Jan 21, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting

[00:00:01]

WHERE DO YOU GO? GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE

[CALL TO ORDER]

MR. CLERK, WOULD YOU TAKE THE ROLL, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BURROWS. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

HERE. LET THE RECORD SHOW COMMISSIONER MERZ IS ABSENT.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER. HERE. VICE CHAIR HUBINGER.

HERE. CHAIR MEENES. PRESENT. 6 COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT WITH COMMISSIONER MERTZ ABSENT.

PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

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.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 17TH, 2025 MEETING.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

WE HAVE A MOTION. COMMISSIONER BURROWS MAKES THE MOTION.

MOTION. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. HUBINGER MAKES THE SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. FOR APPROVE AND TO ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONER, FOSTER AND LAFFERTY WERE ABSENT FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

[PUBLIC COMMENT]

REQUEST FORMS MUST BE TURNED IN TO HER PRIOR TO COMMENCING OF THE ITEM.

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

SPEAKERS MAY NOT BE GIVEN TIME TO ANOTHER PERSON.

GROUP TIMES WILL BE PERMITTED FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA.

REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE IDENTIFIED BY THE GROUP, AND AT LEAST 3 MEMBERS OF THE GROUP MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE MEETING FOR THE PRESENTATION TO BE MADE. THOSE SPEAKERS ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP HAVE 10 MINUTES.

UNLESS THE TIME IS CHANGED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.

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

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

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY PROVIDING COMMENTS AS PROVIDED IN 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 WILL BE HEARD AT THE END OF THE MEETING IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT.

NO ACTIONS CAN OCCUR ON THOSE ITEMS. MINUTES.

CLERK. DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS FOR NON-AGENDA? PUBLIC COMMENT. DO WE HAVE 1? OKAY.

I'M SORRY. PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM AND PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND THE SPEAKERS WILL WILL BE PROVIDED BY OUR MINUTES.

CLERK. A GREEN LIGHT MEANS YOU MAY SPEAK. YELLOW MEANS THAT ONE MINUTE REMAINING AND RED MEANS THE TIME HAS EXPIRED.

SINCE ITEMS BROUGHT UP UNDER THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

NOT LISTED ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. THE COMMISSION IS PREVENTED BY LAW FROM DISCUSSING OR TAKING ACTION ON THESE ITEMS. BEFORE YOU BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE WAIT FOR THAT ITEM TO BE OPEN FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

YOUR NAME PLEASE. GOOD EVENING, STEVE LINKE CARLSBAD HERE ON BEHALF OF EQUITABLE LAND USE ALLIANCE.

RECENT STATE LAWS USURPED CITY'S RIGHTS TO IMPOSE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON DEVELOPMENTS, SO-CALLED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. BONUS PROJECTS ANYWHERE IN THE CITY HAVE REDUCED MINIMUMS UNDER THE DUBIOUS RATIONALE THAT RESIDENTS OF HIGHER DENSITY PROJECTS ALWAYS HAVE LOWER INDIVIDUAL VEHICLE OWNERSHIP, NO MATTER THEIR LOCATION, AND BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECTS WITHIN ONE HALF MILE OF OUR TRAIN STATIONS HAVE NO MINIMUM 0 PARKING REQUIRED. UNDER THE DUBIOUS RATIONALE THAT RESIDENTS, GUESTS, EMPLOYEES AND CUSTOMERS OF THESE PROJECTS CAN RELY 100% ON OUR TRANSIT SYSTEM, SUCH AS IT IS. AT LEAST 2 PROJECTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED IN CARLSBAD WITH REDUCED PARKING, INCLUDING ONE THAT PROVIDED 0 PARKING FOR ITS COMMERCIAL COMPONENT.

AND THERE ARE MORE SUCH PROJECTS IN THE CURRENT REVIEW PIPELINE AND MORE ARE UNDOUBTEDLY ON THE WAY.

THE UNFORTUNATE REALITY, THOUGH, IS THAT USERS OF THESE PROJECTS WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT HAVE REDUCED VEHICLE OWNERSHIP, AND THEY WILL END UP USING ALREADY SCARCE PREEXISTING PARKING IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.

[00:05:03]

PARKING PROGRAMS EXIST IN MANY CITIES AROUND CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING ENCINITAS AND OTHERS.

THEY HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE PAST IN CARLSBAD AS WELL.

TYPICALLY, WHEN PARKING SPACE VACANCY REACHES A CRITICAL POINT, SUCH AS LESS THAN 15%, A NEIGHBORHOOD CAN REQUEST A PERMIT PROGRAM AND IMPLEMENT IT IF CONSENSUS IS REACHED. IF A DEVELOPER TRULY BELIEVES THAT THEIR PROJECT WILL BE VIABLE WITH RESTRICTION TO REDUCED ON SITE PARKING.

THEN THE STATE'S RATIONALE AND GOAL OF REDUCED VEHICLE OWNERSHIP CAN BE FULFILLED.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF A DEVELOPER FEELS THAT IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO MARKET THEIR PROJECT WITH DISCLOSURE THAT OFFSITE PARKING MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE, THEN THEY ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION OF PROVIDING THE CITY'S MINIMUM INSTEAD.

THE PROPOSED CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WE SUBMITTED THROUGH LETTER IS A COMMON SENSE APPROACH.

SHOULD CARLSBAD CREATE PARKING PERMIT PROGRAMS IN THE FUTURE? BUT IT IS CRUCIAL TO START INCLUDING IT IMMEDIATELY AS MORE AND MORE DEVELOPERS SUBMIT THEIR REDUCED PARKING PROJECTS, NOT WAIT FOR ANY PARKING, STUDY OR PROGRAM TO BE COMPLETED, WHICH COULD TAKE YEARS.

SO I KNOW THE STATE HAS REALLY TAKEN AWAY A LOT OF YOUR POWER TO REVIEW PROJECTS, BUT THIS IS ONE AREA WHERE WE THINK THAT YOU CAN STILL DO SOMETHING, AND YOU'LL BE DOING IT IN SUPPORT OF THE STATE GOAL OF REDUCED VEHICLE OWNERSHIP, BUT ALSO SAVING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS FROM PARKING OVERREACH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. LINKE. MISS CLARK, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. NO, CHAIR. WE DO NOT. THANK YOU. IF EVERYONE WOULD DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN, I'LL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMISSION THAT WILL FOLLOW IN TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPEN.

STAFF WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION. PLANNING COMMISSION MAY ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF.

THE APPLICANTS WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION AND RESPOND TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.

THEY'LL HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION.

THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE OPEN. A TIME LIMIT OF 3 MINUTES IS ALLOTTED TO EACH SPEAKER.

AFTER ALL, THOSE WANTING TO SPEAK HAVE DONE SO, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE CLOSED.

THE APPLICANT AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THOSE ISSUES OR QUESTIONS THAT ARE RAISED.

THE COMMISSIONERS WILL DISCUSS THE ITEM AND THEN VOTE ON IT.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL THEN BE CLOSED. CERTAIN PUBLIC PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ARE FINAL BUT MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

YOU'LL FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE BACK OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

I'LL NOW OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1 1ST, BEFORE WE DO SO.

[1. RESORT VIEW APARTMENTS -0012 / HDP2024-000]

I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. COMMISSIONER BURROWS DROVE BY THE SITE.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY LOOKED IT UP ON GOOGLE MAPS.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER FAMILIAR WITH SITE.COMMISSIONER HUBINGER FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND I HAVE DRIVEN BY THE SITE AND AND WALKED THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER ON THE SIDEWALKS.

MR. LORDI, WILL YOU PLEASE PLEASE INTRODUCE THE ITEM? YES. THANK YOU. HERE TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION FOR RESORT VIEW APARTMENTS IS DIRECTOR MIKE STRONG.

THANK YOU, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LARDY. AND GOOD EVENING.

PLANNING COMMISSION. THE DETAILS OF THIS REQUEST INCLUDES THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT 26 NEW APARTMENT UNITS ON THE WEST SIDE OF VIA CASTILLO, BETWEEN NAVARRO DRIVE AND PIRINEUS WAY.

THE PROJECT SITE IS SURROUNDED BY EXISTING MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS TO THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST, AND TO THE GOLF COURSE TO THE IMMEDIATE SOUTH.

THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS WERE ESTABLISHED AND BUILT AT A TYPICALLY HIGHER DENSITY, APPROXIMATELY 20 TO 30 UNITS PER ACRE, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.

THE PROJECT SITE CONSISTS OF 2 VACANT LOTS THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRADED.

IT MEASURES ABOUT 0.86 ACRES. THE SITE HAS R 23 RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MULTIPLE, WHICH ALLOWS MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF 3, 3 STORY BUILDINGS, 2, 4 STORY BUILDINGS WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 50FT AND 6 INCHES.

THE SITE DESIGN CONSISTS OF 5 SEPARATE BUILDINGS TOTALING 39,000FT².

THE APPLICATION IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SOMETHING CALLED STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, WHICH IS IN THE GOVERNMENT CODE OR THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF REGULATIONS, WHICH ALLOWS ADDITIONAL BENEFITS AND INCENTIVES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

[00:10:02]

THE AMENITIES OF THE PROJECT INCLUDE A 1ST FLOOR COMMUNITY WORKOUT AREA, OUTDOOR BARBECUES AND SEATING AREAS, A FIRE PIT, LOUNGE, WATER FEATURE, A WET BAR FOR ENTERTAINMENT.

THE PROPOSED EARTHWORK CONSISTS OF 4000YD³ OF CUT, 500YD³ OF FILL, AND 3500YD³ OF EXPORT.

BUILDING A AND BUILDING B ARE THE 2 BUILDINGS ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE, WHICH IS REPRESENTED ON THE THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE THE LOT ON THE SCREEN. BUILDING A CONSISTS OF THREE UNITS.

THOSE ARE THE 3 BEDROOM UNIT THREE BATHROOM UNIT MODEL.

SAME WITH THE BUILDING B EACH OF THOSE UNITS RANGE FROM 1900 SQUARE FEET TO 2200FT².

BUILDING C AND BUILDING D, WHICH ARE LOCATED IN THE CENTER OR INTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY MEASURES 10,300FT².

THOSE ALSO CONSIST OF 3 BEDROOM, 3 BATHROOM UNITS.

THE SIZE AND FOOTPRINT OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL UNITS ARE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER AND ARE APPROXIMATELY 1700 SQUARE FEET.

AND THEN BUILDING E, WHICH IS ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE, CONSISTS OF 8 UNITS.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE SINGLE BEDROOM AND 2 BEDROOM UNITS ARE LOCATED.

THE SINGLE BEDROOM UNITS ARE APPROXIMATELY 500 600FT², WHILE THE 2 BEDROOM ARE 900 TO 1000FT².

STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW IS CODIFIED UNDER THE 65915 SECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.

IT ALLOWS DEVELOPMENT TO INCREASE DENSITY, WHICH IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMES ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY THE LOCAL JURISDICTION ALLOWS REDUCTIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THOSE INCLUDE HEIGHT STANDARDS WITH SETBACKS WHEN THOSE STANDARDS PREVENT ACHIEVING THE DENSITY ALLOWED PER STATE LAW.

IT ALSO SPECIFIES A CERTAIN NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS THAT MUST BE RESERVED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE PROJECT SITE, AT 23 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IS JUST UNDER 20 DWELLING UNITS.

IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT 20 UNITS, THE APPLICANT IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE DENSITY BONUS.

THE DENSITY BONUS IS A COMPUTATION OF THE. THE COMPUTATIONS ARE ALL ROUNDED UP, AS OPPOSED TO SOME CALCULATIONS THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE ROUNDED DOWN. THE UNDER THE SECTION F OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE 65915, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 15% OF THE BASE UNITS TO BE RESERVED AS LOW INCOME, WHICH ENTITLES THE APPLICANT UP TO A 27.5 DENSITY BONUS.

25 7.5% OF THE 20 BASE UNITS YIELDS 6 ADDITIONAL UNITS.

THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.

SO THAT IS THE DETAILS OF THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST.

THERE ARE ALSO OTHER INCENTIVES AND OPPORTUNITIES TO FACILITATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS A COMPONENT UNDER DENSITY BONUS LAW IN THE FORM OF INCENTIVES AND CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING INCENTIVE AND CONCESSION AS ANNOTATED IN EXHIBIT 3 OF THE STAFF REPORT.

THE INCENTIVE CONCESSION INCLUDES THE WAIVER OF THE OR A REDUCED STANDARD OF THE CITY-WIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE PARAPETS TO BE CAPPED AND PRECAST TREATMENT. CONTINUOUS BANDING, PROTECTING CORNICES, DENTILS, OR OTHER SIMILAR EDGE TREATMENTS.

THERE ARE ALSO OTHER WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROPOSED.

THE FIRST 2 RELATE TO PROVISIONS WITHIN THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.

THE 1ST 1 IS THE RDM ZONE, WHICH SPECIFIES A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35FT.

THE DETAILS OF THE REQUEST INCLUDE 3, 3 STORY BUILDINGS.

THOSE MEASURE APPROXIMATELY 31FT AND 4 INCHES WHEN ACCOUNTING FOR THE PARAPET AND MECHANICAL WELLS.

IT GOES UP TO 36 37FT. BUILDING C AND BUILDING D HAS A ENVELOPE UP TO 46, ALMOST 47FT.

AND THEN WHEN ACCOUNTING FOR THE PARAPETS AND MECHANICAL WALLS AND IN ADDITION, ANY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE OVER FOUR STORIES ABOVE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE AN ELEVATOR THAT REACHES THE MAXIMUM FEET OF 50FT 6 INCHES. THE OTHER PROVISION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE THAT IS SEEKING RELIEF IS THE ACCURATE STAIRS THAT ARE ENCROACHING MORE THAN 2 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK.

[00:15:01]

ONE IS FOR THE PRIVATE RECREATIONAL SPACE TO BE A MINIMUM OF 6 FEET IN ANY DIRECTION.

FOR THOSE UNITS THAT ARE UNABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE 6 FEET IN ANY DIRECTION, THERE ARE 2 BALCONIES PROPOSED.

THE OTHER PROVISION PERTAINS TO THE UPPER FLOOR AREA OCCUPYING NO MORE THAN 90% OF THE GROUND FLOOR AREA.

AND THAT'S TO PROVIDE SOME ESTHETIC RELIEF OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE.

SO THE UPPER STORY MASSING DOES NOT MATCH THAT BELOW IT.

AND IN THIS CASE IT DOES OCCUPY THE FULL AREA BELOW.

THERE IS ANOTHER PROVISION UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW THAT AUTOMATICALLY AFFORDS SOME PARKING REDUCED PARKING RATIOS FOR DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS.

CITY STAFF RECEIVED THE APPLICATION AND INITIALLY REVIEWED IT AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 2144 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH REQUIRES ONE AND A HALF SPACES PER 1 BEDROOM AND 2 SPACES PER FOR EACH TWO BEDROOM AND THREE BEDROOM UNIT.

THERE'S ALSO PROVISION FOR GUEST PARKING FOR ANY PROJECT THAT PROVIDES MORE THAN 11 DWELLING UNITS, WHICH IS PROJECT DOES IN TOTAL. THE PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE 50 PARKING SPACES AS BASE UNITS AND ANOTHER ADDITIONAL 7 PARKING SPACES FOR GUESTS UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. AND THIS IS THE SUBDIVISION P OF THAT GOVERNMENT CODE 65915.

REQUIRES NO MORE THAN 1 SPACE PER1 BEDROOM, 1 AND A HALF SPACES PER 2 BEDROOM AND 3 BEDROOM.

AND THAT SUBDIVISION P OF THAT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION STIPULATES THOSE ARE THE MINIMUM PARKING RATIOS THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO A DENSITY BONUS PROJECT.

AND IT FURTHER EXPLAINS THAT NO ON STREET PARKING CAN PROVIDE CAN BE USED TO SATISFY THAT REQUIREMENT.

SO UNDER THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, WHICH AMENDS EFFECTIVELY OR MODIFIES THE THE STANDARDS PROVIDED BY LOCAL CODE, THIS PROJECT REQUIRES 37 PARKING SPACES. THE PROJECT PROVIDES 49 SPACES, WHICH NEARLY MEETS THE BASE REQUIREMENT FOR UNDER THE RDM ZONE.

