM LAND, BUT OF COURSE, BECAUSE OF THE TOWN'S PRIZED WATER IT TOOK ON THE GERMANIC FLARE THAT CAN STILL BE SEEN IN MANY BUILDINGS AROUND THE VILLAGE STILL.
IN THE LAST 5-10 YEARS, I'M SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE MARK SHIFT AWAY FROM THE ROOTS AND THE QUAINT VIBE OF THE VILLAGE ALWAYS SPORTED TO A FAR MORE DENSE, TOURIST CENTRIC, STACKED, MASSIVE, MULTI-UNIT, BUSINESS, MAXIMAL DENSITY PLAN.
NOW, I'M NOT AGAINST THESE BUILDINGS IN PARTICULAR, BUT CARLSBAD VILLAGE IS SMALL AND CARLSBAD ITSELF IS A PRETTY LARGE CITY.
IT'S A MONUMENT TO THE CITY'S HISTORY.
IT SEEMS TO BE SLOWLY DISAPPEARING.
THIS IS WHY I'M AGAINST THIS PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT OF YET ANOTHER GIANT HUGE BUILDING FULL OF 12 HOUSES TO TRY AND CRAM EVEN MORE PEOPLE INTO AN ALREADY FAR TOO BUSY STREET AND ALREADY FAR TOO BUSY VILLAGE.
THERE HAVE BEEN ENOUGH OF THESE HUGE, MULTI-RESIDENTIAL, MULTI- BUSINESS, MULTI-USE HUGE BUILDINGS QUICKLY CONSTRUCTED IN ALL CORNERS OF THE VILLAGE ALL OVER THE PLACE.
IT'S ALREADY WEAKENING THE QUAINT LOCAL BUSINESS FRIENDLY ATMOSPHERE OF OUR TOWN.
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE ORIGINAL HEART OF THE VILLAGE.
NOW IT SEEMS EVEN OUR LONE GROCERY STORE IS BEING TAKEN AWAY TOO.
WHY NOT SIMPLY IMPROVE THE AMAZING THINGS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.
LET'S NOT JUST BECOME YET ANOTHER BORING BIG BOX TOURIST TOWN AND TRY AND KEEP CARLSBAD WHAT IT IS.
THE BEST CITY IN ALL OF SAN DIEGO. THANK YOU.
[APPLAUSE] MADAM CLERK, ARE THERE ANY MORE SPEAKER SLIPS?
>> YES. WE HAVE ONE LAST ONE FROM DAVID PIERCE, AND HE'S ALSO PROVIDED A HANDOUT THAT'S GOING OUT TO YOU RIGHT NOW.
>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
>> HI. MY NAME IS DAVID PIERCE.
I LIVE NEAR THE DOVE LIBRARY BORN AND RAISED HERE IN CARLSBAD.
IF YOU COULD LOOK AT THE HOME VALUES IN CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, THIS GRAPH, IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS, HOME PRICES HAVE INCREASED TO $1.3 MILLION ON AVERAGE IN THE CITY.
IN ORDER TO GET APPROVED FOR MORTGAGE, YOUR HOUSEHOLD WOULD NEED TO MAKE $150,000.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE TOP 5% OF INCOME EARNERS IN THE COUNTRY.
OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, INFLATION OF GOODS HAS BEEN A HUGE CONCERN.
THE PRICE OF A HOME IN CARLSBAD, THE LARGEST PURCHASE ANY OF US WILL EVER MAKE INCREASED 76%, THREE TIMES FASTER THAN INFLATION.
THAT WILL AFFECT QUALITY OF LIFE.
NOW, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? IF YOU COULD PLEASE FLIP OVER THE SHEET.
WE KEEP HEARING ABOUT TOO MUCH HOUSING BEING BUILT TOO QUICKLY.
IF YOU COULD LOOK AT THIS GRAPH, IT IS A GRAPH OF THE NUMBER OF NEW HOMES BUILT IN CARLSBAD BY DECADE ACCORDING TO THE CENSUS BUREAU.
FEWER HOMES THAN EVER ARE BEING BUILT IN THE CITY.
THE LAST POINT ISN'T EVEN 10 YEARS.
TWELVE YEARS, ONLY 3,000 HOMES WERE BUILT COMPARED TO 10,000 HOMES IN THE 2000S, 1970S AND THE 1980S.
NOW, IT'S NOT A COINCIDENCE THAT HOME PRICES HAVE INCREASED AS HOME CONSTRUCTION HAS DECREASED.
NEW HOMES, EVERYONE WANTS THEM TO BE AFFORDABLE FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
THE POINT OF NEW HOMES IS TO ABSORB WEALTHY AND HIGH INCOME PROSPECTIVE RESIDENTS.
THEY DO NOT COMPETE WITH LOW INCOME PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE ABLE TO OTHERWISE AFFORD ONE OF THE CONDOS OR APARTMENTS THAT WAS BUILT IN THE '70S AND '80S, THAT IS NOW AGING, IS DRAFTY, IS OUT OF DATE.
THOSE ARE THE HOMES THAT SHOULD BE IN THE LOWER PRICE RANGES AFFORDABLE TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
BUT BECAUSE CARLSBAD AND THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE HAS BUILT SO FEW HOMES OVER THE YEARS, NOW PEOPLE WITH SIX FIGURES THEIR ONLY CHOICE IS CONDOS OR APARTMENTS BUILT IN THE '70S OR '80S, BECAUSE SO FEW NEW HOMES ARE BEING BUILT FOR THEM.
[00:45:02]
I STRONGLY SUPPORT BUILDING THESE HOMES BECAUSE THEY WILL ABSORB AT LEAST 10 OF THESE HIGH INCOME HOUSEHOLDS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BID UP THE PRICES OF OUR OLDER APARTMENTS EVEN HIGHER. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MADAM CLERK, ANY FURTHER SPEAKER SLIPS?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. VAN LEEUWEN, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT THAT YOU WISH TO MAKE BASED UPON TESTIMONY?
>> JUST A SECOND. YES. I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT THE ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE PRIOR TO THE YEAR 2000 WITH THE SAME HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.
THE HEIGHT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THE SAME THAT'S BEEN ALLOWED FOR ABOUT 25 YEARS AT LEAST.
THERE WAS ALSO THAT I DID WANT TO RESPOND TO IN CASE YOU READ THE CORRESPONDENCE FROM ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT THE ROOF DECK AND LIVING ROOM BEING ORIENTED TO THE EAST FOR THE EAST UNITS.
I THINK THEY WERE READING THE PLANS WRONG.
JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT THE LIVING ROOMS, SECOND STORY DECK AND ROOF DECK ARE ALL ORIENTED TO THE WEST FOR THOSE EASTERN TWO BUILDINGS.
THOSE ARE ACTUALLY NOT ORIENTED TO MINIMIZE THE PRIVACY IMPACTS OF THAT NEIGHBOR.
JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER STINE? COMMISSIONER FOSTER?
>> I JUST HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
CAN YOU PULL UP THE ZONING MAP REAL QUICK? BOTH SIDES OF JEFFERSON ARE ESSENTIALLY ZONE MULTI-FAMILY R3 FOR 20 PLUS YEARS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THEN WHAT IS THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION IN THAT R3?
>> FOR THE R3 ZONE, IT IS 35 FEET.
>> I BELIEVE IT'S 31, WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY CALL BUILDING HEIGHT WITH SOME PARAPETS THAT EXTEND UP TO ABOUT 36 FEET, WHICH ARE ALLOWED TO GO PAST THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT IF THEY ARE JUST PARAPETS AND ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT.
>> THERE WAS A CONVERSATION FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT TRAFFIC.
WERE THERE ANY TRAFFIC STUDIES DONE WITH THIS PROJECT? CAN YOU GO INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT?
>> SURE. JUST ON A BASE LEVEL, EVERY PROJECT WE HAVE AN INITIAL SCREENING WHERE WE IDENTIFY THE NUMBER OF TRIPS ANTICIPATED FOR EACH PROJECT.
IF IT IS OVER A CERTAIN LEVEL, THEN A MORE FOCUSED AND INTENSE EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE TRAFFIC IMPACTS TAKES PLACE.
THAT NUMBER IS 110 DAILY TRIPS.
THIS PROJECT FOR THE 12 UNITS PROPOSED, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A NET 10 INCREASE WAS ACTUALLY UNDER THE 110.
THAT IS CONSIDERED A SMALL PROJECT, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY SCREENED OUT OF A LOT OF THOSE OTHER EVALUATIONS THAT WE SEE FOR LARGER PROJECTS AS THEY AREN'T SEEN AS CONTRIBUTING CRITICALLY TO ANY TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
THE ADU UNIT IS GOING TO BE FOR VERY LOW INCOME, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> SORRY, I SPOKE WRONG. THE DENSITY BONUS, THAT ONE UNIT, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT'S FOR VERY LOW INCOME, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE A VERY LOW INCOME, WHICH IS 50% OF THE AVERAGE MEDIUM INCOME DEPENDING ON FAMILY SIZE.
>> CAN WE PUT THAT IN NUMBERS? WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT MEAN? IF THE AVERAGE MEDIAN INCOME IN CARLSBAD'S 150,000, THEN THE ACTUAL NUMBER TO PURCHASE THAT UNIT, YOU HAVE TO MAKE 75,000, WHAT'S THE ACTUAL NUMBERS THERE? WE COULD LOOK UP THE ACTUAL NUMBER.
