[00:00:03]
WELCOME TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 18TH, 2025, ROLL CALL?
[CALL TO ORDER]
MADAM CLERK, WOULD YOU TAKE A ROLL, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER MERZ? HERE. COMMISSIONER BURROWS? PRESENT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? HERE. COMMISSIONER STINE? HERE. LET THE RECORD SHOW COMMISSIONER FOSTER IS ABSENT.VICE CHAIR HUBINGER? AND CHAIR MEENES? PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER MERTZ, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, SIR? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
OKAY, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 21ST, 2025 MEETING.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS AND DELETIONS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.HI, IT'S HOPEFULLY JUST A CORRECTION. THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE THREE TALKS ABOUT TITLE 19, BUT SHOULDN'T IT BE X AND I AND X INSTEAD OF XBIIIIIII? THEY´LL CORRECT THE ROMAN NUMERALS.
OKAY. AND IS OUR TITLE 19 REALLY IN ROMAN NUMERALS? I THOUGHT THE MUNICIPAL CODE WAS IN JUST NUMBERS, SO MAYBE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT.
I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO JUST VERIFY.
MR. STRONG? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I BELIEVE THAT THE MUNICIPAL CODE REFERS IT TO IN THE NUMERICAL SENSE, NOT THE ROMAN NUMERALS, SO WE'LL MAKE THAT CORRECTION.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. ANY OTHER CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE 21ST OF MAY? MAY I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.
MAY I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER BURROWS MAKES THE SECOND.
UNANIMOUS, EXCEPT FOR MR. FOSTER, WHO IS NOT HERE THIS EVENING.
OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE PROCEDURES REAL QUICK IN REGARD TO SPEAKER SLIPS.
THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT. WE WILL REQUIRE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM FOR THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, NOT INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS, REQUESTS TO SPEAK FORMS MUST BE TURNED IN TO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING.
THIS WILL ALLOW SPEAKER TIME TO MANAGE IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER.
ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES UNLESS THAT TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.
SPEAKERS MAY NOT GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANY OTHER.
GROUP TIME WILL BE PERMITTED FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
THOSE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF A GROUP HAVE TEN MINUTES, UNLESS THE TIME IS CHANGED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.
THE BROWN ACT ALLOWS ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED UPON THE TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES AT 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. IF EVERYONE WOULD DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPENED FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THEY HAVE TEN MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION.
THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL THEN BE OPENED.
A TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES IS ALLOTTED FOR EACH SPEAKER.
AFTER ALL THOSE WANTING TO SPEAK HAVE DONE SO, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE CLOSED.
THE APPLICANT AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO ISSUES OR QUESTIONS RAISED.
COMMISSIONERS WILL THEN DISCUSS THE ITEM, AND THEN WILL VOTE ON IT.
THE HEARING PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CLOSED. CERTAIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ARE FINAL, BUT MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES ON THE BACK OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
[00:05:10]
WITH THAT IN MIND, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ASK FOR OPENING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER ONE.[1. LOPEZ RESIDENCE ADU V2024-0005/CDP 2024-0025 (DEV2023-0153)]
BUT FIRST, I WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVERSATIONS.COMMISSIONER MERTZ? YES, I VISITED THE SITE. OKAY.
COMMISSIONER BURROWS? I VISITED THE SITE. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. COMMISSIONER STINE? VISITED THE SITE. AND I ALSO DROVE BY THE SITE AS WELL. OKAY. MR. STRONG, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER ONE? THANK YOU, CHAIR MEENES. THIS IS THE SINGLE AGENDA ITEM FOR THIS EVENING, AND JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, THIS IS AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
THIS HAS A SPECIAL REQUEST ASSOCIATED WITH IT, WHICH IS TO EXCEED THE STATE DEFAULT HEIGHT STANDARDS, WHICH MEANS A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED, AND SO THAT MAKES IT WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW.
SO TO PRESENT THIS ITEM IS SENIOR PLANNER LAUREN YZAGUIRRE.
THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IS THE LOPEZ RESIDENCE ADU, A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AND MINOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE CONVERSION AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE INTO AN ADU.
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ON A 0.06 ACRE LOT AT 224&226 NORMANDY LN., IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONES. THE PROJECT IS IN THE COASTAL ZONE WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.
THE LOCH CONTAINS AN EXISTING TWO STORY DUPLEX AND DETACHED GARAGE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN 86 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE GARAGE, A 444 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR, AND CONVERSION OF THE STRUCTURE INTO A 1025 SQUARE FOOT, TWO STORY ADU.
THE PROJECT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE 18 FOOT MAXIMUM ADU BUILDING HEIGHT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD AN ADU APPROXIMATELY 21FT TALL.
THE EXTRA HEIGHT WILL ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT AS TWO STORIES.
THE PROJECT SITE IS 3000FT² AND HAS A LOT WITH 50FT.
MANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SAME SUBDIVISION HAVE EITHER BEEN GRANTED VARIANCES OR HAVE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES DUE TO THE SMALL SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE LOTS. THE PROJECT SITE IS TOO SMALL TO FIT THE ADU IN A DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION WITHOUT DEVIATING FROM OTHER LOCAL CODE REQUIREMENTS. PURSUANT TO STATE LAW, ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK COULD BE PERMITTED, IF NECESSARY, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADU UP TO 800FT².
HERE ARE THE SITE ELEVATIONS FOR THE PROJECT.
THE STRUCTURE WILL NOT IMPACT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE VIEWS, AS MANY OF THE STRUCTURES ON THE SURROUNDING LOTS ARE 2 TO 3 STORIES AND BUILT UP TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR MAIN RESIDENCES, WHICH IS 30FT.
NO COASTAL RESOURCES EXIST ON SITE AND COASTAL ACCESS WILL NOT BE IMPACTED.
STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND FINDS THAT IT BELONGS TO A CLASS OF PROJECTS THAT THE STATE SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES HAS FOUND DO NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND IS THEREFORE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15303(A). THIS SECTION IS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES, WHICH EXEMPTS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND DWELLING UNIT IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. A DRAFT NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS EXHIBIT FIVE FOR CONSIDERATION.
FOR THE REASONS SPECIFIED HERE AND IN THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE CEQA EXEMPTION DETERMINATION, VARIANCE AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. THIS CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
MADAM CLERK, HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY LETTERS AT ALL IN REGARD TO THIS ITEM? NO, CHAIR, WE HAVE NOT. THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND THEIR PRESENTATION? COMMISSIONER STEIN? YES. JUST QUICKLY.
[00:10:01]
CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THIS AREA? ARE A NUMBER OF STORIES. MY RECOLLECTION MARKING THE AREA IS THAT IT'S PREDOMINANTLY TWO AND THREE STORY BUILDINGS SURROUNDING THIS PARTICULAR LOT. AM I ON TARGET ON THAT? YES. THAT'S CORRECT.OKAY. AND AS I WALK FURTHER, NOT JUST IN FRONT OF THIS PARTICULAR LOT, BUT AROUND THE CORNER, IT SEEMS TO BE IN THIS AREA. THERE WERE A LOT OF TWO AND THREE STORY BUILDINGS.
AM I ACCURATE ON THAT? YES. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BURROWS THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
AND I HAD A SIMILAR QUESTION, BUT JUST TO CONFIRM.
CORRECT. THE EXISTING DUPLEX ON SITE IS TWO STORIES.
AND THAT'S DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF THE PROPOSED ADU AND THE OTHER PROPERTY OR OTHER SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS ON GARFIELD AND OCEAN STREET ARE 2 TO 3 STORIES.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY SO IS THIS GOING TO BE LARGER THAN ANY ONE OF THE OTHER TWO DUPLEXES THAN THE OTHER DUPLEXES OR WHATEVER? WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE EACH DUPLEX, I GUESS.
THE EXISTING DUPLEX. I DON'T HAVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR EACH, BUT THE TOTAL IS 1156FT².
SO 1200. SO THERE'S 600FT² VERSUS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET A VARIANCE FOR, WHICH IS 800FT².
IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING. THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED ADU WOULD BE 1025FT², 25, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN ONE 600 UNIT, 600 SQUARE FOOT UNIT.
THE QUESTION I HAVE HAS TO DO WITH WHY WASN'T IT PERMITTED AS THE MAIN RESIDENCE AS OPPOSED TO THE AN ADU, BECAUSE THE MAIN RESIDENCE WOULD HAVE A HIGHER HEIGHT LIMIT AND THEREFORE NOT NEED A VARIANCE.
SO THE STRUCTURE RIGHT NOW IS ON THE PROPERTY LINES ON THE.
THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT THE EXISTING DUPLEX ON SITE, IT'S TWO UNITS.
SO THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE ADU AND ONE J ADU AND A J ADU WOULD HAVE TO BE ATTACHED TO THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING THAT COULD BE ATTACHED TO THE DETACHED ADU. AND IN CONVERTING THIS GARAGE OR LOSING TWO PARKING SPACES, IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S A ONE CAR GARAGE. WE'RE LOSING ONE PARKING SPACE.
AND MAINTAINING ONE WITHIN THE DRIVEWAY SPACE.
OKAY. AND. THE EXEMPTION FOR CEQA IS INCORPORATED IN THIS RESOLUTION? WHAT'S THE REASON FOR THAT? MY UNDERSTANDING FROM COUNCIL IS THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SEPARATE.
COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL TO SEPARATE OUT THE RESOLUTIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS THAT RESULT IN A EXEMPTION REQUEST OR EXEMPTION APPROVAL. SO THE RESOLUTIONS THAT ARE PREPARED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL THAT INCLUDE EXEMPTION REQUESTS, ARE EMBODIED IN A ONE SINGULAR RESOLUTION WITH THE PROJECT APPROVAL.
SO. ALL THE INFORMATION THAT THE SMART FINAL WENT THROUGH TO HAVE THOSE TWO SEPARATE.
NOW ALL OF THE EXEMPTIONS ARE BECOMING PART OF THESE REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT.
[00:15:09]
THE SMART AND RESOLUTION OR SMART AND FINAL PROJECT WAS DECIDED BY THE CITY PLANNER BEFORE THE ORDINANCE WAS CHANGED.SO THE DECISION MAKING BODY DID NOT CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.
SO WHEN THAT PROJECT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THERE WAS NO EXEMPTION DETERMINATION REQUEST MADE THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE CITY PLANNER. AS A RESULT OF THAT PROJECT'S PROCESSING AND CONCERNS OF WHO WAS MAKING THE DECISIONS OR WHAT DECISION MAKER WAS INVOLVED IN MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL EXEMPTION DETERMINATIONS. CITY COUNCIL PROVIDED DIRECTION TO CITY STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE PROCESS SO THAT THE FINAL DECISION MAKER OF THE PROJECT WOULD CONCURRENTLY DECIDE EXEMPTION DETERMINATIONS.
OKAY. THIS IS I WOULD HOPE THAT THE PLANNERS WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING BACK MORE CLARIFICATION ON THIS, BECAUSE THIS ISN'T WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THE INFORMATION TO BE FROM COUNCIL.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SEPARATE. AND BECAUSE OF THAT PARTICULAR DECISION, THAT WASN'T PART OF THE WASN'T PART OF THE CONVERSATION BEING MADE.
SO I THINK I REALLY NEED SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT ONLY BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO HAVE THESE BE INCORPORATED WITH THE PROJECT IN ONE POINT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT IT SEPARATE TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE TAKE IT FROM IF THIS PROJECT DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD.
AND STILL HAVE A CEQA EXEMPTION ALREADY APPROVED.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT ASPECT, BUT I'M CONCERNED THAT.
I'M NOT UNDER, I'M CONCERNED THAT THE INTENT OF WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS AT COUNCIL IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED HERE. THAT'S THE CONCERN, MR. STRONG.