THE ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS PROVIDE 3 DIFFERENT TREATMENTS FOR 3 OF THE BUILDING SETS.

SO BUILDINGS A AND B ARE REPRESENTED BY THIS ILLUSTRATION, AND THEN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER IS THE VIEW THAT WOULD BE PRESENT FROM THE GOLF COURSE. SO THIS IS THE ELEVATION THAT IS FACING TO THE SOUTH.

THERE IS A BLENDED MIX OF DIFFERENT DESIGN TREATMENTS ON EACH OF THE BUILDINGS, WHICH PROVIDE A UNIFORM APPEARANCE.

INCLUDING STUCCO, SMOOTH FINISH WITH A WHITE AND GRAY DIFFERENT TOUCHES WITH ACCENT COLORS.

THERE IS ALUMINUM AND METAL ACCENTS. AND THEN THERE'S STONE VENEERS, RECTANGULAR WHITE TILES AND GRAY STONE VENEER.

BUILDINGS B AND C, WHICH ARE THEN THE TIER OF THE PROPERTY.

ARE REPRESENTED ON, ON THIS PARTICULAR SIDE THE IMAGE ON THE TOP LEFT IS WHAT WOULD BE VIEWED FROM THE STREET VIA CASTILLO WAY. AND THE 3RD BUILDING, BUILDING E, WHICH IS THE BUILDING TO THE NORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE SHOWS THE DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS VIEWED FROM DIFFERENT VANTAGE POINTS ON THE PROPERTY.

THE IMAGE ON THE TOP RIGHT IS THE IMAGE THAT WILL BE VIEWED FROM THE EXISTING SURROUNDING COMMUNITY TO THE NORTH.

TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT'S PROCESSING AN ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION NEEDS TO BE MADE BEFORE THE AGENCY DECIDES TO CARRY OUT OR UNDERTAKE A PARTICULAR PROJECT. THIS PROJECT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

NOT ONLY IN THE TYPOLOGY. USED TO PROVIDE THE CLEARANCE, BUT ALSO THAT THERE'S 2 SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CLEARANCES BEING PROVIDED.

SO EACH HAVE CAN SURVIVE ON THEIR OWN, WHICH MEANS IF THE DECISION MAKING BODY FEELS THAT ONE CLEARANCE IS INVALIDATED OR NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT, THE OTHER DETERMINATION COULD STILL BE APPLIED TO THE PROJECT AND ALLOW THE PROJECT TO PROCEED FORWARD.

BOTH SECTIONS, THE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION OR CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, THE 15168 AND THE 15183 DO REQUIRE CERTAIN FINDINGS AND CRITERIA, WHICH I'LL I'LL WALK THROUGH ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

BUT THE SUBSTANTIATION OR THE RATIONALE TO SUPPORT THE USE OF BOTH OF THOSE CLEARANCES ARE PROVIDED IN AN EXHIBIT TO THE STAFF REPORT.

SO IT USES A COMMON CHECKLIST. IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THE 15138 CLEARANCE THE PROJECT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DENSITY ESTABLISHED BY THE EXISTING ZONING OR THE GENERAL PLAN.

[00:20:07]

THE PROJECT REQUEST AND SCOPE IS NEARLY IDENTICAL TO THE PROJECT THAT'S BEING ADVANCED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY.

THAT PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED IN FEBRUARY 2020 ALSO INCLUDED THE SAME DENSITY.

BONUS REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM THE MUNICIPAL CODE IN PARTICULAR TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT.

THE BUILDING HEIGHT ENVELOPE WAS THE EXACT SAME AS THE PRIOR PROJECT APPROVAL AS WAS THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE STAIRWELL INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.

THERE ARE ALSO NO PROJECTS SPECIFIC EFFECTS WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROJECT OR ITS SITE.

THERE ARE NO PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPACTS WHICH THE GENERAL PLAN ER, FAILED TO ANALYZE AS SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS.

THERE ARE NO POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT OFFSITE OR AND OR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WHICH THE GENERAL PLAN ER FAILED TO EVALUATE.

AND THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIAL NEW INFORMATION OR RESULTS IN MORE SEVERE IMPACTS THAN WHAT WAS ANTICIPATED BY THAT GENERAL PLAN.

AS LONG AS THE AGENCY CAN MAKE A FACT BASED FINDING THAT THE THIS PARTICULAR CLEARANCE APPLIES.

AND IT'S NOT DEFEATED BY ANY OF THOSE EXCEPTIONS THAT I PREVIOUSLY WENT THROUGH INCLUDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY PECULIAR IMPACT THAT HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY EVALUATED IN THE THAT EXEMPTION CAN BE USED.

LATER ACTIVITIES WITHIN A PROGRAM ER WHICH RELATES TO THE 15168 SECTION OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS OR GUIDELINES IS EXAMINED IN LIGHT OF WHAT THE PROGRAM ER WAS USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT CAN BE PREPARED.

AND FOR THAT PURPOSE THE CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15162 AND 1564 IS USED AS THE METRIC TO MEASURE WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL IMPACTS THAT HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY ANALYZED. AND IN THE EVENT THAT THERE ARE NO EFFECTS THAT WERE NOT EXAMINED, THEN THEY CAN BE DETERMINED TO BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THAT PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT. SHOULD THERE BE SOMETHING THAT IS IN THEIR LATER ACTIVITY GOES BEYOND THAT, THEN ONLY THAT TOPIC AREA NEEDS TO BE STUDIED.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE EXHIBIT THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT.

THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION.

WE'RE REQUESTING THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CEQA CLEARANCES.

SO BOTH THE 1513 AND THE 15168 AND APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AS CONDITIONED AND PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU, MR. STRONG. WE DID RECEIVE SOME EMAIL LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC IN THIS REGARD.

SO JUST TO SHARE THAT COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. OKAY? NONE WHATSOEVER. I'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MINUTES CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? WE DO. CHAIR, WE HAVE 5. I'M SORRY. THAT'S RIGHT.

DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? YES. THANK YOU. PLEASE COME UP. STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE.

MY NAME IS JOHN ALLEN, PRESIDENT OF STREAMLINE DEVELOPMENT GROUP.

THANK YOU FOR THE APPLICANT. SO IS IT. WHICH BUTTON DO I PRESS TO THE BIG ONE.

OKAY. BIG TRIANGLE. YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, SIR.

LET'S SEE IF I CAN FIGURE THIS OUT. OKAY, HERE WE GO. JOHN ALLEN WITH STREAMLINE DEVELOPMENT GROUP.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU. I THIS IS MORE OF A SUPPLEMENTAL PRESENTATION.

AS ROBUST AS STAFF'S PRESENTATION WAS MORE TO JUST PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT PRIOR TO DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN THROUGH MULTIPLE ENTITLEMENT CYCLES, HAS REMAINED UNDEVELOPED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF THOSE CYCLES.

AND THIS PROPERTY IS THE, IF NOT THE LAST ONE OF THE LAST REMAINING UNDEVELOPED MULTIFAMILY PARCELS IN THIS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT HAS BEEN ROUTINELY UTILIZED AS A WALK THROUGH FOR PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR FOR TRESPASSERS, MOST PARTICULARLY AND RECENTLY THE FENCE WAS INSTALLED, AS SEEN IN THIS PICTURE BECAUSE OF THE UNDEVELOPED STATUS, IT HAS BEEN IT ALLOWS FOR SIGNIFICANT SURFICIAL STORMWATER RUNOFF INTO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AND PROVIDES REALLY NO,

[00:25:08]

THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED IS 26 UNITS WITH THREE AFFORDABLE INCREASES THE STOCK OF THE HIGH OF HIGH QUALITY MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE AREA OBVIOUSLY INCLUDES COLORFUL AND VIBRANT LANDSCAPING.

AND RESORT STYLE FEATURES WILL BE AN ECO FRIENDLY AND HIGH PERFORMING BUILDING AND WITH A FULLY CONTAINED STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WITH ZERO INFILTRATION. THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU, AS MIKE MENTIONED, THE IS FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL IN UNIT COUNT, MASSING, AND LAYOUT TO THE 26 UNIT PROJECT APPROVED HERE AT THIS COMMISSION IN FEBRUARY OF 2020.

CONDUCTED PUBLIC OUTREACH PRIOR TO THAT APPROVAL IN 2019 CONDUCTED 3 PUBLIC OUTREACH VOLUNTARY PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETINGS. AT THAT POINT, PUBLIC OUTREACH WAS NOT REQUIRED, BUT WE DID.

SO ANYWAYS CONDUCTED THREE SEPARATE MEETINGS, SMALLER MEETINGS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO TO GET FEEDBACK PROVIDED OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMENT CARDS, EMAILS, AND PHONE CALLS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD AT THAT TIME.

AND COMPLETED A FULL ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH REPORT, AND NO REQUESTED CHANGES RESULTED IN DESIGN MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY STAFF.

IN 2025 CONDUCTED ANOTHER PUBLIC OUTREACH REPORT, CONDUCTED THIS STAKEHOLDER MEETING, A LARGE STAKEHOLDER MEETING AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND WENT THROUGH A MEETING WITH ABOUT 25 STAKEHOLDERS SHOWED UP FOR THAT MEETING. ALSO RESPONDED TO SEVERAL EMAILS AFTER THE FACT AS WELL.

SIMILARLY PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ATTENDEES TO PROVIDE COMMENT CARDS AND ENCOURAGE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO STAFF AND TO PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REGARDING TO BE TO BE REGARDING THE PROJECT TO BE INPUTTED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.

COMPLETED ANOTHER PUBLIC OUTREACH REPORT AND AGAIN, NO REQUESTED CHANGES RESULTED IN ANY DESIGN MODIFICATIONS BY STAFF.

SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE KEY TOPICS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP AS PART OF THE OUTREACH MEETING.

ALL OF THESE WERE ADDRESSED THROUGH STAFF REVIEW AND CONDITIONS.

MY APPROVAL IS APPROPRIATE TONIGHT. AS MIKE MENTIONED AS WELL, THIS PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT.

IT'S FULLY COMPLIANT WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW AND WITH THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT, AND HAS NO UNMITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL, TRAFFIC OR SAFETY IMPACTS AS IDENTIFIED BY STAFF.

WITH THAT, WE'LL COMPLETE MY PRESENTATION. BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

AND WE HAVE OUR ARCHITECTS AS WELL FOR ANY DESIGN QUESTIONS AS NEEDED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS OR CLARIFYING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

YOU SAID IT WAS SUBSTANTIAL PROJECT YOU BROUGHT IN 2020. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. BUT THAT PROJECT, I UNDERSTAND, HAD 4 UNITS OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING.

WHY DOES THIS ONE ONLY HAVE 3? DENSITY. BONUS REGULATIONS HAVE CHANGED AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS HAVE CHANGED.

I MIGHT DEFER TO STAFF ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.

WELL, LET ME JUST ASK. SO WE UNDERSTAND, BUT THE GOAL OF ALL OF THIS IS TO HAVE AFFORDABLE, MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR OUR COMMUNITIES. SO WHY THE CHANGE FROM BECAUSE IT WAS OBVIOUSLY A CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS 4 UNITS AS OPPOSED TO 3.

SO AND THAT WAS A DECISION THAT YOU CAME TO BECAUSE.

WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT A PROJECT WOULD GO THROUGH DURING SUBMITTAL OF THIS OF THIS PROJECT AFTER ENTITLEMENTS WERE WE HAD TO RE ENTITLE IT AND GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY DIFFERENT CALCULATIONS WERE MADE ON THE FORM AND WE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THE, WITH THEM, AND THEY PROVIDED US WITH THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS BASED ON THE DENSITY THAT WE HAD.

SO WE WENT THROUGH THAT NORMAL PROCESS WE HAD ORIGINALLY FOR WE, WE WENT THROUGH DIFFERENT ITERATIONS WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ENDED WITH THE THREE

[00:30:06]

SO. SO WHY WOULD THIS PLAN THAT HAS MUCH MORE PARKING, MUCH MORE PAVEMENT, BE LESS OF A BURDEN ON OUR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS FOR OUR CITY AS OPPOSED TO THE EXISTING VACANT LOT? SO THE THE CURRENT SITE IS UNDEVELOPED, AND SURFICIAL RUNOFF VERSUS GROUNDWATER HAPPENS ON ANY UNDEVELOPED PARCEL. HENCE WHY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA REQUIRES THESE STORMWATER FACILITIES.

AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, WE MUST TREAT AND MITIGATE ANY RUNOFF ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.

AND SO ANY GROUNDWATER THAT FALLS ON THE SITE NOW CAN SIMPLY FLOW TO WHATEVER PROPERTY IS DOWNSTREAM, WHETHER IT'S IN THE IN THE STREET OR THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR.

UPON DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT, ALL THE RAINWATER THAT HITS THE SITE MUST BE CONTAINED AND FLOW TO A BMP TREATMENT FACILITY AND THEN DISCHARGE SLOWLY INTO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AS TO NOT OVERWHELM THE CITY STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.

THAT'S SPEAKING FROM NOT AN ENGINEER. AND SO IF VERY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO JASON.

BUT THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE BENEFICIAL TO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.

GOOD ANSWER. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. THANKS FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

YOU SAID THAT YOU MET WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS A NUMBER OF TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEARS.

WHAT WAS THE CHANGE THAT YOU'VE MADE FROM THE PAST PROJECTS TO THE PROJECTS NOW, AND HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO THE COMMUNITY? SO PRIOR TO PRIOR TO THE FIRST ENTITLEMENT BEFORE THE THE 3 MEETINGS, BEFORE THAT FIRST ENTITLEMENT WE MET WITH THEM. THE BUILDING E WAS ORIGINALLY 4 STORIES HIGH, AND THERE WERE 27 UNITS IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

AFTER DISCUSSING THE PROJECT WITH THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND HEARING SPECIFICALLY THE CONCERNS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS THE CONDO COMPLEX ON THE CORNER OF NAVARRO AND COSTILLA.

WE REDUCED THE HEIGHT OF BUILDING E AND ELIMINATED A UNIT TO 3 STORIES.

THAT WAS THE MAIN CHANGE THAT TOOK PLACE. THERE WERE A COUPLE OTHER MINOR CHANGES THAT TOOK PLACE REGARDING ENCLOSURES, FENCING, LANDSCAPING, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN A BETTER PROJECT.

BUT THE BIG THE BIGGEST CHANGE WAS REDUCING THE HEIGHT OF THAT BUILDING E.

THANKS. IT ALSO SEEMS LIKE IT'S TAKEN A WHILE TO GET TO THIS POINT.

AND INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, AMENDING THE PAST APPROVALS, YOU'RE YOU'RE SEEKING APPROVAL AGAIN.

WHY HAS IT TAKEN SO LONG TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY? WELL, THE ORIGINAL PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED TOOK A WHILE FROM THAT POINT TO START BUILDING PERMITS.

AS YOU KNOW, AROUND THAT TIME, COVID KIND OF SET A LOT OF THINGS BACK, CHANGED THINGS.

AND THEN UPON GETTING READY AND SUBMITTING FOR THE BUILDING PERMITS A LAPSE OCCURRED IN WHICH THE EXTENSION, THE ALLOWABLE EXTENSION PER CODE FOR THAT ENTITLEMENT IN ORDER FOR US TO SUBMIT THE BUILDING PLANS HAD NOT BEEN FILED BEFORE THE DATE, AND SO IT WAS A TECHNICALITY THAT ALLOWED THE ENTITLEMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS TO LAPSE, WHICH REQUIRED US TO SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION.

OKAY. JUST 1 MORE QUESTION HERE. SORRY. FOR THE SMALL AFFORDABLE UNITS AT THE BACK, KIND OF THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY WITH NOT TOO MUCH VISIBILITY. YOU SAID THAT OR I THINK MIKE SAID THAT THEY WERE ABOUT 500 TO 600FT².

IS THAT CORRECT? THOSE ARE JUST THE 1 BEDROOM UNITS.

WE HAVE THE AFFORDABLE UNITS. ARE WE HAVE 1 1 BEDROOM UNIT, 1 2 BEDROOM UNIT AND ONE THREE BEDROOM UNIT.

