[CALL TO ORDER:] [00:00:06] GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE NOVEMBER 19TH, 2025 MEETING OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES CLERK, WOULD YOU TAKE THE ROLL, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BURROWS. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER. LAFFERTY. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MERZ. HERE. COMMISSIONER FOSTER. PRESENT. VICE CHAIR HUBINGER. HERE. CHAIR MEENES. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, WOULD YOU DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE FOR US THIS EVENING? 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. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 5TH, [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] 2025 MEETING. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5TH? SEEING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5TH. COMMISSIONER BURROWS. MOTION. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER BURROWS. SECOND? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY MAKES A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT THIS EVENING. WE WILL REQUIRE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM FOR ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS. REQUEST FORMS MUST BE TURNED INTO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING. ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES UNLESS THAT TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON. SPEAKERS MAY NOT GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANOTHER SPEAKER. GROUP TIMES WILL BE PERMITTED FOR ITEMS LISTED ON. NOT LISTED. EXCUSE ME. LISTED ON THE AGENDA. THE REPRESENTATIVE MUST IDENTIFY THE GROUP. AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE MEETING FOR THE PRESENTATION TO BE MADE. THOSE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP HAVE TEN MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS CHANGED BY THE CHAIRPERSON. THE MINUTES CLERK WILL CALL THE NAMES OF THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN THE ORDER THE REQUESTS ARE RECEIVED. THE BROWN ACT ALLOWS ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY PROVIDING COMMENTS AS PROVIDED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE AGENDA. PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED, UP TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. ALL OTHER NON AGENDA ITEMS. PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD AT THE END OF THE MEETING IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT NO ACTION CAN OCCUR ON THOSE ON THOSE ITEMS. MINUTES CLERK DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS. NO, CHAIR. WE DO NOT. THANK YOU. SEEING NONE, WE'LL BEGIN TONIGHT'S MEETING. IF EVERYONE WOULD DIRECT THEMSELVES TO THE SCREEN. I'LL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMISSION THAT WILL FOLLOW THIS EVENING. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPEN. STAFF WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION. PLANNING COMMISSION MAY ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THE STAFF PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION AND RESPOND TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. THEY WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION. THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE THEN OPENED. A TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES IS ALLOTTED TO EACH SPEAKER. ALL THOSE WANTING TO SPEAK HAVE DONE SO. THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL THEN BE CLOSED. THE APPLICANT AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THOSE ISSUES OR QUESTIONS RAISED. COMMISSIONERS WILL DISCUSS THE ITEM AND THEN VOTE ON IT. PUBLIC HEARING WILL THEN BE CLOSED. CERTAIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ARE FINAL, BUT MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE BACK OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA. [1. 2025 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AMENDMENT LCPA - 2025-0023, ZCA2025-0001 (PUB 2025-0009)] I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. BUT FIRST, IF I CAN HAVE EX PARTE CONVERSATIONS, IF THERE'S ANY. NONE TO REPORT. OKAY. NONE. NONE. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. COMMISSIONER. MERZ. NONE. NOT ON. NOT ON THIS ONE. NOT ON THIS ONE. NO. NONE. NONE. NONE. NONE. SAME HERE. OKAY. MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? YES. HERE TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION ON THE 2025 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AMENDMENT IS SHELLY GLENN AN ASSOCIATE PLANNER. THANK YOU, CITY PLANNER. AND GOOD EVENING, CHAIR MEENES AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SHELLY GLENN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER PRESENTING THE 2025 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AMENDMENT PROJECT. FOR TODAY'S PRESENTATION, I WILL FIRST PROVIDE THE PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT, THEN A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND THE PROJECT'S CONSISTENCY WITH RELEVANT [00:05:01] POLICIES AND REGULATIONS. LASTLY, I WILL DISCUSS NEXT STEPS AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CURRENTLY HAS REGULATIONS IN PLACE INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE THE PRODUCTION OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, ALSO KNOWN AS ADUS, AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, OR JADUS. THE STATE HAS DECLARED ADUS AND AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE STATE'S HOUSING SUPPLY, AS IT PROVIDES AN ALTERNATIVE AND AFFORDABLE OPTION TO TRADITIONAL MARKET RATE HOME CONSTRUCTION. ADUSAND JADUS ARE INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE LOWER TO MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. IT SUPPORTS MULTIGENERATIONAL FAMILIES BY ALLOWING THEM TO LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ONE ANOTHER, AND CAN ALSO PROVIDE AS A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME FOR PROPERTY OWNERS IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND WITH THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM 1.2 A. THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IS