3. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT OF ONE MEMBER TO THE BUENA VISTA LAGOON JOINT POWERS COMMITTEE – Adoption of a resolution appointing one member to the Buena Vista Lagoon Joint Powers Committee. (Staff contact: Melissa Rhodes, City Clerk)

[3. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT OF ONE MEMBER TO THE BUENA VISTA LAGOON JOINT POWERS COMMITTEE – Adoption of a resolution appointing one member to the Buena Vista Lagoon Joint Powers Committee. (Staff contact: Melissa Rhodes, City Clerk)]

POWERS COMMITTEE. I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A SPEAKER.

YES. CONNOR SACCADE .

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CONNOR SACCADE. I'M ONE OF THE APPLICANTS FOR THIS COMMITTEE.

LIKE, I IMAGINE ALL OF US DO. I FEEL INCREDIBLY FORTUNATE TO LIVE IN A COMMUNITY WITH THE COASTAL TREASURES THAT WE HAVE.

AND I'M APPLYING FOR THIS COMMITTEE BECAUSE I'D LOVE TO PLAY SOME SMALL ROLE IN ACTUALLY HELPING PRESERVE AND STEWARD THESE RESOURCES FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

I'M ALSO APPLYING BECAUSE I HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT THAT I THINK WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THIS COMMUNITY, TO THIS COMMITTEE. I WORK IN THE LEGAL ARENA RIGHT NOW, BUT BEFORE LAW SCHOOL, I WAS A HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY AND EARTH SCIENCE TEACHER.

1 OF MY FAVORITE THINGS ABOUT BEING A TEACHER WAS HELPING STUDENTS THROUGH A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS AND ALSO DIFFERENT ASSIGNMENTS.

TAKE THE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES THAT I TAUGHT THEM AND APPLY THEM TO REAL WORLD ISSUES.

AND 1 OF THE GREATEST THINGS IN THOSE PROJECTS IS THEY GOT TO SEE THAT MANAGEMENT DECISIONS AND SOLVING POLICY DECISIONS ARE COMPLEX, REQUIRE LOTS OF INPUT FROM LOTS OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS, AND ARE REALLY, REALLY DIFFICULT BALANCING ACTS.

NOW I WORK IN THE CRIMINAL LAW ARENA. BUT IN LAW SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAW WAS ONE OF THE ONE OF MY PASSIONS, AND I TOOK A LOT OF DIFFERENT COURSES IN THAT AREA.

SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE REALLY COMPLEX SOMETIMES INCREDIBLY COMPLEX STATUTORY AND REGULATORY SCHEMES INVOLVED.

AND ALSO I PUBLISHED A COUPLE PAPERS ON THAT ON THAT TOPIC.

I THINK IN SHORT, I RECOGNIZE THAT MANAGEMENT DECISIONS REQUIRE LOTS OF DIFFERENT EQUITIES AND BALANCING LOTS OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.

I READ SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE MOST RECENT LAGUNA CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND RECOGNIZES A LOT OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT VIEWS ON HOW TO BEST MANAGE THIS LAGOON.

IF I'M FORTUNATE TO BE OFFERED THIS POSITION, I'M READY TO HELP MAKE TOUGH BALANCING DECISIONS.

I'M WILLING TO LISTEN TO DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, AND I'M WILLING TO DO ALL THE LEARNING THAT BEING AN EFFECTIVE MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE WILL REQUIRE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THIS APPLICANT? NO.

OKAY. MY NOMINATION IS FOR CONNOR SACCADE PLEASE VOTE.

THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS, SIR. NEXT IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NUMBER 4.

[4. REQUEST TO CONVERT FORMER INNS OF AMERICA BUILDING TO APARTMENT COMPLEX: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (AMEND 2024-0008/CUP 2024-0009/PUD 2024-0009/DEV99017) – 1) Hold a public hearing; and 2) Adoption of a resolution approving a California Environmental Quality Act exemption determination and approving a coastal development permit amendment, conditional use permit, and planned development permit to allow for the conversion of an existing three-story, 98-guest room hotel into a 98-unit multi-family rental project on a 3.12-acre site located at 5010 Avenida Encinas, within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and within Local Facilities Management Zone 3 (Case Name: Inns of America; Case No.: AMEND 2024-0008/CUP 2024-0009/PUD 2024-0009). (Staff contact: Lauren Yzaguirre, Community Services)]

CITY MANAGER. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 4 IS A REQUEST TO CONVERT THE FORMER INNS OF AMERICA BUILDING TO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

IT'S A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND A PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

FOR THE PRESENTATION, WE HAVE CITY PLANNER ERIC LARDY AND SENIOR PLANNER LAUREN AGUIRRE.

WAIT JUST A MOMENT. LET'S GO DOWN THE LINE. ANYBODY HAVE ANY DISCLOSURES? MR. SHIN. YES. I MET WITH THE I MET WITH THE APPLICANT.

I'LL HAVE A DATE FOR YOU MOMENTARILY IF NEEDED.

IS 14TH OF THIS MONTH. THANK YOU, MS. BURKHOLDER.

YES. I ALSO MET WITH THE APPLICANTS ON THE 14TH OF SEPTEMBER.

MS. ACOSTA. I MET WITH APPLICANTS ON OCTOBER 14TH.

IT WAS OCTOBER. OCTOBER? YES. AND THEY SHOWED ME A POWERPOINT DECK THAT I DIDN'T KEEP IT.

THEY SAID IT WAS SENT TO STAFF. MS. BHAT-PATEL.

YES. I ALSO MET WITH THE APPLICANTS ON OCTOBER 21ST AND SAW THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION WITH REGARDS TO THEIR PROGRESS AND PLANS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRESENTING TO US TODAY. THANK YOU. AND I TOO MET WITH THE APPLICANTS AND GOT A BRIEFING OF WHAT THEY WERE PLANNING.

THANK YOU. ERIC, PROCEED. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR BLACKBURN AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IS INNS OF AMERICA.

A REQUEST FOR A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

I'M GOING TO START TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION BY QUICKLY GOING THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES.

THESE PROCEDURES ARE ESTABLISHED TO ALLOW FOR ALL PARTIES OPPORTUNITY FOR DUE PROCESS.

FIRST THE STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THEN THE CITY COUNCIL CAN ASK QUESTIONS.

NEXT, THE APPLICANT WILL GIVE A PRESENTATION.

THEN THE CITY COUNCIL CAN ASK THE APPLICANT QUESTIONS.

NEXT PUBLIC TESTIMONY WILL OPEN AFTER PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS CLOSED.

STAFF AND THE APPLICANT CAN RESPOND. NEXT IS THE CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION FOLLOWED BY THE CITY COUNCIL VOTE.

[00:30:04]

THE INNS OF AMERICA PROJECT IS LOCATED ON A 3.12 ACRE PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CANNON ROAD AND AVENIDA ENCINAS.

THE SITE CONTAINS AN EXISTING APPROXIMATELY 65,800 SQUARE FOOT, 98 GUEST ROOM HOTEL WITH A POOL AND SPA AND 123 SURFACE PARKING SPACES.

THE SITE IS ZONED PLANNED INDUSTRIAL PM AND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION IS PLANNED INDUSTRIAL PI.

THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO CONVERT THE EXISTING HOTEL INTO A 98 UNIT APARTMENT, RESULTING IN A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 31 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

NO SQUARE FOOTAGE WILL BE ADDED TO THE EXISTING BUILDING.

THE PROJECT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES, INCLUDING 2 PICKLEBALL COURTS SURROUNDED BY 6 FOOT TALL FENCE, A DOG RUN AND A 288 SQUARE FOOT BIKE AND SURFBOARD STORAGE.

THE PROJECT WILL ALSO INCLUDE INTERIOR RENOVATIONS.

THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, WHICH WILL REMAIN, FEATURES A CONTEMPORARY SOUTHWESTERN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH MISSION STYLE BARREL TILE ROOFING, LIGHT TAN STUCCO AND TAN EAVES AND RAFTER TAILS, ARCHITECTURAL TOWERS, ACCENT BANDING, AND METAL RAILINGS ON THE SECOND AND THIRD STORY WINDOWS PROVIDE ADDITIONAL VISUAL INTEREST. EXISTING MATURE PERIMETER LANDSCAPING IS LOCATED ALONG THE EASTERN, SOUTHERN, AND WESTERN PROPERTY LINES. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A LARGER INDUSTRIAL AREA THAT SUPPORTS A VARIETY OF USES CONSISTENT WITH THE PM ZONE. THE EXISTING HOTEL IS WELL INTEGRATED INTO THE INDUSTRIAL PARK, AND ITS CONVERSION INTO A RESIDENTIAL USE WILL MAINTAIN COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND SUPPORT THE CONTINUED VITALITY OF THE SURROUNDING INDUSTRIAL USES.