AND SO THERE'LL BE AFFORDABLE 3 BEDROOM UNIT, WHICH WILL BE A AROUND 1700 SQUARE FEET AND THEN AFFORDABLE 2 BEDROOM UNIT, WHICH WILL BE AROUND 1000FT², AND AN AFFORDABLE ONE BEDROOM UNIT, WHICH WILL BE AROUND 600 BETWEEN 5 AND 600FT².

YEAH. SO IT SEEMS LIKE ONE OF THE CONCESSIONS IS YOU KNOW, MORE OVERHANG, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S ONLY AFFECTING THOSE MARKET RATE APARTMENTS, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S NO KIND OF EXTENSION OF ROOM.

I MEAN, 500, 600FT² IS PRETTY SMALL FOR A FAMILY OR EVEN A SINGLE PERSON OR TENANT LIVING THERE.

SO WHAT IS THE THOUGHT PROCESS FOR ASKING FOR A CONCESSION FOR THOSE MARKET RATE AND EXPANDING THOSE INSTEAD OF,

[00:35:05]

YES. SO I CAN PROVIDE A BRIEF ANSWER. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP OUR ARCHITECT TO ADDRESS THAT SPECIFICALLY.

THE, THE 90% STEP BACK IS WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, I BELIEVE.

YES. SO THAT WAS IS A DESIGN CONSIDERATION AND ALSO A STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATION.

WHEN YOU HAVE A STEP BACK OF 90% OF THE BUILDING.

A LOT OF THE BUILDING YOU TEND TO HAVE NON STACKING WALLS, WHICH MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO STRUCTURALLY ENGINEER WOULD REQUIRE STEEL.

IT COULD REQUIRE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, CONSIDERING THAT IT WAS ALREADY APPROVED AS IT WAS PRIOR TO THOSE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS PREVIOUSLY. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT CHANGING THAT WOULD WOULD REALLY IT WOULD MAKE IT A SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT PROJECT THAN IT WAS ENVISIONED AND ENTITLED ORIGINALLY.

AND SO WE FELT THE VALUE WAS TO KEEP IT EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WAS BEFORE.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BURROWS. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION, MR. ALLEN. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE YOU JUST SAID THAT AFTER HEARING PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU REDUCED THE PROJECT BY A UNIT.

AND I THOUGHT I SAW IN THE AGENDA THAT IN APRIL OF 2024, AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU REDUCED THE PROPOSED 38 UNITS DOWN TO 26.

SEEMS LIKE A LARGE REDUCTION. WHAT PROMPTED THAT LARGE REDUCTION? SO I WAS REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO PRIOR TO THE FIRST ENTITLEMENT.

SO THE 1ST ENTITLEMENT PROCESS WAS STARTED WITH 27 UNITS, AND WE MADE THAT REDUCTION THAT I MENTIONED TO YOU EARLIER FROM 27 TO 26.

AND THE HEIGHT REDUCTION, THE HEIGHT CHANGE. WHEN WE WENT BACK IN FOR THE 2ND ENTITLEMENT, WE KEPT THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS IDENTICAL. THE THE DENSITY BONUS REGULATIONS CHANGED AT THAT POINT AND ALLOWED FOR ADDITIONAL DENSITY. WE LOOKED INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF PROVIDING INTERIOR DEMISING WALLS, KEEPING THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IDENTICAL, BUT SIMPLY HAVING MORE SMALL UNITS LIKE SOME MORE 2 BEDROOM UNITS AND 1 BEDROOM UNITS IN SOME OF THE BUILDINGS.

WE SUBMITTED THAT AND GOT SOME COMMENT FROM PLANNING AND FROM SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT SOME OF THE STAKEHOLDERS AND DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION WOULD NOT BE VIABLE FOR A LOT OF REASONS.

AND SO WE WE DECIDED TO REVERT BACK TO THE 26 UNIT PLAN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.

THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY. I WILL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY MINUTES.

CLERK. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? WE DO.

CHAIR. WE HAVE 5. THANK YOU. WOULD YOU 1ST CALL THE FIRST SPEAKER? AND IN THE MEANTIME, AS OUR FIRST SPEAKER APPROACHES THE PODIUM, LET ME EXPLAIN THE COMMISSION'S COMMENT PROCEDURES FOR THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

EACH SPEAKER HAS 3 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS.

TO HELP SPEAKERS STAY WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT, THE MINUTES CLERK WILL ACTIVATE THE TIMER.

THE GREEN LIGHT MEANS SPEAKER. YELLOW MEANS YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE AND REMAINING IN BLINKING LIGHT.

RED MEANS THAT THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. PLEASE START BY STATING YOUR NAME.

IS THE APPLICANT I MEAN, IS THE SPEAKER COMING TO THE PODIUM? SCOTT MCCARTHY. THANK YOU. AND ASHLEY CAUSEY, IF YOU COULD WAIT UNDER THE CLOCK SO YOU CAN GO NEXT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

START BY STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION.

SCOTT MCCARTHY, STAFF, THE APPLICANT OR THE PUBLIC.

AFTER WE HAVE RECEIVED ALL OF THE TESTIMONY FROM EVERYONE WHO SPEAKS.

WE WILL ASK THE APPROPRIATE PERSON TO RESPOND TO THOSE QUESTIONS.

PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE AND CLEARLY STATE YOUR NAME.

OKAY. SCOTT MCCARTHY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COUNCIL.

I AM A LIVE IN THE AREA AND I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED PRIMARILY FOR SAFETY DUE TO ALL OF THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE INCREASED.

THERE'S ALREADY A LOT. IF FOR MOST OF YOU IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE EITHER GOOGLED OR WALKED THE SITE.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT VIEJO NUEVO CASTILLO, SORRY, WAY THE STREET, IT'S ABOUT 150 YARDS LONG.

YOU GET TO IT BY TURNING LEFT ON LA COSTA AVENUE AT A SIGNAL, AND YOU DROP DOWN TO 3 STREETS THAT

[00:40:04]

AND I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH, 348 UNITS, IF YOU TAKE AN AVERAGE OF 1 AND A HALF CARS PER UNIT, THAT'S UP TO 522 CARS. AND I CONSIDERED THE SAFETY IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S ON AND CONSIDERED THIS.

IT'S LIKE AN ISLAND. IT IS AN ISLAND OF CONDOS, VERY, VERY SMALL THAT I THINK ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT IS A CONCERN.

AND I'M NOT SAYING CAN'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, A DEVELOPMENT, BUT I'M TOTALLY AGAINST THE HEIGHT AND THE REQUEST FOR THE EXCEPTION FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS. SO IT'S TO ME IT'S MORE A SAFETY AND RISK FEATURE AND REQUEST.

SO THAT'S IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY. MR. CLARK. IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ASHLEY CAUSEY. I'M AN 11 YEAR R2ESIDENT AND A CLOSE MEMBER OF BE CLOSE NEIGHBOR TO THIS PROJECT.

I'M ALSO THE ORGANIZER OF THE CHANGE.ORG THAT HAS 360 SIGNATURES FROM RESIDENTS ASKING THE CITY TO REVIEW THE HEIGHT, PARKING, AND PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACTS. I SPEAK FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT BE HERE TONIGHT AND WHO HAVE EMAILED AND SIGNED I SUPPORT REASONABLE HOUSING, BUT THIS PROPOSAL STILL FEELS OUT OF SCALE FOR THIS LOCATION.

WE WOULD BE. WE COULD AVOID SAFETY AND PARKING IMPACTS THAT IN AN ALREADY CONSTRAINED NEIGHBORHOOD.

WHILE THE UNIT COUNT DROPPED THE BEDROOMS, THE INTENSITY DIDN'T STILL DIDN'T STOP.

THIS IS STILL A 66 BEDROOM PROJECT WITH REAL WORLD IMPACTS.

DOZENS OF MORE RESIDENTS, DOZENS MORE VEHICLES, NOT JUST 66 HOUSEHOLDS.

THOSE IMPACTS SPILL INTO SURROUNDING STREETS, DRIVEWAYS, GREEN SPACES.

SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS IN ARE SHOWN IN THE 30 FOOT RANGE.

BUT BUILDING C AND D ARE 48FT WITH PROJECTIONS OF 51.

THIS MAJOR INCREASE ON TOP OF THE ROOFTOP PATIOS ARE ADDING AT THE HIGHEST POINT.

IT JUST MEANS TALLER, BULKIER PROJECT THAN WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DESIGNED FOR.

WE WALKED AROUND TO SEE HOW TALL THESE BUILDINGS WOULD BE AND HOW MUCH SUNLIGHT THEY'RE GOING TO BLOCK THE PARKING.

THE PROJECT SHOWS 49 SPACES. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALREADY DEALING WITH PARKING CONSTRAINTS, WHILE A PROJECT IS TIGHT ON PARKING OVERFLOW ONTO NEARBY STREETS.

IMPACTS. SIGHTLINES. EMERGENCY ACCESS. LOADING AND UNLOADING.

NOT JUST 49 SPOTS, IT'S 66 TO 80 CARS. WE ASKED DO NOT APPROVE THE HEIGHT AND MASSING AS PROPOSED REDESIGN AS PLEASE REDESIGN AND REQUIRE REDUCED IN HEIGHT.

THE PROJECT THE PROJECT THAT FITS THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT STRETCHING THE RULES TOO FAR.

SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO'S MIDWAY DECISION HAS SHOWN THAT WHEN CITIES ALLOW TALLER BUILDINGS, THEY MUST DISCLOSE AND ANALYZE REAL WORLD IMPACTS UNDER THE CEQA. SO PLEASE REQUIRE CLEAR WRITTEN FINDINGS ON HEIGHT.

AND THIS WAS JUST FOR 30FT. AN ADDITIONAL 5 FEET.

PLEASE REQUIRE ENFORCED PARKING PLAN THAT WORKS IN REAL LIFE, INCLUDING GUEST PARKING, LOADING AND UNLOADING, AND SPILLOVER. IF THE CITY IS RELYING ON MANAGEMENT, REQUIRE ENFORCE CONDITIONS, LEASE CLAUSES, MONITORING TOWING AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE, ACCOUNTABILITY.

PLEASE REQUIRE WRITTEN FINDINGS ON NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY IN PUBLIC SAFETY, INCLUDING EMERGENCY ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION FOR FULL OCCUPANCY.

THE FIRES HAVE SCARED US AS A NEIGHBORHOOD. WE GOT WE ALL TALKED AND GATHERED WHEN THAT HAPPENED.

TRAFFIC STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THE TRAFFIC STUDIES THAT ARE SHOWING AREN'T AREN'T ACCURATE.

THEY'RE DURING PERIODS OF TIME WHEN PEOPLE ARE ON VACATION AND NOT DRIVING.

I WALK MY DOGS 3 OR 4 TIMES A DAY AND BEEN WORKING FROM HOME SINCE THE PANDEMIC, SO I KNOW WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS LIKE.

OUR STREETS ARE CROWDED AND FULL OF CARS. WE WANT REASONABLE HOUSING AND WE HOPE YOU GUYS CAN HELP US WITH THAT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, STEVE AND MAUREEN WALLET.

NAME, PLEASE. STEVE LINKE. I HAD A PRESENTATION.

COULD WE START THE CLOCK OVER? PLEASE? I DON'T HAVE IT.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. STEVE LINKE CARLSBAD ON BEHALF OF EQUITABLE LAND USE ALLIANCE.

IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE CHAIR, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T HAVE THE PRESENTATION ON THIS COMPUTER. CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT SPEAKER AND SO WE CAN GET THAT ONE LOADED UP? NOT A PROBLEM. THANK YOU, MR. LINKE. YOU CAN COME UP LATER.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. HI, I'M MAUREEN WATELET AND I ALSO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND I'D LIKE TO REITERATE THAT I'M NOT HERE TO.

[00:45:01]

RIGHT. MY CONCERNS ARE, AGAIN, THAT I DO NOT FEEL THAT THIS SHOULD BE APPROVED UNDER THE STATE DENSITY LAWS.

RIGHT. IF THIS WAS A 20 UNIT PROJECT, THE CURRENT INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE REQUIRES A 15% LOW INCOME HOUSING.

RIGHT. SO THAT WOULD BE 3 3 AFFORDABLE UNITS.

WE'RE ONLY GETTING 3 UNITS WITH THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S INCREASED UP TO 26 UNITS.

SO I DON'T WE'RE NOT GETTING EXTRA AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR CARLSBAD EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE GETTING THE EXTRA 6 UNITS.

AND SIMILARLY, THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY NEED THE HEIGHT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL UNITS.

BUT EVEN IF IT WAS A 20 UNIT BUILDING THAT DID NOT REQUIRE THE EXTRA HEIGHT, THEY WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO GET US THE THREE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. SO I JUST DO NOT THINK IT SHOULD BE APPROVED UNDER THE STATE DENSITY.

RIGHT. I THINK WE SHOULD THE I WOULD I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU GUYS AGAIN ASK THEM TO GO BACK AND PROVIDE A MORE REASONABLE PROJECT THAT IS ZONED PROPERLY, THAT IS WITHIN THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

THEY'RE THERE FOR A REASON. AND IT'S IT'S WE FEEL LIKE IT'S OUR SAFETY.

RIGHT. AGAIN, LIKE ASHLEY SAID, SHE SAID IT PERFECTLY, ALMOST LIKE I'M SO PROUD OF HER.

BUT THERE'S 66 BEDROOMS. WE ARE NOT NEAR A SCHOOL.

THESE ARE NOT. THEY'RE NOT. THIS IS NOT A COMMUNITY FULL OF FAMILIES AND FULL OF KIDS.

THIS IS A COMMUNITY FULL OF WORKING ADULTS, RETIRED ADULTS.

SO EVERYONE HAS CARS. OUR STREETS ARE FULL. I CANNOT EVEN HAVE FRIENDS COME OVER ON A HOLIDAY WEEKEND BECAUSE THERE IS NOWHERE FOR THEM TO PARK.

SO WHEN THIS WHEN THIS BUILDING COMES IN, THERE IS GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO BE MADNESS FOR WHERE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO PARK THEIR CARS.

WE JUST WE WE IT JUST CANNOT WE CANNOT SUPPORT THIS DENSE OF A BUILDING IN THE COMMUNITY.

AGAIN, I'M NOT A NIMBY. PLEASE. YOU KNOW, PLEASE BUILD.

I DON'T EVEN CARE IF THEY BUILD A 20 UNIT WITH WITH HALF OF IT LOW INCOME HOUSING.

IT JUST IT NEEDS TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMUNITY.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. WE APPRECIATE THAT.

ARE WE READY FOR MR. LINKE AS A PUBLIC SPEAKER.

STEVE LINKE? STATE YOUR NAME AND STEVE LINKE CARLSBAD.

I THINK YOU I THINK YOU WANT TO RESET THAT TO 3 MINUTES.

I MEAN, I'D LOVE 10 MINUTES, BUT I DIDN'T SET UP A GROUP FOR THIS 1.

OH, I SEE. BUT CAN WE SET IT FOR THREE MINUTES AFTER MY PRESENTATION IS VISIBLE? BECAUSE IT'S NOT VISIBLE YET. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

STEVE LINKE EULA THIS IS A MAP OF CARLSBAD WITH ZONES SHOWING LEVELS OF RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED.

THE PROJECT IS IN ONE OF THE LIGHTEST COLORED AREAS, INDICATING THE HIGHEST VMT LEVELS IN THE CITY.

19.1% OVER THE THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE. NO CEQA EXEMPTION CHANGES THIS FACT.

THE DOCUMENT CLAIMING A CEQA EXEMPTION RELIES HEAVILY ON TEARING OFF OF THE 2024 HOUSING ELEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR.

HOWEVER, THIS IS HOW THAT SEIR WAS PRESENTED.

THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR IS A PROGRAM LEVEL DOCUMENT, MEANING IT ANALYZES ALL THE ACTIONS AS A WHOLE AT A HIGH LEVEL BASED ON THE INFORMATION KNOWN AT THIS TIME. IT IS EXPECTED THAT AS INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS COME FORWARD, THAT THEY WOULD PREPARE THEIR OWN PROJECT LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BASED ON THE PROPOSAL AND THE CONDITIONS AT ANY GIVEN SITE.