IT'S NOT AS A DIRECT PROPORTION BECAUSE IT'S A SLIDING SCALE.
IT'S BASED UPON HOW MUCH INCOME A FAMILY MAKING THAT COULD SPEND ON HOUSING, AND THAT'S HOW OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT WORKS ON AGREEMENT AND SETS A PURCHASE PRICE AND AGREEMENT FOR THIS PROJECT.
IT WILL HAVE TO BE A FOR SALE PRODUCT BECAUSE THE OVERALL PRODUCT IS FOR SALE AND THE REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT IF IT'S A FOR SALE PRODUCT FOR THE MARKET RATE, THE AFFORDABLE INCOME UNIT HAS TO BE FOR SALE.
TYPICALLY, OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES LOW INCOME, WHICH IS 70-80% AREA IMMEDIATE INCOME, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THERE'S ONE UNIT BECAUSE IT'S PROVIDING A DEEPER LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY.
[00:50:03]
>> IS THAT DEED RESTRICTED FOR PERPETUITY OR HOW EXACTLY IS THAT POLICED?
>> IT'S A DEED RESTRICTED FOR 55 YEARS.
>> FIFTY FIVE YEARS. THAT'S MY LAST QUESTION. THANKS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. GILDER.
>> COULD YOU CLARIFY, MR. GILDER IN REGARD TO VMT? THAT WAS ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE ON THIS PROJECT, AND THAT THEY INDICATED THAT IT WAS DONE BY A MAP ANALYSIS VERSUS THE VMT SCREENING CRITERIA.
COULD YOU PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THAT? THANK YOU.
>> YES. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, JASON GILDER, ENGINEERING MANAGER, CITY OF CARLSBAD.
THE CITY PROVIDES WHAT WE CALL VMT MAPS.
BUT WHAT WE DID IS WE DID A MODEL RUN OF THE ENTIRE CITY TO GET THE VMT FOR RESIDENTIAL AND FOR EMPLOYMENT.
WE PROVIDED PER WHAT WE CALL TRAFFIC AREAS OR TRANSPORTATION AREA ZONES.
WITHIN THOSE AREAS, IF YOUR PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THAT AREA, WE CAN ASSUME THAT THAT PROJECT IS GOING TO HAVE THAT VMT EFFICIENCY NUMBER.
THIS PROJECT IS IN A VERY EFFICIENT VMT ZONE SO THERE ARE NO IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT FOR VMT ITSELF.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE SCREENING PROCESS THAT IS NOT BEING USED AND THE MAP IS? COULD YOU CLARIFY A LITTLE FURTHER IN THAT REGARD?
>> WELL, THE PROJECT DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR ANY SCREENING CRITERIA FOR THIS PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.
>> MR. VAN LEN, THANKS FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND HARD WORK ON THIS.
I WANT TO RETURN TO A BASIC QUESTION.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES. STAFF HAS FOUND THAT'S TRUE.
>> ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME OR THE APPLICANT? LET'S DISCUSS THE ITEM AMONGST OURSELVES, COMMISSIONERS, FOR DISCUSSION.
ANY COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER STINE.
>> LET ME TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SQA ISSUE AND PERHAPS SOMEBODY ELSE WANTED TO TAKE THE LEAD WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT.
WITH RECENT CHANGE IN OUR PROCEDURE HERE LOCALLY, IT'S NOW IN THE COMMISSION'S BAIYWK, TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION AS TO THE SQA EXEMPTIONS.
AND I LOOKED CLOSELY AT THE STAFF REPORT HERE.
THE EXEMPTION THAT THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IS FOR AN INFIELD DEVELOPMENT.
IN FACT, THE FACTORS ARE ON PAGE SEVEN OF THE STAFF REPORT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS OR ANY REASON TO QUESTION STAFF ON THEM.
IN FACT, THIS IS ABOUT THIS IS HALF AN ACRE AND INFIEL, YOU CAN QUALIFY AS LONG AS IT'S LESS THAN FIVE ACRES.
SO IT'S A VERY SMALL FRACTION OF WHAT WOULD PUT YOU OVER THE THRESHOLD FOR AN EXEMPTION ON AN INFILL PROJECT.
NONE OF THE OTHER FACTORS SEEM TO APPLY HERE.
THERE'S NO SPECIAL NON-NATIVE ORNAMENTAL VEGETATION.
IN MY MIND, JEFFERSON, IT IS A TRAFFIC ISSUE ON JEFFERSON.
BUT IN TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, HAVING A SIGNIFICANT ADDITION, I JUST DON'T SEE IT.
IT'S A BIG BOX STORE, IT'S NOT A BIG COMMERCIAL THAT'S GOING TO DRAW SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL PEOPLE.
YES, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LIVE THERE AND DRIVE THEIR CARS IN AND OUT.
BUT I DON'T SEE THAT THAT WOULD TAKE US OUTSIDE OF THE EXEMPTION.
SO I THINK FOR SICRA PURPOSES, THE EXEMPTION IN MY MIND WOULD APPLY.
THEN THE SECOND TIER OF THE ANALYSIS IS, IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THE EXEMPTION? I'M GETTING VERY WALKY HERE, I KNOW.
WE'VE GOT STANDARDS IN OUR MUNICIPAL CODE, AND IN SQA WHERE AN EXCEPTION WOULD TAKE US OUT IF WE HAD SPECIAL HAZARDOUS CRITICAL CONCERNS, HAZARDOUS WASTE AREA, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.
THIS IS ONE OF A SUCCESS IN A PROJECT THAT WOULD HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS.
IT'S NOT. IT'S ONE PARTICULAR PROJECT.
AN INDICATION THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT POSSIBILITY
[00:55:02]
THAT THIS WILL HAVE AN EFFECT DUE TO ANY UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES? WHAT'S UNUSUAL HERE? IT'S WE SEE MANY TIMES.WE SEE OLDER SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES BEING DEMOLISHED IN THE ERECTION OR LARGER, MANY TIMES CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX.
THERE'S NO ISSUE OF SCENIC HIGHWAYS, HAZARDOUS WASTE.
SO I'VE TAKEN A LOOK AT BOTH OF THOSE, AND I THINK FOR THE SQA, WHICH IS OUR INITIAL ANALYSIS HERE, I THINK STAFF IS CLEARLY RIGHT.
SO I CERTAINLY CAN SUPPORT THE SQA EXEMPTION IN THIS CASE, AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM OTHER PEOPLE WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS THEY HAVE ON SQA.
>> OTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
>> THEY'RE ASKING FOR OUR APPROVAL OF THE SQA EXEMPTION AND SEVERAL DISCRETIONARY PERMITS.
PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED TO APPROVE DISCRETIONARY PERMITS IF WE DON'T FIND ACTIONABLE COMMITMENT TO OUR COMPLIANCE.
ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS MENTIONED DOES IT MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.
WELL, NO, IT DOESN'T MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.
THAT'S WHY IT'S HERE IN FRONT OF US.
[LAUGHTER] SO THAT'S THE CONCERN IS THAT IF ALL OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT MET THE REQUIREMENTS, IT WOULDN'T COME HERE.
SO IT WOULD GO STRICTLY TO AND IF THEY FOLLOWED OUR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE REST OF OUR COMMUNITY, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO NOT HAVE TO BE IN PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS THAT WE'RE TAKING THE MEETS ALL THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, BUT UNLESS WE APPROVE IT, THEY AREN'T MEETING THEM.
OTHERWISE, THEY WOULD GET MUNICIPAL MINISTERIAL APPROVALS THROUGH THE THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
SO MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT THE SQA DETERMINATION THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE ISN'T SEPARATED FROM THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT AND TO AVOID ADA COMPLIANCE OR ANY REQUIREMENTS THAT NORMAL MIGHT I ADD THAT OUR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE VERY LIBERAL IN OUR INTERPRETATION.
WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE VERY STRICT MULTI-FAMILY STANDARDS.
THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DIVIDE THE PARCELS AND THE BUILDINGS INTO THREE UNITS EACH MEANS THAT THEY AVOID ALL ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, ALL BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT'S A THREE-UNIT SERIES OF PARCELS.
I DID NOT ASK, BUT I SHOULD ASK, IS THIS THE POSSIBILITY WHERE THERE COULD BE A BEACH RENTAL WHAT DO THEY CALL THE HOTELS? NOT THE HOTELS?
>> YES. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS, MAYBE TO ANSWER THAT LAST QUESTION FIRST.
THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE.
SO ACCORDING TO OUR ORDINANCE IS, SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE, SPECIFIC TO CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AND REGISTRATION WITH THE CITY.
GETTING BACK TO ONE OF THE COMMENTS OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS NEEDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
A COUPLE OF POINTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SUBDIVISION AND THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE.
THE ONLY AUTHORITY FOR THE SIZE OF SUBDIVISION AND SIZE OF PROJECT.
FOR THIS IS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND SO BOTH OF THOSE WOULD HAVE HAD TO COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, REGARDLESS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
WE RECENTLY GOT OUR CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE OUR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, SO THEY WERE NOT IN EFFECT, AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY STILL NOT IN EFFECT IN THE COASTAL ZONE UNTIL THE COASTAL COMMISSION CERTIFIES THAT WE MADE THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS.
