Feb 18, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:07]

GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE FEBRUARY 18TH, 2026 MEETING OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.

WOULD THE MINUTES CLERK PLEASE TAKE ROLL? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD? PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER BURROUGHS? PRESENT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? HERE. COMMISSIONER MERZ? HERE. COMMISSIONER FOSTER? HERE. VICE CHAIR, HUBINGER? HERE. CHAIR MEANS? PRESENT. WOULD YOU PLEASE? YEAH, SURE. STAND FOR THE PLEDGE. ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. LED BY THE CHAIR. NEXT

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

PLEASE VOTE. SIX WITH ONE ABSTAIN.

COMMISSIONER MERTZ WAS NOT PRESENT AT THAT MEETING. THANK YOU. FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT THIS EVENING. WE'LL REQUIRE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM FOR ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARING.

REQUEST FORMS MUST BE TURNED INTO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM BEING COMMENCED.

ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES UNLESS THAT TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON. SPEAKERS MAY NOT GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANOTHER SPEAKER. GROUP TIME WILL BE PERMITTED FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA.

A REPRESENTATIVE MUST IDENTIFY THE GROUP AND AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE MEETING FOR THE PRESENTATION TO BE MADE. THOSE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP HAVE 10 MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS CHANGED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.

THE MINUTES CLERK WILL CALL THE NAMES OF THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN THE ORDER THE REQUESTS WERE RECEIVED. ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA THE BROWN ACT ALLOWS ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO MAKE COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY PROVIDING COMMENTS AS PROVIDED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE AGENDA. PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED, UP TO 15 MINUTES. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, ALL OTHER NON-AGENT PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD AT THE END OF THE MEETING. IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT, NO ACTION CAN OCCUR ON THESE ITEMS. NEXT CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY ITEMS THAT ARE NON-AGENDA ITEMS? ANY SPEAKERS FOR THAT? NO, CHAIR, WE DO NOT. SEEING NONE, WE'LL BEGIN WITH TONIGHT'S MEETING. IF EVERYONE WILL DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN, I'LL REVIEW. THE PROCEDURES THE COMMISSION WILL FOLLOW THIS EVENING FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPEN.

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

ON THE PRESENTATION. 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 OPENED. A TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES IS ALLOTTED FOR EACH SPEAKER.

AFTER ALL THOSE WANTING TO SPEAK HAVE DONE SO, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE CLOSED. THE APPLICANT AND STAFF. WE'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO ISSUES AND QUESTIONS RAISED.

THE COMMISSIONERS WILL DISCUSS THE ITEM AND THEN VOTE ON THAT. PUBLIC HEARING WILL THEN BE CLOSED. CERTAIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ARE FINAL BUT MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. YOU MAY FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE BACK OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA. I UNDERSTAND THAT COMMISSIONER BURROUGHS WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.

COMMISSIONER BURROUGHS. SO, DUE TO THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF MY EMPLOYER'S PROPERTY TO THIS PROPERTY SITE.

FOR ITEM ONE, I SPOKE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE FPPC.

AND DECIDED TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM MATTER ONE. OKAY. I'LL LET YOU EXCUSE YOURSELF AND GO INTO THE BACK ROOM. AND

[00:05:09]

[1. TOLL BROTHERS BRESSI RANCH - GPA2025-0001 / AMEND2025-0003 / CT2025-0006 / PUD2025- 0006 (DEV2024-0088)]

BUT FIRST, COMMISSIONERS, ANY EX PARTE? CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. OKAY.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

COMMISSIONER NERTZ.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER. I'M DRIVEN BY THE SITE. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. DRIVEN BY THE SITE. I'M DRIVEN BY THE SITE. AND I WAS CONTACTED BY TELEPHONE YESTERDAY BY ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BRESSEY RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

AND I SHARED WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL, WHICH IS BRUCE VANDERMEER, THAT I COULD NOT DISCUSS THE ITEM.

STAFF, FIRST, I'LL GO AHEAD.

MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THE ITEM? IN FACT, EXCUSE ME, MR. STRONG. THANK YOU, CHAIR. YES, THANK YOU FOR THE INTRODUCTION AND JUST FOR SOME ADDITIONAL OPENING REMARKS BEFORE ERIC LARDY PRESENTS THE AGENDA ITEM. THIS IS A, THE DETAILS OF THIS REQUEST FOLLOWS A CITY COUNCIL POLICY THAT WAS ADVISED TO CITY STAFF TO, ON HOW TO TREAT AND HANDLE PRIVATELY INITIATED GENERAL PLAN OR ZONE, ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS. AND SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS EVENING IS TO...

SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS OF THE LAND USE CHANGE. SO THE CONVERSATION IS GOING TO BE FOCUSING PRIMARILY ON THE LAND USE CONTEXT, GENERAL PLAN POLICY, RATHER THAN THE PROJECT ITSELF.

CITY STAFF HAS NOT PREPARED A THOROUGH OR ADEQUATE EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT, SO IT'S PREMATURE TO DISCUSS ANYTHING RELATED TO BUILDING DESIGN OR SITE DESIGN.

AND SO, FOR THAT REASON, WE'RE RECOMMENDING JUST TO FOCUS ON THE POLICY SIDE OF IT. PROCEDURALLY, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THIS PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ULTIMATELY BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WHO WILL THEN DIRECT STAFF ON WHETHER OR NOT TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION. SO WITH THAT ADDITIONAL INTRODUCTION, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO ERIC.

MR. LAUGHERTY? GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. AGAIN, ERIC LAUGHERTY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. THE CHAIR WENT OVER THE PROCEDURES, BUT WE'RE STARTING WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION ON ITEM 2. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE ACTIONS THAT PRECEDED THIS DATE.

FOR BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE HOUSING ELEMENT IN 2021, AND IT WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LATER THAT YEAR. IT INCLUDED MULTIPLE ITEMS THAT CHANGED LAND USE PLANNING IN CARLSBAD. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A HOUSING ELEMENT, THE CITY WAS REQUIRED TO SUSPEND THE UNIT CAP PORTIONS OF THE GROSS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND COMMIT TO REZONING ENOUGH SITES TO ALLOW FOR HOUSING. TO ACCOMMODATE THE CITY'S REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION. IN 2024, THE REZONING PROGRAM WAS APPROVED, AND THE CITY REMAINS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CAPACITY FOR OUR REMAINING ARENA REQUIREMENTS.

IN YEARS PAST, THE UNIT CAP OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROVIDED A STRONG REGULATION ON PRIVATELY INITIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, UNLESS THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROGRAM OR OBTAINED UNITS OUT OF THE PROGRAM'S UNIT BANK.

THE UNIT CAP WAS SUSPENDED, BUT THE CITY STILL MAINTAINS CONTROL OVER THE GENERAL PLAN AS LONG AS THE HOUSING ELEMENT IS CERTIFIED.

DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT EIR AND REZONING PROGRAM, NO PRIVATELY INITIATED PROJECTS WERE SUBMITTED. BUT AFTER THE EIR WAS APPROVED, A FEW REQUESTS STARTED COMING IN, SUBSEQUENTLY INQUIRING ABOUT PRIVATELY INITIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS. CITY STAFF PRESENTED AN ITEM TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND RECEIVED DIRECTION. TO CONDUCT THE PROCESS WE ARE UNDERGOING TODAY. THIS IS THE FIRST OF THOSE REQUESTS. WE STARTED WITH THE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL AND A 30-DAY COMPLETENESS REVIEW WHERE WE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AT A HIGH LEVEL AND PROVIDED A LIST OF ITEMS AND CHANGES THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO MAKE THE APPLICATION COMPLETE.

HOWEVER, AFTER THAT ITEM, WE ARE STARTING THIS PROCESS WITH SCREENING, WITH THIS HEARING, WHERE WE ARE PRESENTING TWO OPTIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND ULTIMATELY, THE CITY COUNCIL ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH THE APPLICATION. THE FIRST OPTION WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL REMAND THE PROJECT BACK TO STAFF FOR PROCESSING, AND THAT WOULD BE THROUGH ADOPTING THE RESOLUTION INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT 1. IF ADOPTED, THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL DETAILS, AND THE MERITS OF THE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND DESIGN ATTRIBUTES WOULD GET LOOKED AT AT THAT TIME. WE ESTIMATE A 12

[00:10:03]

THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ADDRESS COMMENTS AND WORK OUT ANY PROJECT SPECIFIC DESIGN ATTRIBUTES BEFORE WE WERE TO PRESENT THE FULL APPLICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION.

ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH. AFTER ALL OF THAT, THE ITEM WOULD GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR RECOMMENDATION AND THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A DECISION ON THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. AND ANY DECISIONS MADE NOW THROUGH THE SCREENING PROCESS ARE NOT BINDING ON THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME OF THE PRIVATE APPLICATION.

THE ADDITIONAL OPTION WOULD BE RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BY ADOPTING EXHIBIT 2.