ANOTHER QUOTE FROM THE SEIR. IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT A PROJECT WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON VMT, WHICH THIS ONE DOES, THE PROJECT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT PROJECT LEVEL VMT REDUCTION MEASURES TO MITIGATE PROJECT VMT IMPACT TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE.

THIS QUOTE THEN REFERS TO THE FACT THAT THE CITYWIDE IMPACTS MAY BE UNAVOIDABLE, BUT THAT INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS MAY OR MAY NOT BE, BUT THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE UNLESS PROJECT LEVEL EIRS ARE DONE.

IN THIS QUOTE AGAIN MANDATES ALL FEASIBLE PROJECT LEVEL MITIGATION.

IN SUMMARY, WHILE ONE CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THIS APPLICATION INCLUDES SOME INFORMAL TDM PLAN MITIGATION OF VMT.

ELUA IS CALLING FOR A FORMAL CEQA ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION.

ELUA IS ALSO CALLING FOR THE ADDITION OF THESE TWO PARKING RELATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

THE FIRST ONE HERE WOULD RESTRICT PROJECT USERS TO ONSITE PARKING ONLY.

AS I DESCRIBED EARLIER IN MY NON-AGENDA COMMENTS, WHICH WOULD APPLY TO GENERAL PROJECTS.

THE SECOND ONE ADDS THE UNBUNDLING OF PARKING FEES FROM LEASE FEES TO THE TDM PLAN IN CONDITION NUMBER 25, WHICH SHOULD BE INVOKED IF A PARKING PROGRAM IS EVER IMPLEMENTED.

FINALLY, THE CLAIM IN THE LOCAL MOBILITY ANALYSIS THAT THE PROJECT HAS TO ADD A CERTAIN NUMBER OF VEHICLE TRIPS IN A SINGLE DIRECTION TO AN EXEMPT STREET SEGMENT FOR TDM AND TSM

[00:50:02]

THE PROJECT WILL ADD SIGNIFICANT TRIPS TO EXEMPTED FACILITIES, SO TDM AND TSM SHOULD BE DESIGNATED AS MANDATORY WHEN THE GENERAL PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 2015, LEVEL OF SERVICE WAS THE TRANSPORTATION STANDARD FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS, AND THIS PROJECT WOULD FAIL THAT STANDARD.

SO A CEQA EXEMPTION BASED ON THAT APPROACH IS ALSO DEFICIENT.

SO BOTH OF THE APPROACHES HERE WE FEEL ARE DEFICIENT.

A LOT OF LANGUAGE SAYS YOU CAN ACCEPT THESE OLD EIRS YOU'RE TEARING OFF OF EIRS THAT ENVISIONED A PROJECT LEVEL EIR TO BE DONE.

AND YOU SHOULD INSIST THAT THAT BE DONE BEFORE THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. MR.. WE HAVE 1 LAST SPEAKER. E.W. CUTHBERT.

PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME.

SIR CUTHBERT, I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MY BROTHER.

I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT HE'S THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

I SPENT A LOT OF TIME THERE. I WALK A LOT MYSELF.

AND I KNOW THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE GONE TO THE PROPERTY.

HAS ANYBODY WALKED UP THAT HILL ON THE WAY PAST THIS TO THE WHAT WOULD BE THE SOUTH RIGHT OF THIS PROJECT WHERE THE GOLF COURSE IS, AND WE TRY TO GET UP THAT HILL, SIR. YEAH. JUST MAKE YOUR MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.

SO I WAS ASKING YOU GUYS, HAVE YOU, BECAUSE YOU HAD SAID YOU'D BEEN TO THE SITE, YOU'D WALKED AROUND THE SITE.

THESE PEOPLE HAD SAID THEY'D LOOKED AT IT. I'M JUST ASKING, IS ANYBODY ACTUALLY WALKED UP THAT ROAD UP THE HILL RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROJECT? IT IS EXTREMELY STEEP. YOU ARE ON YOUR TOES TO GET UP THERE.

I WALK IT ALMOST EVERY DAY. AND ON THE WAY DOWN IT'S EXTREMELY STEEP.

WHAT THAT'S DUE DOES IS WHEN CARS ARE PARKED ON BOTH SIDES, THEY'RE POINTED DOWN AND THEIR WHEELS ARE TOWARDS THE CURB.

AND WHAT THIS PROJECT DOES IS IT PUTS IT TAKES AWAY SOME PARKING THAT'S ALMOST LEVEL.

AND IT ALSO ELIMINATES A LOT OF PARKING. BUT ON THAT HILL, ON THE WAY UP WHERE THE GOLF COURSE IS, WHICH IS RIGHT NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY IT'S VERY DANGEROUS.

THERE'S ONLY ONE CROSSWALK THERE, AND THAT'S FOR THE GOLF CARTS TO GO BY, WHICH NOBODY'S KIND OF MENTIONED.

IT'S. AND SO AS AN INDIVIDUAL, YOU HAVE TO WALK OUT AND LOOK TO SEE IF A CAR IS COMING.

YOU ALSO HAVE THE CROSS THINGS OF GOLF CARTS.

THEY HAVE TO STOP, RIGHT. THERE IS NO STOP SIGNS THAT THAT AS A WALKER YOU WALK ACROSS SAFELY.

IF YOU DO IT ANYWHERE, YOU'RE LITERALLY ON A SLOPE, SO YOU'RE WALKING SIDEWAYS LIKE THIS.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE CARS COMING DOWN THAT HILL.

AND MY WISH FOR YOU PEOPLE WOULD BE THAT YOU WOULD GO SEE IT, BECAUSE WHEN YOU SEE IT, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S FLAT, RIGHT? IN A CLASSROOM, YOU SEE THE TERRAIN, YOU SEE THE DIFFICULTY IN WALKING.

AND EVERYBODY HERE HAS MENTIONED ONE THING. IT'S SAFETY.

IT IS A SAFETY CONCERN. AND THERE ARE YOUNG FAMILIES WITH KIDS AND STROLLERS, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO TRY TO GET ACROSS THAT STREET.

AS IT SITS NOW, THERE'S ONLY A GOLF CART CROSSWALK.

THAT'S ALL THERE IS. AND AND IT'S EXTREMELY DANGEROUS FOR THE GOLF CARTS.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO THE GOLF PROS, I'M SURE THEY'LL TELL YOU THAT, THAT THAT'S A REALLY SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN OF THEIRS.

SO I JUST ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS TO ACTUALLY GET OUT THERE, LOOK AT IT INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT IT HERE, AND LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF SAFETY CONCERNS, AND IT IS IN ALL OF US.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH, MINUTES CLERK.

ANY FURTHER SPEAKER SLIPS? NO, CHAIR. THERE'S NOT.

THANK YOU. I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

THE APPLICANT LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE COMMENTS MADE THIS EVENING.

STAFF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS IN REGARD TO THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE PUBLIC? NOT UNLESS DIRECTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT INCLUDES, I THINK, 39 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT ITSELF.

AND THEN ANYTHING RECEIVED AFTER THAT PUBLICATION DATE HAS BEEN ALSO TRANSMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS A WHOLE HAS HAD ACCESS TO ALL THE WRITTEN TESTIMONY.

AND THEN IN ADDITION TO ANY ORAL TESTIMONY RECEIVED THIS EVENING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. STRONG. APPRECIATE COMMISSIONERS.

DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE CLEARANCE.

15 183 AND 15 168, WHICH HAD BOTH BEEN APPROVED AND BOTH HAVE

[00:55:10]

AND I THINK ONE OF THE SPEAKERS REFERENCED THAT TONIGHT SHIFTING FROM AN LOS STANDARD REVIEW TO A VMT LEVEL REVIEW.

SO THAT THE AGENCIES ARE LESS CONCERNED OR FROM A CEQA STANDPOINT, NOT REVIEWING A PROJECT'S IMPACTS ON VOLUME OR CAPACITY ON ROADWAYS OR INTERSECTIONS.

MORE ABOUT THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED FROM PROJECT, AND THE OVERALL GOAL IS TO REDUCE CITYWIDE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED IN THE CONTEXT OF STATEWIDE INITIATIVES RELATED TO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITY.

SO THAT PROJECT THAT WAS ENTITLED EXPIRED AND ORDINARILY A CEQA CLEARANCE DOCUMENT DOES NOT EXPIRE.

SO A PROJECT ENTITLEMENT PLANNING PERMIT MAY EXPIRE.

BUT THE SEQUA DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THAT PROJECT REMAINS VALID.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT'S CHANGED IN THE PROCESS.

CORRECT? CORRECT. YES. AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS TO REVIEW A PROJECT.

WHEN IN THE CASE OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS WHICH THE CLASS 32 IS, IS ONE SUCH EXEMPTION.

THERE IS NO TIERING OPTION. IT'S EITHER YOU QUALIFY FOR THE EXEMPTION OR YOU DON'T.

SO A RENEWED PROJECT THAT IS ADVANCING THROUGH A PROCESS WOULD HAVE TO REQUALIFY FOR THAT SAME CLASS 32 EXEMPTION.

IN THIS CASE, THE VMT DID EXCEED THE CITYWIDE AVERAGE, SO IT DID NOT QUALIFY ON THE MERITS OF A CLASS 32 EXEMPTION.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS AND OTHER TYPES OF TIERING OPTIONS THAT COULD APPLY TO THIS PROJECT.

ONE SUCH EXAMPLE IS A REUSE OF A HOUSING ELEMENT.

SITE INVENTORY SITE. RESIDENTIAL SITE. SO IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THAT STATUTORY EXEMPTION, MEANING THERE'S NO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AT ALL, A PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SITE'S INVENTORY FROM THE 5TH PLANNING CYCLE, WHICH IS EIGHT, YOU KNOW, EIGHT PLUS YEARS AGO.

PLUS THE CURRENT HOUSING ELEMENT CYCLE AND PROVIDE 20% LOW INCOME UNITS FOR THE TOTAL OF THE PROJECT.

SO INCLUDING THE DENSITY BONUS UNITS. BUT THIS ISN'T ONE OF THOSE. THIS ISN'T ONE OF THOSE. BUT SHOULD THE APPLICANT CHOOSE TO BYPASS THE CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ENTIRELY, THEY COULD ADD ONE ADDITIONAL LOW INCOME UNIT, QUALIFY FOR A STATUTORY EXEMPTION.

AND THERE IS. IT'S LIKE A MINISTERIAL PROCESS.

THERE'S LITTLE DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT THE PROJECT WOULD SATISFY THAT CRITERIA.

THAT'S JUST 1 EXAMPLE. THERE'S OTHERS. THE AB 130 AND SB 131 TRAILER BILLS THAT WERE ADOPTED LAST YEAR ALSO PROVIDE STREAMLINING OPTIONS.

SO IF I IF I AM UNDERSTANDING YOU, I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, IF THEY PUT IN ONE MORE UNIT AND MADE THE 20% AFFORDABLE, ALL OF THE CEQA STUFF GOES AWAY.

IS THAT KIND OF CORRECT? I HAVEN'T DONE THE NUMBERS, BUT IF IT'S 20% OF THE TOTAL UNITS PROVIDED, THEY WOULD QUALIFY FOR THE REUSE WOULD ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO BUILD WHATEVER THEY WANTED BASED ON THE DENSITY BONUS OKAY, SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STREAMLINING PROVISIONS AVAILABLE.

THIS PARTICULAR SET, THE 2 LAYERED PROVISIONS APPLY FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UNDER ONE.

THE 15183 AND THE OTHER IS THE 15168, WHERE IT'S WITHIN THE SCOPE OF A PROGRAM.

CITY STAFF FELT THAT BOTH ARE RECOMMENDING THAT BOTH QUALIFY FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE.

BASED ON SOME OF THE TESTIMONY RECEIVED THIS EVENING, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME OBJECTION TO USING THE 15168, BUT I HAVE NOT HEARD ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE USE OF THE 15183, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN BATTLE TESTED RECENTLY.

THERE'S A COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO COURT CASE, THE HILLTOP COURT CASE, I THINK 2 YEARS AGO THAT DEFERRED TO THE AGENCY'S DETERMINATION THAT THE MANY PROJECTS CAN USE THE 15183 CLEARANCE AS LONG AS IT SATISFIES THE CRITERIA.

THAT'S. LISTED ON THIS SLIDE. AND PROVIDED THAT THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC PROJECTS OR PECULIAR PROJECTS, OR IN THE EVENT THAT THERE ARE, THEN THAT CAN BE CARVED OUT AS A SINGLE AREA OF STUDY, LIKE A FOCUSED MITIGATED NAGDCA OR A FOCUSED DER.

[01:00:02]

THE SUPPLEMENTAL, ALL THE ACRONYMS IN WHICH THIS PROJECT IS RELYING ON.

SO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE IN 2015 PREDATED THE THE SWITCH FROM THE LOSS TO THE VMT.

THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED 2024 CAME AFTER.

SO DURING THE INTERVENING TIME BETWEEN THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR, WHICH APPROVED THE REZONING SITE SITES AND THE COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, WAS THAT LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWED THE THE CONVERSION TO THE, THE VMT THE BENEFIT OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR IS THAT IT PERFORMED CITYWIDE VMT ANALYSIS. SO IT TOOK ALL THE LAND USE GROWTH FORECASTS FOR EVERY PARCEL IN THE CITY, LOOKED AT THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH, AND AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION, THIS PROJECT, FORMER VERSION OF THIS PROJECT HAD BEEN APPROVED.

SO THE 26 UNITS WERE LOADED INTO THE MODEL TO SHOW WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED.

SO THE THE PROJECT ITSELF IS ABLE TO RELY ON THAT PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION BECAUSE IT WAS STUDIED AS PART OF THAT CUMULATIVE VMT ANALYSIS, AND THAT IS PART OF A COMPONENT OF THE DEFICIENCY THAT THE SPEAKER REFERENCED, THE 19.1% BELOW THE CITYWIDE VMT.

THAT INCLUDES THE PROJECT ALREADY. SO WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL EVALUATED THE SUPPLEMENTAL AIR AND THE CITYWIDE IMPACTS TO VMT, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT.

THE LANGUAGE IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR INDICATED THAT THERE WOULD BE FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PERFORMED FOR OTHER PROJECTS, AND A MAJOR CRITERION OF THAT ASSESSMENT IS THAT THOSE PROJECTS WOULD IMPLEMENT ANY MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WERE FEASIBLE.

SO WHAT IS PROPOSED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS TO IMPLEMENT A FINAL TDM PLAN, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THOSE VERY SAME MEASURES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE APPLIED TO PROJECTS. SO THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL, DETAILS OF THE REQUEST DO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROJECT'S IMPLEMENTATION WOULD AT LEAST LESSEN WHAT WAS UNDERSTAND AS A BASELINE UNDERSTANDING OF FUTURE VMT IMPACTS IN THE CITY, BECAUSE THEY'LL BE DOING SOMETHING BETTER THAN WHAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN ANTICIPATED WITH THAT MODEL'S OUTPUT. SO THE LAST QUESTION WOULD BE THE PUBLIC IS OBJECTING TO THE 183 VERSUS THE 168. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE 15.

I HEARD IT THE OTHER WAY, THAT THEY'RE OBJECTING TO THE USE OF THE 15168.

OH, THEY'RE OBJECTING TO THE 1 5. OKAY. SO CAN WE APPROVE IT WITHOUT THAT? YOU MAY. YES. THERE IS A SINGLE CHECKLIST THAT COMBINES BOTH THE 15168 AND 15183.

IF THIS PLANNING COMMISSION ELECTED TO AND DECIDED ON THEIR INDEPENDENT BASIS OR JUDGMENT TO APPROVE THE PROJECT.

RELYING ON JUST THE 15183. YOU WOULD STRIKE THAT REFERENCE FROM THE RESOLUTION.

THERE'S ONE OF THE DETERMINATIONS IN THE DOCUMENT.

I THINK IT'S THE SECOND DETERMINATION, AND I'LL CONFIRM THAT AND LOOK AT THE RESOLUTION.

BUT IT'S CURRENTLY CITES BOTH CLEARANCES. SO IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT WANT TO APPROVE THAT PARTICULAR ONE, YOU COULD STRIKE THAT FROM THE RESOLUTION AND LET THE 15183 STAND ON ITS OWN MERIT.

DOES THAT HELP THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY, OR IS THERE MORE THAT WE CAN DO AS A COMMUNITY TO OR AS THE.