THAT SAID, EVEN ONCE THOSE ARE IN EFFECT AND STARTING NEXT YEAR WHEN A BILL CALLED SB 35 IS IN EFFECT IN THE COASTAL ZONE, IT WOULD ONLY BE PROJECTS THAT MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS AFFORDABILITY.
FAIR LABOR PROVISIONS, AS WELL AS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, AS WELL AS NOT BEING A FOR-SALE PRODUCT THAT WOULD QUALIFY FOR A FULL STREAMLINED MINISTERIAL PROCESS, WHICH WOULD NOT COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND SO IT WOULD NEED TO MEET ALL OF THOSE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.
[01:00:02]
IF A PROJECT MET ALL OF THOSE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS, THEN IT WOULD BE MINISTERIAL.THEREFORE, SQL WOULD NOT APPLY BECAUSE, BY STATUTE, SQA DOES NOT APPLY TO MINISTERIAL PROJECTS.
>> RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. LEARNING.
>> I THINK THAT THE SEPARATION OF THE STRUCTURES THAT AVOID ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ALSO REDUCE THE SETBACKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO REDUCE THE SETBACKS IF THE BUILDINGS WERE CLOSER TOGETHER.
SO I REALLY AM STRUGGLING WITH MANY ASPECTS OF THIS PROJECT, BECAUSE EVEN WITH THE DENSITY BONUS AFFORDABILITY, WE'RE GETTING ONE UNIT, WHICH IS 11%, WHICH DOESN'T MEET OUR 15% MINIMUM OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING.
AND THE DENSITY BONUS IS USUALLY IT IF THEY MEET 20%, IS IT WHERE IT ALSO KICKS INTO MINISTERIAL APPROVALS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THE CURRENTLY IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, IT WOULD REQUIRE A 50% AFFORDABILITY TO MEET THE SB 35.
THAT IS BASED UPON OUR PRODUCTION AND OUR HOUSING ELEMENT AND IS REVIEWED ANNUALLY BY THE STATE.
THERE'S A LIST THE STATE PUBLISHES OF WHAT'S THE PERCENTAGE LEVEL.
I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE LIST FOR OTHERS RECENTLY, BUT WHERE THAT IS A 10% REQUIREMENT.
RELATED TO THIS, YES, OUR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IS 15%, BUT IT'S 15% LOW INCOME, AND THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING VERY LOW, WHICH IS A DEEPER AFFORDABILITY LEVEL AND THE FUTURE TENANTS OR FUTURE OWNERS WOULD BE LOWER THAN THE LOW.
20% IS NOT A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE.
OTHER THAN FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT REZONE SITES.
THE CITY, WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THERE WAS THE REQUIREMENT THAT THOSE PROJECTS PROVIDE 20% AFFORDABILITY BECAUSE THE CITY REZONE THE PROPERTY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
>> I GUESS THE LAST QUESTION I'M SORRY TO KEEP ASKING, BUT IS IT COMMON TO HAVE VERY LOW INCOME UNITS THAT ARE FOR SALE UNITS WITH MAINTENANCE FEES?
>> IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE SEE ALL THE TIME, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED CONCEPTUALLY, AND THEN ULTIMATELY, THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ESTABLISHING THOSE FEES AND WORKING WITH THE SPECIFIC AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT ON THE DETAILS AS WELL AS ENSURING THAT THE UNIT SELECTED MEETS REQUIREMENTS AND THESE ARE IDENTICAL UNITS, BUT WE ALWAYS CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT THE UNIT SELECTED FOR THAT ARE EQUIVALENT TO THE MARKET RATE UNITS.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.
UNLESS THE DEVELOPER CAN COME BACK AND SAY, WE CAN SQUISH THESE BUILDINGS TOGETHER, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THIS MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE BECAUSE I SEE TOO MANY GAPS IN THE CONSISTENCY AND CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS, THAT THIS COULD BE A HASSLE.
I THINK THEY SHOULD REALLY CONSIDER EXTERIOR SPRINKLERS IF THEY'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH THIS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CAN BE CONDITIONED.
>> ULTIMATELY, WOULD NEED TO BE SOMETHING WE DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED.
THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AS WELL AS DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS THAT THEY NEED TO BE BASED ON OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND SIMILAR TO OUR ABILITY TO DENY WAIVERS IF THEY'RE NOT BASED ON OBJECTIVE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS.
WE'D HAVE TO TALK TO THEM SEE IF THEY COULD AGREE TO IT, BUT WE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY RENDER THE DEVELOPMENT INFEASIBLE AS PROPOSED.
>> FURTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER STEIN.
>> YES. TURNING TO THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT, WE HAVE, AGAIN, I'VE GIVEN MY THOUGHTS ON THE SQL ISSUE, AND THEY GO HAND IN HAND.
PERSONALLY, I'M NOT TROUBLED HAVING THE SQA ISSUE AND EXEMPTION ISSUE AND THE MERITS IN ONE RESOLUTION.
IT'S FINE, BUT WE DO HAVE TO DELIBERATELY GO THROUGH THE SQA HURDLE BEFORE WE GET TO THE MERITS, AND I'M COMFORTABLE WITH DOING THAT.
[01:05:02]
ON THE MERITS, WE LOOK TO WHAT ARE THE PERMITS HERE.THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, I REALLY DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES.
THERE CERTAINLY SHOULDN'T BE ANY BEACH OR LAGOON ACCESS ISSUES WITH THIS LOCATION.
SO I'M NOT SEEING THAT THAT'S A PROBLEM.
WE HAVE CONDITIONS THAT I THINK TAKE CARE OF THE EXTERNAL IMPACTS.
SO JUST LOOKING AT THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSED PERMITS, I'M NOT SEEING ANYTHING THAT REALLY CONCERNS ME FROM THERE.
IN RESPONDING TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY, I WANT TO PICK UP ON SOMETHING MR. PIERCE SAID.
HE TALKED ABOUT, AND I THINK VERY MADE A VERY COGENT POINT ABOUT HOME APPRECIATION, HOME VALUES HERE IN THE AREA.
YES, MR. PIERCE, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
IT IS PRICING TOO MANY PEOPLE OUT OF THE MARKET.
OR SPOT ON, AND PARTICULARLY THE MARKET FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES IS BECOMING UNFORTUNATELY UNAFFORDABLE FOR TOO MANY PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY YOUNG PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET STARTED HERE AND START A FAMILY.
I DO LIKE THE FACT IN THIS PROJECT ADDRESSES THAT.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES.
THOSE ARE OUT OF THE FINANCIAL PICTURE FOR MANY IF NOT MOST, PARTICULARLY YOUNG PEOPLE.
BUT HERE WE'VE GOT SOME CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSES.
02,300 SQUARE FEET IS A GOOD SIZE UNIT.
I LIKE THE SIZE OF THE UNITS THAT COULD EASILY FIT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE COULD FIT A FAMILY.
I PARTICULARLY COMMEND THE APPLICANT FOR INCLUDING A VERY LOW-INCOME UNIT.
YOU DON'T SEE THAT A LOT HERE.
USUALLY, IT WOULD BE ON SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A LESSER IN TERMS OF THE AFFORDABILITY.
BUT HERE WE'RE GOING DOWN THE PEG AND THIS WILL ALLOW SOMEBODY OF A VERY MODEST INCOME TO HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF UNIT THAT THE MARKET UNITS, IN OTHER WORDS, 2,300 SQUARE FEET.
THAT IS A REAL BONUS, PARTICULARLY IN CARLSBAD, THAT SOMEONE OF A VERY LOW INCOME COULD LIVE IN A NICE.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A REAL TINY 500-600 SQUARE FEET STUDIO APARTMENT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A GOOD-SIZED TOWNHOUSE HERE.
I THINK THAT'S REALLY GOOD AND THE FACT THAT IT'S THE SAME SIZE AND A GOOD SIZE WITH THE OTHER UNITS, I THINK IS MOST COMMENDABLE.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING HERE IN TERMS OF THE DENSITY, BONUSES, EXCUSE ME, THE WAIVERS, AND SO FORTH.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE MUCH DISCRETION.
MAYBE ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THIS.
FOR US TO DISAPPROVE OR DISALLOW A WAIVER, WOULDN'T WE HAVE TO MAKE A SPECIFIC FINDING WITH REGARD TO SOME ADVERSE HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT?
>> YES. THERE ARE CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO MEET.
>> ONE OF THE POTENTIALS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SPECIFIC FINDINGS BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON IS THAT THE CONCESSION OR INCENTIVE DOESN'T RESULT IN IDENTIFIABLE AND ACTUAL COST REDUCTIONS, OR THAT THE CONCESSION OR INCENTIVE WOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT, AS DEFINED EARLIER IN THE GOVERNMENT CODE, OR THAT THE CONCESSION OR INCENTIVE WOULD BE CONTRARY TO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.
THE FIRST AND THE LAST DO NOT APPEAR TO BE APPLICABLE.
THE ONLY WAY THAT THE CITY COULD VOTE AND NOT GRANT THE CONCESSION OR EXEMPTION OR WAIVER WOULD BE THAT IT HAS A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT, AND FOR WHICH THERE IS NO FEASIBLE METHOD TO SATISFACTORILY MITIGATE OR AVOID THE SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT WITHOUT RENDERING THE DEVELOPMENT UNAFFORDABLE TO LOW-INCOME AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SPECIFIC FINDINGS THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THAT POINT IN ORDER TO DENY THE WAIVER.