THE PROJECT SITE IS SURROUNDED BY MORE THAN 25 LOCALLY SERVING BUSINESSES ALONG AVENIDA ENCINAS, WHICH PROVIDES A DIVERSE RANGE OF GOODS AND SERVICES.

CANNON ROAD AND AVENIDA ENCINAS PROVIDE FOR CONVENIENT VEHICULAR ACCESS BETWEEN THE PROJECT SITE AND LARGER BUSINESS PARK, AND EXISTING SIDEWALKS AND BICYCLE LANES SUPPORT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL.

STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO INCREASE DENSITY AND RECEIVE REDUCTIONS IN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, IN EXCHANGE FOR RESERVING A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF THE NEW DWELLING UNITS AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THE DEVELOPER IS SEEKING TO QUALIFY THE PROJECT AS A DENSITY BONUS, NOT TO INCREASE THE DENSITY ABOVE THE BASE DENSITY, BUT TO ACCESS THE ASSOCIATED BENEFITS SUCH AS INCENTIVES, CONCESSIONS, AND WAIVERS.

AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE PM ZONE, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 40 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AT 3.12 ACRES. THE PROJECT HAS A BASE DENSITY OF 125 UNITS.

THE PROJECT MEETS THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR A STATE DENSITY BONUS BY PROVIDING 5% OF THE BASE DENSITY UNITS, OR 7 UNITS, RESTRICTED TO VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

THIS WOULD ENTITLE THE DEVELOPER TO INCREASE THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT BY 20%, WHICH IS 25 UNITS UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 150 UNITS.

THE PROJECT IS ALSO REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH CARLSBAD'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRES 50% OF THE UNIT.

15% OF THE UNITS TO BE AFFORDABLE TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 15 UNITS DEED RESTRICTED TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

THE DEVELOPER HAS CHOSEN TO CONVERT THE EXISTING 98 GUEST ROOM GUESTROOMS INTO 98 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, RATHER THAN THE 150 UNITS ALLOWED UNDER DENSITY BONUS LAW.

THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING A TOTAL OF 15 AFFORDABLE UNITS.

OF THE 15, 7 WILL BE DESIGNATED FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

5 WILL BE DESIGNATED FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND 3 FOR MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

THIS SATISFIES BOTH THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.

THE DEVELOPER, CAN STILL RECEIVE CONCESSIONS, INCENTIVES, AND WAIVERS EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO UTILIZE THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY PERMITTED. THE DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING FOR WAIVERS.

THE 1ST WAIVER IS A REQUEST TO WAIVE THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING STANDARD, WHICH REQUIRES A PROJECT, THE PROJECT TO PROVIDE AT LEAST 10% OF THE LOWER INCOME UNITS AS 3 OR MORE BEDROOMS. THE EXISTING HOTEL CONSISTS OF STUDIO AND 1 BEDROOM GUEST ROOMS. THE DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING TO WAIVE THE STANDARD SO THEY CAN CONVERT THE EXISTING GUESTROOMS INTO UNITS, WHILE MAINTAINING THE EXISTING FLOOR PLAN. THE 2ND WAIVER IS A REQUEST TO WAIVE THE 40 FOOT FULLY LANDSCAPED SETBACK REQUIRED FROM CANNON ROAD. THE DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE SETBACK TO 0 FEET TO ALLOW FOR THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY RECREATION SPACE.

AT THE CORNER OF CANNON ROAD AND AVENIDA ENCINAS, THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE WILL MEET THE SETBACK.

HOWEVER, IT WILL NOT BE FULLY LANDSCAPED AS REQUIRED BY THE STANDARD.

THE 3RD WAIVER IS A REQUEST TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR 200FT² OF COMMUNITY RECREATION SPACE PER UNIT.

[00:35:01]

BASED ON THE STANDARD, THE PROJECT REQUIRES 19,600FT² OF COMMUNITY RECREATION SPACE.

THE PROJECT PROPOSES 15,518FT² OF COMMUNITY RECREATION SPACE.

THE 4TH WAIVER IS A REQUEST TO WAIVE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35FT AND ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 45FT.

THE EXISTING BUILDING IS 36.9FT AT THE ROOF RIDGE, WITH 2 EXISTING TOWERS AT 45.5 AND 45.6FT TALL.

THE DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING TO WAIVE THIS STANDARD TO ALLOW FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT TO REMAIN AS IS.

THE DEVELOPER COMPLETED THE EARLY PUBLIC NOTICE PROCEDURES PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL POLICY 84, WHICH INCLUDED MAILING AND EARLY PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE PROJECT TO SURROUNDING OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS AND POSTING A SIGN ON THE PROJECT SITE.

THE DEVELOPER ALSO COMPLETED THE ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH PROGRAM BY MAILING AN INFORMATION PACKET TO SURROUNDING OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS.

THE INFORMATION PACKET INCLUDED A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALONG WITH THE PROJECT, ALONG WITH THE SITE PLAN, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY, COLORED ELEVATIONS, AND COLORED RENDERINGS.

THE INFORMATION PACKET ALSO INCLUDED A PREPAID STAMPED ENVELOPE AND A COMMENT CARD.

A TOTAL OF 10 COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED, 7 OF WHICH WERE RECEIVED BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT WAS PUBLISHED, AND HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE REPORT AS EXHIBIT 8.

2 COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED AFTER THE PUBLISHING OF THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH HAVE BEEN POSTED ON THE WEBSITE AND PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING. 7 OF THE COMMENTS WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT, WITH 1 OF THE COMMENTS IN SUPPORT.

ALSO EXPRESSING CONCERNS WITH THE PICKLEBALL COURTS DUE TO NOISE AND NOISE STUDY WAS PROVIDED WHICH INCLUDED AN EVALUATION OF ON SITE NOISE NOISE SOURCES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PICKLEBALL COURTS. THE STUDY FOUND THAT THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S NOISE GUIDELINES, EXTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, AND POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT.

STAFF ALSO RECEIVED 2 COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION AND 1 COMMENT FROM THE HOTEL OPERATOR, AND IN RESPONSE TO THE OPPOSITION, 1 COMMENT RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION EXPRESSED CONCERNS WITH THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON SITE AND THE LACK OF KITCHEN APPLIANCES FOR EACH UNIT.

ALL PROPOSED UNITS WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE FOR RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, WHICH WILL REQUIRE INSTALLATION OF INDEPENDENT AND FULLY COMPLIANT COOKING FACILITIES.

THE OTHER COMMENT RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION WAS FROM AN INDIVIDUAL CLAIMING TO BE A LONG TERM GUEST AT THE HOTEL.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT LONG TERM STAYS ARE NOT PERMITTED FOR HOTELS, AS STAYS ARE LIMITED TO 30 DAYS.

HOWEVER, IF GUESTS ARE DETERMINED TO BE TENANTS, THEY MAY BE ENTITLED TO CERTAIN PROTECTIONS UNDER STATE LAW.

UP UNTIL RECEIVING THESE COMMENTS EARLIER THIS WEEK, STAFF WAS REVIEWING THE PROJECT UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT THAT ALL ALL UNITS WERE OCCUPIED SHORT TERM ONLY WAS CORRECT IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, STAFF RECOMMENDS ADDING 2 CONDITIONS TO THE RESOLUTION.