IS THERE MORE THE DEVELOPER CAN DO TO BE ABLE TO MITIGATE SOME OF THESE CONCERNS? BECAUSE DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE LIKE UNDERGROUND PARKING OR ANY POTENTIAL LIKE THAT.

RIGHT? THESE ARE ALL LIKE ON GRADE OR GARAGE PARKING UNITS.

RIGHT. AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE MAJOR CONCERN WITH THIS ISLAND THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO A GOLF COURSE THAT HAS LIMITED EVEN PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, AND BECAUSE OF THE STEEP SLOPES AND THINGS.

YOU KNOW WHAT MY MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE OUR CITIES AVAILABLE TO THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AND WORK THERE, RIGHT? SO AND IF THEY CAN'T REALLY EVEN WALK AROUND BEYOND THAT ISLAND, IT SEEMS TO BE A KIND OF A CONCERN TO ME WITH THE LAST DEVELOPMENT LOT ON THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A DENSITY CONCERN.

BUT I THINK THE BIGGER CONCERN IS, YOU KNOW, IF PEOPLE CAN'T REALLY WALK AROUND BECAUSE AND THEY CAN'T GET THERE OR PARK THERE, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO? THERE'S NOT REALLY TRANSIT LIKE READILY AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW.

SO THIS IS A BIGGER CONCERN AND NOT JUST IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BUT IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS.

[01:05:06]

BUT THEN THEY COULD COME BACK AND SAY, OH, WE WANT 4 UNITS OF ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THIS.

AND HAVE WE? WE GET NOTHING AS A CITY TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, COME BACK AND SAY THIS IS A CONCERN.

SO SO I'M HESITANT TO TRY TO SUPPORT BOTH OF THE CLEARANCES.

AND IF THE 15183 IS THE ONE THAT SEEMS TO BE MORE COMPLIANT.

I WOULD PREFER TO REQUEST THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER JUST APPROVING THAT PARTICULAR ONE.

COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. THANK YOU. CHAIR. I HAVE 2 QUESTIONS HERE.

HOPEFULLY THEY'LL RELATE TO EACH OTHER. AND BE CLEAR. TABLE B ON PAGE 37 AND 38 TALKS ABOUT THE ALLOWANCES FOR INCENTIVES AND CONCESSIONS.

SO MY QUESTION AND CLARIFICATION HERE IS IS KIND OF TWOFOLD.

THE LAST LINE ITEM SAYS FOR 16% VERY LOW MINIMUM PERCENTAGES.

THEY'RE ALLOWED FOR INCENTIVES AND CONCESSIONS.

I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT IS KIND OF THE BASIS WE'RE GOING OFF OF KIND OF TO PERMIT THESE 4 CONCESSIONS.

YES. THAT TABLE IS DERIVED FROM GOVERNMENT CODE 65915J, I BELIEVE.

H SORRY. AND THAT STIPULATES THE NUMBER OF INCENTIVES OR CONCESSIONS ALLOWED TO A PROJECT.

AND THE WAY THAT THE STATE DEFINES INCENTIVE CONCESSIONS ARE THOSE STANDARDS THAT ARE PRECLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT BASED ON SOME FINANCIAL ASPECT. SEPARATELY FROM THAT, THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF WAIVERS THAT MIGHT PRECLUDE THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE.

SO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS TO PROCEED WITH ONE INCENTIVE OR CONCESSION AND 4 WAIVERS.

SO THEY ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

AND THE PROJECT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT IT MEETS THE INTENT AND THE FINDINGS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED INCENTIVE AND CONCESSION AND THE INCENTIVE AND CONCESSION IS THE I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DESCRIPTION OF IT, BUT IT'S THE ROOFTOP CAPPING, LIKE THE PARAPET.

HERE IT IS. AND THAT'S A COST. I MEAN, IT'S ANOTHER DESIGN ELEMENT.

SOMETHING'S BEEN PROPOSED THAT HAS A PRECAST TREATMENT, WHICH IS A COST SAVING.

IMPLEMENTING THIS PARTICULAR STANDARD WOULD REQUIRE SOME ADDITIONAL COST.

AND THE BURDEN OF PROVING A HARDSHIP IS ON THE CITY, NOT NECESSARILY THE APPLICANT.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COURT CASES AND CHANGES IN STATE LAW THAT AFFIRM AND AFFIRM THAT THE WAIVERS, AGAIN, ARE UNLIMITED AND RELATE TO PHYSICAL ELEMENTS PRECLUDING A SITE.

SO ONE THAT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED EARLIER WAS THE UPPER FLOOR AREA.

I THINK ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ASKED WHY THERE WASN'T A STEP BACK IN THE DESIGN.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT PRECLUDES THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF LIVING AREA ON THAT UPPER STORY.

AND THERE HAVE BEEN SOME COURT CASES, THE WALMER COURT CASE AND 2011.

AND THEN THERE'S A BANKERS HILL COURT CASE IN 2015 THAT CLARIFIED THE CITY'S ROLE IN REVIEWING REQUESTED INCENTIVES, CONCESSIONS, WAIVERS OR REDUCED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

AND REALLY, THE BURDEN IS ON THE CITY THAT THE CITY CAN ASK FOR SUBSTANTIATION AND TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SOMETHING IS PHYSICALLY PRECLUDED FROM ITS IMPLEMENTATION. BUT REALLY, IT'S IT'S THE BURDEN IS TO THE CITY ON WHETHER OR NOT THE, THE DECISION MAKING BODY WOULD GRANT OR, OR DENY IN THIS CASE A REQUESTED WAIVER.

BUT THE RE THE WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE UNLIMITED.

SO IT'S INDEPENDENT FROM THE TABLE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO ON PAGE 38.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER FOSTER. YEAH, I GOT A FEW QUESTIONS.

FIRST, MR. STRONG, YOUR ENCYCLOPEDIC MEMORY OF THE STATE CODES AND CEQA CODES AND EVERYTHING ALWAYS IMPRESSES ME.

I KNOW I'VE SAID THAT MORE THAN ONCE IN A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT WE'RE LUCKY TO HAVE YOU ON THE CITY.

YOU GOT IMPRESSIVE MEMORY. SO 1ST QUESTION I HAVE IS IN REGARDS TO CEQA.

[01:10:04]

AND BUT MY QUESTION IS, IS IT IS IT A REALLY A MOOT POINT? IS IT KIND OF TECHNICALITY. BECAUSE IF ONE DOESN'T STAND AND THE OTHER ONE DOES, THEN IF IF A DECISION MAKING BODY SAYS, YOU KNOW, LET'S PROCEED THEN HOW DOES THAT CHANGE ANYTHING IN THE END? OR IS IT JUST KIND OF TECHNICALITY FROM STAFF'S STANDPOINT AND LISTENING TO THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE SPEAKERS TONIGHT.

I THINK THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROJECT'S IMPLEMENTATION AND NOT NECESSARILY THE MATERIAL.

RIGHT. APPLICATION. RIGHT. SO MAKING ANY CHANGE TO THE CLEARANCE ITSELF, EVEN IF IT WAS TO STRIKE OUT THE TWO ENTIRELY AND DIRECT STAFF TO SEEK OUT ANOTHER EXEMPTION THAT MAY APPLY.

THERE ARE OTHER EXEMPTIONS THAT WOULD APPLY AND MAY EVEN FURTHER SEVER ANY ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS THAT COULD BE APPLIED TO THE PROJECT.

SO I THINK SOME OF THE SPEAKERS DID, AND I KNOW THIS CAME ACROSS IN SOME OF THE WRITTEN TESTIMONY THAT WAS RECEIVED OVER THE WEEKEND AND WAS PROVIDED BY A SEPARATE LINK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. THERE ARE SOME REQUESTED CONDITIONS THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THE PROJECT.

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ACTUALLY MIGHT PROVIDE CHANGE.

AND I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT, WHICH IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING THAT, I'M HAPPY TO SHARE. THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS TO THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS, SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THIS EVENING.

IT FOLLOWS UNDER THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THAT WAS AMENDED BY THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT.

THERE IS A GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION THAT STIPULATES THE MANNER IN WHICH A LEAD AGENCY OR DECISION MAKING BODY CAN EITHER TO DENY A PROJECT OR IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON A PROJECT THAT MIGHT RELATE TO THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROJECT.

AND THERE'S THREE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT PERTAIN TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT COULD BE ADDED.

ONE IS AND I SHOULD SAY THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LIMITING THE AUTHORITY OF THE DECISION MAKING BODY TO EXERCISE THEIR DECISION MAKING PROCESS TO INCLUDE CONDITIONS. BUT THE CAVEAT IS THAT THEY ONLY CAN BE IMPOSED IF THEY'RE BASED ON THE ABILITY TO FURTHER ADVANCE THE CITY'S ABILITY TO MEET ITS RHNA OBJECTIVES AS CONSISTENT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT.

THE OTHER IS THAT IT DOES NOT IMPAIR OR IMPEDE THE FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT ITSELF.

AND USUALLY IF YOU THINK ABOUT PROJECT DESIGN CHANGES OR DESIGN ELEMENT CHANGES OR REDUCED DENSITY, THAT DOES INTERFERE WITH THE ABILITY OF THE PROJECT.

AND IT'S ALMOST THE SAME STANDARD AS THE DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVES AND CONCESSIONS.

THERE'S A LIMITED WAY THAT CONDITIONS CAN BE IMPOSED.

AND THE 3RD IS THAT IT HAS TO BE BASED OFF OBJECTIVE AND LIKE MEASURE SOMETHING QUANTIFIED STANDARDS.

SO MOST OF THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE PRESENTED TO THIS ARE BASED ON SOME OBJECTIVE CRITERIA OF THE CITY.

SOME ARE DIRECTLY CITING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION.

OTHERS ARE DERIVED FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR OR SOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS PERFORMED BY THE APPLICANT.

BUT TO SUBJECTIVELY ADD CONDITIONS COULD INVITE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT VIOLATING THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT BECAUSE THEY THEY MIGHT BE SUBJECTIVE, OR THEY MIGHT INTERFERE WITH THE FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT ITSELF.

WITH RESPECT TO THE 2 THAT WERE PRESENTED BY 1 OF THE SPEAKERS, ONE WAS TO ADD A CONDITION ABOUT THE UNBUNDLING.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE SEAMLESSLY ADDED TO AN EXISTING CONDITION THAT REQUIRES A PREPARATION OF A FINAL TDM PLAN.

PARKING DEMAND IS ELASTIC, WHICH MEANS THAT PEOPLE'S DECISION TO ON HOW OR WHEN OR WHERE TO PARK IS REFLECTED ON ITS PRICE.

SO OFTEN UNBUNDLING PARKING DOES WORK IN AREAS WHERE THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS.

ASSUMING THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN VEHICLE OWNERSHIP, PEOPLE MAY JUST PARK ON THE STREET RATHER THAN PARKING IN THE PROJECT SITE ITSELF AND NOT PAY THE EXTRA FEE TO PARK. AND I KNOW THAT'S A CONCERN OF THE PUBLIC IS HAVING IMPACTS ON THE STREET SYSTEM.

THE OTHER PROVISION WAS SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T RELATE TO ITS PROJECT NEAR TERM NEAR-TERM PROJECTS IMPLEMENTATION.

SO I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW IF IT'S A HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT ISSUE, BUT IT'S JUST TO SERVE.

NOTICE THAT PUBLIC PARKING MAY NOT ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE.

BUT AGAIN, THAT IS A SUBJECTIVE CONDITION. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANTS WILLING TO ENTERTAIN EITHER OF THOSE OR IF THE UNBUNDLING COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE APPLIED TO THE WHOLE PROJECT, OR MAYBE JUST A COUPLE OF THE SPACES THAT MIGHT BE EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT THAT'S REQUIRED FOR LIKE THE 1 AND 2 BEDROOMS. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING I DEFER TO THE APPLICANT AND WOULD YIELD TO HIM FOR A RESPONSE OR YIELD TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REGARDING THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS.

[01:15:03]

SORRY. SO THE PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC VOICE MANY TIMES VIA EMAIL AND ALSO THIS EVENING THE CONCERN OF THE HEIGHT.

SO THE MAX HEIGHT, ACCORDING TO THE CITY CODE, IS 35FT.

AND THE PROPOSED HEIGHT. I DIDN'T I DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN, BUT IT'S HIGHER THAN 35FT.

THE QUESTION I HAVE IS IT'S KIND OF TWOFOLD, REALLY.

IT'S WELL, I GUESS ONE'S KIND OF LIKE STATEMENT, BUT IT'S I MEAN, THEORETICALLY, SINCE SINCE WE HAVE THIS DENSITY BONUS WAIVER WHERE THEY CAN EXCEED THE 30 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT, LIKE THEORETICALLY THE APPLICANT COULD GO TO 50FT OR A HIGHER FEET.

OR IS THERE AN EQUATION WHERE THEY CAP OUT AT THE HEIGHT LIMIT? WITH THIS CONCESSION? THERE IS NO LIMITATION.

I THINK AT ONE POINT I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S STILL CODIFIED THIS WAY, BUT THERE WAS ALMOST LIKE A GUARANTEED ALLOWANCE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 3 STORIES IF YOU'RE NEAR A TRANSIT STATION. RIGHT. WHICH THIS IS NOT THE CASE, BUT YEAH, THIS IS A IT'S A PROJECT BY PROJECT ASSESSMENT.

THE THE 4 STORY BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED ON THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE, AND IT DOES ENCROACH ABOVE AND BEYOND THE 35FT. AND THE 35FT IS THE STANDARD OF THE CITY.

THAT'S WHAT THE POLICY DECISION WAS FOR THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AT 1 POINT.

IT'S JUST IT'S BEEN MODIFIED AND PREEMPTED BY STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

SO TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION BLUNTLY, IT COMPLIES WITH A HEIGHT STANDARD.

IT'S JUST NOT THE CITY'S HEIGHT STANDARD. IT'S THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

AND I GOT A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, IF I MAY.

SO IN THE EVENT THE DECISION MAKING BODY. SO, SO, SO THE CITY HAS THE HEIGHT LIMIT AT 35FT.

STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW SAYS, HEY, YOU CAN EXCEED THAT SO LONG AS YOU PROVIDE THE AFFORDABLE UNITS AND, YOU KNOW, FOLLOW THIS PROGRAM. AND SO THE QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS LIKE, IN THE EVENT THE DECISION MAKING BODY VOTED AGAINST OR PROVIDED SOME SORT OF CHANGE TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT TO THE PROJECT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, WOULD WOULD THAT OPEN UP THE CITY TO POTENTIAL LITIGATION FROM THE APPLICANT.

AS FOR NOT FOLLOWING STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, YES. IN ORDER TO DENY AN INCENTIVE OR CONCESSION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A WRITTEN FINDING BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF 1 OF 3 DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT THERE'S NO RESULT IN IDENTIFIABLE AND ACTUAL COST REDUCTIONS.

IT'S CONTRARY TO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, OR THAT THERE WOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT UPON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, OR THE REAL PROPERTY THAT'S LISTED IN THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES.

SO SHOULD YOU MAKE A FINDING WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE? BASED ON THE DENIAL OF THAT CONCESSION, THEN IT WOULD SUBJECT IT COULD SUBJECT THE CITY TO LIABILITY FOR VIOLATING STATE LAW.

THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? OKAY. SEEING NONE. COMMISSION DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER BURROWS.

I'M CONCERNED BY THE HEIGHT IN THE PARKING, AND I APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT FLESHED IT OUT.

AND WE HEARD SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS UP HERE AS WELL.

AT THE SAME TIME, I KNOW THAT WE ARE BOUND BY STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW LIKE MR. STRONG IS EXPLAINING. AND WE HEARD THAT THE 38 UNITS PROPOSED IN APRIL OF 2024 WAS REDUCED TO 26, AND THAT THE PARKING REQUIRED WOULD HAVE BEEN 37 UNDER DENSITY BONUS.

THEY'RE PROVIDING 49 HERE, SO I'M WEIGHING THOSE PIECES, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THINK AS WELL.

I THINK ONE OF ONE OF MY CONCERNS, AND AGAIN, IT'S THE PUBLIC AND NEIGHBORS IN THE IN THE AREA ARE EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE THE PARKING ISSUE. AND OF COURSE, WITH THE DENSITY BONUS.