>> SO IT'S A FAIRLY RIGOROUS STANDARD FOR US?
>> I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
ON THAT ISSUE, HEALTH SAFETY, THE ONLY ONE IN MY MIND, OF THE WAIVERS THAT TOUCHES ON THAT WOULD BE THE BUILDING SEPARATION ISSUE.
I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THAT.
I WAS INITIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT A REDUCTION FROM 10 FEET TO SIX FEET.
THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION.
BUT WHEN I'M FINDING OUT NOW THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE SPECIFIC SPRINKLER ISSUES AND THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE APPROVED SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE BY OUR FIRE PEOPLE,
[01:10:01]
I'M COMFORTABLE THAT THAT ISSUE WOULD BE ADDRESSED, BUT THAT WAS THE ONE THAT STOOD OUT TO ME.AESTHETICS AND ATTRACTS ARE GREAT, BUT BOY, WHEN IT COMES TO FIRE SAFETY AND MAKING SURE WE DON'T HAVE BECAUSE OF THE WAY A PROJECT IS APPROVED, WE DON'T HAVE A FIRE THAT GOES FROM BUILDING TO BUILDING AND IT REALLY DOES DAMAGES OR KILLS PEOPLE, THAT IS A REAL CONCERN TO ME.
BUT I THINK IT'S TAKEN CARE OF HERE AS BEST AS IT CAN. THANK YOU.
FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S COMMENTS, I CANNOT MAKE THOSE FINDINGS HERE, SO AS MUCH AS WE MIGHT DESIRE THAT THE SETBACK BE AS PER CODE, I DON'T THINK I PERSONALLY, AS ONE COMMISSIONER CAN MAKE THE FINDINGS TO SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT WAIVER AND YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT EXCEPTION BECAUSE OF THAT HIGH STANDARD THAT WE HAVE IN STATE LAW.
MY WAY OF THINKING, THIS IS GOING TO BE A BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY.
WHEN I DROVE BY THERE TODAY, YOU HAVE TWO BOARDED-UP OLD HOMES THERE BEHIND A FENCE.
IF THIS IS APPROVED AND IT'S BUILT, IS GOING TO GET TO ME AN ATTRACTIVE 12-UNIT TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX, THAT WILL BE A BETTERMENT TO THE COMMUNITY, AND IT'S GOING TO BE CERTAINLY BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW.
COULD ANOTHER APPLICANT REDESIGN AND DO SOMETHING ELSE? YES, BUT THAT'S NOT BEFORE US.
WHAT BEFORE US IS THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT BASED UPON THOSE STANDARDS.
IN LIGHT OF THAT, AS I INDICATED BEFORE, I THINK THE CEQA EXEMPTION IS WELL-FOUNDED, AND I CAN SUPPORT THE PROJECT ON THE MERITS BASED UPON THE PERMITS THAT ARE BEING SOUGHT HERE.
>> I JUST HAVE A FEW FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
IN THE LAST FIVE MONTHS THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION.
WE'VE NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT EXTERIOR SPRINKLERS.
MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT EVER REQUIRED? I DON'T REQUIRE EVER SEEN THAT ON ANY PREVIOUS PROJECTS IN THE LAST FIVE MONTHS.
>> I AM UNAWARE OF A PROJECT OF THIS TYPE THAT WOULD HAVE SOME EXTERIOR SPRINKLERS.
>> TO REQUIRE IT ON THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER APPROVALS OF SIMILAR TYPES OF PROJECTS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YEAH. NOT OVERSTATING HOW AWARE I AM OF THE PROJECTS I HAVE WORKED ON, I AM UNAWARE OF, AGAIN, A PROJECT OF THIS KIND OF TOWNHOME CONDOS TO HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT COME IN.
>> I'LL JUST ADD, A LOT OF OUR DRIVERS AND FIRE IS BASED ON THE FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE MAPS, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY BEING UPDATED, AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY THAT WILL BE WITHIN THOSE.
THERE COULD BE PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE THAT PROPOSE ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION MEASURES TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE SUCH AREAS THAT THERE WOULD BE, FOR EXAMPLE, A REQUIRED BUFFER THAT WOULD BE REDUCED, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AGAIN, NOT SAYING THAT IT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT WE'LL SEEING IN THE FUTURE, BUT OUR STANDARD IS, WHAT IS AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT WE HAVE AS A REQUIREMENT? THERE'S NOT AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD RELATED TO OUTDOOR SPRINKLERS THAT WE COULD APPLY TO THE PROJECT.
>> THAT MAKES SENSE. THE OTHER TWO QUESTIONS I HAVE, OUR HOUSING ELEMENT PLAN, I THINK WE HAVE TO BUILD 7,000 NEW HOUSING UNITS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
CAN YOU EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT?
>> SURE. THE NUMBER THAT WAS ASSIGNED TO THE CITY UNDER THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT, TRYING NOT TO USE ACRONYMS, WAS ABOUT 3,800 UNITS.
A LITTLE OVER HALF OF THOSE WERE FOR VERY LOW AND LOW-INCOME UNITS.
DURING OUR HOUSING ELEMENT, WHEN IT WAS APPROVED IN APRIL 2021, WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY FOR THE REMAINDER OF THOSE UNITS AT HIGHER DENSITY.
WE EMBARKED ON A REZONE PROGRAM TO REZONE A CAPACITY THROUGHOUT A NUMBER OF SITES THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
THOSE SITES ARE OUT THERE AND THEY ARE HIGHER DENSITY, AND SOME OF THEM HAVE PROJECTS ON THEM, SOME OF THEM DO NOT. THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT.
WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING ELEMENT.
ANNUALLY, WE TRACK WHAT IS OUR PRODUCTION NUMBERS AND REPORT ON WHERE ARE WE DOING.
IF THIS PROJECT WERE CONSTRUCTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT, WE WOULD REPORT ON THAT AND HELP TAKE CREDIT FOR IT IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT NUMBERS, OF WHICH ONE OF THAT WOULD BE VERY LOW INCOME, WHICH IS HARDER TO GET.
ELEVEN WOULD BE ABOVE MODERATE BECAUSE THEY'D BE AT MARKET-RATE UNITS.
THAT WOULD HELP US MAINTAIN OUR PRODUCTION.
THERE'S NOT A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT TO BUILD ALL OF THOSE UNITS, BUT FOR EXAMPLE, SB35, WHICH I REFERENCED EARLIER, IF YOU DON'T BUILD ENOUGH PRODUCTION,
[01:15:01]
IT ACTUALLY PUTS YOU IN A DIFFERENT LEVEL, DIFFERENT TIER FOR PROJECTS THAT COULD QUALIFY AS MINISTERIAL.THAT'S A VERY HIGH LEVEL OF THE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY FOLLOW-UPS.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS CARLSBAD IS APPROXIMATELY 95% BUILD OUT, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S APPROXIMATE AND THE LARGER INFILL SITES ARE MOSTLY BUILT OUT AND SO THE HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS, THE STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT THOSE BE AT HIGH DENSITY, AND SO WITH THE REZONE PROGRAM WAS SITES AT 15 UNITS AN ACRE AND HIGHER.
>> I JUST GOT A QUESTION FOR CHAIR REAL QUICK.
THIS IS OUR CONVERSATION SECTION AND AFTER THIS, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO VOTE.
I'LL JUST SAY MY THOUGHTS ON THIS.
FIRST OFF, I WANT TO THANK STAFF.
I THINK YOU DID A GREAT JOB WITH THE REPORT, AND I THINK THE APPLICANT, YOU DID A GOOD JOB.
WE'VE SEEN A FEW PROJECTS FROM YOU GUYS.
I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE PUBLIC AND THE LETTERS AND FOR SPEAKING TODAY, PARTICULARLY THE ONE EMAIL WE RECEIVED AND THE SPEECH HERE FROM ALANA.
WHEN I SAW THAT EMAIL CAME THROUGH I WAS LIKE, MAN, THAT'S PRETTY STRONG.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, MY OPINION OF THE MATTER, WHICH IS, I THINK TOUCHED ON HERE BY COMMISSIONER STEIN AND THEN CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, REALLY THE TEST IS, IS THIS PROJECT GOING TO HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? IN MY OPINION, THE ANSWER IS NO.
IN FACT, WE HAVE TO BUILD 3,000 MORE HOMES, AND NOT DOING SO WILL PUT US IN THIS MINISTERIAL PROCESS, WHICH IS NOT GOOD FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AT ALL, TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING.
WITHOUT BEING LONG-WINDED, I SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS? I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE CEQA EXEMPTION, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER FOSTER AND COMMISSIONER STEIN MADE EXCELLENT COMMENTS IN REGARD TO THE PROJECT ITSELF AND THE SAFETY AND HEALTH ISSUES IN REGARD TO THE EXEMPTIONS.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, I WANT TO THANK THE PUBLIC FOR COMING OUT THIS EVENING AND BRINGING TO OUR ATTENTION SOME CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE, BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE, I GUESS YOU SAY FOLLOW THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS WELL AS, OF COURSE, LOCAL ZONING AND CONDITIONS.
WITH THAT IN MIND, I ALSO SAY THAT THE PROJECT ITSELF I THINK IS WELL-DESIGNED.
I THINK THAT IT HAPPENS TO FIT VERY WELL ON A CORNER LOT, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER IN THAT REGARD.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS THAT COMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE? COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.
>> AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL, WE NEED THE HOUSING.
ANYTHING THAT IS GOING TO ADD TO THE HOUSING SUPPLY, I SUPPORT.
I REALLY LIKE THE DESIGN. IT REALLY LOOKS GREAT, AND I THINK IT'LL BE A POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE COMMUNITY.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
THE APPLICANT IS ASSUMING THE RISK BOTH FINANCIALLY AND PERSONALLY ON THIS.
AS PROPERTY OWNERS, THEY ASSUME THE RISK IF THERE'S SOME ISSUE WITH WHETHER THIS SELLS OR WHETHER THIS HAS ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT OR WHATEVER.
AS PROPERTY OWNERS, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD ON THE PROPERTY AS LONG AS THEY FOLLOW THE APPROPRIATE LAWS, SO I SUPPORT THIS.
>> ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS? BEFORE I ASK FOR A MOTION THOUGH, I WANT TO ENSURE THAT WHOEVER THE MOTION MAKER HAPPENS TO BE, THAT YOU MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS EVERYTHING THAT IS IN THE STAFF REPORT REGARDING HOW THE RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE MADE VERSUS JUST IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
BE VERY SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT YOU'RE ADOPTING AND WHAT RESOLUTIONS THEY HAPPEN TO BE.
WHOEVER THE MOTION MAKER HAPPENS TO BE, MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR IN REGARD TO THAT.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I ASKED FOR A MOTION IN THIS REGARD.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER FOSTER.
>> SURE. I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF A CEQA EXEMPTION TENTATIVE TRACK PAP, PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT,
[01:20:01]
AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE PROJECT.>> CITY ATTORNEY, IS THAT ADEQUATE OR DO YOU WANT TO BE SPECIFIC PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION?
>> SPECIFICALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
>> ON THE STAFF REPORT, IT'S SPECIFIC.
EXACTLY REGARDING WHAT THE TRACK MAP HAPPENS TO BE, ETC.
IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT YOUR AGENDA ITEM?
>> HE DID HIT THE HIGH NOTES. I CAN IT.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S MUCH MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CEQA EXEMPTION, IMPROVING ATTENTIVE TRACK MAP, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
>> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER MERZ, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEIN. PLEASE VOTE.
WE HAVE SIX YES AND ONE NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE. WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE,
[2. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 ]
IN DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS, ITEM NUMBER 2?>> YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
ITEM NUMBER 2 IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ANNUAL WORK PROGRAM.
THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS TO THIS.
THE FIRST IS A REPORT ON THINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED, AND WE ANTICIPATE TO OCCUR THROUGH THE REST OF THIS FISCAL YEAR, WHICH GOES THROUGH JUNE 30TH, AND THAT'S INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENT A TO THE EXHIBIT, WHICH IS THE DRAFT RESOLUTION.
ATTACHMENT B IS A DRAFT WORK PROGRAM FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR STARTING ON JULY 1ST, THROUGH JUNE 30TH OF 2026.
THIS IS A REQUIREMENT OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE THAT ALL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PREPARE A WORK PROGRAM AND THEN ONCE REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED AND MODIFIED AS APPROPRIATE BY THIS BOARD, IT WILL BE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL, ALONG WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION WORK PROGRAM, WHICH IS THE OTHER COMMITTEE THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MANAGES AND FACILITATES.
PRIMARILY, IT'S AN UPDATE OF PROJECTS THAT WE ANTICIPATE TO SEE, A MIX OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROJECTS THAT THROUGH OUR ESTIMATES WOULD BE CONSIDERED THIS FISCAL YEAR, AS WELL AS A NEW SECTION, WHICH INSTEAD OF HAVING A FORMAL WORKSHOP, HAVING QUARTERLY INFORMATIONAL AND TRAINING PRESENTATIONS RELATED TO OPERATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SOME IDEAS THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT WITH US FOR THAT IS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CEQA, SPECIFICALLY THE EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED BECAUSE THAT IS A MORE COMPLICATED TOPIC RELATED TO CEQA, AS WELL AS INCLUDING IN ONE OR BOTH OF THOSE DISCUSSION OF WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TIME FRAMES RELATED TO OUR PROCEDURES FOR CEQA, AS WELL AS POTENTIAL APPEAL AND REMEDIES FROM PRIVATE PARTIES.
WITH THAT, TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION.
AGAIN, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS A RESOLUTION, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ACCEPT BOTH OF THOSE ATTACHMENTS, BUT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF THE COMMISSION HAD ADDITIONAL ITEMS THEY'D LIKE TO ADD, THEY COULD INCLUDE THAT IN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION.
>> THANK YOU, MR. LARDY. I DO HAVE A QUESTION THAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER FOR ME.
THAT IS IN REGARD TO, YOU HAD INDICATED AT VARIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED CEQA BEING ONE OF PROBABLY QUITE A FEW THAT YOU'RE THINKING OF DOING.
WHAT IS YOUR ANTICIPATION OF WHEN YOU WOULD START WITH ACTUALLY THE FIRST, I GUESS YOU CAN SAY A COMMISSION MEETING WHERE THAT WOULD BE AN ITEM ON THE DEPARTMENTAL REPORT?
>> IT'S REALLY UP TO US WORKING WITH YOU AS THE CHAIR AND THE COMMISSION ON WHEN THAT WOULD BE.
LOOKING AT OUR SCHEDULE, THERE IS SOME AVAILABILITY AT THE SECOND MEETING OF JULY.
WE DO HAVE ONE COMMISSIONER WHO'S PROPOSED TO BE ABSENT THAT DAY.
I THINK WE WANT TO BALANCE SCHEDULING THESE AND MAKING SURE WE HAVE PROGRESS WITH IDEALLY HAVING THEM ON DAYS THAT WE HAVE A FULL COMMISSION.
IF WE DON'T HAVE IT IN THE MEETING IN JULY, WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT OUR AUGUST SCHEDULE LOOKS LIKE, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE SUMMERTIME, WHERE WE TYPICALLY CANCEL AT LEAST A FEW MEETINGS DURING SUMMER BECAUSE OF TRAVEL AND VACATION.
THE CITY COUNCIL IS ACTUALLY NOT MEETING AT ALL IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST.
[01:25:02]
IT'S A BREAK AS PART OF THEIR CALENDAR, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T MEET DURING THAT TIME PERIOD.>> ARE YOU ANTICIPATING THE POSSIBILITY OF THESE SESSIONS ACTUALLY CONTINUING ON THROUGHOUT THE CALENDAR YEAR?
>> WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THESE CONTINUE ON THROUGHOUT THE CALENDAR YEAR, AS WELL AS INTO 2026, WHICH THIS WORK PROGRAM COVERS.
WE HAD ANTICIPATED THAT SOME BLEND OF THEM WOULD BE PRESENTED FROM CITY STAFF.
WE WOULD ASK CITY ATTORNEY REPRESENTATIVES OR THE CITY ATTORNEY TO COME HELP PRESENT SOME OF THOSE.
WE WOULD ALSO BE POTENTIALLY ASKING SOME OF OUR CONSULTANTS TO COME HELP GIVE PRESENTATIONS ON SOME OF THE TECHNICAL TOPICS SUCH AS VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED.
WE WOULD LIKELY INVITE OUR CONSULTANT WHO HELPS US REVIEW AND PROCESS THOSE DOCUMENTS.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME IN REGARD TO THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
>> IF WE WERE TO ADD OR REQUEST TO ADD THE SQA PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, HOW WOULD THAT BE INCORPORATED INTO THIS?
>> I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT ANY MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION INCLUDE ADDING THAT AS A GOAL AND TASK FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025, '26.
IN MY OPINION, THE MOST APPROPRIATE SECTION TO ADD THAT TO WOULD BE UNDER THE TRAINING AND CITY OPERATIONS SUBSECTION.
>> WHAT PAGE IS THAT? I'M SORRY.
>> BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 2, IF I RECALL, RECEIVED QUARTERLY INFORMATIONAL AS WELL AS FOCUS ON THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCESS UNDER TRAINING AND CITY OPERATIONS.
>> OKAY. WHAT OFFHAND, DO WE KNOW WHAT CODE SECTION THAT'S IN THE TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEWS IN THE CODE?
>> THE TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW OF CERTAIN SQA DOCUMENTS EXIST IN THE SQA GUIDELINES APPROVED BY THE STATE.
OUR REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SQA DOCUMENTS IS IN TITLE 19 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.
>>ULTIMATELY, WE COULD ONLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON TITLE 19 BECAUSE WE REALLY ONLY OVERSEE WHICH SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
>> TITLE 21, WHICH IS THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
>> BUT TITLE 19 IS WHERE YOU FIND THE GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF SQA?
>> CORRECT. TITLE 19 IS OUR LOCAL PROCEDURES.
BUT THEN, THE STATE GUIDELINES ARE THE EXTENSIVE GUIDELINES OR PROCEDURES FOR SQA.
>> I THINK WHAT WOULD WANT TO BE ADDED IN HERE IS JUST A BRIEF UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT TITLE 19 IS GETTING AT SO THAT IF THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS OR QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION HAD ON IT BECAUSE WE'VE TAKEN ON THIS NEW ROLE, WE COULD NOT MAKE A DECISION ON IT, BUT WE COULD POTENTIALLY HOPEFULLY MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> YEAH, AS MUCH AS IT RELATES TO YOUR PROCESSES UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH INCLUDES DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM IF THEY WANTED TO DIRECT US TO PROCEED.