IN THAT CASE, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD IF CONCURRED ON BY THE CITY COUNCIL. NOW WE'LL TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT OF THE PROJECT DETAILS. THE SEVEN-ACRE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY GATEWAY, ALICANTE, AND TOWN GARDEN ROADS, AND TO THE WEST, THERE'S THE VIASAT CAMPUS. THE PROPOSED APPLICATION IS APPROXIMATELY 111 TOWNHOME UNITS FOR SALE THROUGH A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS SLIDE SHOWS WHAT THE LAND USE MAP CHANGES WOULD BE IN THE GENERAL PLAN.

THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN HAS THE SITE DESIGNATED AS PLANNED INDUSTRIAL, SHOWN IN THE BLUE COLORS. ON THE LEFT IS THE CURRENT DESIGNATION OF INDUSTRIAL, AND ON THE RIGHT SHOWS THE REQUESTED CHANGE TO A RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF 23 UNITS PER ACRE. THE YELLOWS AND BROWNS ON THIS MAP ARE RESIDENTIAL, THE GREENS ARE OPEN SPACE, AND THE PINKS ARE OFFICE OR COMMERCIAL. THIS IS A UNIQUE PROCESS, GIVEN A NEW SET OF LAND USE REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO THE CITY DURING THIS HOUSING CYCLE.

OVERALL, AS YOU KNOW, LOCAL CONTROL HAS BEEN IMPACTED BY MANY LAWS THAT CHANGE ANNUALLY. AND AS WE SAID, THIS IS THE FIRST TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. WE HAVE PRESENTED MANY PROJECTS TO THIS COMMISSION, AND WE TELL YOU ABOUT THE HIGH BAR. THAT REQUIRES SPECIFIC, OBJECTIVE, PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY FINDINGS TO EITHER MODIFY OR DENY A PROJECT. THIS PROJECT IS A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SO IT IS A LEGISLATIVE ACTION.

AND AGAIN, AS LONG AS THE CITY HAS A CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT, THERE IS LOCAL POLICY CONTROL OVER WHAT IS IN THAT GENERAL PLAN.

THEREFORE, THIS SCREENING PROCESS IS ASKING FOR A POLICY RECOMMENDATION ON WHAT THE GENERAL PLAN SHOULD BE FOR THIS SITE, SO THAT A COMPLETE PROJECT COULD STILL BE REVIEWED IN THE FUTURE BASED ON THE MERITS AND THE SPECIFIC DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS. WE DID SEND PUBLIC NOTICING OUT FOR THIS APPLICATION ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT. THERE WAS TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT 6. SINCE THAT TIME, THERE'S BEEN FIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED IN POSTING, THREE IN SUPPORT AND TWO AGAINST.

ONE COMMENT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED THE VMT MEMO THAT WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PACKAGE IN EXHIBIT 8. WE WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THAT EXHIBIT WAS THE APPLICATION ATTACHED AS SUBMITTED. WE'VE NOT REVIEWED OR INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMED ANY OF THE STATEMENTS WITHIN IT. A VMT EVALUATION WILL BE REQUIRED IF THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD AS PART OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT EXAMINATION. RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, THE CEQA FINDINGS FOR TODAY, THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS AND TWO STATEMENTS RELATED TO CEQA IN THE DOCUMENT. IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES THE FIRST RESOLUTION, EXHIBIT 01, THAT IS NOT A PROJECT UNDER CEQA, AND NO CEQA FINDING IS REQUIRED. THE RECOMMENDATION, IF IT'S AGREED TO BY CITY COUNCIL, IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGALLY BINDING EFFECT ON FUTURE DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS TO APPROVE THE PROJECT.

SUBSEQUENT CEQA REVIEW WILL BE REQUIRED. A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA.

UNDER OPTION 2, IT WOULD BE EXEMPT, AND THE GUIDELINES STATE THIS EXEMPTION IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT CAN ALLOW FOR SCREENING OF PROJECTS ON THE MERITS FOR QUICK DISAPPROVALS PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE CEQA PROCESS, WHERE THE AGENCY CAN DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT CANNOT BE APPROVED.

AND THEREFORE, WE ARE PROVIDING THE COMMISSION WITH TWO OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION, WITH NO STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

OPTION 1 WOULD BE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REMAND THE APPLICATION BACK TO CITY STAFF FOR FURTHER PROCESSING. OPTION 2 WOULD BE RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE PROJECT APPLICATION.

THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION AND WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. AND WE WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE DID RECEIVE... FROM A NUMBER

[00:15:03]

COMMISSIONERS, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER MERTZ. THANK YOU.

SO AT THE END, YOU MENTIONED SO THAT THE STAFF IS NOT MAKING A RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHICH ONE TO TAKE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY.

THEN THE OTHER THING YOU MENTIONED, SO IN PREVIOUS PROJECTS, WHERE THEY COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE'RE KIND OF A LITTLE BIT STUCK ON WHETHER IT'S A HEALTH AND SAFETY THING, AND WE'RE VERY MUCH LIMITED ON WHAT WE CAN DO. MY UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR PRESENTATION IS.

BECAUSE WE HAVE A CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT, THIS WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THIS APPLICATION. IF THE APPLICATION WERE TO GO FORWARD AND WE REMAND IT BACK TO STAFF, IT WOULD NOT BE UNDER THE SAME RESTRICTIONS.

OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY TYPE OF THINGS ON OTHER PROJECTS THAT FALL WITHIN DENSITY BONDS OR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. WHAT I WOULD PHRASE IT AS THAT.

THIS PROJECT IS NOT A DENSITY BONUS PROJECT, AND THE TRIGGERS AND PROVISIONS OF S.B. 330 DON'T APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PROJECT THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. IT'S A PROJECT THAT ULTIMATELY, IF MOVED FORWARD, WOULD BE MAKING THE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENT, BUT IT IS A LEGISLATIVE ACTION, SO IT HAS A DIFFERENT STANDARD OF REVIEW. RIGHT. SO BASICALLY, AND BASED ON ONE SLIDE YOU PUT THERE, SO WE'RE... REALLY, THE DECISION BEFORE US IS LIKE, DO WE ALLOW TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THROUGH THIS APP, AND THEN WE CAN THEN DECIDE AT THAT POINT, OR IS IT JUST DENIED OUTRIGHT? TONIGHT, BASICALLY, IS WHAT WE COME DOWN TO. RIGHT. THEN THE OTHER THING IS THAT UNDER, IN PAGE FOUR OF SIX, IT TALKS ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE TO TALK ABOUT. SO THEY TALK ABOUT. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND THEN APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROPOSED SIZE AND DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

BUT THAT'S, IT SEEMS, CHALLENGING TO DOES THAT, SIR, TO BE ABLE TO COMMENT THAT SEEMS LIKE WE NEED THE SUPPORTING DATA OF? THE TRAFFIC STUDIES AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, SOME A LITTLE BIT OF A, I GUESS. I DON'T REALLY QUESTION MORE OF A LOSS. SO HOW TO, HOW TO DISCUSS THOSE THINGS WITHOUT THE DATA? I GUESS THAT'S MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION, SO I APOLOGIZE. IF THE CHAIR IS OKAY, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON IT.

MR. LARDY. THANK YOU. THAT SECTION IS ACTUALLY CALLING FOR QUESTIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY WISH TO SEE INCLUDED IN EITHER THIS DISCUSSION OR INCLUDED IN A FUTURE DISCUSSION. SO, IF THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROJECT, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE INFORMATION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE. AS PART OF THAT FUTURE EVALUATION, WHEN WE DO PROCESS THE PROJECT, WHEN AND IF WE DO, PROCESS THE PROJECT. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR.

IF I COULD. CITY ATTORNEY.

JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE ISSUE THAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL VOTE ON A RECOMMENDATION. AND THAT THE FINAL DECISION MAKER IS THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT GOING TO DENY AT THIS POINT. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T PHRASE THAT VERY WELL. I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION.

THAT WAS A BAD PART. THAT WAS MY MISTAKE IN THE WAY I PRESENTED. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. LAFFERTY.

THANK YOU. YOU DID MENTION THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROPOSED AS A DENSITY BONUS PROJECT, AND YET THERE ARE 7.02 ACRES AND 111 UNITS BEING. PROPOSED ON AN R23 ACRE LOT THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY CHANGED FROM THE P1, RIGHT, WHICH IS THE INDUSTRIAL. SO, AND SURROUNDING IT ARE R4 AND R5. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE R4 AND 5 TO ME, TO THE PEOPLE HERE, JUST TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONTEXT IS? OBVIOUSLY, THE VISA IS CONFORMING, THE R5 AND 4 ARE CONFORMING. BUT IF WE GO TO R23, WHAT'S THAT LOOK LIKE? SO WHAT'S R4 AND R5? SO THIS IS A TABLE FROM THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN.