YOU KNOW, GUEST PARKING IS, YOU KNOW, AS, AS A PART OF THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT ARE BEING REQUIRED.

AND I KNOW IN THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, IN THAT ENTIRE AREA UNDER THOSE VARIOUS STREETS, PARKING IS EXTREMELY LIMITED. AND YOU KNOW, THAT IS A CONCERN.

BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE DENSITY BONUS AND STATE LEGISLATION THAT THAT WITH THE WAIVERS AND EXCEPTIONS THAT WE HAVE TO ALWAYS CONSIDER IN REGARD TO THAT. FURTHER COMMENTS DISCUSSIONS.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. STRONG. AND MR. LARDY, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER IT, BUT I MEAN, THE PARKING IS A I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE CONCERN.

[01:20:05]

AND SO THE ONLY SOLUTION I COULD POTENTIALLY THINK OF YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS A SCENARIO WHERE THE APARTMENT BUILDING DECIDED TO CHARGE FOR PARKING AND TO CURB THAT THE OCCUPANTS PARKED ON THE STREET, RIGHT, WHICH THEREBY CREATES MORE STREET PARKING.

SO WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS, IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO POTENTIALLY PUT A CONDITION IN THERE THAT THE APARTMENT BUILDING CANNOT CHARGE FOR PARKING FOR THE OCCUPANTS OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING? IS THERE ANY WAY TO DO THAT, POSSIBLY IN THEIR IN THEIR PERMIT OR CONDITION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? YOU SEE WHAT I'M GOING YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT. MR. STRONG? WE WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN OUR REGULATIONS THAT ADDRESSES WHETHER AN APPLICANT CAN OR CANNOT CHARGE FOR PARKING.

AND I THINK THE PREVAILING ASSUMPTION IS THAT IF THERE WAS AN UNBUNDLING OF PARKING, SEPARATING THE RENT RATE FROM THE PARKING RENT RATE, I GUESS THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SPECIFICALLY APPROVED AS PART OF A TDM PLAN.

SO ITS EXCLUSION WOULD THEN INDICATE THAT THE RENT RATE WOULD INCLUDE THE PRICE OF PARKING.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF ERIC HAS ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT.

I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT BEFORE THERE'D BE ANY SUCH CONDITION ADDED, I THINK WE'D WANT TO REVIEW STATE LAW, BECAUSE A LOT OF THE NEW STATE LAWS ARE ACTUALLY PUSHING IN THE DIRECTION OF ENCOURAGING UNBUNDLING, PARKING. SO THAT THERE'S AN INCENTIVE TO NOT HAVE A CAR.

BUT YOU DO BRING UP A GOOD POINT OF DOES THAT GOING TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF STREET PARKING BY INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE A CAR, BUT DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THAT UNBUNDLED RATE.

YEAH, I MEAN, I HONESTLY, I DON'T LIKE TO GET INVOLVED IN OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS.

AND AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GET INVOLVED IN OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS, BUT GIVEN THE PARKING SITUATION, LIKE, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I COULD THINK ABOUT. YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS, BUT, I MEAN, TO TO OPERATING THE APARTMENT COMPLEX, ALL I WOULD DO IS JUST OBVIOUSLY INCREASE THE RENTAL RATE TO OFFSET THAT. SO I STILL CAPTURE THAT SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY. SO. BUT AT LEAST AT LEAST WHEN YOU CREATE THAT CONDITION, THEN IT WOULD CURB THAT, THAT OFF STREET PARKING SITUATION.

BUT I DON'T KNOW, I, I DEFER TO MR. LARDY ON WHAT HE JUST SAID.

AND I GUESS TO THE COMMISSION'S BENEFIT, THERE IS A CONDITION THAT AND THIS CAME DIRECTLY FROM PUBLIC COMMENT THAT CURBSIDE TRASH COLLECTION SERVICE IS PROHIBITED AND THAT THE COLLECTION HAS TO OCCUR ON SITE.

YOU CAN IMAGINE ON TRASH COLLECTION DAY, EVERYONE WOULD WHEEL OUT THEIR BINS AND WOULD PREVENT ON STREET PARKING.

SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS FEATURED IN IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY'S PRESENTATION.

IT'S BEEN ILLUMINATING. IT'S COMPLICATED. I STRUGGLE WITH GETTING INVOLVED IN THE MINUTIA OF TRYING TO TELL DEVELOPERS HOW TO HOW TO RUN A PROJECT. THIS IS A COMPLICATED PROJECT.

I FEEL FOR THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE THEIR THEIR ISSUES ARE REAL AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH THESE.

BUT THE DEVELOPER IS FOLLOWING ALL THE LAWS AND THE REQUIREMENTS.

AND YOU KNOW, I CAN'T WITH GOOD CONSCIENCE SAY THEN YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAME RIGHTS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEING A LANDOWNER AND A DEVELOPER. SO I TEND TO I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS.

I THINK WE NEED HOUSING. AND I'M NOT FAVORING ANY SORT OF MICROMANAGEMENT OF CHANGING THIS IN ANY WAY, ANY WAY. SO I'M A YES. YEAH. I WILL HAVE TO SAY, THOUGH, THAT IN COMMISSIONER HUBINGER WAS QUITE, QUITE CLEAR IN THIS REGARD, IS THAT YOU KNOW, STATE LEGISLATION AND THE HOUSING LAWS TODAY DOES HINDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE CITY COUNCIL IN REGARD TO, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, AND BECAUSE OF THE WAIVERS AND BECAUSE OF THE EXCEPTIONS YOU KNOW, OUR HANDS ARE SOMEWHAT TIED AND AND THEY DO MEET AND THEY DO MEET ALL THE REGULATIONS. AND, MR. STRONG, I REALLY COMMEND YOU FOR BEING VERY, VERY CLEAR AND VERY THOROUGH IN REGARD TO THE CEQA AND THE

[01:25:08]

COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. THANK YOU. WHILE I AGREE, IT FEELS LIKE OUR HANDS ARE TIED, I WOULD SAY OVER 30 COMMUNITY MEMBERS PARTICIPATING AND SAYING PUBLIC SAFETY IS A TOP CONCERN FEELS VERY QUANTIFIABLE TO ME.

THAT BEING SAID, I THINK WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS REGARDING ADDING CONDITIONS, CONSIDERING WHETHER WE WANT TO APPROVE THE CEQA EXEMPTIONS.

SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE CONSIDER TAKING A CONTINUANCE IF POSSIBLE TO CONSIDER WHAT CONDITIONS WE'D LIKE TO ADD AND REALLY MAKE SURE WE'RE UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOTION WE'RE GOING TO PUT FORWARD. AND IF WE APPROVE OR DENY THIS, IF POSSIBLE.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT DECISION BECAUSE THE BIGGEST CONCERN I HAVE IS APPROVING TWO OUTDATED EXEMPTIONS CEQA EXEMPTIONS OR WHAT DO THEY CALL CLEARANCES? GIVEN THE THE CONCERN WITH THIS PROJECT KIND OF STOPPING AND STARTING, AND WE HAVE THESE ACCUMULATION OF INFORMATION THAT STILL SEEMS TO ALWAYS BE OUTDATED AND OR NOT CONTINUED.

SO I DO FEEL THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH OUTDATED DATA.

BUT I ALSO AM CONCERNED THAT THE DEVELOPER COULD COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, IF WE ADD ONE MORE UNIT AFFORDABLE UNIT, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY OF THIS ANALYSIS.

AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 15 183 AND 15 168 THAT SAY THAT CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TDM SO WE'RE GOING TO GET SOME ANALYSIS AND MAYBE THAT WILL HELP OUR COMMUNITY MORE BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD THIS PUBLIC PROCESS AND YOUR COMMUNITY, THE WONDERFUL COMMUNITY COMING TO ENGAGE THIS, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE BIGGEST CONCERN RIGHT NOW IS ACCESS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT IS A QUANTIFIABLE CONCERN. SO SO I WOULD SUPPORT A CONTINUATION IF THAT'S AN OPTION TO COME BACK WITH.

WHICH EXACTLY 1 OF THESE CLEARANCES WE SHOULD BE CONDITIONING RIGHT NOW.

THE OBJECTION IS WITH THE 15168. SO IF WE COULD COME BACK WITH THE 15 183, MAYBE THAT WOULD BE MORE AMENABLE.

NOT SURE. FURTHER DISCUSSION. MR. LORDI, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD IN THIS REGARD? WELL, JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS RELATED TO YOUR OPTIONS. YOU DO HAVE THE OPTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM.

THIS IS AN SB 330 APPLICATION. SO THERE IS A LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF HEARINGS WHICH IS 5.

SO THIS IS THE FIRST OF THOSE. SO IT CANNOT BE CONTINUED INDEFINITELY.

I THINK THAT OUR REQUEST WOULD BE, IF THAT WAS THE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION, TO BE VERY SPECIFIC TO US AND WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO RETURN WITH IN THE FORM OF ANSWERED QUESTIONS OR ANALYSIS, SO THAT WE CAN REVIEW AGAINST WHETHER IT MEETS OUR OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.

DALTON HIGHLIGHTED WHAT STANDARDS WE HAVE RELATED TO ABILITY TO APPROVE OR DENY A WAIVER AND INCENTIVE.

THERE ALSO ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THINGS.

IF IT MEETS CERTAIN STANDARDS UNDER THE 15183, FOR EXAMPLE.

WHAT ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CAN BE ASKED FOR? SO WE COULD ELABORATE ON SOME OF THAT MORE TONIGHT WITH THOSE PROCEDURES.

BUT IF THERE'S OTHER THINGS WE CAN COME BACK WITH, WITH ANSWERS RELATED TO THE CONTINUANCE JUST IF YOU DO CONTINUE, WE WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU CONTINUE TO A DATE CERTAIN AND PROBABLY WOULD WANT TO CONFER INTERNALLY OF HOW LONG WE WOULD NEED.

BASED ON YOUR QUESTIONS RELATED TO ADDITIONAL WORK, I DEFER IF DIRECTOR STRONG HAS ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SHARE.

CITY ATTORNEY, ANY COMMENTS? OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER. I JUST GOT A QUESTION. WHEN DID THE APPLICANT APPLY FOR THIS PROJECT? FOR THIS THIS VERSION OF THE PROJECT, NOT THE 2020.

I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC INTAKE DATE, BUT IT WAS IN 2024.

BUT DO YOU KNOW THE. OKAY. I THINK OFFHAND IT WAS SEPTEMBER 2024.

BUT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT FOR LIKE WHEN I SAY YOU GUYS, THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT COLLECTIVELY TO KIND OF HAMMER THIS OUT FOR 14 MONTHS, APPROXIMATELY SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

CORRECT? YEAH. OKAY. I'M JUST GOING TO PUBLICLY STATE LIKE BEFORE WE GO TO ANY VOTE, LIKE I'M AGAINST A CONTINUANCE ON THIS.

I THINK THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY HAVE HAD 14 MONTHS TO HAMMER THINGS OUT.

IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MOVE FORWARD ON A VOTE TONIGHT.

[01:30:05]

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS IN REGARD? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD? YES. SO TO BE CLEAR, I THINK THERE'S 3 THINGS THAT WERE UNCLEAR ON TODAY AND 2 MORE WEEKS TO FIGURE THEM OUT.

I FEEL LIKE SEEMS A LITTLE BIT ADEQUATE TO MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.

SO THE CONTINUANCE WOULD BE FOR 3 ITEMS, POTENTIALLY THE CEQA CLEARANCES, THE UNBUNDLED PARKING AS SORRY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LARDY MENTIONED IS STATE LAW IS UNCLEAR ON THAT RIGHT NOW.

AND THE LEVEL AND I CAN'T EVEN READ MY OWN WRITING, THE LEVEL TO DENY AND THE QUANTIFIABLE NESS TO DENY THOSE INCENTIVES AND WAIVERS AND HOW WE'D LIKE TO CAPTURE WHAT QUANTIFIABLE MEANS.

IF THE COMMISSION IS SEEKING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IN PARTICULAR TO THE UNBUNDLING PARKING PROVISIONS, I'D SUGGEST SPEAKING TO THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING SO YOU CAN SEE IF HE CAN CLARIFY ANY REMAINING ISSUES OR CONCERNS WITH THE APPROACH OF THE PROJECT.

I AGREE, MR. STRONG. DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO STATE YOUR NAME AND THANK YOU.

I'M SORRY. THE SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT WE'D LIKE THAT I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS.

CAN YOU RESTATE THE QUESTION SO I CAN MAKE SURE THAT I'M ADDRESSING IT CORRECTLY? I THINK MY QUESTION WAS MORE FOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LARDY, WHO WAS MENTIONING THAT THERE'S NEW LEGISLATION.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT UNCERTAIN. SO TO WEIGH IN ON RIGHT NOW COULD BE IN CONFLICT.

YEAH. I MEAN, I'LL JUST ANSWER TO THE COMMISSION.

AND I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT DIRECTION ON.

WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENTER REQUESTING A CONDITION TO BE ADDED ESSENTIALLY TO REQUIRE UNBUNDLED PARKING AND STATEMENTS WITHIN IT THAT IT IS A UN THAT THERE'S NOT AS MUCH PARKING AS CERTAIN OTHER AREAS.

THEN THE COMMENT AND QUESTION WAS, COULD WE REQUIRE AN APPLICANT NOT PAY FOR PARKING, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY NOT UNBUNDLING PARKING? WE I DON'T KNOW IF STATE LAW IS UNCLEAR OR NOT.

WE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY INVESTIGATE THAT QUESTION FOR THE HEARING TONIGHT.

SO WE WOULD NEED TO REVIEW THE STATE LAW RELATED TO THOSE, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME RESTRICTIONS ON WHETHER WE COULD REQUIRE SOMEBODY TO NOT UNBUNDLE PARKING. AND THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF I MAY THE SUGGESTION THAT WE BRING THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO ADDRESS THE UNBUNDLING IS SPECIFIC TO WHAT THE APPLICANT ENVISIONS ON THE ALLOTMENT OR ALLOCATION OF THOSE SPACES AND HOW THEY'LL BE UTILIZED WITH THE PROSPECTIVE TENANTS.

WE WE GENERALLY ANTICIPATED THAT IT WOULD BE AN ON DEMAND ITEM.

WE WOULDN'T. WE'VE DONE IT BOTH WAYS ON VARIOUS PROJECTS WHERE PARKING IS INCLUDED OR ONE SPACE IS INCLUDED PER UNIT, AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL SPACE IS IS ON DEMAND, RENTED OUT SEPARATELY.

WE'VE UNBUNDLED PARKING. WE'VE WORKED IN JURISDICTIONS CITY OF SAN DIEGO SPECIFICALLY OFTENTIMES WHERE UNBUNDLING OF PARKING IS REQUIRED AND IT'S ALL UNBUNDLED. SO WE DO IT BOTH WAYS. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION NECESSARILY TO UNBUNDLING PARKING OR LEAVING THAT OUT.

I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WORKING THROUGH IN OUR TDM DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND INCLUDING IN OUR, IN OUR WORKING WITH STAFF AND ENGINEERING TO ENSURE THAT THE RIGHT BALANCE IS STRUCK.

SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY ANY STRONG OPINIONS BUNDLING OR UNBUNDLING? I THINK THAT'S, IN OUR OPINION, A, YOU KNOW, A DECISION THAT CAN BE EASILY REACHED WHICH ONE WAY OR ANOTHER DURING THAT TDM PROCESS.

FOR THE COMMISSION'S BENEFIT, I'M SHOWING THE SITE PLAN OVERVIEW OF THE SITE.

AND JUST TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT BUILDINGS A, B, C, AND D ARE ALL THE 3 BEDROOM, 3 UNIT OR 3 BEDROOM, THREE BATH UNITS. AND ALL OF THOSE ARE EQUIPPED WITH 2 CAR GARAGES WHICH DO HAVE INTERIOR ACCESS TO THE MAIN UNIT.

IT'S BUILDING E THAT HAS PODIUM PARKING. AND THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY UNASSIGNED OR ALLOCATED.

SO BUILDING 3 HAS 13 SPACES AND 1 OF WHICH IS AN ADA SPACE.