TITLE 21, AGAIN, REALLY, YOU CAN ONLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON AS WELL BECAUSE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE MUNICIPAL CODE ONLY RESTS IN THE CITY COUNCIL.
>> I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY IT ALL NEEDS TO CHANGE.
ALL I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS BECAUSE WE'VE TAKEN ON THIS NEW ROLE AND COUNCIL HAS ASKED US TO TAKE ON THIS NEW ROLE, I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO AT LEAST HAVE A REVIEW OF TITLE 19 WHERE THOSE SQA GUIDELINES ARE SPECIFICALLY OUTLINING OUR LOCAL PROCEDURES.
[01:30:01]
MAYBE THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE ADDED, IS POTENTIALLY TO JUST HAVE A REVIEW OF TITLE 19 TO UNDERSTAND OUR LOCAL PROCEDURES UNDER SQA.>> YEAH. IT'S REALLY THE PREROGATIVE OF THE MOTION MAKER WITH CONCURRENCE FROM THE FULL COMMISSION.
IN MY OPINION, THERE'S TWO WAYS TO DO THAT.
THAT SECOND BULLET ON PAGE 11 SPEAKS TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCESS.
THAT COULD BE EXPANDED TO SPECIFICALLY REFERENCE TITLE 19 AND OR THE SQA GUIDELINES, OR THERE COULD BE A NEW DOT POINT ADDED TO THAT SECTION.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REST OF THE COMMISSION THINKS, BUT I WOULDN'T NEED TO CHANGE IT, BUT MAYBE ADDING TITLE 19 SO THAT WE COULD UNDERSTAND IT BETTER, I THINK, WOULD BE A HELPFUL PROCESS.
WOULD I HAVE TO REQUEST A VOTE FOR THE ADDITION OF THAT?
>> WELL, I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS DISCUSS AND THEN WHEN WE GET TO THE MOTION, THEN YOU CAN ADD AND ADD THAT AT THAT TIME IF YOU ARE THE MOTION MAKER. COMMISSIONER STEIN.
I LIKE COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY'S IDEA, WITH REGARD TO SQA, BECAUSE WE HAVE TAKEN ON THAT ADDITIONAL TASK SOME EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM, PERHAPS EVEN THE FIRST SQL ONE, BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS DEAD CENTER FROM WHAT WE'RE DOING THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE IN THE PAST.
I THINK SHE SPOT ON, AND I THINK PERHAPS TALKING ABOUT THAT FIRST ONE, WOULD TALK ABOUT SQA, BUT REALLY WOULD DRILL DOWN ON THE EXEMPTION ISSUE, I THINK WOULD BE EXCELLENT WAY OF KICKING OFF A PERIODIC EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS WITH REGARD TO SQA.
I THINK SHE'S ONTO SOMETHING THERE.
I WANT TO ALSO COMMENT ON AN UNRELATED ISSUE THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE COVERED HERE, AND SOMETHING THAT I'VE HARPED ON MANY TIMES, AND THAT'S FIRE SAFETY, AND WE HAD A FIRE SAFETY ISSUE TONIGHT WITH THIS PROJECT.
I WOULD LIKE TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH EXACTLY HOW STAFF REVIEWS, PARTICULARLY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
I THINK WE HAVE A FIRE MARSHAL THAT IS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
HOW THEY OPERATE IN TERMS OF PROVIDING INPUT INTO A PROJECT SUCH AS THIS ONE THAT PROPOSE TO MAKE A PRETTY DRAMATIC CHANGE FROM OUR 10-FOOT STANDARDS TO A SIX-FOOT STANDARDS.
I THINK PERHAPS AT AN EARLY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM ASKING FOR A PRESENTATION THAT WOULD GIVE US A LITTLE NUTS AND BOLTS ON HOW THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEWS THESE AND HOW THEY'RE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS SO I CAN GET MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS FEEL THE SAME WAY, AND GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABLE THAT THOSE ISSUES ARE COVERED.
IT'S BEEN NOT TOO LONG AGO IN JANUARY WHERE WE HAVE THESE HORRENDOUS FIRES UP IN LA.
WE'RE ON THE NEWS AND PEOPLE LOST THEIR LIVES AND HUNDREDS OF HOMES WERE DESTROYED.
WE'VE HAD OUR OWN FIRES HERE NOT RECENTLY, BUT I'VE BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH WHERE I REMEMBER SIGNIFICANT FIRES HERE IN CARLSBAD.
I'M NOT REALLY CLEAR ON WHAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, HOW THEY INVOLVED, TO THE EXTENT THEY'RE INVOLVED, AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE OF A COMFORT LEVEL ON THAT AND PERHAPS HAVING A PRESENTATION ON THAT AS WELL.
>> I THINK COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY'S COMMENTS IN REGARD TO SQA AND TITLE 19 IS EXCELLENT, AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER STEIN AS WELL.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSSIBLY OUR VERY FIRST ONE IF IT HAPPENS TO BE IN JULY, THAT MAY BE OUR FIRST ITEM WHEN WE HAVE THAT TRAINING AS A ITEM THAT THE SQA BE THE FIRST OF MANY THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, THAT I THINK SQA IS THE FIRST ONE.
OTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS IN REGARD TO THIS QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.
>> CAN I SPEAK TO COMMISSIONER STEIN'S QUESTION ABOUT THE FIRE? I ACTUALLY THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT I KNOW THAT NOW DOES COUNCIL HAVE AN ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND HOW THEY REVIEW THESE THINGS? BECAUSE MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD PIGGYBACK ON SOMEHOW OR TAG ONTO IF THERE WAS SOME PRESENTATION ON THAT.
>> MR. LARDY. THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT REPORTS THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT MAKES, SOME MORE, I THINK, OPERATIONALLY FOCUSED.
SO,E FOCUSED ON THE WILDFIRE MITIGATION PROGRAMS. THEY ALSO HAVE AN ITEM COMING UP AT COUNCIL, REVIEWING THE WILDFIRE FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE MAPS, BECAUSE THAT'S A REQUIREMENT TO REVIEW AND PRESENT THOSE.
WE CAN REACH OUT TO THE FIRE MARSHAL.
SHE'S ATTENDED SOME OF OUR MEETINGS.
[01:35:03]
WE CAN REACH OUT TO HER AND SEE WHAT MIGHT BE BEST, AND CAN CERTAINLY, IF A PRESENTATION IS MOST APPROPRIATE, PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA TO PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION.>> BECAUSE I THINK YOUR COMMENT IS REALLY IMPORTANT, AND I THINK WE WILL AFTER OUR MEETING UP IN SANTA ROSA.
WE DID HEAR THAT SEVERAL DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS ARE COMING, WHICH MEANS THAT SEVERAL CONCESSIONS IN THE VILLAGE, ESPECIALLY ARE COMING.
TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THOSE FIRE HAZARD MAP LOCATIONS ARE, MAYBE CHANGING, WHATEVER, WE DO NEED TO KNOW THAT.
BUT WITH REDUCTION OF SETBACKS, IT DOES CREATE A HIGHER RISK FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION, AND UNLESS WE ACTUALLY REQUIRE THE BUILDINGS TO BECOME MORE FIRE RESISTANT, WHICH MEANS HIGHER CONSTRUCTION COST FOR THESE BUILDINGS TO BE BUILT BECAUSE THEY'RE MORE RESISTANT TO FIRE.
BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS VERY BUSY, SO IT WOULD BE GOOD TO TRY TO COORDINATE WITH THEM SOMEHOW TO KNOW WHEN THEY'RE DOING A PRESENTATION AT COUNCIL, AND MAYBE WE CAN HAVE A MEETING SHORTLY AFTER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITH THEM TO HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE OPPORTUNITIES MIGHT CHANGE AND WHAT CODE CHANGES MIGHT BE HAPPENING?
>> ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME? QUESTIONS OF STAFF, NOT DISCUSSION?
THIS IS THE VILLAGE BARRIO BEACH AREA PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE.
THIS ITEM IS REMOVED AND WILL BE ADDED TO A FUTURE WORK PROGRAM AS THE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION.
CAN YOU EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT? BECAUSE THE VILLAGE HAS GROWN PRETTY QUICK RIGHT NOW.
THE LOT OF DEVELOPMENT, LOT OF PEOPLE, A LOT OF PARKING DISCUSSION.
I WAS THAT RED FLAG FOR ME OF WHY WAS THIS REMOVED AND BE ADDED TO A FUTURE WORK PROGRAM AND WHY ISN'T BEING ADDRESSED TODAY?
>> SURE. WE WERE UNDERGOING AN UPDATE TO THE VILLAGE EMBARIO AND BEACH AREA.
IT ACTUALLY INCLUDES A LITTLE BIT OF AREAS THAT ARE NOT IN THE VILLAGE EMARIO MASTER PLAN, PLAN, MOSTLY TO IMPLEMENT STATE LAW AB 2097, WHICH REMOVED OUR ABILITY TO REQUIRE PARKING WITHIN A HALF MILE OF A COASTER STATION.
A LOT OF THAT AREA IS WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE COASTER STATION.