THE 1ST CONDITION READS AS FOLLOWS. PRIOR TO OBTAINING AND SECURING BUILDING PERMITS, THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN DECLARATION FROM THE SELLER SLASH HOTEL OPERATOR TO THE HOUSING AND HOMELESS SERVICES DIRECTOR, ATTESTING THAT ANY PERSON WHO HAS OCCUPIED A UNIT IN THE EXISTING HOTEL FOR MORE THAN 30 CONSECUTIVE DAYS AND WILL BE AND WILL BE TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY DISPLACED BY THE PROJECT, RECEIVED ADVANCE NOTICE TO VACATE THE PREMISES AND INFORMATION REGARDING POTENTIAL RIGHTS THAT MIGHT THAT MAY BE REQUIRED OR AFFORDED UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66300.6 OR OTHER STATE LAW INTENDED TO ASSURE REPLACEMENT AND OR ONGOING AFFORDABILITY OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO THE EXTENT SUCH STATE LAW IS APPLICABLE.

THE DEVELOPER MUST NOTIFY THE HOUSING AND HOMELESS SERVICES DIRECTOR OF THE 3RD PARTY'S BINDING DETERMINATION, AND MUST AGREE TO AMEND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT, AS A HOUSING AND HOMELESS SERVICES DIRECTOR DETERMINES IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE DEVELOPMENT REPLACES THE SUBJECT UNITS AND CONTAINS AFFORDABLE UNITS AT THE PERCENTAGES REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65590 AND 65915C3A.

THE APPLICANT HAS REVIEWED AND AGREED WITH BOTH OF THESE CONDITIONS.

RESIDENTIAL USES MAY BE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED IN THE PM ZONE, WITH THE APPROVAL OF BOTH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY THE FINDINGS, THE PROJECT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF AN INDUSTRIAL PARK, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING INDUSTRIAL USE BY MEANS OF LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE SEPARATION.

THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONVENIENT AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM THE DEVELOPMENT,

[00:40:04]

AND FINALLY, THE PROJECT DOES NOT EXCEED 40 DWELLING DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AS FURTHER EXPLAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND EXHIBITS, STAFF BELIEVES THESE FINDINGS CAN BE MADE. THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS, INCLUDING THE PI LAND USE DESIGNATION, THE PM ZONE AND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.

THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE A2 SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND THAT THE STRUCTURES WILL, AND THAT THE STRUCTURE WILL NOT OBSTRUCT VIEWS OF THE COASTLINE AS SEEN FROM THE FROM PUBLIC LANDS OR THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, NOR OTHERWISE DAMAGE THE VISUAL BEAUTY OF THE COASTAL ZONE.

THE PROJECT ALSO COMPLIES WITH THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND STATE DENSITY BONUS REGULATIONS.

STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND APPLICABLE STUDIES PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, AND FINDS THAT THE PROJECT BELONGS TO A CLASS OF PROJECTS THAT 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 15332 INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. A DRAFT NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS EXHIBIT 6.

AS SUCH, FOR REASONS SPECIFIED HERE AND IN THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CEQA DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION AND WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? MR. SHIN? I JUST 1. IN REGARDS TO THE THE SETBACK WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PUT THE FENCING FOR THE ACTIVITIES, THAT'S AN 8 FOOT BY THE BY THE ROAD. THAT WOULD BE A 6 FOOT.

6 FOOT FENCE. SO I SAW THE I HEARD YOU SAY THAT.

BUT THEN I SAW THEIR DESIGN AND IT SHOWS. IT SAYS 8 FEET THERE, WHICH I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM.

ON THE AGENDA PACKET, IT'S PAGE 41.

MA'AM, DO YOU HAVE THE ANSWER? WOULD YOU PLEASE SHARE IT WITH MR. LARDY? THANK YOU. SO THAT IS A SITE PLAN THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE TRAFFIC CONSULTING REPORT.

SO THAT'S JUST REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FINAL PLANS DO INCLUDE WHAT MS. AGUIRRE WAS SAYING WHICH IS A 6 FEET. I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE WHEN I SEE THIS PLAN IN THE PICKLEBALL COURT I PLAY PICKLEBALL.

AND IF THERE'S NO SETBACK, I KNOW I CAN SMASH A PICKLEBALL 6 FEET EASY ON ACCIDENT, AND IT'S LIKE CO ALIGNING TO IT.

I JUST, I GET CONCERNED NOT JUST FOR OUR LIABILITY, BUT MOSTLY FOR THE APPLICANT'S LIABILITY, THAT IF A WIFFLEBALL, YOU KNOW, GETS HIT AND ENTERS THE PEDESTRIAN OR THE RIGHT OF WAY OF TRAFFIC, I DON'T WANT THEM TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR THAT. HAD, YOU KNOW, WE RECOMMENDED AN 8 FOOT BARRIER.

GENERALLY SPEAKING HEIGHTS OFFENSES ARE LIMITED TO 6 FEET WITHIN CITY OF CARLSBAD.

WE CAN CERTAINLY DISCUSS WITH THE APPLICANT IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD DO WITHIN THAT 6 FOOT LIMIT TO POTENTIALLY PREVENT BALLS GOING TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT WE'D HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT WITH THEM. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL. MR. SHIN, THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT TO SPEAK, SO THIS WILL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THEM. PERFECT. THANK YOU, MS. BURKHOLDER. ANYTHING? MS. ACOSTA. THANK YOU. CAN WE SEE THE LANGUAGE AGAIN FOR THE CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE EXTENDED STAY? I JUST WANT TO GO OVER THEM AGAIN AND BETTER UNDERSTAND THEM BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T IN THE PACKET. SO FOR THE 1ST ONE, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE IN LAYPERSON'S ENGLISH THAT THAT THAT ONE WOULD REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO WRITE THAT THEY ARE NOT DOING ANY KIND OF A LONG TERM LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SOMEBODY. IS THAT RIGHT? AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD MAYBE TRANSLATE THIS SO IT'S EASIER TO UNDERSTAND.

[00:45:06]

I'LL START. AND IF THE CITY ATTORNEY WANTS TO CHIME IN, THAT WOULD BE OKAY. SHE IS WELCOME TO.

THERE'S SORT OF 2 CONDITIONS. THE 1ST ONE IS LOOKING AT PROTECTING THE TENANTS RIGHTS.

AND SO THIS CONDITION IS ASKING FOR MORE INFORMATION FROM THE DEVELOPER RELATED TO THE LONG TERM TENANTS AND THEN ASKING THEM TO ATTEST THAT IF THERE ARE LONG TERM TENANTS, THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING ALL THE STATE PROCESSES RELATED TO ASKING THEM TO LEAVE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SO THERE COULD BE REIMBURSEMENTS OR OTHER THINGS REQUIRED. WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH INFORMATION TO TODAY TO KNOW WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED, BUT GENERALLY THAT'S A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER AND THE LANDOWNER WITH THEIR TENANTS. THE 2ND CONDITION IS RELATED TO REPLACEMENT UNITS AND MAKING SURE THAT WE AS A CITY ARE REQUIRING THE RIGHT NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT UNITS BASED UPON THOSE TENANTS. OKAY, JUST SORRY, I WANTED TO TAKE THEM 1 AT A TIME.

THANK YOU. THE 1ST ONE REALLY IS JUST IS MAKING SURE THAT THE THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY IS NOT HAVING TENANTS WHO ARE LIVING THERE PERMANENTLY. IS THAT RIGHT? I GUESS IT'S IT'S EITHER MAKING SURE THEY'RE NOT HAVING TENANTS THAT ARE LIVING THERE PERMANENTLY, OR IF THERE ARE TENANTS THAT ARE LIVING THERE PERMANENTLY, THAT THEY ARE FOLLOWING ALL OF THE APPROPRIATE STATE LAWS RELATED TO IF THEY'RE ASKING THOSE TENANTS TO, TO NO LONGER RESIDE THERE. THANK YOU. BUT WE WOULDN'T HAVE ALLOWED THAT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A PROPERTY THAT WAS ALLOWED FOR HOUSING, RIGHT? SO WOULDN'T THEY BE ALSO KIND OF VIOLATING SOMETHING LOCALLY WITH US TOO? WE IF THEY WERE USING THIS HOTEL FOR HOUSING.

RIGHT. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE A REAL PROBLEM.

OKAY. AND THEN FOR CONDITION 2, I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WOULD BE A REPLACEMENT.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF SOMEBODY IS A LOW INCOME TENANT, WHICH WE'RE HEARING THAT THEY'RE NOT.