SO IF THE CONVERSATION IS SHIFTING GEARS TO UNBUNDLING OR NOT BUILDING NOT UNBUNDLING, IT PROBABLY WOULD BE FOCUSED ON THE 12 REMAINING SPACES SERVICING, BUILDING E. RIGHT. EXCELLENT CLARIFICATION I APPRECIATE THAT.

FURTHER COMMENTS, FURTHER DISCUSSIONS. I ALSO, I THINK STAFF HAS DONE A FINE JOB IN REGARD TO WHAT WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED TO THIS EVENING. I ALSO LOOK AT THE PROJECT AS AS BEING BENEFICIAL IN REGARD TO

[01:35:06]

I MEAN, IT'S IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION, BUT I THINK LOOKING AT THE POSSIBILITIES OF CONTINUING THE ITEM, I HAVE SOME DOUBTS AS TO IF IT'S GOING TO BE THAT BENEFICIAL AND IT'S GOING TO BE THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TONIGHT AND 2 WEEKS FROM NOW.

I ALSO WOULD SAY THAT I THINK THAT I FEEL PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH THE WITH PROCEEDING THIS EVENING IF WE HAVE IT IF THE VOTE GOES IN THAT DIRECTION. FURTHER COMMENTS.

ARE WE READY TO MAKE A MOTION? MAY I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER FOSTER? I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A MOTION YET.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT I SECOND WHAT CHAIR MEANS JUST SAID, WHICH IS I THINK IF I THINK IF THIS IF THERE WAS A CONTINUANCE IN 2 WEEKS PAST, I DON'T I REALLY DON'T SEE MUCH INFORMATION CHANGING ANYTHING.

I THINK THAT WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION WE NEED THIS EVENING TO MAKE A DECISION, IN MY OPINION.

MY PERSONAL OPINION. I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF THE HEIGHT THAT SUCCEEDED THE 35 HEIGHT LIMIT, BUT IT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION.

DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT DENSITY BONUS LAW COMES INTO PLAY.

AND AS THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID IN THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO DENY IS ON THE CITY, NOT THE APPLICANT.

IN THIS INSTANCE, I DON'T THINK THE CITY CAN REASONABLY DEFEND ITSELF IN DENYING THE CONCESSION.

AND SO I I'M NOT ONE TO HAVE ANY INTEREST OF PUTTING THE CITY IN POTENTIAL LITIGATION.

AND SO I SUPPORT THE PROJECT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT.

MOTION RECOMMENDATION? YEAH. MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND. OKAY. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER FOSTER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

PLEASE VOTE. PASS 6-1 WITH COMMISSIONER MERTZ ABSENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING THIS EVENING. IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION TO MAKE, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT.

UP TO YOU. YEAH, I THINK WE WILL. WE WILL TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK STARTING RIGHT NOW.

AT EXACTLY 6:38, 10 MINUTES. THANK YOU.

[2. AVENIDA ENCINAS COASTAL RAIL TRAIL AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - CDP 2024-0010/HMP 2024-0009 (PUB2023-0015) ]

FIRST, DO WE HAVE ANY EX PARTE CONVERSATIONS? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

COMMISSIONER BURROWS. I DROVE BY THE SITE. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. COMMISSIONER FOSTER.

I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. YEAH. I DRIVE BY IT ALMOST EVERY DAY, SO I'VE SEEN IT AS WELL. WE'RE GOOD. MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER 2? YES. THANK YOU. HERE TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION IS SENIOR PLANNER SCOTT DONNELL.

SCOTT, IT'S GREAT TO HAVE YOU HERE THIS EVENING. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN MEENES I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND THANK YOU, MR. LARDY. AND GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THIS IS A CITY PROPOSAL TO FULLY IMPROVE A PORTION OF AVENIDA ENCINAS IN THE CENTRAL PART OF CARLSBAD, VERY NEAR OUR COASTLINE. AVENIDA ENCINAS IS A NORTH SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTOR STREET FOR THE GENERAL PLAN THAT JOINS INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, PUBLIC, RESIDENTIAL AND RECREATIONAL AREAS BETWEEN CANNON ROAD AND CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.

IT IS WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND JUST EAST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS, AND LESS THAN 1000FT FROM THE COAST AND CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.

THE ENTIRE STREET FROM CANNON DOWN TO CARLSBAD BOULEVARD IS ABOUT FOUR MILES LONG.

THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHT ON THE MAP INDICATES THE APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE STRETCH OF AVENIDA ENCINAS THAT IS PROPOSED FOR IMPROVEMENT, GENERALLY BETWEEN PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND THE VICINITY OF THE POINSETTIA COASTER STATION.

THIS CITY PROJECT WOULD BEAUTIFY AND IMPROVE THE MIDDLE STRETCH OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, PROVIDING A UNIFORM STREET WIDTH, COMPLETE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING AND LANDSCAPING.

LARGE GAPS IN THE BIKE LANES AND SIDEWALK SYSTEM WOULD BE COMPLETED AND MID-BLOCK.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS WITH FLASHING BEACONS WOULD BE ADDED ON STREET PARKING.

[01:40:04]

BECAUSE OF UNDULATING TOPOGRAPHY ALONG THE PROJECT'S WEST SIDE, STREET WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENTS WOULD NECESSITATE A RETAINING WALL BETWEEN THE STREET AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS. IMPROVEMENTS WOULD PRIMARILY OCCUR ON THAT WEST SIDE OF THE STREET ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD, BUT ALSO ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, SOUTH OF THE CITY'S RECYCLED WATER FACILITY.

NOTABLY, THE PROJECT WOULD COMPLETE A SEGMENT OF THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL, A PLANNED REGIONAL FOOT AND BIKE PATH EXTENDING FROM OCEANSIDE TO SAN DIEGO.

OVERALL, THE PROJECT WOULD GREATLY IMPROVE ALL MEANS OF MOBILITY AS WELL AS THE AREA'S APPEARANCE.

THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ENTIRELY IN THE COASTAL ZONE AND PRIMARILY IN THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY.

THE PORTION NOT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY CONSISTS OF MINOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED ON VACANT PROPERTY ROUGHLY OPPOSITE THE ENTRANCE TO THE COASTER STATION.

THIS VACANT PROPERTY IS CONTROLLED BY THE ENCINA WASTEWATER AUTHORITY, OR IWA, WHICH OPERATES A LARGE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY ALONG THE STREET NORTH OF THE CITY'S RECYCLED WATERING FACILITY. THE PROJECT WOULD MAINTAIN THE EXISTING NUMBER OF VEHICLE TRAVEL LANES, AND SO WILL NOT IMPACT THE STREET'S VEHICULAR CAPACITY, OWING TO ITS COASTAL ZONE LOCATION.

THE PROJECT REQUIRES A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

ADDITIONALLY, STREET IMPROVEMENTS WOULD IMPACT NATIVE HABITAT, SO HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT IS ALSO REQUIRED.

THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL CITY STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

IT'S ANTICIPATED THIS PROJECT WILL TAKE ABOUT 7 MONTHS TO CONSTRUCT AND WILL BEGIN CONSTRUCTION LATER THIS YEAR.

AS MENTIONED, PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WOULD IMPLEMENT A PORTION OF THE CITY'S COASTAL RAIL TRAIL.

WHEN THE TRAIL WAS ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED IN THE 1990S, IT WAS ANTICIPATED TO EXTEND FROM THE OCEANSIDE TRANSIT CENTER TO THE SANTA FE DEPOT IN DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO. WHILE PORTIONS OF THE TRAIL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN CARLSBAD AND IN OTHER CITIES, CHALLENGES HAVE BEEN REALIZED, CAUSING SOME PORTIONS OF THE OF THE TRAIL TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON SURFACE STREETS.

AS PROPOSED, THE PROJECT WOULD CLOSE A MISSING SEGMENT OF THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL AND ENABLE A CONTINUOUS TRAIL FROM CANNON ROAD TO CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.

THIS AND THE NEXT 2 SLIDES PROVIDE VIEWS OF AVENIDA ENCINAS AS IT EXISTS TODAY.

THE PURPOSE OF THESE SLIDES IS SIMPLY TO SHOW THE MIX OF IMPROVED AND UNIMPROVED PORTIONS OF THE STREET.

THIS FIRST VIEW LOOKS AT AVENIDA ENCINAS, JUST TO THE SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, IN THE VICINITY OF THE AUTO SPA CAR WASH.

FURTHER SOUTH, NEARING THE ENCINA WASTEWATER AUTHORITY ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE STREET.

HERE AGAIN, ANOTHER PICTURE JUST SHOWING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND UNIMPROVED PORTIONS OF AVENIDA ENCINAS.

AND THEN FINALLY, THIS LAST SLIDE SHOWS THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF THE PROJECT, JUST PAST THE POINSETTIA COASTER STATION, WHERE THE STREET TRANSITIONS FROM ITS UNIMPROVED NATURE ON THE LEFT OR NORTH SIDE OF THE STREET TO A FULLY IMPROVED STREET IN FRONT OF THE PORSCHE DEALERSHIP.

STAFF ANALYZED THE PROJECT AND FOUND THAT ALL REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS CAN BE MET, WHICH DEMONSTRATES CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE LAND USE DOCUMENTS SUCH AS THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. THE GENERAL PLAN, FOR EXAMPLE, IDENTIFIES THE PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES FOR AVENIDA ENCINAS AS A NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTOR STREET, WHICH EMPHASIZES PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS, AND BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THE COASTER STATION, IMPROVED ACCESS TO THAT FACILITY IS ALSO EMPHASIZED BY THE GENERAL PLAN.

OTHER CONSISTENCY HIGHLIGHTS INCLUDE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT WILL COMPLETE THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS ALONG THE STREET IN TERMS OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN.

THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVES OF THOSE PLANS AND THAT IT WOULD MINIMIZE, MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO HABITAT AND ENSURE IN THE COASTAL ZONE, NO NET LOSS OF HABITAT. IN ADDITION, THE PROJECT WOULD ALSO ENHANCE PUBLIC ACCESS, WHICH IS A KEY OBJECTIVE OF THE COASTAL PROGRAM.

THE CITY ALSO REVIEWED THE TRAILS MASTER PLAN AND SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN AS PART OF ITS CONSISTENCY REVIEW, FINDING THAT THE PROJECT'S COASTAL RAIL TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENT THE OBJECTIVES OF BOTH PLANS.

FURTHER, THE PROJECT IS IN LINE WITH THE SCENIC CORRIDOR GUIDELINES.

THESE GUIDELINES DO NOT DIRECTLY RELA2TE TO AVENIDA ENCINAS, BUT INSTEAD ENCOURAGE ENCOURAGE ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THE RAIL RAILROAD CORRIDOR TO IMPROVE THE CITY'S IMAGE TO RAILROAD PASSENGERS.

THE PROJECT'S UNIFORM, STREET APPEARANCE AND LANDSCAPING WOULD ACCOMPLISH JUST THAT.

AS FAR AS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA, THE CITY PREPARED AN INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ANALYZE AND DISCLOSE

[01:45:02]

THE DOCUMENT DETERMINED THE PROJECT MAY HAVE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES, NOISE RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

HOWEVER, WITH THE INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

THESE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE CONTAINED WITHIN A MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, IMPLEMENTATION OF WHICH IS REQUIRED BY A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

THIS PROJECT WENT THROUGH THE EARLY PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS IN 2024, AND NO PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THAT NOTICING.

IN THE FALL OF THIS LAST YEAR, THE PROJECT'S INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS CIRCULATED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW.

IN RESPONSE, THE CITY RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, COASTAL COMMISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY ARCHEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, AND FINALLY THE RINCON BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS.

EACH COMMENT WAS RESPONDED TO, AND THE RESPONSES, AS WELL AS THE COMMENTS ARE PROVIDED TO THE ATTACHMENT TO EXHIBIT 1.

THE RESOLUTION THAT'S PROPOSED FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TO SUMMARIZE THE COMMENTS, THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE REQUESTED SURVEYS BE CONDUCTED BY THE PROJECT FOR A PARTICULAR BUMBLEBEE KNOWN AS THE CROTCH'S BUMBLEBEE, WHICH HAS BEEN INCLUDED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.

THE COASTAL COMMISSION SUGGESTED VERTICAL BUFFER ELEMENTS BETWEEN BICYCLE AND VEHICLE LANES, PROPOSED THAT THE CITY, WHICH THE CITY DOES NOT RECOMMEND FOR THE PROJECT BASED ON LOCAL ROADWAY CONDITIONS, AS WELL AS PUBLIC INPUT RECEIVED AT THE TRAFFIC AND MOBILITY COMMISSION AND FURTHER, THE COASTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ANY PERMANENT FENCING BE LOW PROFILE TO MINIMIZE VISUAL IMPACTS, WHICH THE PROJECT INCORPORATES. THE COUNTY'S ARCHEOLOGICAL SOCIETY EXPRESSED ITS CONCURRENCE WITH CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURES. AND LASTLY, THE RINCON BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS SUBMITTED COMMENTS RELATED TO TRIBAL CULTURAL MITIGATION MEASURES IN LINE WITH PREVIOUS COMMENTS MADE DURING CONSULTATION ON A NUMBER OF PROJECTS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE TRIBE IN ORDER TO STAY CONSISTENT WITH OUR CURRENT TRIBAL CULTURAL GUIDELINES.

NO CHANGES WERE MADE FOR THIS PROJECT. HOWEVER, STAFF ARE WORKING WITH THE TRIBE TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS AS PART OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE GUIDELINES, WHICH IS NOW UNDERWAY.

I'LL CONCLUDE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS THAT THE STAFF STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT 2 RESOLUTIONS 1 APPROVING THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND THE 2ND APPROVING THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AS WELL AS THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT.

WITH ME TONIGHT IS BRANDON MILES. HE IS AVAILABLE FROM OUR CITY'S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND IS ALSO SERVING AS THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT.

HE AND I ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU, MR. MCDONALD. CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER, DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY PHOTO SIMULATIONS OF WHAT THIS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE? POST ALL THE WORKS BEING DONE. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PHOTO SIMULATIONS.

THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IF YOU DID. IT'S KIND OF HARD TO VISUALIZE EVERYTHING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

WHAT I CAN DO IS PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF AN IMPROVED PORTION OF AVENIDA ENCINAS TO THE SOUTH, WHICH, ALTHOUGH NOT IDENTICAL, I THINK PROVIDES A GOOD IDEA OF WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

IF YOU'LL JUST GIVE ME A MINUTE, I'LL FIND THE SLIDE. SO THIS IS A AVENIDA ENCINAS TO THE SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE. ONCE YOU GET PAST THE RALPHS SHOPPING CENTER.

THIS WAS A PROJECT THAT WAS ACTUALLY COMPLETED 2 OR 3 YEARS AGO BY THE CITY TO IMPLEMENT THIS PORTION OF THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL.

SO IT DOESN'T SHOW ON STREET PARKING, BUT IT DOES GIVE THE IDEA OF THE STRIPED BIKE LANES, THE FULL CURB AND GUTTER, AND LANDSCAPING ON EITHER SIDE.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD ENHANCE THIS WHAT'S SEEN HERE EVEN FURTHER THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION OF LANDSCAPED MEDIAN ISLANDS AS WELL.

YEAH. COOL. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. ACTUALLY, ON THAT NOTE THOUGH.

COULD YOU SHOW US JUST ONE OF THE PLANS? THE SITE PLAN OR WHATEVER? YOU KNOW, SOME DETAIL OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE ON THE ACTUAL PLANS THAT ARE BEING SUBMITTED? YES. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY I CAN DO THAT. IF YOU COULD GIVE ME A MINUTE TO PULL THAT UP. APPRECIATE IT.

LET'S SEE.

THERE WE GO. COME ON.

[01:50:37]

AND THIS IS ONE STRETCH OF THE STREET THAT WOULD BE IMPROVED.

AND THIS FOR EXAMPLE SHOWS A MEDIANS THAT ARE PROPOSED, AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ON THE CENTER OF THE STREET.

AND SO DOES THIS INCLUDE THE PARKING AS WELL.

THIS PARTICULAR STRETCH DOES NOT. THERE'S A SEPARATE STRIPING PLAN THAT DOES INDICATE WHERE THE PARKING WOULD GO.