CEQA AND CEQA GUIDELINES STATE THAT PRIOR TO UNDERTAKING AN ACTION OR CARRYING OUT APPROVAL OF A PROJECT THEY SEEK, WHAT DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE? IT'S SILENT ON THE PROCESS BY WHICH THAT DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE.
EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD RESULT IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS, SUCH AS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, OR EIR, WAS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE FINAL DECISION MAKING BODY OF THE PROJECT, WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE ORDINANCE CHANGE DID NOT MAKE ANY DIRECTION OR PROVIDE ANY GUIDANCE ON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FINAL DECISION MAKING BODY, WHEN MAKING A ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION, NEEDS TO MAKE.
THE FORMAT OF THAT DECISION. SO THERE WAS NO DIRECTION PROVIDED BY CITY COUNCIL, AND THERE WAS NO DIRECTION MADE THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE TO HAVE A SEPARATE RESOLUTION PREPARED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXEMPTION.
IN THE PAST, WHEN A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED, OR A DECISION ON A HEARING DOCUMENT, SUCH AS AN ADDENDUM OR A SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT, AND INCLUDING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, THOSE WERE PREPARED TO SEPARATE RESOLUTIONS UNIFORM WITH THE PROCEDURES OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
THERE IS NO SEPARATE RESOLUTION. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME? OKAY. MADAM CLERK, IS THE APPLICANT WITH US THIS EVENING? THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY.
DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? YES. THANK YOU FOR THE COMPLIMENT. I AM SURE SHE APPRECIATES THAT.
ALL RIGHTY. VERY FINE. OKAY. WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
[00:20:02]
MADAM CLERK, ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS THAT PUT IN A SLIP FOR COMMENTS? NO, CHAIR, THERE IS NOT. THANK YOU. OKAY. I'LL GO IN NOW AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD, THEN, GIVEN THAT WE HAVE NONE.COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AT ALL OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF AT THIS MOMENT? OKAY. NOTHING, OKAY, EXCELLENT. OKAY, LET'S DISCUSS THE ITEM.
I'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, SO WHY DON'T WE AMONGST OURSELVES GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS THE ITEM.
COMMISSIONER STEIN? THANK YOU. I DON'T MIND KICKING THIS OFF A LITTLE BIT.
IT'S PART OF OUR DELIBERATIVE PROCESS, WITH THE RECENT CHANGE IN COUNCIL DIRECTION, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO, AS THE COUNCIL MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THE CEQA EXEMPTIONS IN ADDITION TO THE PERMITS THAT BEFORE US.
I SEE THAT THE RESOLUTION HERE HAS THAT ELEMENT IN IT.
SO PERSONALLY, I AM NOT TROUBLED AT ALL BY IT INCORPORATING IN ONE RESOLUTION, AS LONG AS IT'S IN THAT RESOLUTION VERSUS TWO, AND PARTICULARLY FOR A SMALLER PROJECT LIKE THIS.
SO I THINK I'M PERSONALLY SATISFIED THAT WE'RE DOING THIS, PROCEDURALLY PROPERLY.
IN TERMS OF THE CEQA EXEMPTION, I THINK THE STAFF AND THE RESOLUTION HAVE CLEARLY STATED THAT THERE IS AN APPLICABLE CEQA EXEMPTION HERE FOR SMALL STRUCTURES IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND THIS CERTAINLY IS.
IF APPROVED, IT WOULD BE JUST A LITTLE OVER 1000FT².
I THINK THAT EXEMPTION CLEARLY APPLIES SO THAT WE DON'T NEED A NEGATIVE DECK OR ANY FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, SO I'M FINE, AS PART OF OUR DELIBERATIVE PROCESS, AS PART OF THE RESOLUTION APPROVING A CEQA EXEMPTION.
WITH REGARD TO THE TWO UNDERLYING PERMITS, WE HAVE, FIRST OF ALL, THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
IT DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE ANY NEGATIVE EFFECT ON ACCESS.
IN FACT, WHEN I WAS AT THE SITE, I WALKED AROUND THE CORNER AND THERE WAS A VERY NICE PATHWAY TO THE BEACH JUST WITHIN A TWO MINUTE WALK FROM THIS SITE, SO THIS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY IMPAIR ACCESS TO THE BEACH.