I SAW THE LETTER FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INNS OF AMERICA ASSERTING IT WAS IN OUR PUBLIC COMMENT ASSERTING THAT THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE HOUSING. BUT THE 2ND ONE IS IF THEY DID PROVIDE HOUSING, AND IF THEY DID REALIZE THAT THAT WAS WHAT THEY WERE PROVIDING, THAT THEY WOULD REPLACE THE SAME KIND OF HOUSING WITH THAT HOUSING IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

IS THAT RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. AND WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT IF THERE WAS HOUSING, WHAT IS THE INCOME.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF IF WE'RE PROVIDING WE'RE PROPOSING 7 VERY LOW INCOME UNITS.

IF SOMEONE WAS EXTREMELY LOW OR IF THERE WAS MORE THAN SEVEN PERSONS, WE MIGHT NEED TO ADJUST WHAT THOSE UNITS ARE ULTIMATELY RENTED OUT AS.

YEAH, I GUESS IT'S JUST THE IDEA THAT, I MEAN, THE SECOND ONE IS IF THEY ARE PROVIDING THIS AS HOUSING.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE WOULD BE OKAY WITH THEM PROVIDING THAT, PROVIDING HOUSING.

NOW, WHEN THIS IS A HOTEL PROPERTY, NOT FOR HOUSING, WE'RE LITERALLY THAT IS WHAT OUR DECISION IS NOW ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE HOUSING AT WHAT IS CURRENTLY A BUSINESS, A HOTEL BUSINESS. SO LIKE IF IT SEEMS LIKE A BREACH OF TRUST, IF THEY WERE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.

FOR THE RECORD, MIKE STRONG, ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THE STATE HAS RECENTLY AMENDED VARIOUS SECTIONS OF STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW AND THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE DISPLACED FOR CONVERSIONS OF UNITS OR FOR NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT DEMOLISH EXISTING RENTAL PROPERTIES.

THROUGH THAT PROCESS, LOCAL CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE REQUIRED TO REQUEST APPLICATION MATERIALS FROM THE APPLICANT, THE SPONSOR OF THE PROJECT, TO LEARN IF THERE IS ANY DISPLACEMENT OR ANY LONG TERM RESIDENCY ON THE PROPERTY THAT MIGHT BE IMPACTED WITH THE PROJECT.

IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT INFORMATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY DID NOT INDICATE LONG TERM RESIDENCY, AND THE APPLICANT WILL ATTEST TO THEIR RECORD OF INFORMATION.

SO THE CITY PLANNING STAFF PROCESSED THE APPLICATION WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, AND IT WAS ONLY AT THE LAST MINUTE THAT WE HEARD THERE MIGHT BE SOME ALLEGATIONS OF LONG TERM RESIDENCY WITH HOTELS OUR, OUR TOT COLLECTION DEFINES WHAT SHORT TERM RESIDENCY IS AND WHAT LONG TERM RESIDENCY IS AS TRANSIENT AND LODGING FACILITIES AND ANY STAYS LONGER THAN 30 DAYS IS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE.

AND SO IT WOULD BE A NON-CONFORMING OR ILLEGAL USE OF THAT PROPERTY.

AT THIS POINT, CITY STAFF HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO VALIDATE THE ASSERTIONS OF THE THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.

SO THROUGH THE CONDITIONS, IT ALLOWS FURTHER INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT AND ALLOW THE APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY TO

[00:50:01]

DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY LONG TERM RESIDENCY.

AND IF THERE IS A 3RD PARTY WHICH IS PROPOSED IN THIS CONDITION IF THERE'S A 3RD PARTY THAT PROVIDES THAT DETERMINATION, THE CITY, THEN THE CITY CAN FULLY IMPLEMENT WHAT THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT ATTENDED.

AND THAT'S IN THE 66300.6. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.

IF IT IS TRIGGERED 1 IS THE REPLACEMENT OF HOUSING AT THE SAME AFFORDABILITY LEVEL.

THE OTHER IS IF THERE IS SOMEONE THAT'S DISPLACED, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL AND THERE'S SOME RELOCATION ASSISTANCE THAT'S PROVIDED, BUT IT HAS TO BE PROVEN THAT THOSE RESIDENTS WERE IN FACT, OR THOSE OCCUPANTS WERE IN THOSE UNITS AND DO CLASSIFY AS TENANTS, WHICH WOULD THEN BE PROTECTED BY THE TENANT RELOCATION ACT OF 2019 AND THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT OF 2019.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT HAS ONLY BEEN RECEIVED WITHIN THE LAST WEEK OR SO, THAT THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO INVESTIGATE OR WORK TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE.

BUT THESE CONDITIONS HELP CONTEMPLATE THE EFFECT THAT THAT WOULD HAVE ON THE PROJECT AND ALLOWS THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT APPLICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE VARIOUS LAWS. THANK YOU. I THINK WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS THAT THE INFORMATION CAME TO LIGHT AFTER THE BRIEFINGS THAT WE ALL DISCLOSED OCTOBER 10TH AND AFTER THE THE MATERIALS, ALL THE MATERIALS WERE PREPARED BY OUR STAFF.

AND YET THE RECOMMENDATION BEFORE US IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT, RATHER THAN WAIT FOR THIS TO BE DETERMINED AND THEN MOVE FORWARD.

BECAUSE I, I THINK IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE DOING THIS A LITTLE BACKWARDS, AND MAYBE IT WILL BE HELPFUL TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT IN A FEW MINUTES, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WHY WOULD WE APPROVE THE THEIR PROJECT NOW, RATHER THAN WAIT FOR THIS TO BE RESOLVED, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW? IF THEY'RE VIOLATING THE LAW, WHY WOULD WE MAKE ALL THESE ADJUSTMENTS AND GRANT ALL OF THESE WAIVERS TO ALLOW THEM TO TRANSFORM THEIR PROPERTY, TO MAKE MORE MONEY AS A BUSINESS WHEN THEY'VE BEEN POSSIBLY BREAKING THE LAW? WE DON'T KNOW. WE DON'T KNOW. SO IT SEEMS THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT PREMATURE TO, TO GO FORWARD WHEN WE DON'T KNOW YET.

SO THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD, COUNCIL IS, IS REALLY TO SAY THAT EMPHASIZE THE, WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER SOMEONE IS A LODGER OR A TENANT IS A LEGAL DETERMINATION. IT'S NOT ONE STAFF CAN REALLY MAKE AT A STAFF LEVEL.

AND EVEN IF THEY WERE HAD ESTABLISHED TENANCIES, THE CITY'S OBLIGATION WOULD BE EXACTLY AS IS REFLECTED IN THESE 2 CONDITIONS.

LIKE, WE'D STILL BE REQUIRED TO REQUIRE REPLACEMENT UNITS.

AND THESE FOLKS, EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE TENANTS, THEY WOULD STILL BE ENTITLED TO, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

SO STAFF IS REALLY JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THIS APPARENT DISPUTE BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS AND THE HOTEL OPERATORS IS ADJUDICATED, THAT THE THERE IS A TENDENCY THAT WE HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.

THANK YOU. AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP ONE MORE PIECE, I THINK I THINK THE PART THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS I UNDERSTAND THAT WE WANT TO HELP THE TENANT AND BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW FOR FOR THE TENANT AND FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT.

POTENTIALLY, I THINK THE ISSUE FOR ME IS THE NOT FOLLOWING OUR LAW.

THIS IS NOT A HOUSING. THIS IS NOT AN AREA WHERE HOUSING IS ALLOWED.

NOW IT'S A HOTEL. SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE WOULD BE IN VIOLATION.

THE ONLY THING I WANT TO EMPHASIZE IS WE DO NOT CURRENTLY KNOW WHETHER THIS IS BEING USED FOR HOUSING, RIGHT? SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ANTICIPATE IF FOR SOME REASON THERE WAS AN ADJUDICATION THAT SOMEBODY HAS ACQUIRED TENANCY, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO THESE THINGS THAT ARE IN THIS CONDITION.

SO WE'RE JUST PUTTING THEM IN NOW. SO IF THAT'S THE DETERMINATION, WE'VE DONE WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK I'VE TALKED ABOUT IT ENOUGH.

I THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT SOON. THANKS. MS. BHAT-PATEL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YES.

THANK YOU. JUST TO ASK A FEW CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AND APPRECIATE THE THE PRESENTATION.

SO JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON MY COLLEAGUE'S QUESTIONS, CURIOUS ABOUT YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD THE DETERMINATION MEAN FOR US? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ANSWERED THAT A LITTLE BIT IN TERMS OF AND I'LL STOP THERE.