CAN YOU. WHERE'S LET'S SAY THE POINT CITY TRAIN STATION WOULD BE TO THE SOUTH OF THIS TO THE RIGHT OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU SEE.

SO THERE'S A LITTLE KEY PLAN THAT'S RIGHT ON THE VERY RIGHT HAND SIDE THAT SHOWS WHAT SECTION IT IS IN ORIENTATION ON.

THIS PARTICULAR EXHIBIT HAPPENS TO SHOW THE ENTRANCE TO THE POINSETTIA COASTER STATION TOWARD THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PLAN.

YEAH. AND THERE'S NO PARKING ON THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF THE STREET.

THERE IS. I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADVANCE TO THE STRIPING PLAN.

THAT MIGHT BE MORE HELPFUL. ALTHOUGH THE PARKING IS DIFFICULT TO SEE ON THE PLANS BECAUSE THE, THE TICK MARKS MARKING EACH SPACE ARE SO SMALL.

OKAY. OH YEAH.

BUT FOR EXAMPLE, THIS IS AGAIN THE POINSETTIA COASTER STATION.

YOU CAN SEE THE DRIVEWAY TO IT CALLED OUT THERE ON THE LEFT.

THESE ARE THE FULL STREET IMPROVEMENTS WITH STRIPING.

THERE IS PARKING THAT IS BEING ADDED WHERE IT CURRENTLY DOESN'T EXIST ON THE UPPER OR NORTH PORTION OF AVENIDA ENCINAS.

CLOSER NOW TO THE COASTER STATION ENTRANCE ENTRANCE THAN WHAT IS PROVIDED CURRENTLY ON THE PROJECT SITE.

THANK YOU, MR. O'DONNELL. AFTER THIS PROJECT, ARE THERE OTHER RAIL TRAIL PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, OR ANY FURTHER PLANNED PROJECTS TO CONTINUE THE RAIL TRAIL WITHIN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD? THAT IS NOT IMPROVED CURRENTLY. THERE ARE STILL SEGMENTS OF THE RAIL TRAIL TO COMPLETE IN THE CITY.

AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE BETWEEN TAMARACK AND CANNON ROAD, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS, I THINK, THAT ALTERNATIVES TO LOCATING THE TRAIL ALONG THE RAIL CORRIDOR HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IN THAT STRETCH THERE IS THE LAGOON TO CROSS.

SO THERE ARE THERE IS PLANNING THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO CONSIDER WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

PERHAPS THE RAIL TRAIL, FOR EXAMPLE, MIGHT BE PART OF ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER POWER PLANT PROPERTY, BUT I DON'T THINK AND I'LL DEFER TO MR. MILES IF HE HAS ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, THAT THERE IS AN ACTIVE PROJECT TO PURSUE ANOTHER SEGMENT OF THE RAIL TRAIL AT THIS TIME.

MR.. MILES.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. BRANDON MILES, PUBLIC WORKS, TRANSPORTATION, CIVIL ENGINEERING, TRAFFIC ENGINEER. I'M THE PROJECT ENGINEER FOR THIS PROJECT HERE SPECIFICALLY.

THE QUESTION WAS, DO WE HAVE ANY PLANS FOR THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

I MANAGE MOST OF THE TRANSPORTATION CIP PROJECTS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

THERE ARE NO CURRENT CIP PROJECTS FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

LIKE MR. O'DONNELL SUGGESTED, WE DO HAVE PLANS.

WE HAVE CONSIDERED IT. THERE'S FUNDING ISSUES AND PROPERTY ISSUES, BUT NOTHING ON THE CIP AGENDA AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.

OKAY. OH, COMMISSIONER FOSTER. THIS IS JUST FOR MY OWN EDUCATION.

SO WHY, AS PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS, YOU RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM A FEW ENTITIES.

AND ONE OF THOSE ENTITIES WAS THE RINCON INDIANS.

AND SO THE QUESTION IS, WHY DOES THE CITY OF CARLSBAD HAVE TO CONSULT WITH THE RINCON INDIANS, WHICH ARE OUT IN VALLEY CENTER? GREAT QUESTION.

THANK YOU. WHEN WE BASED ON WHAT TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IS BEING PREPARED, IN THIS CASE, AN INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECK. WE ARE OBLIGATED BY STATE LAW, KNOWN AS AB 52, TO CONSULT WITH TRIBES.

[01:55:07]

THE RINCON BAND, AS WELL AS OTHER TRIBES OF SAN LUIS REY, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK IDENTIFY THIS AREA AND OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTY AS PERHAPS THEIR HISTORICAL LOCATION OF THEIR TRIBE. AND EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE IN VALLEY CENTER, THEY STILL RECOGNIZE CARLSBAD AND OTHER COASTAL AREAS AS BEING WITHIN THEIR PERHAPS HISTORIC FOOTPRINT, SO TO SPEAK.

WHEN WHEN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD REACHES OUT TO A TRIBE SUCH AS RINCON.

IS THERE ANY PAYMENT TO THE TRIBE FOR THE CONSULTATION RESPONSE THAT THEY PROVIDE TO THE CITY? THERE IS NOT. SO IT'S JUST AN EXCHANGE OF COMMUNICATION.

IT IS AN EXCHANGE OF COMMUNICATION. OKAY. THAT'S GOOD.

THIS IS LAFFERTY. COMMISSIONER. LAFFERTY. THANK YOU. BUT WILL THERE BE PALEONTOLOGICAL OVERSIGHT WHILE THIS PROJECT IS HAPPENING? YES. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THAT IS A MITIGATION MEASURE TO REQUIRE THAT PALEONTOLOGICAL OVERSIGHT.

ANY MORE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? YES.

SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? PALEONTOLOGY OVERSIGHT.

IS IT DOES SOMEBODY STAND AROUND AND WAIT TILL YOU RUN INTO A BONE OR SOMETHING? AND WE PAY SOMEBODY TO STAND THERE WHILE YOU'RE DOING THE CONSTRUCTION.

AS WITH CULTURAL RESOURCES. CORRECT. THERE IS A MONITOR, A QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL TO OBSERVE CONSTRUCTION.

AND MAYBE MR. MILES HAS OBSERVED THIS IN THE FIELD, BUT THEIR JOB IS TO BASED ON THE SOIL THAT'S THERE, THE PROPENSITY OR OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE RESOURCES TO BE PRESENT.

THEY'RE THERE TO MONITOR. I DO BELIEVE THE MITIGATION MEASURE RECOGNIZES THAT IF, IN THE PROFESSIONAL OPINION OF THAT MONITOR, IT'S UNLIKELY THAT RESOURCES WILL BE FOUND, THE MONITORING MAY STOP.

SO DO WE PAY SOMEONE TO ACTUALLY SPEND LIKE 3 MONTHS JUST HANGING AROUND THE SITE FOR THAT? I CAN ANSWER THAT. YEAH, WE DO HAVE THE MONITORS ON SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND IT'S PRIMARILY DURING GRADING TIME.

SO WHEN WE DO MASS EARTHWORK OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, LIKE MR. DONALD'S SAID, WE DON'T TYPICALLY HAVE A CONCERN WITH CERTAIN AREAS, SO THE MONITORS WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY AT THAT TIME.

THERE ARE ONLY REQUIRED DURING AREAS OF CONCERN, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S AREAS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN DISTURBED BEFORE.

OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE. SO WE PAY THEM. WE DO? YES. THAT IS WHAT WOULD BE THE BUDGET FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THAT YOU WOULD PAY SOMEONE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? I DON'T HAVE THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. THERE'S BEEN MANY PROJECTS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN VERY LOW DOLLAR AMOUNTS TO VERY ASTRONOMICAL DOLLAR AMOUNTS.

AND AS EXCITING AS IT IS TO FIND SOMETHING, IT'S NOT THE BEST THING TO FIND ON A PROJECT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD FOR THE GOOD OF THE PUBLIC.

ANY FURTHER, GO AHEAD. AND IF I COULD JUST ADD THE THE LIST OF TRIBES THAT WE GET TO CONSULT WAS ORIGINALLY FROM THE STATE AGENCY THAT DOES THAT.

SO IT'S TRIBES THAT HAVE HAD HISTORICAL PRESENCE IN CARLSBAD PRIOR TO THE RESERVATION SYSTEM.

AND THEN THIS IS A CITY PROJECT. SO THE CITY WOULD BE PAYING.

THIS IS A COMMON MITIGATION MEASURE. AND IN THOSE OTHER CASES, THE PRIVATE DEVELOPER AND APPLICANT WOULD BE PAYING FOR FOR THE TRIBAL MONITOR.

SURE. I GOT A QUESTION ON THE PALEONTOLOGY PART.

SO IS THIS A CITY REQUIREMENT OR A STATE REQUIREMENT? THE COMPLIANCE WITH AB 52 AS A STATE LAW AND STATE REQUIREMENT.

THE CITY HAS A TRIBAL, CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL GUIDELINES DOCUMENT THAT INCLUDES HOW WE COMPLY WITH STATE LAW FOR CEQA, WHICH INCLUDES OUR SAMPLE MITIGATION MEASURES.

SO THOSE ARE UNIQUE TO CARLSBAD AND THE TRIBES THAT ARE MOST COMMON TO BE HAVE HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN CARLSBAD.

AND WE'RE DEVELOPED IN CONSULTATION WITH THOSE TRIBES.

WE ARE ACTUALLY UNDERGOING A PROCESS RIGHT NOW TO UPDATE THOSE GUIDELINES THAT WE WOULD BE PRESENTING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SOMETIME THIS YEAR AFTER THOSE GO OUT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. SO WE COULD HAVE A MORE IN-DEPTH CONVERSATION ON THOSE GUIDELINES AND THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THEM AT THAT TIME AS WELL. BUT, MIKE, SO SO MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS, SO DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS, WE CAN'T JUST SAVE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD MONEY, SEND PEOPLE OUT TO START DOING WORK. NOW. IF THEY FIND SOMETHING, THEN PICK UP THE PHONE AND SEND OUT THE EXPERT TO GO EXAMINE IT.

WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME GUY JUST STAND THERE AND PRAY TO GOD.

HE FINDS SOMETHING AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO SPEND MONEY.

AND THEN IF HE DOESN'T FIND ANYTHING, WE JUST WASTED A BUNCH OF MONEY. I MEAN, I THINK THE INDUSTRY STANDARD IS TO HAVE A QUALIFIED PERSON TO BE PRESENT ON SITE DURING

[02:00:08]

SINCE THE TRIBE CONSULTED AND THERE IS A MITIGATION MEASURE, IF IT WAS THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REMOVE THAT MEASURE, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE IT REMANDED BACK TO STAFF AND POTENTIALLY UPDATE AND RECIRCULATE THAT MITIGATION MEASURE BECAUSE CONSULTATION HAS HAS DONE SO.

IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS BEING ABLE TO REMOVE THE MITIGATION MEASURE AND CONDITION BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT THAT GIVES YOU THE ABILITY TO APPROVE THE PROJECT.

WELL, BUT THE CHALLENGE IS WE DON'T. HOW MUCH IS THIS? WE DON'T. WE HAVE NO IDEA. LIKE HOW MUCH THIS IS FOR THIS GUY TO STAND THERE.

I MEAN, I'D ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY IF THEY WANT TO WEIGH IN, BUT THE THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION IS, IS THERE AN IMPACT UNDER CEQA AND DOES IT MEET THE FINDINGS? THE COST IS A BUDGETARY DECISION THAT'S REALLY ULTIMATELY ON THE CONTRACT THAT WILL BE AT THE CITY COUNCIL.

YEP. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

MINUTES CLERK. ARE THERE ANY APPLICATIONS FOR SPEAKING? NO, CHAIR. THERE IS NOT. I WILL THEN CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF IN REGARD TO THIS PROJECT? OKAY. DISCUSSION AMONGST OURSELVES. COMMISSIONER BURROWS.

MR. DONALD. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

WE'RE STARTING TO CLOSE THE THE RAIL TRAIL PORTION AND HOPEFULLY WE GET WE GET CLOSER ON THAT.

BUT I SUPPORT THE PROJECT. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD THANK YOU, CHAIR.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. I DO LIVE NEARBY AND I HAVE SEEN THIS ROAD BE USED BY RUNNERS, BIKERS, MOMS PUSHING THEIR CHILDREN AND IT HAS BEEN UNSAFE.

SO I'M SUPER EXCITED TO SEE THIS. I THINK IT'S REALLY GOING TO IMPACT COMMUNITIES ON 2 ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM.

SO THANK YOU FOR PUSHING THIS FORWARD. AND YEAH, EXCITED TO SEE IF THERE'S MORE.

MAYBE PUT ON THE CIP. THANKS. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, I'M HAPPY TO SEE THAT THE CITY IS IMPLEMENTING.

THAT'S A THE LOCATION HAS NEEDED A LOT OF IMPROVEMENT OVER THE YEARS, AND I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR, MAJOR IMPROVEMENT TO THE AREA, BOTH FOR THE RAIL TRAIL ASPECT BUT JUST FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AS WELL.

ANYTHING FURTHER? DO I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER BURROWS MOTION TO APPROVE PROJECT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, ARE YOU MAKING A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

PLEASE VOTE. THERE YOU 6-1. ABSENT MR. MERZ. ALRIGHTY. WITH THAT, MR. LARDY, I'LL OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING. I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, IT'S A IT'S DEPARTMENTAL REPORT AND IT'S ITEM NUMBER THREE.

[3. 2026 Commission Appointments]

IT IS TYPICAL THAT AT THE 1ST MEETING OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR, WE ELECT THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR TO PRESIDE OVER THE MEETINGS.

HOWEVER, WE DO KNOW THAT THERE IS ONE ABSENT OF A COMMISSIONER.

SO IT COULD BE AN OPTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO A MEETING WHERE WE DO BELIEVE THAT THERE WOULD BE A FULL COMMISSION.

THAT IS AN OPTION. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO DO DEPENDING UPON HOW THE COMMISSION FEELS TONIGHT.

WE DID DO THAT LAST YEAR. A COUPLE OF REMINDERS ABOUT THE SELECTION IS THERE'S NO SECRET BALLOTS ALLOWED.

SO WHAT WE RECOMMEND IS A STRAW POLL. FIRST, TO SEE WHO IS INTERESTED IN BOTH THE CHAIR AND OR THE VICE CHAIR POSITION, SO THAT THERE CAN BE ANY KIND OF CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ANY MOTIONS.

BECAUSE IF THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ACTED UPON.

FINAL COMMENT IS THIS IS A DEPARTMENT REPORT, NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT WE WILL, I THINK.

NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THERE IS NO PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE WILLING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. I'LL MAKE I'LL MAKE A COMMENT HERE.

I'M OF THE OPINION THAT WE ARE MISSING MR. OR COMMISSIONER MERZ.

AND I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT TO HAVE A FULL COMMISSION WOULD BE IDEAL IF WE AT LEAST CONSIDERED THAT.

SO MOVE ON. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER BURROWS.

I AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT FOR COMMISSIONER MERZ. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD.

I CONCUR. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO. COMMISSIONER.

OKAY. WITH THAT IN MIND, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER BURROWS MOTION TO APPROVE PROJECT AS RECOMMENDED BY COMMISSIONER MEENES.

AND THAT WOULD BE TO THE FEBRUARY 4TH MEETING.

[02:05:03]

SO MIGHT I RECOMMEND THAT WE MOVE IT TO FEBRUARY 18TH? EXCELLENT. GOOD IDEA. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

SO, COMMISSIONER BURROWS MADE THE MOTION. MOVE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO MOVE THE VOTE TO FEBRUARY 18TH MEETING.

AND DO I HAVE A SECOND? AND I HAVE COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MAKING THE 2ND.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3 6 WITH 1 ABSENT.

MR.. MERZ COMMISSIONER MERZ. WITH THAT COMMISSIONERS ANY REPORTS THAT YOU WISH TO MAKE TONIGHT.

[COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTARY AND REQUESTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS]

SO FOLLOWING THAT, THEY WOULD BE EFFECTIVE WITHOUT REVISIONS, WHICH IS GOOD, BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE US TO GO BACK TO COUNCIL AND ADOPT THOSE REVISIONS. THANK YOU, MR. CITY ATTORNEY. NOTHING FOR ME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING.

AND THE MEETING WILL BE ADJOURNED AT 7:18 P.M.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.