UPON DOING THAT, AS WELL AS LOOKING AT OUR CURRENT ANNUAL PARKING COUNTS, WE CAME TO THE REALIZATION THAT WE NEED BETTER DATA OF WHAT IS OCCURRING BECAUSE OUR CURRENT PARKING COUNTS ONLY TO LOOK AT TWO DAYS A YEAR, TYPICALLY IN AUGUST, BUT OUR REQUIREMENT IS BETWEEN MEMORIAL DAY AND LABOR DAY BECAUSE THAT'S THE PEAK SUMMER SEASON.
BEFORE WE EMBARK ON CHANGES TO THE PLAN, WE WANTED TO GET BETTER DATA.
THROUGH THE DRAFT BUDGET, AND ULTIMATELY, IF THAT DRAFT BUDGET IS ADOPTED, OUR DEPARTMENT IS GETTING SOME FUNDING TO DO A MORE IN-DEPTH STUDY TO GIVE US BETTER DATA OF WHAT IS THE PARKING SITUATION.
HISTORICALLY, IT'S SHOWN THAT THE MAIN AREAS ARE IMPACTED AND THE REST OF THE VILLAGES IS NOT AS IMPACTED, BUT THAT IS STARTING TO CHANGE.
WE ALSO, AT SOME POINT, MIGHT GET A DEVELOPMENT AT THE COASTER STATION BECAUSE WE KNOW NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT HAS BEEN IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH A DEVELOPER.
WE DO WANT TO BRING THIS PROJECT FORWARD AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT WE WANT TO TAKE THE NEXT YEAR AND GET SOME BETTER DATA SO THAT WE CAN MAKE BETTER INFORMED DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL ON WAYS TO HELP ALLEVIATE THE PARKING PROBLEM.
>> RIGHT NOW WHERE IT IS, IT'S IN A BUDGET THAT'S GOING TO GO IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
IS THAT WHERE WE ARE IN PROCESS?
>> YEAH, WE HAVE A LINE ITEM IN THE BUDGET.
THE BUDGET WAS ACTUALLY PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FIRST TIME LAST NIGHT AND THAT'LL GO THROUGH ITS PROCESS.
I BELIEVE THE FINAL CONSIDERATION DATE IS SOMETIME IN JUNE.
THAT ALLOCATION WILL KNOW BY JULY 1ST, AND WE'RE GEARED UP TO HIRE A CONTRACTOR AFTER THAT TO START THAT STUDY.
>> OKAY. NO, IT'S GOOD TO HEAR THAT IT INVOLVES MOVING ON THAT.
>> THERE WAS A LINK I INCLUDED IN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION TO A MEMO THAT WAS SENT TO CITY COUNCIL LAST MONTH UPDATING THE MONTH PROCESS, AND WHAT ARE APPROACHES FOR THAT.
>>I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS IN THAT REGARD, IN REGARD TO STATE LEGISLATION, AND I GUESS YOU SAY THE PARKING ISSUES AND HOW PARKING ON SITE IS BEING REDUCED BY THIS NEW LEGISLATION, AND MOSTLY IF IT'S CLOSE TO TRANSIT, WHICH IN THE VILLAGE, IT HAPPENS TO BE.
[01:40:02]
I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THAT THE STAFF IS LOOKING AT THAT EXTENSIVELY IN REGARD TO THOSE NUMBERS BECAUSE THAT HAS AN IMPACT IN REGARD TO HAVING LESS ONSITE PARKING ON NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE VILLAGE, AND THAT'S GOING TO HAVE A RIPPLING EFFECT OVER THE YEARS AND THE SOONER WE ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE COUNCIL'S GOING TO DO THAT, WHICH I'M HAPPY TO SEE.ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I'M GOING TO ASK FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
MADAM CLERK, ANY SPEAKER SLIPS?
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME.
WITH THAT IN MIND, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AND OR DISCUSSION AMONG COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
>> HOPEFULLY EVERYONE THINKS IT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE MORE ABOUT TITLE 19 AND OUR MUNICIPAL CODE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND OUR RESPONSIBILITY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CEQA, AND ALSO TO UNDERSTAND THOSE DEADLINES AND TIME DIFFERENCES THAT ARE OUTLINED THAT MAY NEED TO BE SUGGESTED TO COUNCIL AS FILLING IN SOME GAPS WITH MAYBE THE CONSISTENCY THAT WE'RE FINDING RIGHT NOW.
THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE FOR STAFF, IF IT'S OKAY TO ASK A STAFF QUESTION IS, WE DID SEE A HISTORIC REPORT, THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THAT IN THE LAST PACKET OF INFORMATION.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IF THAT'S CORRECT, OR IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING? DO THESE HISTORIC REPORTS EVER GO TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION?
>> COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, CAN WE DO THAT NOT DURING THIS ITEM OF WORK STUDY?
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ADD TO THE WORK?
>> BECAUSE IT'S UNDER CEQA. ALL THESE THINGS ARE REQUIRED UNDER CEQA IF IT'S 50 YEARS OLD.
THEY HAVE TO HAVE A HISTORIC REPORT, BUT IT'S THE PLANNERS WHO ACTUALLY REVIEW THE HISTORIC REPORTS, NOT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS THAT NOT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT FOR CEQA EXEMPTIONS.
THE PLANNERS REVIEW, AND IF NEEDED, THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHERE WE HAVE ASKED FOR A THIRD PARTY TO REVIEW HISTORIC REPORT FOR PROJECTS.
THE CODE THAT ESTABLISHES THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, WHICH I BELIEVE IS TITLE 22, WAS CHANGED WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS TO REQUIRE CERTAIN TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS BE PRESENTED TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
NOT HAVING THAT IN FRONT OF ME, I BELIEVE IT IS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS AND EIRS THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THEM.
AS YOU RECALL, WHEN WE HAD AN EIR FOCUSED ON HISTORIC RESOURCES, IT WAS PRESENTED TO IT.
THE OTHER THING I WILL SAY IS UNDER ADVANCED PLANNING IN THE PROPOSED 2025-'26 GOALS AND TASKS, WE DO HAVE A TRIBAL CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES GUIDELINES UPDATE ITEM THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER TAKING TO THE COMMISSION, AND THAT DOES INCLUDE OUR HISTORIC RESOURCES GUIDELINES.
THAT WOULD ALSO BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT HOW OUR PROCESSING IS AND FOR THE COMMISSION TO WEIGH IN ON ALL OF THOSE TOPIC AREAS.
THAT IS HOW WE IMPLEMENT CEQA GUIDELINES FOR THOSE TOPIC AREAS.
>> I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT WITH THE SCOPE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH ALL THESE PROJECTS AND PLANNING AND ADDING.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO SET POLICY, AND I FEEL LIKE SOME OF THESE ARE OVERLAPPING ON POLICY.
I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHY WE NEED TO GET INTO THE DETAILS ON SOME OF THESE AREAS, LIKE FIRE SUPPRESSION, FOR EXAMPLE.
WE'RE HERE, THEY PRESENT TO US, YOU REVIEW THE PROJECT, WE APPROVE THE PROJECT.
I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS NEED TO HAVE THIS OVERWHELMING KNOWLEDGE OF EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON IN THE CITY TO KNOW AND APPROVE THESE DIFFERENT PROJECTS WHEN THEY'RE COMING TO US AFTER YOUR REVIEW IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>> AT ITS CORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CHARGED WITH
[01:45:01]
IMPLEMENTING TITLE 21 OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH IS THE ZONING ORDINANCE.PRIMARILY, THAT IS DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS, SUCH AS WE SAW TONIGHT.
YOU'RE ALSO CHARGED UNDER STATE LAW OF ANY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OR AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE COME THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADVISE.
THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT OVERLAP THAT WE DO TAKE TO PLANNING COMMISSION, OFTEN VOLUNTARILY, JUST BECAUSE THEY OVERLAP WITH THOSE AREAS IN YOUR REVIEW.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE GUIDELINES AREN'T SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT BECAUSE IT OVERLAPS WITH CEQA FINDINGS, WE TEND TO TAKE IT.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE WOULD BE COUNCIL POLICY 64, WHICH IS WIRELESS FACILITIES, WHICH YOU TEND TO SEE, WE TAKE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ULTIMATELY, I THINK IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION OF THESE OTHER THINGS, HOW MUCH YOU WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE AND HOW MUCH YOU WOULD NOT NOT.
THIS IS OUR RECOMMENDATION, I GUESS.
>> I GET IT. IF IT COMES TO US.
BUT HOW MUCH WE WANT TO GET FORWARD THINKING AND INVOLVED IN IT AHEAD OF THAT PROCESS IS WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH.
>> I THINK IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO THE COMMISSION TO KNOW WHAT THINGS YOU WANT TO REQUEST.
I DO THINK IF YOU WERE REQUESTING SOMETHING THAT WAS, IN MY OPINION, COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO YOUR THINGS, WE WOULD PROBABLY DISCUSS WITH OTHERS IN THE CITY AND LET YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T THINK YOU'VE MET THAT WITH THE THINGS DISCUSSED TONIGHT.
>> I HEAR COMMISSIONER HUBINGER ABOUT NOT WANTING TO PUT THINGS ON OUR PLATE THAT REALLY DON'T NEED TO BE ON OUR PLATE.