IN TERMS OF VIEW OBSTRUCTION, I DIDN'T SEE ANY .
THIS PLACE IS VERY URBANIZED. THERE'S A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT THERE AND VERY FEW OPEN LOTS.
AND I DID NOT SEE ANY PUBLIC LANDS WERE A VIEW COULD BE OBSTRUCTED.
THERE IS MAGEE PARK, BUT THAT'S A MILE OR SO AWAY TO THE SOUTH, AND TO ME IT WOULD NOT OBSTRUCT ANY PUBLIC VIEWS FROM MAGEE PARK, WHICH WOULD BE A PUBLIC AREA. SO TO ME THIS THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS AN EASY YES BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ACCESS OR VIEW ISSUES.
WE COME DOWN TO THE VARIANCE ISSUE AND VARIANCES ARE ALWAYS ISSUES THAT MY ANTENNAS GO UP A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IN A VARIANCE, WE'RE ASKING FOR A WAIVER OF THE NORMAL RULES THAT APPLY TO ALL THE PROPERTIES IN THE AREA, AND THE APPLICANT HAS THE BURDEN OF SHOWING WHY YOU NEED IT, WHY WE NEED THIS WAIVER, WHY THE RULES DON'T APPLY OR SHOULD NOT APPLY, I SHOULD SAY. AND IN THIS CASE, I THINK THEY'VE MET THAT BURDEN BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING TO GO FROM THE STANDARD 13 FOOT HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS TO 21FT. IN OTHER WORDS, ANOTHER THREE FEET.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME TO DENY THE VARIANCE WOULD BE TO DENY THIS APPLICANT OPPORTUNITIES THAT ITS NEIGHBORS HAVE UTILIZED, AND IT WOULD KIND OF STICK OUT. SO ALLOWING AN EXTRA THREE FEET HERE.
SO IF THIS WAS ALL ONE STORY BUILDINGS, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE WAS A TWO STORY BUILDING, I'D HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION. BUT THERE IS JUST SO MANY 2 OR 3 STORY BUILDINGS IN THE AREA.
STAFF CONFIRMS I THINK THAT IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCE IS WARRANTED.
THE RULE OF THE 18 FOOT STANDARD DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE IN THIS SPECIFIC CONTEXT, AND FOR THAT REASON I AM FINE WITH THE VARIANCE. OKAY, I'LL MAKE A COMMENT HERE AS WELL.
THE OTHER THING, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STEIN WAS VERY, WELL, CONCISE.
[00:25:01]
THE OTHER THING, WE HAVE ALSO APPROVED A PROJECT VERY RECENTLY ON NORMANDIE LANE AS WELL, ALSO DEALING WITH SOME OF THE SAME ISSUES.AND PART OF THE REASONS WHY THOSE ISSUES ARE HERE IS BECAUSE BACK IN THE 1950S, THESE LOTS WERE EXTREMELY SMALL IN SIZE AND NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET, MUCH DIFFERENT THAN MANY OF THE OTHERS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
SO IT CHALLENGES THE PROPERTY OWNER IN BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHEN THE VARIANCES COME INTO PLAY.
AND I THINK THAT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE STREET ITSELF AND THE CONFIGURATION OF THE STREET, THE VARIANCES ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. AND OF COURSE, DEPRIVING THIS PROPERTY OWNER FROM A VARIANCE WHEN OTHERS ON THE STREET HAVE HAD HIM IN THE PAST WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TOO, AND IT WOULD PROBABLY BE CHALLENGED.
SO I ALSO THINK, GIVEN THE SITUATION IN REGARD TO THIS BEING AN ADU AND THE UNIQUENESS OF THE PROPERTY, I THINK THEY'RE VERY CREATIVE IN HOW THEY'VE COME UP WITH DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY AND IMPROVING THE PROPERTY.
SO I'M IN FULL SUPPORT. OTHER COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER BURROWS.