I SHOULD I WON'T ANSWER IT, BUT THE QUESTION IS, WHAT WOULD THE DETERMINATION MEAN FOR US, AND HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE FOR US TO GET AN ANSWER? I DON'T KNOW THE CURRENT TIMEFRAME FOR IF THE TYPICAL PLACE WHERE SOMETHING LIKE THIS WOULD BE DETERMINED IS IN THE CONTEXT OF AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCEEDING.

[00:55:01]

I DON'T KNOW THE CURRENT TIME FRAME FOR GETTING THOSE DONE.

THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXPEDITED PROCEEDING, BUT NOT LONG AGO THOSE WERE TAKING, YOU KNOW, A YEAR OR MORE. OKAY. AND WOULD IT CHANGE THE OUTCOME FOR US? I MEAN, HOW MANY INDIVIDUALS, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, IT WAS JUST A COUPLE OF INDIVIDUALS, OR ARE THERE MORE THAN A COUPLE OF INDIVIDUALS? THE INFORMATION WE'VE RECEIVED WHICH HAS NOT BEEN VALIDATED, IS APPROXIMATELY 6.

THIS PROJECT IS PROVIDING 14-15, 15 DEED RESTRICTED UNITS.

SO GIVEN THAT INFORMATION, WE BELIEVE IT WOULD POTENTIALLY CHANGE THE MAKEUP OF THOSE UNITS.

IT'S SOME VERY LOW, SOME LOW AND SOME MODERATE.

AND IT COULD POTENTIALLY CHANGE THE INCOME CATEGORIES, BUT NOT THE NUMBER OF UNITS DEED RESTRICTED.

OKAY. AND THEN TO CLARIFY THE OWNERSHIP JUST TO MAKE SURE THE FOLKS THAT CURRENTLY OWN IT ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE FOLKS THAT ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION AND THE PROCESS.

CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THERE'S A LEASE AN OWNER AND THE DEVELOPER, AND THEY CAN HELP PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON THAT AS WELL.

GREAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. I INVITE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK.

10 OR LESS MINUTES, PLEASE.

THE CLERK WILL TURN IT ON. JUST A MOMENT. MAYOR.

I HAD A SEPARATE SPEAKER SLIP FROM OUR ORGANIZED PRESENTATION.

CAN I JUST TAKE A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO ADDRESS THIS WHOLE ISSUE SEPARATELY FROM OUR ORGANIZED PRESENTATION? OKAY. THANK YOU. MARCELLA ESCOBAR WITH ATLANTIS GROUP REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY. SORRY, THIS IS NOT STAYING.

HERE WE GO. COUNCIL MEMBER ACOSTA. WE WERE SURPRISED BY THIS ISSUE, AS YOU WERE.

WE LEARNED ABOUT THIS ON FRIDAY, AND THIS WAS BRAND NEW NEWS TO US.

SO I APOLOGIZE THAT THIS DID NOT COME UP IN ANY OF YOUR BRIEFINGS BECAUSE WE WERE COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF THIS.

SO AS, AS I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER PATEL WAS INDICATING THE APPLICANT IS NOT THE SAME AS THE OPERATOR AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. SO IF FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE WERE MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH SOME OF THE POTENTIAL OCCUPANTS OF THE HOTEL ON FRIDAY. WE IMMEDIATELY STARTED WORKING WITH CITY STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO COME UP WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU SEE HERE TODAY.

DUE TO THAT NEW INFORMATION, WE HAVE AGREED TO THESE 2 CONDITIONS.

THE REQUIREMENT FROM OUR CLIENT IS TO RECEIVE THE PROPERTY VACANT, HAVING FOLLOWED THE LAW, HAVING DONE EVERYTHING THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. SO WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE OPERATING ILLEGALLY IF THEY WERE.

THAT'S FRANKLY NEWS TO US. WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE WERE ANY ISSUES.

AND I THINK, AS WAS INDICATED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IF THERE WERE ISSUES, THOSE ARE GOING TO BE ADJUDICATED THROUGH A WHOLE PROCESS.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AS WAS DESCRIBED BY STAFF.

IT BASICALLY IT MAY CHANGE THE INCOME LEVEL OF SOME OF THE UNITS IF THERE, IN FACT WERE SOME FOLKS THAT ACHIEVED TENANCY ON THE PROPERTY.

BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME OF THE PROJECT.

SO I CAN ASSURE YOU, I'M A CARLSBAD RESIDENT.

WE HAVE EVERY INTENTION OF OPERATING THIS FOLLOWING THE RULES.

FOLLOWING THE LAW AND OUR CLIENT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRING THAT THE OPERATOR ADHERE TO THE LAW BEFORE THEY TURN THE PROPERTY OVER TO THEM.

WITH RESPECT TO THE PICKLEBALL COURT, VERY QUICKLY, IF IT'S THE DESIRE OF THE COUNCIL FOR US TO BUILD AN 8 FOOT WALL, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. OR THERE'S WAYS THAT WE CAN MAYBE PUT SOME NETS TO DEAL WITH ANY POTENTIAL ERRANT BALLS.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE HAPPY TO AGREE TO IF THAT'S THE DESIRE OF THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND WE JUST HAVE A VERY QUICK, ORGANIZED PRESENTATION, AND I'M HAPPY TO RESPOND TO ANY OTHER ISSUES ON THIS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

BUT AGAIN, PLEASE KNOW THAT WE ABSOLUTELY INTEND TO ADHERE TO THE LAW AND WE ABSOLUTELY INTEND TO BE GOOD PLAYERS AND WE'RE UNAWARE OF THIS ISSUE.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND NOW, IF I MAY, ANNA MCPHERSON FROM OUR TEAM JUST HAS A QUICK PRESENTATION.

MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS. GOOD EVENING. I'M JIM MCMENAMIN REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, AND WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED CONVERSION OF THE STUDIO 6 EXTENDED STAY HOTEL TO MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS. MY TEAM IS HERE, AS MARCELLUS SAID, ATLANTIS GROUP AND ANNA MCPHERSON WILL MAKE THE PRESENTATION.

AND I WANT TO THANK STAFF AND VERY MUCH FOR ALL OF THE WORK TO GET HERE.

WE WERE PREVIOUSLY AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AS YOU MAY KNOW, WITH A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE ANNA MCPHERSON, AND WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AFTER THE PRESENTATION.

[01:00:03]

THANK YOU.

OKAY, I WILL TRY AND MAKE THIS BRIEF. YOUR STAFF GAVE AS USUAL, AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION.

THE REPORT WAS EXCELLENT, AND THE POWERPOINT WAS VERY COMPREHENSIVE AND THOROUGH.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MAYOR BLACKBURN AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ALLOWING US TO MAKE THIS PRESENTATION.

STAFF. THE I WANT TO JUST EMPHASIZE THE MAJOR POINTS.

THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN AND THE MUNICIPAL CODE.

IT REDEVELOPS AN EXISTING UNDERUTILIZED BUILDING AND PROJECT SITE TO DELIVER WORKFORCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN AN EXPEDITED TIME FRAME.

THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENDED THE PROJECT FOR THESE VERY REASONS AND VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.

SOME OF THEIR TESTIMONY FROM THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING IS THERE ON THE SLIDE.

THIS IS A BRIEF PROJECT OVERVIEW. YOU'VE RECEIVED A MORE DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE ONE FROM CITY STAFF, BUT IT DOES HIGHLIGHT PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS THAT EARN STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORT.

THIS SLIDE ILLUSTRATES THE IMPROVEMENTS AND AMENITIES BEING ADDED TO THE SITE TO ENSURE A SMOOTH TRANSITION FROM AN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL TO A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPLETED A PUBLIC OUTREACH COMPONENT, AS IS REQUIRED BY YOUR CODE, CONSISTENT TO DEVELOP PUBLIC INPUT REGARDING THE CONVERSION.

ALTHOUGH LOCATED IN AN AREA DESIGNATED AS PLANNED INDUSTRIAL, THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN THROUGH THE PROCESSING OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ENSURE THAT THE PROJECT IS WELL INTEGRATED INTO THE INDUSTRIAL PARK LOCATION AND SERVES BOTH THE COMMUNITY AND ITS RESIDENTS. THE PROJECT DOES DELIVER 15 AFFORDABLE UNITS AND IT MEETS THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE WHILE IT QUALIFIES UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. THE PROJECT PROPOSES NO ADDITIONAL UNITS BEYOND WHAT IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED.