EXPECTED TO UPDATE ITS LOCAL ORDINANCE TO ALIGN WITH CURRENT STATE ADU REGULATIONS. THE CITY HAS IN THE PAST REGULARLY UPDATED ITS ZONING ORDINANCE TO REFLECT A RECENTLY PASSED STATE LEGISLATIVE LEGISLATION. DUE TO THE RECENT AND FREQUENT UPDATES MADE TO STATE ADU LAW AND FOR TRACKING PURPOSES, THE CITY ADDRESSES STATE ADU LAW UPDATES PRIMARILY THROUGH AN ADU AMENDMENT PROJECT AS OPPOSED TO ITS BIANNUAL ZONING CODE CLEANUP PROJECTS. AS PART OF THIS 2025 ADU AMENDMENT PROJECT, THE CITY IS UPDATING ITS CITY CODE TO REFLECT STATE ADU REGULATIONS THAT WENT INTO EFFECT AS OF JANUARY 1ST, 2025, WHICH INCLUDES CHANGES MADE PURSUANT TO SENATE BILL 457 AND 1211 AND ASSEMBLY BILL 2533. THIS AMENDMENT WILL ALSO ADDRESS OTHER CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT UPDATES TITLE 21, WHICH REQUIRES A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING CODE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT. THE PROJECT ALSO REQUIRES A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO UPDATE TITLE SIX6 AND 20, WHICH REQUIRES CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. HOWEVER, IT IS OUTSIDE OF PLANNING COMMISSION PURVIEW, THEREFORE IS ONLY INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. AS LISTED HERE, STAFF IS PROPOSING NINE PRIMARY ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES OTHER MINOR CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. HOWEVER, FOR THIS PRESENTATION, I WILL FOCUS ON SUMMARIZING THESE NINE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE NEXT SLIDES. I NOTE THAT THESE AMENDMENTS WERE DRAFTED IN COORDINATION WITH STATE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THAT OUR ORDINANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STATE ADU LAW. SO AMENDMENT ONE CLARIFIES SIZE REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN ATTACHED ADUS THAT ADD NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE TO A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND CONVERSION ADUS LOCATED FULLY INSIDE A DWELLING OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. IT ALSO CLARIFIES DETACHED ADUS ON MULTI-FAMILY LOTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE 1200 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM SIZE THAT DETACHED ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO ON ONE FAMILY LOTS. AMENDMENT ONE REVISES THE EXISTING MAXIMUM SIZE OF AN ADU STANDARD, AS SHOWN HERE IN RED FONT. AS I JUST DISCUSSED, THE ATTACHED AND DETACHED ADU STANDARD HAS BEEN UPDATED TO PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION. WHEREAS THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVERSION ADUS IS A NEWLY ADDED STANDARD. AMENDMENT TWO ADDS AN ADDITIONAL PARKING REPLACEMENT EXEMPTION FOR THE REMOVAL OF AN UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE. IT ALSO AMENDS THE PARKING REPLACEMENT EXEMPTION TO NOW APPLY TO ANY PARKING SPACE REMOVED, NOT JUST PARKING, THAT SERVES THE PRIMARY DWELLING. HERE'S THE EXISTING PARKING STANDARD, AS AMENDED, IN RED FONT, WHICH ADDS UNCOVERED PARKING SPACES TO THE LIST OF PARKING REPLACEMENT EXEMPTIONS AND REMOVES THE PRIMARY DWELLING LANGUAGE TO ENSURE THAT THE EXEMPTION APPLIES TO ANY APPLICABLE STANDARD OR PARKING SPACE REMOVED. AMENDMENT THREE REVISES THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TWO FEET IN HEIGHT, OR 18FT MAX, FOR DETACHED ADUS WITHIN ONE HALF MILE WALKING DISTANCE FROM A HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR. IT ALSO REMOVED THE ONE STORY MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR DETACHED ADUS, AND PROVIDES ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION FOR ATTACHED ADUS AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. AS DISCUSSED, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT ARE AMENDED AS SHOWN IN RED FONT HERE. THE ONE STORY LIMITATION FOR DETACHED ADUS WAS REMOVED CONSISTENT WITH GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH ONLY ALLOWS CITIES TO LIMIT DETACHED ADUS BASED ON HEIGHT. [00:10:04] THE 18 FOOT HEIGHT ALLOWANCE FOR DETACHED ADUS WITHIN ONE HALF MILE WALKING DISTANCE OF A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP IS NOW UPDATED TO INCLUDE HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT CORRIDORS. CURRENTLY, THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE A HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR AS DEFINED BY PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE. THEREFORE, THE STANDARD WOULD ONLY APPLY IF OR WHEN IT DOES HAVE THE HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR. IN SECTION D, THE CITY CLARIFIES THAT THE ATTACHED ADU MAY CONFORM TO THE MAX HEIGHT LIMIT OF 25FT, OR THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF THE APPLICABLE ZONE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. THIS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ENCOURAGES ATTACH ADUS TO BE DEVELOPED AT THE HEIGHT THAT MATCHES THE EXISTING HOME, WHICH TYPICALLY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS IS 30 TO 35FT. SECTION E HAS MINOR REVISIONS FOR CLARIFICATIONS, WHILE SECTION F WAS ADDED TO STATE JDUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE UNDERLYING ZONES HEIGHT REQUIREMENT THAT IS APPLIED TO THE ONE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT THAT IS LOCATED IN. AMENDMENT FOUR CLARIFIES STATE MANDATED ADUS AS DEFINED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66323 ARE EXEMPT FROM APPLYING DESIGN STANDARDS. THIS AMENDMENT ALSO CLARIFIES THAT DESIGN STANDARDS APPLIED TO ADUS, THAT ARE APPLIED TO ADUS, CANNOT PRECLUDE THE ADU FROM COMPLYING WITH THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE. SO HERE'S THE EXISTING ARCHITECTURE REVIEW STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN AMENDED, AS SHOWN IN RED FONT. ADUS SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 66323, DO NOT HAVE TO INCORPORATE ANY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STANDARDS. HOWEVER, THESE STANDARDS THAT ARE APPLIED SHALL NOT PRECLUDE THE ADU FROM COMPLYING WITH THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE. AMENDMENT FIVE UPDATES ALL OUTDATED GOVERNMENT CODE REFERENCES TO THE NEW GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER FOR ADUS, AND PURSUANT TO SENATE BILL 457, THIS UPDATE WILL ALSO ENSURE THAT NEW GOVERNMENT CODE REGULATIONS THAT IS INCLUDED BY REFERENCE ONLY CAN BE APPLIED, INCLUDING REGULATIONS UPDATED UNDER SB 1211 AND ASSEMBLY BILL 2533. AMENDMENT SIX REVISES AN EXISTING STANDARD AS SHOWN HERE, TO FURTHER CLARIFY THAT IF THERE IS A CONFLICT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE STANDARDS AND WITH GOVERNMENT CODE STANDARDS AND COASTAL RESOURCE AND PUBLIC ACCESS PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS OF THE CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM THE GOVERNMENT CODE STANDARDS AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SHALL PREVAIL. AS SHOWN IN RED FONT, AMENDMENT SEVEN ADDS LANGUAGE TO REINFORCE THE CITY'S ENGINEERING STANDARDS THAT ADEQUATE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES FOR ADU DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED. AMENDMENT EIGHT CLARIFIES THAT THE EXISTING ROOF DECK PROHIBITION APPLIES TO ATTACHED ADUS AS WELL AS DETACHED ADUS. THIS IS NOT REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE. HOWEVER IT IS IT IS ALLOW, IT WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO RETAIN EXISTING SAFETY AND PRIVACY PROTECTIONS. AMENDMENT NINE PROPOSES TO REMOVE THE NOTICE OF RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT FOR ALL ADUS AND ADD A DEED RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT FOR ADUS. THIS AMENDMENT ENFORCES AN EXISTING STATE ADU STANDARD, BUT IS NEW TO OUR CODE, AND SO IT IS INCLUDED FOR CONSISTENCY PURPOSES. SHOWN HERE IN RED. STRIKETHROUGH FONT IS THE EXISTING NOTICE RESTRICTION STANDARD THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE DELETED. AND NOTE THAT ALL PROPERTY OWNERS ARE STILL REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH STATE ADU LAW, WITH OR WITHOUT THE NOTICE OF RESTRICTION. AND HERE IS THE PROPOSED DEED RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT FOR JADUS THAT WILL BE ADDED CONSISTENT WITH STATE ADU LAW. SO TODAY WE DID RECEIVE A COMMENT LETTER FROM THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. PLEASE NOTE THAT STAFF CITY STAFF DID VET THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WITH THE STATE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, AND THESE AMENDMENTS ALSO CARRY A FORWARD PASS, MODIFICATIONS MADE BY COASTAL COMMISSION AND ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL. SO IN THE COMMENT LETTER, THE FIRST COMMENT WAS REGARDING WAS REGARDING SECTION 211030(E)(6), WHERE THEY REQUEST TO REVISE THIS STANDARD TO STATE THAT IT DOES NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66323 ADUS. SO THIS LANGUAGE WAS REVIEWED CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL [00:15:04] PROGRAM AND APPROVED BY COASTAL COMMISSION TO ENSURE THAT PROTECTION OF COASTAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC ACCESS WAS PROVIDED. THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT IS INCLUDED IN THAT LANGUAGE IS PART OF THE CITY CERTIFIED LCP. ADDITIONALLY, COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66323 IS PROVIDED BY REFERENCE IN THE SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE AMENDED CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. ADDITIONALLY, ANY STANDARD LISTED IN OUR CODE THAT CONFLICTS WITH STANDARDS OF GOVERNMENT CODE, INCLUDING SECTION 66323 THE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION SHALL PREVAIL. AND THAT IS, AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THIS THIS LANGUAGE WAS INCLUDED IN AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX AS JUST DISCUSSED. THE SECOND COMMENT THAT WAS INCLUDED WAS THAT THEY REQUEST THE CITY NOT SPECIFY AREAS OF THE CITY WHERE STATE LAW DOES NOT APPLY. THIS IS REGARDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AND SO THIS LANGUAGE AGAIN, WAS REVIEWED BY COASTAL COMMISSION AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFIED LCP. WE DO MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT GOVERNMENT CODE SHALL PREVAIL OVER ANY CONFLICTING STANDARDS IN THE CITY CODE. AND SO WE BELIEVE THAT THIS STANDARD IS ADDRESSED IN THAT IN IN THESE IN THE AMENDED ZONING ORDINANCE. THE LAST COMMENT WAS REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT PARKING. THE CITY, THEY STATE THAT THE CITY MAY NOT SPECIFY AREAS OF THE CITY WHERE STATE LAW DOES NOT APPLY. THIS LANGUAGE WAS REQUIRED AGAIN BY COASTAL COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY TO PROTECT PUBLIC ACCESS. CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFIED LCP. SO STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE APPLICABLE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS AS LISTED HERE. THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES, AND A DRAFT NOTICE OF EXEMPTION WAS POSTED ON THE CITY WEBSITE EARLIER THIS MONTH. FOLLOWING TONIGHT'S HEARING, STAFF WILL PRESENT THIS ITEM ALONG WITH PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. SHOULD CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PROPOSED CEQA EXEMPTION AND ZONE CODE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENTS, THAT ORDINANCE WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE OUTSIDE OF THE COASTAL ZONE 30 DAYS AFTER ADOPTION. AFTER CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS THE ORDINANCE, STAFF WILL SUBMIT THE ORDINANCE TO HCD FOR A FINAL REVIEW AND WILL ALSO SUBMIT A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FOR THEIR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE LCPA AND THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT. THESE AMENDMENTS WILL NOT GO INTO EFFECT IN THE COASTAL ZONE UNTIL AFTER COASTAL COMMISSION PROVIDES THEIR APPROVAL. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CEQA EXEMPTION ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR THE 2025 ADU AMENDMENT PROJECT. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. COMMISSIONERS CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. THANK YOU. CHAIR. THANK YOU SHELLY FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. I HAD A CLARIFYING QUESTION. I NOTICED SOME LANGUAGE WAS CHANGED FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO ONE FAMILY. WAS THAT A REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW OR WAS THAT JUST SOMETHING ADDED IN NOW THAT WE'RE PROCESSING THIS CHANGE? CORRECT. THAT WAS A CLEANUP PROVISION. OUR ZONING ORDINANCE REFERS TO ONE FAMILY DWELLING ZONES. SO THAT WAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. OKAY. AND THEN A LAST SECOND CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR REFERRING TO UNCOVERED PARKING SPACES THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE STREET PARKING. CORRECT. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT DRIVEWAY PARKING. ACCESS IS JUST THE UNCOVERED LOTS, NOT STREET PARKING. CORRECT? CORRECT. IT'S UNCOVERED PARKING THAT SERVED THIS THIS SPECIFIC USE FOR THAT FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT. YES. THANK YOU. FURTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. UNDER NUMBER AND LOCATION IT SAYS ADU SHALL BE PERMITTED IN ZONES THAT ALLOW ONE FAMILY UNITS, ETC., ETC.. HOW MANY ADUS ARE ALLOWED ON A ONE FAMILY LOT? SO ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT CODE, THEY IF THEY MEET SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE 66323, [00:20:05] THEY COULD HAVE A 1 JADU, ONE ATTACHED ADU AND ONE DETACHED ADU. SO THAT'S A TOTAL OF THREE 3 OR 2 ADUS AND ONE JADU. SO YOU COULD ACTUALLY. SORRY. SO YOU COULD ACTUALLY HAVE FOUR UNITS ON A PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. IF THEY IF THEY MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THE CRITERIA. AND OKAY, IT DOES TALK ABOUT AN ATTACHED. OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO 4D. AN ATTACHED ADU IS ALLOWED A HEIGHT UP TO 25FT OR THE HEIGHT LIMITS OF THE APPLICABLE ZONING. SO THIS IS WHEN IT'S A SECOND STORY ADU. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ADU. SO D TALKS ABOUT 25, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. SO 25FT WOULD BE THE MAX FOR TWO STORIES. SO GOVERNMENT CODE DOES NOT SPECIFY STORIES, IT ONLY SPECIFIES HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. SO AN ATTACHED ADU IS ALLOWED UP TO A HEIGHT OF 25FT OR THE APPLICABLE ZONING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. SO IF IT DOES, IF IT IF A TWO STORY, IF TWO STORIES CAN BE ACCOMMODATED WITH MEETING THESE MEETING THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT AND THE BUILDING CODE, THEN YES WE CAN ACCOMMODATE TWO STORY. OKAY. MR. LARDY, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS FOR A ZONE SUCH AS R-1 AND, AND AREAS IS EITHER A 30 OR 35 FOOT LIMIT, THE TWO STORIES COULD GO WITHIN THAT AS LONG AS THEY FIT TWO STORIES WITHIN THE HEIGHT OF THE OVERALL ZONE. YEAH. BECAUSE THAT'S I KNOW YOU'RE MORE VERSED IN READING CODE THAN I, SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY IF IT AND I IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT 25FT, BECAUSE SOMETIMES THAT'S A LITTLE TOO TIGHT FOR TWO STORIES IF IT'S AN OPTION. THE OTHER MOVING DOWN TO THE ROOF DECKS. NUMBER FIVE THIS IS IS THIS PART OF A REQUIREMENT? UNDER THE HCD ADU HANDBOOK FOR ROOF DECKS? NO, THIS IS A THIS IS A STANDARD THAT THE CITY HAS REQUESTED OR SPECIFICALLY CITY COUNCIL HAD REQUESTED FOR THE ROOF DECK PROHIBITION WHEN WE BROUGHT FORWARD AN ADU AMENDMENT PROJECT IN 2017. SO THIS IS, AGAIN, TO HELP PROTECT THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORS THAT FOR ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. BUT BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE ADU HANDBOOK, IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE OR NOT HAVE? I MEAN, IS IT SOMETHING WE SHOULD HAVE? IT'S NOT REALLY A CRITERIA. IT WE THINK THE REASONS FOR IT HAVE NOT CHANGED. AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN A POLICY DECISION BY CITY COUNCIL TO REMOVE IT. IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND, THAT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN THEIR PURVIEW. AND WE DO NOT THINK IT WOULD CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW TO REMOVE OR CHANGE THAT. IF THE COMMISSION WAS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE THOUGHT DID CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW REVIEW, WE WOULD CERTAINLY SHARE THAT. BUT THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE CASES. THANK YOU. SO YOU'RE SAYING IT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE ADU HANDBOOK? HCD'S ADU HANDBOOK. CORRECT. WE'RE WE'RE SAYING IT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW TO HAVE THE STANDARD. WE'RE ALSO SAYING REMOVING THIS REQUIREMENT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW. IN OUR OPINION. I'D ASK THE ESTEEMED CITY ATTORNEY IF HE HAD ANY DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. YEAH, I GUESS I'M, YOU KNOW SEEING A SCENARIO WHERE TWO STORY ADUS ARE ALLOWED AND IF IF ACCESS IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE SEPARATE ACCESS IS REQUIRED FOR ADUS, IS THAT ALSO A CORRECT ASSUMPTION? SEPARATE ACCESS IS REQUIRED. BUT WE ARE SEEING ATTACHED A TO USE WITH BOTH SEPARATE ACCESS AND INTERIOR ACCESS. WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS SOME APPLICANTS CHOOSING TO ESSENTIALLY DO AN ADU INSTEAD OF A BACKYARD OR A BACKYARD COULD FIT AND ARE DOING ROOF DECKS INSTEAD OF THAT WHICH DOES STILL HAVE THE SAME EFFECT OF PUTTING A ROOF DECK VERY CLOSE TO PROPERTY LINES. [00:25:06] WHICH REALLY WAS THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S PROHIBITION ON THOSE IS SAFETY AND PRIVACY OF NOT HAVING ROOF DECKS SO CLOSE TO PROPERTY LINES. UNDERSTOOD. I THINK THE, MY FIRST CONCERN IS IT'S NOT PART OF THE HCD ADU HANDBOOK SO I THINK THAT THE THE PROHIBITION IS A CONCERN. BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T ACCESS ADUS IN THE SAME WAY YOU CAN ACCESS THE MAIN HOUSES BECAUSE OF THE BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK OPPORTUNITIES. I GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO IT. I'M CONCERNED THAT MAYBE WE CAN'T GET ACCESS TO THESE ADUS. THAT THAT, I THINK, IS WHAT MY PROBLEM IS WITH THE ROOF DECK. AND THEN, WHEN ARE ADUS SUBJECT TO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING? SO APPLICANTS CAN PROPOSE ADUS TO BE PART OF THEIR PROJECT AND TO ACCOMMODATE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR OTHER, FOR ALL PROJECTS. IT'S ONLY IF THE APPLICANT REQUESTS IT TO BE APPLIED TO THEIR PROJECT. YEAH. AND APOLOGIES IF I COULD JUST SHARE. CITY COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED A CITY COUNCIL POLICY 57, WHICH OUTLINES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. THERE'S CODE, THE 2185 THAT ESTABLISHES INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. POLICY 57 ESTABLISHES ADDITIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE STANDARD REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS ANY PROJECTS OF SEVEN OR MORE UNITS IS REQUIRED TO DO 15% DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THERE ARE CERTAIN CRITERIA WHERE AN ADU COULD BE USED TO SATISFY THAT. THE SHORTER VERSIONS OF IT IS IF THERE'S ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND ONE ADU, THEY COULD DEED RESTRICT THAT TO SATISFY THEIR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEE REQUIREMENTS. OR IF THERE IS A PROJECT OVER 100 UNITS. THERE ARE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE ADUS COULD BE USED TO SATISFY A PORTION OF THEIR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS. SO THOSE ARE THE THE CRITERIA AND THE RULES AS ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL IN THAT POLICY. THANK YOU. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. OTHER COMMISSIONERS, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? OKAY. I'LL OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MINUTES CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS THIS EVENING ON THIS ITEM? NO, CHAIR. WE DO NOT. OKAY. I WILL NOW CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON FROM STAFF? WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM ANY FURTHER FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ITEMS THAT MIGHT CONCERN YOU? OKAY. OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD THEN. SEEING NONE, ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION OR DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER? COMMISSIONER BURROWS. I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS DISCUSSION POINTS. ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS HAVE DISCUSSION POINTS? COMMISSIONER BURROWS. MOTION TO APPROVE A CEQA EXEMPTION ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. OKAY. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BURROWS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MERZ. PLEASE VOTE. UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. I'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER TWO. [2. FORESTER RESIDENCE - CDP 2024-0009 (DEV2020-0111)] COMMISSIONERS ANY EX-PARTE CONVERSATIONS, COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. COMMISSIONER BURROWS DROVE BY THE SITE. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY DROVE BY THE SITE. COMMISSIONER MERTZ. YEAH, I VISITED THE SITE, WALK PART OF IT, AND ACTUALLY DROVE UP THE HILL A LITTLE BIT. ONE OF THE LETTERS WAS ON GAVE THEIR ADDRESS AND IT WAS 4448 HIGHLAND DRIVE. I JUST DROVE UP AROUND TO SEE SO I COULD HAVE A BETTER PERSPECTIVE ON THAT LETTER. SO THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FOSTER. I'VE DRIVEN BY THE SITE. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER, I ALSO DROVE BY THE SITE. MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER TWO? YES. HERE TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION IS ASSOCIATE PLANNER TODD ARNHART. [00:30:02] COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE ITEM NUMBER TWO ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IS THE FORESTER RESIDENTS. IT'S A REQUEST FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ON A 0.53 ACRE LOT AT 4464 ADAMS STREET, EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ADAMS STREET AND HIGHLAND AVENUE, WITHIN THE ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE COASTAL ZONE. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH AN EXISTING 1271 SQUARE FOOT, TWO STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 444 440 SQUARE FOOT DECK. THE PROJECT IS A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 4085 SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 970 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED THREE CAR GARAGE. THE NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS ORIENTED TOWARDS HIGHLAND DRIVE AND WILL INCLUDE THREE BEDROOMS, THREE AND A HALF BATHROOMS AND 1608FT² OF COVERED AND UNCOVERED TERRACE AREAS. THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE HOME AS VIEWED FROM HIGHLAND DRIVE. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE RESIDENCE IS 28FT SIX INCHES. ARCHITECTURALLY, THE NEW RESIDENCE REFLECTS A CRAFTSMAN DESIGN WITH LARGE EAVES, EXPOSED TRUSSES, AND BUILDING MATERIALS SUCH AS STAINED WOOD SIDING AND NATURAL STONE VENEER. THE GARAGE DOOR WILL BE STAINED TO MATCH THE SIDING OF THE HOUSE, WHILE THE DOORS AND WINDOWS WILL BE BLACK STEEL. ALL ROOFS AND PATIO COVERS WILL BE BLACK. STANDING SEAM METAL AND GLASS GUARDRAILS WILL ENCLOSE THE TERRACED AREAS. THIS IS A VIEW SEEN LOOKING NORTH FROM ADAMS STREET TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROJECT SITE. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE EAST ELEVATION. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE WEST ELEVATION. THERE IS A DOWNWARD SLOPE GRADIENT THE NEW RESIDENCE IS BEING BUILT UPON, WHICH MINIMIZES THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE STRUCTURE AS VIEWED FROM HIGHLAND DRIVE. THE PROJECT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 19TH, 2021. HOWEVER, SINCE BUILDING PERMITS WERE NOT ISSUED WITHIN THE REQUIRED 24 MONTH PERIOD FOLLOWING THE APPROVAL, THE ENTITLEMENTS HAVE SINCE EXPIRED. A NEW COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATION WAS PROCESSED AND SCHEDULED FOR PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON NOVEMBER 6TH, 2020, FOR A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP WAS NOTED AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING HAD BEEN PUBLICLY NOTICED, AND THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO A DATE UNCERTAIN. ALL REQUIRED FORMS HAVE BEEN UPDATED WITH THE NEW OWNER INFORMATION, AND THE SAME PROJECT IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY. THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE R-4 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION, THE ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND THE MELLO TWO SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. THE SINGLE STORY WILL NOT OBSTRUCT VIEWS OF THE COASTLINE AS SEEN FROM PUBLIC LANDS OR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, NOR OTHERWISE DAMAGE THE VISUAL VISUAL BEAUTY OF THE COASTAL ZONE. NO SENSITIVE RESOURCES, GEOLOGICAL INSTABILITY, FLOOD HAZARD OR COASTAL ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES EXIST ON SITE. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND FINDS THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO CEQA STATE GUIDELINES SECTION 15303A NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES, WHICH EXEMPTS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. WE DID NOTE THAT WE DID RECEIVE A COMMENT LETTER FROM MR. ALAN SWEET ON TUESDAY THIS WEEK, WITH SIMILAR CONCERNS AS REFERENCED IN HIS PREVIOUS COMMENT LETTER. IT'S INCLUDED AS ONE OF THE EXHIBITS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 6TH, 2020 FOR HEARING CITY STAFF REVISITED THE ISSUE OF LANDSCAPING AND FOUND IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE STANDARD REGULATIONS. FOR THE REASONS SPECIFIED HERE AND IN THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. THIS CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. SAM WRIGHT IS ALSO THE AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT, AND HE'S HERE AS WELL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF, COMMISSIONER BURROWS. THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION, MR. ARNHART. I SAW IN OUR STAFF REPORT, AND I BELIEVE WE RECEIVED A PUBLIC COMMENT RECENTLY AS WELL. A PERMIT CONDITION WAS REMOVED ALONG THE LINES OF DEVELOPERS RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE ALL EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES ARE UNDERGROUND. CAN YOU HELP EXPLAIN THAT? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, JASON GELDERT, ENGINEERING MANAGER, CITY OF CARLSBAD. I'M NOT SURE THE ORIGIN OF THAT CONDITION, BUT IT'S NOT APPLICABLE. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR UNDERGROUNDING FOR A PROJECT SUCH AS THIS. [00:35:04] THE ONLY REQUIREMENT FOR UNDERGROUNDING OF OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY LINES IS WHEN SOMEONE SUBDIVIDES, AND THEY HAVE OVER 600FT OF ROAD FRONTAGE, IT MAY HAVE BEEN MIXED UP WITH THERE IS A REQUIREMENT, THOUGH, ON A NEW BUILDING THAT THE ELECTRICAL SERVICE BE UNDERGROUND FROM THE POLE TO THE, TO THE HOUSE, SO THAT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A MIX UP THERE, BUT IT DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS CASE. THANK YOU. SO FOR CLARIFICATION THEN, MR. GELDERT, THEN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IT WILL BE UNDERGROUND ON THE PROPERTY FROM THE POLE TO THE SERVICE ON THE BUILDING. THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BURROWS. ANYTHING FURTHER? OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER MERTZ? YEAH. AND THE PUBLIC COMMENTS? THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT, LIKE, THE LANDSCAPING ALONG HIGHLAND VIEW. I TRIED TO SEE IT ON THE PLAN IN THE PACKET. I COULDN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE OF THAT. COULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT A LITTLE BIT? OR IF YOU HAD ANY? JUST IT JUST SEEMED TO BE SOMETHING THAT CAME UP IN PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS A LITTLE HARD TO TO TELL THE FROM THE TREE PLANTINGS. AND I THINK A COUPLE LAYERS THAT SHOWED UP IN. SO, YEAH, SURE. THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ALONG HIGHLAND DRIVE ABOUT SOME OF THE STREET TREES THAT WERE BEING PLANTED. THE STREET TREES THAT ARE BEING PLANTED ARE STRAWBERRY TREE AND THEY MEET THE CITY'S REQUIREMENT. THERE WAS AN ISSUE, A COMMENT ABOUT MODERATE USE OF WATER. THESE ARE ACTUALLY LOW, LOW USE WATER TREES. THAT WAS THAT WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE WITH TALKING WITH THE LANDSCAPE REVIEWER HAD COMMENTED THAT THAT WAS AN ERROR AT THAT POINT. AND SO ACTUALLY THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF WATERING THEIR BELOW THE WATER USE THAT'S ALLOWED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. AND IT ALSO MEETS THE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS IN TERMS OF OF THE PLANTING AND THE TREES. THE STREET TREES ARE ACTUALLY PART OF THE STREET TREE PLAN. THEY ARE ACTUALLY COVERED AS THEY WERE LISTED IN THE STREET TREE PLAN FOR THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. THANK YOU. AND THEN SO THE CONCERN THAT THE THE CONCERN IN THE LETTERS WAS THAT MORE WAS ABOUT HEIGHT OR WHAT WAS WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCERN? WAS IT MORE WATER HEIGHT OR WHAT WAS THAT? THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT PUBLIC VIEWS ALONG HIGHLAND DRIVE. AND HIGHLAND DRIVE IS NOT IT'S NOT A PROTECTED VIEW. THE CITY, THE PRIVATE PROPERTY HAS THE RIGHT TO INSTALL LANDSCAPING AND IT DOES MEET THE CITY STANDARD. SO THERE WASN'T ANY CONFLICT. AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS JUST A IT WAS A COMMENT THAT BECAUSE IT WAS A PUBLIC ROADWAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I'LL JUST ADD ON THAT IS FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THAT REVIEWED THIS IS THIS SITE DOES HAVE A LOT OF FRONTAGE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY LOT. JUST GIVEN THE TRIANGULAR SHAPE. SO THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PUT IN SOME OF THESE TREES TO MEET OUR STREET TREE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. SO OTHER LOTS THAT HAVE A MORE RECTANGULAR SHAPE OR LOT UNITS ON EITHER SIDE OF THEM MIGHT HAVE LESS FRONTAGE AND HAVE A LESS REQUIREMENT FOR TREE FRONTAGE. THANK YOU. YEAH, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS AS WELL AS IN REGARD TO THE VIEW. SO THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MERTZ, IN REGARD TO THAT. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. YEAH, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, BECAUSE THE LINES WERE POTENTIALLY GOING TO BE UNDERGROUND AND WE'RE PLANTING TREES THAT ARE PRETTY TALL. MY CONCERN IS ACTUALLY FIRE SAFETY. SO TREES GROWING 25 TO 40FT AS I THINK THE PLAN'S LISTED. IF THE MAP IF YOU WANT TO PULL UP THE MAP. BUT IT SAID UP TO UPWARDS OF 25 30FT. NOW THAT THEY'RE SO CLOSE TO THE UTILITY POLES, IS THERE ANY FIRE CONCERN OR OUTAGE CONCERN? GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TREES PLANTED AND THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF UTILITY POLES. YEAH, IF YOU GO BACK ONE, ACTUALLY, THERE WAS WHERE THOSE CIRCLES WERE. SO OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT IS A REVIEWER ON THE PROJECT. AND HAD THEY HAD HAD CONCERNS ABOUT FIRE SAFETY, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD HAVE LISTED. HOWEVER, THERE WASN'T CONCERNS WITH WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AS IT'S CURRENTLY PROPOSED. AND WHEN THEY REVIEWED IT, WAS IT AFTER WE KIND OF SCRATCHED THE UNDERGROUND WIRES? OR WAS IT BEFORE THAT IT WAS. OH, THEY WOULD HAVE REVIEWED IT WITH THE POWER POLES IN PLACE. THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM TO SPECIFICALLY LOCATE THE TREES OR WOULDN'T BE INTERFERENCE WITH THE LINES. SO THIS THIS IS MORE OF A CONCEPTUAL PLAN, BUT AT ACTUAL PLANTINGS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED WHERE WE'RE NOT GOING TO PLANT THE TREE RIGHT BELOW THE POWER [00:40:08] LINE OR WHERE IT'LL INTERFERE. OKAY, THERE, THERE'S ROOM IN THE RIGHT OF WAY TO MOVE THE TREES AROUND. OKAY. AND THEN JUST FOLLOW UP TO THAT QUESTION. I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM MY UNDERSTANDING. THESE ARE BEING BUILT, NOT ON THE PROPERTY. THEY'LL BE ON CITY PROPERTY. AND I DID READ SOMEWHERE ABOUT TREE PLANTING. AND IS THERE ANOTHER PERMIT OR KIND OF REVIEW THAT GETS DONE BY THE PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR FOR THE TREE PLANTING? I CAN PULL UP THE SITE, BUT I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM IF IT'S ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND IF THAT KIND OF DUE DILIGENCE CHECK WAS DONE. SO OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, DOES REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS FOR STREET TREES PER OUR LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND MAKE SURE THEY MEET THAT. PARKS AND REC WILL REVIEW NOT, THEY DON'T REVIEW QUITE ALL OF THEM. BUT IF THEY WILL GET INVOLVED, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING TREES BUT AS FAR AS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS THAT'S MET, THAT'S OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WILL MAKE SURE. I'M NOT SURE IF PARKS REVIEWED THIS SPECIFICALLY, BUT IT DOES MEET ALL OUR REQUIREMENTS. OKAY, SO I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION TOO, AS TO ON THE HIGHLAND DRIVE THE TREES DID STAFF WAS STAFF INVOLVED? AS TO THE NUMBER OF TREES AND THE DISTANCE FROM EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE TREES IN REGARD TO I KNOW THE CONCERNED NEIGHBOR WAS ASKING THAT QUESTION AS WELL IN REGARD TO HAVING A VIEW CORRIDOR IN SOME FASHION BETWEEN TREES, ETC.. SO THOSE LANDSCAPE PLANS ARE REVIEWED PER OUR LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND OUR STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS. SO THEY DO MEET THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS. AS FAR AS THOSE SPECIFICS, I'M NOT SURE. BUT I DO KNOW THAT THE NUMBER OF TREES MEETS OUR REQUIREMENTS. AND I THINK CITY PLANNER LARDY MENTIONED. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THAT THERE'S EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF FRONTAGE ON THIS LOT. SO THEY DID HAVE QUITE A FEW TREES THAT NEED TO BE PLANTED. GREAT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. ARE SIDEWALKS GOING TO BE PROVIDED ON THIS CORNER? NO, THEY WON'T BE. SO THE ON HIGHLAND DRIVE, THAT'S AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREET. SO THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED. AND ACTUALLY, IT'S A SEPARATE PROCESS FOR IMPROVING THAT STREET. AND THEN ON ADAMS STREET, THAT DESIGN MEETS. THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED PLANS FOR THAT STREET. AND ON THE SIDE ON THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROJECT THAT'S JUST REQUIRES SOME GRADING AND SOME STREET WIDENING. YEAH, THAT'S A PROBLEM BECAUSE IT'S A BLIND CORNER. IT'S REALLY HARD TO SEE AROUND THAT AREA. A LOT OF PEOPLE WALK THERE. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THIS IS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS AREA SAFER BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE WANTS TO WALK ON THE LAGOON AND THEY CAN'T. SO YOU KNOW, AND I, I'VE BEEN BY IT A FEW TOO MANY TIMES TO NEAR MISS A LOT OF PEOPLE TRYING TO WALK IN THIS AREA. AND SO I DO THINK THAT THAT'S A REAL CHALLENGE. THE OTHER THING CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE DRAWING THAT HAS THE 30FT UP ON THE ELEVATION WHERE THE LINE WAS DRAWN? YEAH. IS IT THIS ONE? NO, IT'S THE NEXT ONE. THIS ONE? THE ONE AT THE TOP. SO THIS IS SHOWING THE 30FT. SO ACTUALLY FROM THE BUILDING LINE UP IN THE EAST ELEVATION, TECHNICALLY THE BUILDING COULD BE THIS TALL. CORRECT. WHERE THE DOTTED LINE IS SHOWING THE 30FT. YES. THAT'S CORRECT. SO SO THE 28FT IS HAPPENING WHERE THE 28FT, SIX INCHES IS AT THE VERY TOP OF THE ROOF LINE. OKAY. AND IT'S ALSO THE 30 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. OKAY. SO BUT THE DOTTED LINE THAT SHOWS ON THE VERY RIGHT HAND SIDE SHOWS THAT 30FT AND THIS WHOLE VOLUME COULD BE 30FT, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO GO WITH THE GRADE. IS THAT HOW WE'RE UNDERSTANDING THIS PLAN. MR. LARDY. SO THAT THAT LINE IS SHOWING THE GRADE AND IT SHOWS THE GRADE DOWN FROM HIGHLAND TO ADAMS. IT COULD GO UP TO THAT 30FT AS LONG AS THERE WAS A 3 TO 12 ROOF PITCH. AND SO OR THE HEIGHT LIMIT WOULD BE 24FT, WHICH ISN'T SPECIFICALLY ON THERE, BUT THE ROOF AS PROPOSED DOES HAVE THAT BUILT INTO IT. AND FURTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD ONE QUESTION. [00:45:02] GLOBAL COMMENT ON GETTING SEQUA. I KNOW SEQUA WAS ALREADY APPROVED. ARE THERE ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH CEQA