IT SEEMS LIKE THIS PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE CODE IN THE GENERAL PLAN, AND BECAUSE THE VARIANCE DOES NOT OBSTRUCT THE VIEWS OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, I SUPPORT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IN THIS PROJECT.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BURROWS. COMMISSIONER MERTZ? I SUPPORT THE PROJECT.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? YEAH. I HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THIS PROJECT BEING ON THE LOT LINE WITH NO ADDITIONAL FIRE PREVENTATIVE METHODS. I ALSO THINK THAT WE HAVE, AS A CITY, THESE, WHAT THEY CONSIDER SUBSTANDARD LOTS, HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED.
AND THAT'S NOT THE OWNER'S FAULT. THAT'S A NEGLECT OF OUR WILLINGNESS TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO DEVELOP THESE PARTICULAR LOTS IN A MORE SPECIFIC AND CONTEXTUAL WAY. SO, BASICALLY PUTTING A SECOND STORY ON AN EXISTING GARAGE IS GOING TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING GARAGE, AND THEREFORE IT COULD COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IF DESIGNED PROPERLY. SO I'M VERY RELUCTANT TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD ONLY BECAUSE THE DENSITY IS SO HIGH AND ONLY GETS HIGHER.
SO I FEEL THAT IT'S A REAL CHALLENGE. AND THEN WITH, AGAIN, SORT OF QUESTIONING THE SECRET DETERMINATION RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE'RE NOT QUITE CLEAR ON.
I AM CONCERNED THAT APPROVING THIS WILL SET A DIFFICULT PRECEDENT MOVING FORWARD.
COMMISSIONER HUBINGER? I SUPPORT THE PROJECT.
I'M THANKFUL THAT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO INVEST IN THE COMMUNITY AND IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I LIKE THE WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH IT, SO I INTEND TO IMPROVE IT.
OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. BEFORE WE ASK FOR A MOTION IN THIS REGARD WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S QUITE CLEAR AS TO HOW A MOTION IS MADE. LIKE WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING, IN REGARD TO MAKING IT SPECIFICALLY CLEAR REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF THE CEQA, PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF, AS WELL AS THE ITEM, I MEAN, THE PROJECT ITSELF.
SO WHOEVER WANTS TO TAKE THE BURDEN OF MAKING THE MOTION, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
IS THERE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER STEIN? YES, I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT RESOLUTION HAS THE CEQA EXEMPTION AND ALSO THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR BOTH THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND THE VARIANCE.
SO I THINK WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE IF WE APPROVE THE RESOLUTION IN ITS PRESENT FORM.
MAY I HAVE A SECOND? OKAY. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEIN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MERTZ.
THE ITEM IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED SIX ZERO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY, THAT WAS A QUICK ONE.
[00:30:03]
SO, COMMISSIONERS, WE'LL MOVE ON. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WISH TO ADD TO THE MEETING THIS EVENING?[COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTARY AND REQUESTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS]
ANY COMMENTS? ANNOUNCEMENTS? COMMISSIONER MERTZ, NOTHING? COMMISSIONER BURROWS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? COMMISSIONER STEIN.AND THAT IS, MY WIFE AND I ARE SELLING THE PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE OWNED IN DISTRICT FOUR FOR OVER 25 YEARS, AND WE ARE IN THE PROCESS AND WE WILL BE COMPLETING IT LATER THIS SUMMER OF MOVING UP TO BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON, WHICH IS A CITY OF ABOUT 95,000 PEOPLE, ABOUT 25 MILES FROM THE CANADIAN BORDER, AND WE WILL BE SHARING A HOUSE THERE WITH MY ELDER DAUGHTER, MY SON IN LAW AND THREE GRANDKIDS.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL AREA, I LOVE IT, BUT WHEN WE SELL THE HOUSE AND RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT EVEN IN ESCROW.
IN FACT, IT'S NOT EVEN LISTED. IT'LL BE LISTED IN A COUPLE OF DAYS.
THAT WOULD MEAN THAT I AM NO LONGER A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
AND WITH HEAVY HEART, THAT MEANS THAT I SHOULD NOT BE SITTING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION DAIS.