NO ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION BEYOND THE PROVISION OF THE AMENITIES IS PROPOSED.

THIS IS AN AERIAL SO THAT YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT'S LOCATED, SEPARATION FROM THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AND HOW IT'S WELL SERVED BY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS.

AS STAFF EXPLAINED, THE PROJECT DOES QUALIFY FOR THE CEQA CLASS 32 INFILL EXEMPTION.

IT MEETS THE CRITERIA LISTED ON THE SLIDE, AND IT TRIGGERS NO EXCEPTIONS.

AS NOTED, THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND IT MEETS THE FINDINGS AS SPECIFIED IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE, TO ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AT THIS LOCATION.

THE CUP FINDINGS FOCUS ON HOW THE PROJECT FITS IN IS INTEGRAL TO THE LOCATION.

AS AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

ITS CONVERSION FROM HOTEL TO HOMES WILL SUPPORT THE CONTINUED ECONOMIC VITALITY, VITALITY OF THE OVER 25 EMPLOYERS AND THE LOCALLY SERVING BUSINESSES THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 6000FT². THE PROJECT IS ALSO CONDITIONED TO SOLICIT POTENTIAL RESIDENTS FROM EXISTING BUSINESSES, WHICH SUPPORT JOBS FOR A RANGE OF OCCUPATIONS THROUGH A WEBSITE AND AN INFORMATION KIOSK AND DIRECT MAIL.

IT ALSO INCLUDES 27,000FT² OF MATURE AND REHABILITATED LANDSCAPING TO SERVE AS A BUFFER TO ADJACENT NONRESIDENTIAL USES WHILE ENHANCING CONNECTIVITY TO GOODS AND SERVICES. IT IS DESIGNED IN A CONTEMPORARY SOUTHWESTERN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, AND WAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDINGS AND THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. THE SITE IS SERVED BY AND IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH IS PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FRIENDLY. THE PROJECT PROVIDES A BIKE MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE SHED WITH E-BIKE CHARGING OUTLETS AS PART OF THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL.

THIS CORRIDOR CONTAINS BUFFERED CLASS 2 BIKE LANES, NONCONTIGUOUS SIDEWALKS, AND ADJACENT LANDSCAPING.

IT IS ALSO WITHIN 2 MILES OF THE POINSETTIA TRAIN STATION.

AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU BY STAFF, THE PROJECT DOES REQUIRE 4 WAIVERS TO FACILITATE THE CONVERSION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.

THE PROJECT CONVERTS AN UNDERUTILIZED AN OUTLET HOTEL PAST ITS PRIME AND NO LONGER AN ECONOMICALLY BENEFICIAL USE INTO MUCH NEEDED, ATTRACTIVE WORKFORCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH CONVENIENT ACCESS TO JOBS, GOODS AND SERVICES.

[01:05:01]

ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT WILL ENHANCE, MAINTAIN AND MANAGE THE BUILDING AND PROJECT SITE TO ENSURE IT REMAINS AN ASSET WITHIN THE CITY.

WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU ADOPT THE STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, AND WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, MR. SHIN. THANK YOU. MAYOR. YEAH, JUST THE CONCERNS MOSTLY FOR ME, FOR THE FENCE.

I KNOW OTHERS WILL TALK ABOUT THE THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, BUT I NOTICED FROM THE DESIGN, IF IT'S IF IT WAS SET THAT WAY AT 8 FEET BECAUSE THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION OF HOW THEY WANTED TO DO THE TRAFFIC.

AND I JUST, I PLAY THE SPORT. SO I KNOW THAT THOSE BALLS CAN EASILY GET PUT OVER.

AND SO IT'S, IT'S REALLY TO COVER THE LIABILITY OF LIKE NOT JUST THE CITY, BUT FOR YOUR RESIDENTS AND WHAT HAVE YOU AND YOURSELVES DEVELOPING IT.

SO IS THERE A POSSIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO REMEDY THAT SO THAT WE CAN ALLOW THEM TO PLAY SAFELY IN THAT CORNER? YES. WE'VE INDICATED TO STAFF THAT IF IT'S THE DESIRE TO HAVE AN 8 FOOT WALL, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT.

ALTERNATIVELY, WE COULD PUT SOME NETS UP THERE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN IMAGINE THOSE NETS THAT KIND OF COME IN A LITTLE BIT, WHICH WE THINK WOULD HAVE THE SAME EFFECT. I THINK JUST IN GENERAL, 8 FOOT WALLS AREN'T LOVED.

SO WE'RE BUT WHATEVER THE COUNCIL DESIRES, WE'RE WILLING TO GO WITH EITHER OPTION.

YEAH, I'LL TAKE THE SAFEST ROUTE JUST SO THAT I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU AND STAFF TO TELL US WHAT YOU'D LIKE, BUT WE'RE WILLING TO GO WITH EITHER ONE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. BURKHOLDER. I HAVE QUESTIONS, IT'S JUST COMMENTS.

MS. ACOSTA, MS. BHAT-PATEL. I'M SORRY. PUT UP SLIDE 13.

THE 1 PRIOR TO THIS.

IT SAYS FULLY LANDSCAPED SETBACK 40FT FROM CANNON ROAD.

IS THAT DID I MISUNDERSTOOD STAND THAT IT'S GOING TO BE 40FT FROM AVENIDA ENCINAS, BUT RIGHT UP TO CANNON ROAD. DID I MISUNDERSTAND THAT? NO, I DON'T THINK SO. ERIC, WOULD YOU MIND MAYBE GOING TO ONE OF THE SITE PLANS AND MAYBE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, AND LAUREN, MAYBE YOU COULD EVEN JUST EXPLAIN THAT 1 DEVIATION THAT WE HAVE.

IT'S PROBABLY BETTER FROM YOUR SITE PLAN, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

I UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WOULD BE NO SETBACK FROM CANNON, SO MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD. NO, THERE'S ACTUALLY A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE THAT LANDSCAPE SETBACK. AND SO, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE IT MIGHT BE BEST IF STAFF ANSWERS IT.

AND I'M HAPPY TO CLARIFY ANYTHING. AND THAT'S AND THAT'S THE SIDE THAT MR. SHIN WAS CONCERNED WITH THE BALLS GOING OVER.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO WE HAVE ON THE SCREEN THE SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS.

AND YES, THIS IS FOR THE WAIVER. IT IS REDUCING THE SETBACK ON CANNON ROAD.

THIS WOULD ALSO BE THE AREA ADJACENT IMMEDIATELY WITH PICKLEBALL COURTS AND A FENCE.

GENERALLY FENCES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE OVER 6 FEET WITHIN THE SETBACK.

BUT ACTUALLY BECAUSE OF THIS WAIVER REDUCING THE SETBACK, WE COULD CONSIDER ALLOWING A FENCE HIGHER.

WE WOULD RECOMMEND EITHER A FENCE THAT'S HIGHER OR A FENCE AND NETTING INSTEAD OF A WALL, JUST BECAUSE THERE IS SIDEWALK THERE, AND IT WOULD BE VISUALLY IMPOSING SOMETHING ELSE ON THE PEDESTRIAN.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT IS PUBLIC COMMENTS.

THIS IS I'M GOING TO OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT. PLEASE CALL THE 1ST SPEAKER.

MARCELLA. MARCELLA ESCOBAR, FOLLOWED BY ANNA MCPHERSON.

MS. ESCOBAR IS GOING TO PASS. OH, ANNA MCPHERSON, FOLLOWED BY HEATHER RILEY.

I'M LAND USE COUNCIL FOR THIS PROJECT. AND I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE WHAT MS. MARCELLA ESCOBAR DID SAY EARLIER TODAY. WE WERE UNAWARE UNTIL FRIDAY.

WE SINCERELY APOLOGIZE. ANY OF THE OPERATIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING OUTSIDE ON SITE, WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE CORRECT IT AS WELL.

IT IS OUR EFFORT AND OUR PLAN TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS HANDLED APPROPRIATELY.