BUT AT THE SAME TOKEN, WHEN WE HAVE AN ISSUE THAT'S RELATED TO SOMETHING WE SEE OVER AND OVER AGAIN, FIRE SAFETY ISSUES, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK GETTING A LITTLE EDUCATION ON WHAT THE STAFF DOES, SOME NUTS AND BOLTS, WOULD MAKE LEAST OF MYSELF, PERHAPS OTHER COMMISSIONERS MORE COMFORTABLE.
WE DO HAVE A STANDARD ON THE STATE LAW SAYS IF THERE'S AN ADVERSE HEALTH OR SAFETY IMPACT, I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING MORE SIGNIFICANT IN TERMS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY THAN FIRE SAFETY.
THAT WOULD BE, I THINK, A TARGETED AREA TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC ON WHAT THE FIRE MARSHAL DOES, HOW HE OR SHE IS INVOLVED, AND WOULD GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORT LEVEL WHEN WE GET TO A PROJECT LIKE TONIGHT, AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR A SIGNIFICANT WAIVER IN OUR STANDARDS.
I THINK SPECIFIC TARGETED AREAS RELATED TO ISSUES THAT COME UP TO US.
WE SHOULD HAVE THAT BACKGROUND, BUT I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.
OTHER THINGS THAT ARE JUST NICE TO KNOW.
>> I SHARED SOME OF WHAT COMMISSIONER HUBINGER SAYING HERE.
MY CONCERN IS IF A FIRE CHIEF WERE TO BE SITTING IN FRONT OF US, NOW IT'S A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING.
[LAUGHTER] NOW WE'RE NIT PICKING HIS JOB AND TELLING HIM WHAT TO DO.
I THINK THAT'S THE CONVERSATION HERE.
I THINK IF THE FIRE MARSHAL OR ANYONE, PUBLIC WORKS OR WHOEVER, WANTS TO PROVIDE SOME BRIEFING OR EDUCATIONAL SEMINAR, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I THINK I WOULD ATTEND THAT.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE EDUCATIONAL.
BUT PERSONALLY, I DO NOT AGREE WITH BRINGING ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BECAUSE I THINK IT THEN TURNS INTO, AGAIN, TO USE THE ANALOGY, IT TURNS INTO A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING, WHERE WE'RE JUST PEPPERING THEM WITH QUESTIONS, TELLING THEM HOW TO DO THEIR JOB, WHERE I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING IN THIS ROLE. THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT.
>> I HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TAKE.
[LAUGHTER] I TRUST OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ENOUGH THAT IT WILL NOT BE A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHO SHOT JOHN.
I THINK WE'RE ABOVE THAT, FOLKS.
I THINK JUST SPECIFIC INQUIRY, NOT AN INQUISITION, NOT A CROSS-EXAMINATION LIKE IN A COURT STILL WOULD BE HELPFUL, AND I THINK WE CAN DO IT IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE SOMETHING YOU SEE ON C SPAN.
>> ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT BEING OPTIONAL THEN? GO AHEAD.
>> SORRY. WOULD YOU CONSIDER BE AN OPTIONAL FOR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION?
>> WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST WOULD BE AT THE END OF ONE OF OUR MEETINGS WHERE WE WOULD HAVE A 15-MINUTE PRESENTATION, ASK QUESTIONS.
NO MORE THAN A HALF AN HOUR, MAYBE PROBABLY EVEN LESS THAN THAT, THAT WOULD GIVE US SOME SPECIFICS ON HOW THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OPERATES IN LAND USE PROJECTS.
>> THANK YOU. ONE OF THE COMMENT I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR IS WE HAVE NOT TALKED TO THE FIRE CHIEF [LAUGHTER] OR MARSHAL ABOUT THIS.
[01:50:03]
IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO TALK TO THEM.THERE COULD BE SOME MATERIALS THAT ARE ALREADY ONLINE THAT WE CAN SEND LINKS TO AND ITEMS. I MIGHT RECOMMEND THAT WE CHECK IN WITH THEM ON WHAT THEY HAVE.
WE SEND SOME INFORMATION, AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION.
I ALSO WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF, WE ARE ABOUT TO BE IN SUMMER, AND SO WE WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THEIR WORKLOAD AND OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT BE GOING ON IN THE COMMUNITY.
APPRECIATE. [LAUGHTER] ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TO STAFF? LET'S GO FOR A MOTION IN THIS REGARD ON ITEM NUMBER 2, AND WHO WISHES TO MAKE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
>> I MOVE, I GUESS, THAT I SHOULD SAY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE RESOLUTION, RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
IS IT '24-'25 OR '25-'26? '25-'26.
>> RESOLUTION RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 AND THE WORK PLAN RECOMMENDED [OVERLAPPING] '25-'26.
>> WITH THE REVISION ON PAGE 1111 TO ADD TITLE 19 REVIEW TO THE SECOND BULLET UNDER TRAINING AND OPERATIONS.
>> I'M HAPPY WITH IT. WELL, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION IN REGARD TO THE MOTION? DO I HAVE A SECOND? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MERZ.
PLEASE VOTE. WE HAVE SIX YES AND ONE NO, COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.
WITH THAT IN MIND, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM,
[COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTARY AND REQUESTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS]
AND THAT IS THE ITEMS OF STAFF, AND I WANT TO ASK COMMISSIONERS IF THEY HAVE A REPORT.COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I KNOW YOU HAVE ONE.
>> WELL, I'M VERY GRATEFUL FOR THIS POSITION.
THANK YOU AGAIN, AND I THINK MR. LARDY MIGHT HAVE A COMMENT ON IT, BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE HAVING BEEN APPOINTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REPRESENT US ON THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
IT'S BEEN A REAL HONOR TO SERVE ON THAT COMMITTEE.
THEY ACTUALLY JUST APPOINTED A NEW PERSON, COMMISSIONER PETERSON.
SHE HAS EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE WORKING IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SO I KNOW THAT SHE'S GOING TO BE A PHENOMENAL ADDITION TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
I THINK THAT THEY DID, ALSO, I THINK, REVIEW THEIR FISCAL YEAR WORK PLAN AND TALKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE THIRD GRADE ART CONTEST, WHICH WILL BE HELD ON MAY 20.
NOW WE MISSED IT, IT WAS YESTERDAY, [LAUGHTER] I THINK.
SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
YESTERDAY, I GUESS THEY HAD THE PRESENTATION FOR THE THIRD GRADE ART, WHICH IS THEY DRAW HISTORIC BUILDINGS AROUND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, AND THEN THEY'RE EXHIBITED AT THE COOL LIBRARY FOR ALL SUMMER.
IT'S A REALLY GREAT PROGRAM AND THE KIDS ARE ABLE TO SEE OUR CITY COUNCIL IN ACTION.
THEN THEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION LIAISON APPOINTING AND ALSO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW WEBSITE THAT STARTS TO DISCUSS OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION INITIATIVES, INCLUDING THE MILLS ACT.
I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING I HAVE. THANK YOU.
>> I DO WANT TO ADD, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I THINK HAVING YOU ON THAT COMMISSION IS PERFECT BECAUSE OF YOUR BACKGROUND AND YOUR INTEREST IN THAT AREA OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU ON THAT.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE ON THAT COMMISSION.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WISH TO REPORT ANYTHING? MR. LARDY.
[STAFF COMMENT]
>> THANK YOU. JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY'S COMMENTS, WE ARE CHECKING, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE WE MAY NEED TO RE-AGENDIZE AN ITEM TO REAPPOINT THE MEMBER OR APPOINT A DIFFERENT MEMBER.
ULTIMATELY, IT'D BE UP TO THE GROUP.
THAT IS A POSITION THAT'S IN THE CHARTER,
[01:55:01]
AND SO AT SOME POINT, EVERYONE ON THE COMMISSION WILL TURN OUT.AT SOME POINT, THERE WOULD ALSO NEED TO BE SOMEBODY ELSE APPOINTED.
IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, YOU CAN KEEP THAT IN MIND FOR THE FUTURE.
THE THIRD GRADE ART CONTEST WAS PRESENTED YESTERDAY TO CITY COUNCIL.
IT IS POSTED ONLINE, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO GO LOOK AT IT.
WE ARE HAVING ONE AGENDA ITEM ON JUNE 18, AND WE ACTUALLY ARE LOOKING AT HAVING A MEETING ON JULY 2, TENTATIVELY HAVING A LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE PRESENTATION, BUT WE NEED TO CONFIRM THAT WITH THE CITY'S INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS DIRECTOR ON A SCHEDULE FOR THAT.
WE ARE STILL WORKING ON THE SECOND MEETING IN JULY AND THE AUGUST MEETINGS.
BUT AS SOON AS WE KNOW ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR IF ANYTHING CHANGES, WE WILL LET YOU KNOW.
I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE STARTED THAT WE ARE CANCELING THE NEXT MEETING, SO WE ARE LOOKING AT CANCELING THE JUNE 4 MEETING.
>> MR. LARDY, ON THE JULY 2 MEETING, IS THAT THE ONLY ITEM THAT YOU'RE HAVING, IS THE LEGISLATIVE REPORT?
>> IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ONE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT'S ALSO SLOTTED THAT NIGHT.
>> THANK YOU. CITY ATTORNEY, ANY COMMENTS OR ANY WONDERFUL THINGS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH US?
>> NO, WE'RE JUST HAPPY TO BE HERE.
[LAUGHTER] THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> WE APPRECIATE IT. YOU'RE VERY MUCH NEEDED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THE MEETING.
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.