WOULD BE RE REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OR ANY ADDENDUMS COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OR BECAUSE THIS HAS KIND OF BEEN EXEMPT AND SIGNED OFF? WE KIND OF NEVER KICK IT BACK. JUST CURIOUS ABOUT IF THERE'S ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THAT WOULD HAPPEN. THIS PROJECT IS UNIQUE IN THAT THE CEQA EXEMPTION WAS ISSUED UNDER THE PREVIOUS PROCESS, AND SO THERE WAS NOT THE ABILITY TO RE REFER THAT BACK TO THE CITY PLANNER. THERE COULD BE CASES UNDER THE NEW PROCESS, EITHER THROUGH TIERING OR IF CITY COUNCIL HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION WHERE THERE COULD BE A CEQA EITHER EXEMPTION ADDENDUM OR OTHER PROJECT REFERRED BACK FOR CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD REFER AND POTENTIALLY MAKE A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION ON A SEQUEL FINDING THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING REFER THAT BACK TO STAFF. GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? I THINK NO, NO. ALL RIGHT. I'LL NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MINUTES CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SLIPS? NO, CHAIR. WE DO NOT. ALL RIGHT. THEREFORE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. THEREFORE, ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? COMMISSIONER BURROWS AGAIN. MOTION TO APPROVE PROJECT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BURROWS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MERZ. PLEASE VOTE. CONGRATULATIONS. SEVEN ZERO. I'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE A REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS AT ALL? [COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTARY AND REQUESTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS] ANY REPORTS OF ANY SORT? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. SO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MET LAST WEEK ON MONDAY AND CREATED A OR CREATED A MILLS ACT AD HOC, AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE TO BE ABLE TO HELP PROMOTE THE MILLS ACT. A HISTORIC PLAQUE WAS ACTUALLY REQUESTED FOR THE FOUR STAGES HISTORY MURAL AT THE 3110 ROOSEVELT STREET AT THE CIRCLE K DOWNTOWN IN THE BARRIO. AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY, UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. THE MURAL HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THE EARLY 80S, AND WAS THE SITE OF A VERY IMPORTANT DIA DE LOS MUERTOS TRIBUTE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVER THE BEGINNING OF, AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MONTH. AND THEN THEY APPROVED THEIR REGULAR CALENDAR AND APPOINTED NEW CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME TO OUR ATTENTION WAS THE PROPERTY OF CONCERN, WHICH IS THE, IT'S THEY COVER MEYER CAP HOUSE, AND I'M TRYING TO SEE IF IT'S IN THIS BUT IT IT'S UNDERGOING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. I UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW. AND A HISTORIC REPORT HAS BEEN A DRAFT HISTORIC REPORT HAS BEEN ISSUED. BUT THE IT'S ON HIGHLAND DRIVE AND IT'S AN ACRE LOT. AND THE QUEEN ANNE STYLE HOUSE WAS BUILT BY ALONZO CULVER, WHO ACTUALLY WAS THE DEVELOPER FOR THE TWIN INNS. SO THE WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THE PREVIOUS OWNERS HAD REQUESTED THAT THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE REMAIN A HISTORIC PROPERTY FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, BECAUSE MUCH OF THE SAME VOCABULARY, VICTORIAN VOCABULARY THAT'S IN THE TWIN INNS IN THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE. BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED TO BE DEMOLISHED. SO WE'LL WAIT AND SEE WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE. BUT THIS IS A PROPERTY OF CONCERN FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, AND HOPEFULLY COULD BE PRESERVED, BUT BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO AND IT'S PRIVATELY OWNED, THAT'S SOME OF THE CONCERNS, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD QUALIFY FOR MILLS ACT. [00:50:02] EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. THAT'S REALLY APPRECIATIVE HAVING YOU SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH US. COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS, REPORTS? NOTHING. CITY PLANNER. YES. THANK YOU. WE'LL BE LOOKING TO CANCEL THE DECEMBER 3RD MEETING. BUT WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF ITEMS FOR THE DECEMBER 17TH MEETING. SO IF THOSE STAY ON SCHEDULE, WE'LL BE HOLDING THAT. WE ALSO DO HAVE A FEW ITEMS ON DECK FOR JANUARY 7TH, BUT LIKELY LOOKING TO CANCEL THE JANUARY 21ST MEETING. AS FAR AS CITY COUNCIL REPORTS, CITY COUNCIL HEARD AND TOOK ACTION ON THE BARON SIGN MODIFICATION LAST EVENING. THEY ADOPTED, IN PART, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT DID MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE LETTERING AND ONE OF THE SIGNS THEY REMOVED AS PART OF THEIR ACTION. AND NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS DECEMBER 2ND, AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT REZONE PROGRAM WILL BE ON THAT AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION. IF APPROVED, THAT WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL AGAIN ON DECEMBER 9TH FOR APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AND THEN WOULD BE IN EFFECT AFTER COASTAL COMMISSION TAKES ACTION EXPECTED IN FEBRUARY OF NEXT YEAR. SO THAT WOULD BE THE CONCLUSION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT REZONE PROGRAM FOR THOSE SITES IN THE COASTAL ZONE THAT THIS GROUP APPROVED ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO. MR. LARDY, COULD YOU CLARIFY THE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN REGARD TO WHAT MODIFICATIONS THEY MADE TO THE BARONS? YES. WHAT SIGN WAS IT ON THE BUILDING? WAS IT THE ONE OF THE WALL SIGNS? THE SIGN THAT WOULD BE FACING MADISON WAS REMOVED, AND THEN THE LETTERING OF THE REMAINING WALL SIGN WAS REDUCED TO 18FT, 18IN. THANK YOU. MR. ATTORNEY. NOTHING FROM ME. THANK YOU. OKAY. EXCELLENT. PLANNING COMMISSION STANDS ADJOURNED AT EXACTLY 5:52. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.