WE DID WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TODAY TO MAKE SURE THOSE CONDITIONS PROTECT NOT ONLY THE CITY, BUT THE APPLICANT. IN THE EVENT ANY OF THE SITUATIONS THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT HAVE OCCURRED OR MAY OCCUR, THE CITY WILL BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT.

WE WILL BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT AND ENSURE THAT STATE LAW AND LOCAL LAW ARE MET.

THANK YOU. MAX STEAD.

MY NAME IS MAX STEAD. I AM A RESIDENT OF CARLSBAD, AND I'M ALSO WITH ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT.

[01:10:04]

I THINK THAT THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD DRAMATICALLY.

IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE HOUSING THAT'S REALLY NEEDED, LOW INCOME HOUSING, AS WELL AS REGULAR HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.

AND I JUST HOPE THAT YOU WOULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS.

THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO MORE SPEAKERS. I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY DISCUSSION? MR. SHIN? I JUST HAVE COMMENTS, IF THAT'S OKAY.

YEAH, I, I KIND OF WANT TO CONFIRM THAT WE WOULD END UP USING AN 8 FOOT FENCING AS OPPOSED TO NETTING.

JUST ONLY BECAUSE ONLY IF THERE'S A GUARANTEE THAT THE NETTING WOULD BE REPLACED WHEN WORN.

BECAUSE I DO GET YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU DO SEE WHERE IT GETS WORN OUT AND THEN NEXT THING YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST AS GOOD AS THE OLD 6 FOOT FENCE. MS. ESCOBAR THIS IS JUST COMMENT. OH, YEAH. YEAH.

I'M JUST NOT QUESTIONS. THANK YOU OUT THERE FOR THE DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU FOR BEING SO EAGER TO ANSWER. I APPRECIATE OUR STAFF, OUR LEGAL STAFF, AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPER STAFF FOR CREATING AND RECOMMENDING CONDITION 1 AND 2. IT COVERS THE LIABILITY OF OUR CITY AND ENSURES THAT THE DUE DILIGENCE IS DONE APPROPRIATELY.

AFTER THEY FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE OR NOT.

I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT FROM THE EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT.

I THINK IT CAN BECOME BETTER THAN WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY.

IT ALLOWS FOR AFFORDABLE HOMES IN CARLSBAD. I THINK WE ALWAYS GET IMPACTED IN DISTRICT 1 WITH THESE AFFORDABLE HOMES.

AND HERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS, NOT ALWAYS IN DISTRICT 1.

I DO APPRECIATE THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS HAS THE TOOL OF THE DENSITY BONUS ELIGIBILITY, BUT IS NOT USING IT AND SO IS NOT INCREASING AND COMPACTING DENSITY INTO THAT AREA. SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IF WE CAN HAVE SOME DIALOG ABOUT THE FENCING.

MR. COLTER. THANK YOU. I CAN CERTAINLY, AS YOUR REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISTRICT 1, APPRECIATE THIS AS AN ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THIS SITE.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF POSITIVE THINGS. AND THEN MAYBE ONE NOT SO POSITIVE.

I DEFINITELY ALSO APPRECIATE THAT THAT WE'RE NOT ADDING DENSITY.

THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. AND I LOVE THAT THE PICKLEBALL COURTS ARE NOT AROUND OTHER HOMES BECAUSE AS WE ALL GET COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE NOISE FROM PICKLEBALL COURTS.

SO I THINK THAT'S GREAT. THE KIND OF BAD THING I HAVE IS PERHAPS, LIKE, I HATE TO SEE THAT THE TOT, THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX GO. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF HOW MUCH MONEY THAT IS THAT WE'RE SAYING BYE BYE TO? WE BELIEVE IT'S BETWEEN 150,000 AND 200,000 A YEAR.

OKAY, THAT WOULD PAY FOR SOME PARK RANGERS, JUST SO YOU KNOW.

BUT I DO I DO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS RELIEF TO THE TO THE ARENA NUMBERS.

I'M NOT INCLINED TO MR. SHINN'S POINT. NOT INCLINED TO ENJOY 8 FOOT WALLS, FOR SURE.

THE FENCING I MAY BE OKAY WITH, BUT I PREFER THE NETTING JUST BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS IN THE VILLAGE.

AND WHAT WE DO, FOR 1, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO FOR OTHERS.

SO THAT'S MY COMMENT ON THAT. OTHERWISE, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT.

MS. ACOSTA. YES. THANK YOU. THANKS TO STAFF FOR ALL YOUR WORK, ALL OF YOU, AND TO THE DEVELOPER FOR MEETING WITH US AND SHARING THE INFORMATION AND BEING RESPONSIVE, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT I'VE HEARD THAT YOU WERE SURPRISED BY THE COMMENTS AS I WAS.

AND WE DON'T LIKE SURPRISES. I DON'T LIKE SURPRISES.

ESPECIALLY WHEN I AM FEELING GOOD ABOUT SOMETHING IN A BAD SURPRISE COMES AROUND.

SO THANK YOU FOR BEING FLEXIBLE AND NIMBLE ON THAT.

I ALSO APPRECIATE THE STATEMENTS THAT I HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR.

THANK YOU, MISS ESCOBAR. WE WILL ADHERE TO THE LAW AND WE ARE LOOKING FOR.

I WAS WRITING NOTES. WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE VACANT BEFORE TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP.

AND BEGINNING THE PROJECT. SO AND THANK YOU, MS. RILEY, AS WELL, FOR ENFORCING THAT THAT COMMENT THAT SAID, I LOVE THE IDEA OF CONVERTING A HOTEL TO HOUSING, ESPECIALLY, I THINK, THIS ONE FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING.

WE DESPERATELY NEED MORE HOUSING SUPPLY IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU TO THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE COMMENTED ABOUT THAT TOO.

THE WAIVERS MAKE SENSE, RIGHT? THINGS LIKE THE HEIGHT.

I MEAN, THIS IS AN EXISTING BUILDING. THANK YOU FOR NOT TAKING AWAY THE PARKING, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT YOU COULD, BUT BUT YOU'RE NOT AND AND YOU'RE NOT ADDING MORE DENSITY.

I THINK THAT THE WAIVERS ALL MAKE SENSE WITH THE, THE CURRENT PROPERTY.

IT'S JUST I STILL JUST AM A LITTLE SORE ABOUT THE THE PENDING ISSUE ABOUT THE RESIDENT, BUT WE'LL GET THAT FIGURED OUT.

AND AND AS FOR THE PICKLEBALL COURTS AND THE THE FENCE, I ALSO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH 8 FOOT TALL FENCES OR WALLS.

[01:15:02]

BUT I LIKE THE IDEA OF NETTING. SO IF THEY CAN FIND A SOLUTION THAT IS VISUALLY APPEALING.

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH MR. HARDY'S COMMENT ABOUT THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE AND THE DRIVER EXPERIENCE.

NOBODY WANTS TO BE DRIVING BETWEEN VERY TALL WALLS.

SO IF WE COULD KEEP OUR WALL HEIGHT, BUT MAYBE ADD SOME NETTING.

WE HAVE THAT IN OTHER PLACES, RIGHT? OMNI LA COSTA IS IN MY DISTRICT.

THEY'VE GOT GOLF COURSES. I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE RANCHO CARLSBAD GOLF COURSE AND THEY'RE NETTING.

SO NETTING IS, IS POSSIBLE. A LITTLE FINER MAYBE, BUT NETTING.

BUT I THINK I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD SOLUTION.

BUT OTHERWISE I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT AND JUST I THINK I'VE MADE MY THOUGHTS CLEAR ABOUT MY CONCERNS.

SO THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK. MS. BHAT-PATEL.

YES. THANK YOU. THANKS AGAIN FOR THE PRESENTATION FROM STAFF AND TO THE APPLICANT FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT AND FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I AM GLAD TO SEE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO UTILIZE THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING AND REVITALIZE IT IN A WAY THAT I THINK IS REALLY NEEDED, NOT ONLY IN OUR CITY, BUT THROUGHOUT THE STATE WITH REGARDS TO HOUSING.

I THINK JUST HAVING THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE MORE, AS WAS SAID, WORKFORCE HOUSING AND JUST HOUSING IN GENERAL, WHERE WE HAVE DIFFERENT AFFORDABILITY, YOU KNOW, METRICS BEING MET IS IS AMAZING.