RIGHT NOW, I ANTICIPATE, AND QUITE FRANKLY, I HOPE, THAT I WILL BE ABLE TO STILL BE A RESIDENT OF CARLSBAD BY THE SECOND MEETING IN JULY, WOULD BE JULY 16TH. I WILL NOT BE HERE FOR THE JULY, I THINK IT'S SECOND, THE FIRST MEETING IN JULY, BUT I HOPE AND EXPECT THAT I WILL BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE.
I PLAN TO BE IN THE AREA ON JULY 16TH, BUT IF THE PLANS GO AS I THINK I ANTICIPATE THAT SADLY WILL BE MY LAST MEETING ON THE DAIS HERE AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, AND I'VE ENJOYED IT FOR SIX AND A HALF YEARS.
AND I'LL GIVE SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS AT THE NEXT MEETING AND REFLECTIONS UPON MY EXPERIENCE.
THOSE TWO DON'T WORK. RIGHT NOW I'M STILL A RESIDENT OF CARLSBAD, BUT THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO, AND I WILL KEEP STAFF AND EVERYBODY ATTUNED ON THAT.
SO I HOPE TO BE HERE AND TO PARTICIPATE IN THE JULY 16TH MEETING.
COMMISSIONER STEIN, WE HAVE TO SAY YOU'VE BEEN QUITE AN ASSET TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE SIX AND A HALF YEARS THAT YOU'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION, AND YOU'LL BE SORELY MISSED WHEN THAT DAY COMES, BUT WE'LL AT LEAST SEE YOU HOPEFULLY IN JULY.
COMMISSIONER BURROWS, I MEAN, EXCUSE ME. HUBINGER.
[STAFF COMMENTS]
YEAH, I GUESS I WILL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. LAST COUNCIL MEETING, MR. STRONG AND MYSELF MADE A PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S WORK PLAN THAT WE ALL APPROVED AT OUR LAST MEETING.AND THE COUNCIL WENT AHEAD AND AFTER REVIEWING IT AND COMMENTS MADE WAS BASICALLY IN SUPPORT OF OUR WORK PLAN. AND SO IT WAS IT WAS NICE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT PRESENTATION TO THE C OUNCIL AND WAS WELL RECEIVED.
COMMISSIONER STRONG, I MEAN, MR. STRONG, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT? NO THANK YOU. AND THE PRESENTATION WAS WELL RECEIVED.
AND LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE REST OF THE COMMISSION TO COMPLETE AND EXECUTE THE WORK PLAN ITEMS, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES A PRESENTATION ON CEQA AND THE CEQA PROCESS.
SO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS AGENDIZED EARLY IN THE FISCAL YEAR, SO WE'LL TRY TO TARGET A JULY OR AUGUST MEETING DATE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS, SINCE THAT WILL FACILITATE FUTURE DECISION MAKING.
FOR MY REPORT, WE DO HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR JULY 2ND.
WE HAVE TWO NOTED ABSENCES, STINE AND LAFFERTY.
WE HAVE ONE, A QUASI JUDICIAL DECISION. THAT'S THE COASTLINE CHURCH AMENDMENT.
WE'RE ALSO RECEIVING A LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE AND REPORT FROM COUNCIL MEMBER [INAUDIBLE], I GUESS. NO, IT'S CONSTANT.
YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU ARE CORRECT. OKAY.
AT ANY RATE, THERE WILL BE A SUBCOMMITTEE PRESENTATION IN THERE.
THERE'S SOME INTERNAL DISAGREEMENT OF WHO'S ATTENDING.
[00:35:07]
AND HOPEFULLY COMMISSIONER STEIN IS STILL WITH US.SO IF ANYTHING IS CHANGING WITH ANY ITINERARIES OR SCHEDULES, PLEASE LET US KNOW.
THANK YOU. CITY ATTORNEY, BY THE WAY, WELCOME.
THANK YOU, IT'S GOOD TO BE HERE. NOTHING FOR ME.
OKAY. OKAY. WITH THAT, WE WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING AND HAVE A GREAT EVENING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.