I THINK THE OTHER PIECE I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE AND APPRECIATE IS THAT YOU ALL SPRUNG INTO ACTION WHEN SOMETHING CAME UP AND CLEARLY WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL WERE EXPECTING.

AND SO REALLY APPRECIATE YOU ALL WORKING WITH US.

AND OF COURSE HOPEFULLY LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION TOWARDS GETTING THAT MITIGATED.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT IS JUST KNOWING WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF THE UNITS THAT ARE GOING TO BE OFFERED.

I'M ASSUMING, AS YOU ALL MENTIONED, IT WON'T BE ANYTHING TOO DRASTIC IN TERMS OF NUMBERS SHIFTING, BUT I'M HOPING THAT IT WOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE AROUND THAT 15, YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT YOU ALL HAVE MENTIONED IN TERMS OF THE WAIVERS.

I AGREE THEY DO MAKE SENSE AS WELL. AND THEN I THINK THE PARKING PIECE, I HAVE TO SAY, I WAS ALSO GLAD TO SEE THAT YOU ALL MAINTAINED THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IS SOMETHING WE HEAR THROUGHOUT OUR CITY, THAT PARKING IS AN ISSUE.

AND I KNOW, ESPECIALLY IN CERTAIN AREAS, MORE SO THAN OTHERS.

AND THEN OTHER THAN THAT, I'M LOOKING I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO OBVIOUSLY HEARING BACK, YOU KNOW, THE FINDINGS AND WHAT WE ARE DOING TO REMEDIATE THAT.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT LOOKING FORWARD TO SUPPORT THIS.

THANKS. ON THE HEELS OF MS. BURKHOLDER'S QUESTION ABOUT THE TOT.

DOES THIS TRIGGER A REASSESSMENT FOR PROPERTY TAXES? DO YOU KNOW? YES, THERE WILL BE AN IMPROVEMENT VALUE CHANGE ON THE PROPERTY THAT WILL THEN BE IN FUTURE ASSESSMENT ROLLS.

SO IT WILL RESET. SO THAT WILL OFFSET A LITTLE BIT OF THE THE LOSS.

I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE THE SAME AMOUNT BUT IT'LL OFFSET A LITTLE BIT OF IT.

WHEN THIS WAS FIRST BROUGHT TO ME I HAD THIS WAS NEW A NEW CONCEPT TO ME, ESPECIALLY HERE IN CARLSBAD, ABOUT CHANGING THE USE OF THIS HOTEL THAT HAS ALL THE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR SPENDING EXTENDED AMOUNT OF TIME. IT HAS THE OVENS AND SINKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. 1 OF THE THINGS I HEAR RESIDENTS COMPLAIN ABOUT IS YOU'RE BUILDING ANOTHER APARTMENT COMPLEX IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT'S NOT CLOSE TO TRANSPORTATION OR JOBS.

THIS ISN'T BUILDING ANOTHER 1. IN FACT, I WOULD ARGUE THAT RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO BE A MUCH BETTER NEIGHBOR THAN THE TRANSIENT HOTEL PEOPLE.

PLUS, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A NEW BUILDING. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE INTERRUPTING ANY RESIDENTIAL AREAS, AND IT'S REALLY CLOSE TO TRANSPORTATION. I JUST CAN'T THINK OF A DARN THING NEGATIVE ABOUT IT OTHER THAN THE TOT TAX.

SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT TONIGHT. NEED A MOTION, PLEASE? YES. MOVE. ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION AND THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED, AND I BELIEVE DO YOU NEED THE NETTING PIECE IN THERE, I HEARD. NO, I THINK THE I THINK THE KEY THING IS, IS JUST THE AWARENESS OF THE RISK, YOU KNOW, LIABILITY OF HAVING IT. YOUR PICKLEBALL COURT RIGHT NEXT TO ALONGSIDE THE ROAD.

SO THAT'S ALL. AS LONG AS YOU CAN ADDRESS IT.

I'M CLEAN IF YOU GUYS ARE CLEAN. AND I WANT TO CLARIFY WITH STAFF AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T NEED IT.

OTHER THAN THAT, UNLESS THE CITY ATTORNEY FEELS DIFFERENTLY, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT IN THE MOTION IN CASE WE DO NEED TO PROCESS A CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION WITH THE PLANS TO BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT CLEAR POLICY DIRECTION.

IT SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED IT IN THERE. SO INCLUDING THE COMMENTS MADE WITH REGARDS TO ADDING NETTING FOR THE PICKLEBALL COURTS.

[01:20:01]

SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU.

NUMBER 5, CITY MANAGER. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 5.

OUR OPTIONS FOR THE TERRAMAR AREA COASTAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION IS TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR TOM FRANK.

WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR A 10 MINUTE BREAK. WE'LL RECONVENE AT 6:30.

AND THEN WE'LL START THIS ITEM.

I'M CALLING THE MEETING. BACK TO ORDER. CITY MANAGER, PLEASE REINTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER 5.

[5. OPTIONS FOR THE TERRAMAR AREA COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CIP PROJECT NO. 6054 1) Adoption of a resolution confirming the City Council-adopted Resolution No. 2018-201, approving a roundabout at Cannon Road, lane reductions on Cannon Road between Carlsbad Boulevard and the railroad tracks and a traffic signal at Cerezo Drive as the preferred project alternative and authorizing staff to proceed with environmental review, permitting and final engineering for the Terramar Area Coastal Improvements Project; or 2) Adoption of a resolution approving a smaller-scale project with roadway and sidewalk improvements with resurfacing, restriping and no roundabout and no lane reductions, and authorizing staff to proceed with environmental review, permitting and final engineering for the Terramar Area Coastal Improvements Project; or 3) Adoption of a resolution approving only the resurfacing and restriping on Carlsbad Boulevard and Cannon Road within the project limits, authorizing staff to proceed with environmental review, permitting and final engineering for the revised scope without a roundabout and no lane reductions for the Terramar Area Coastal Improvements Project and pausing other roadway and sidewalk improvements for seven years or until the Seaside Transaction Agreement with San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Cabrillo Power I, LLC is finalized. (Staff contact: Tom Frank, Public Works)]

THANK YOU. IT'S LIKE DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN. ITEM NUMBER 5 ARE OPTIONS FOR THE TERRAMAR AREA COASTAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

AND FOR THE PRESENTATION, WE HAVE TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR TOM FRANK.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'M TOM FRANK, THE TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER.

AND IN THE SPRING, THE CITY COUNCIL RECONSIDERED THE TAMARACK ROUNDABOUT TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

AND IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION AT THE HEARING ABOUT THE CANON ROAD AND THE PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT, THE CITY MANAGER STATED THAT HE WOULD BRING BACK THE TERRAMAR PROJECT BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

THE CITY ALSO RECENTLY COMPLETED NEGOTIATIONS WITH SDGE REGARDING THE PARCEL ON THE CORNER OF CANON AND CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.

THAT PROCESS WITH THE S TATE WILL TAKE ABOUT SEVEN YEARS TO COMPLETE THE LAND DEAL.

TONIGHT, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE AREA AGAIN TO CONFIRM PREVIOUS DIRECTION OR RECONSIDER NEW IDEAS HERE, OR PAUSING THE PROJECT. SO WITH THAT. WE ARE PRESENTING 3 OPTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.

AND 1ST, THE NUMBER 1 OPTION IS CONFIRMING THE PROJECT DESIGN APPROVED IN 2018, WHICH INCLUDES A ROUNDABOUT AT CANNON AND CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, REDUCING THE NUMBER OF LANES ON CANNON WEST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS FROM 2 TO 1, A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT CEREZO DRIVE AND BLUFFTOP IMPROVEMENTS, AND NEW SIDEWALKS ON CARLSBAD BOULEVARD. 2 A SMALLER SCALE PROJECT WITH NO ROUNDABOUT OR LANE REDUCTIONS, BUT WITH NEW SIDEWALKS AND NEWLY RESURFACED STREET AND STRIPING UP TO OUR CURRENT STANDARDS.

THIS. AND THEN 3. THE OPTION WOULD RESURFACE AND RESTRIPE THE AREA AGAIN, AND STAFF WOULD REEVALUATE OTHER POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS.

AFTER THE AGREEMENT IS SIGNED WITH SDGE AND CABRILLO POWER IN ABOUT 7 YEARS.