IT SHOWS WHAT THE DIFFERENT DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR BOTH THE SITE AS WELL AS OTHER SITES.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING R23, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR MAXIMUM DWELLING UNIT OF 23 UNITS PER ACRE, SO A RANGE OF 19 TO 23. THE R4 IS ONE OF OUR LOWER DENSITY DESIGNATIONS.

[00:20:03]

OUR RENA, AS IT WAS ASSIGNED.

OF THE 3800 UNITS, A MAJORITY OF THOSE UNITS WERE IN THE LOW, VERY LOW, AND MODERATE. AS PART OF SOME ADDITIONS AND CHANGES THAT WERE MADE WHEN THE ALLOCATION WAS MADE, PRIMARILY DUE TO THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF CARLSBAD. SO IN OUR PRODUCTION, WE CAN ONLY COUNT PRODUCED UNITS AT LOW, VERY LOW, OR MODERATE. IF THEY ARE DEED RESTRICTED OR WE HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT THEY MEET THE INCOME QUALIFICATIONS. AND SO THESE ARE OUR PRODUCTION NUMBERS ACROSS THE UNITS. I'LL CLARIFY THAT THERE'S NOT A REQUIREMENT TO BUILD YOUR ARENA ALLOCATION.

THE REQUIREMENT IS TO HAVE CAPACITY IN YOUR GENERAL PLAN TO MEET THAT. AND THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE REZONING PROGRAM TO HAVE HIGHER DENSITY SITES WITH THE ABILITY TO MEET THE ARENA ALLOCATION.

WE STILL HAVE THAT AND CONTINUE TO TRACK THAT. THIS IS HOW WE'RE TRACKING OUR PRODUCTION.

AND THESE ARE THE NUMBERS.

THIS ACTUALLY INCLUDES 2025, THAT WILL BE. REPORTED FORMALLY TO THE CITY COUNCIL NEXT MONTH AS PART OF OUR ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT.

SO OF THE 16 SITES, HOW MANY ARE ACTIVELY IN PROCESS? I MEAN, WILL THEY BE BUILT IN THREE YEARS, I GUESS, IS THE QUESTION. 2029, RIGHT? THE 2029, I MEAN, WILL THERE BE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN THREE YEARS? I CANNOT TELL YOU.

THERE'S TWO THAT ARE IN AN ACTIVE APPLICATION PROCESS.

TWO OUT OF 16. TWO, AND I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO OR THREE OTHERS THAT HAVE DONE PRELIMINARY REVIEWS. SO POTENTIALLY FOUR OUT OF 16 SITES. SO THAT'S, I THINK, THE QUESTION I HAVE IS JUST DOING THE STRAIGHT MATH ON 23 UNITS AT 7 ACRES AS RESULTS. IN 161 UNITS, WHICH MEANS THAT WE'RE LOSING 50 UNITS ON THIS LOT IF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GOES THROUGH. SO, AND BECAUSE IT'S BETWEEN AN INDUSTRIAL SITE AND, YOU KNOW, SORT OF MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF A MORE ROBUST TRANSITION BETWEEN THOSE TWO, WHICH STRIKES ME AS MAYBE THE R23 ISN'T ADEQUATE FOR THAT PARTICULAR SITE. AND IF THEY'RE... PROPOSING IT TO BE R23, BUT BRINGING US DOWN TO, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, MORE LESS THAN 50 UNITS, OR, YOU KNOW, LOSING 50 UNITS. I THINK THAT THAT MAY NOT BE THE BEST SOLUTION IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS FOR US TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS THE CORRECT SOLUTION FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. WHEN WE ALSO HAVE ALL THESE OTHER SITES THAT ARE NOT BEING ACTIVELY, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S 12 OTHER SITES THAT ARE NOT ACTIVELY BEING PURSUED AS HOUSING SITES.

SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL MAY NOT BE ADEQUATE IN THE FUTURE, IF WE ALLOW.

ARE 23. IF WE ALLOW A HIGHER DENSITY AND THEY CAN MEET THAT DENSITY, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A BETTER OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT AREA. BUT THAT'S THE CONCERN I HAVE IS WE'RE NOT, WE STILL HAVE 2,000 UNITS OUTSTANDING IN THREE YEARS, AND I DON'T SEE THIS MEETING ALL

[00:25:01]

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THIS SITE WAS NOT EVER INCLUDED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT REZONING PROGRAM.

OKAY. AND IF IT WERE TO BE INCLUDED, WHAT WOULD BE, COULD YOU PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD IN THAT REGARD? SURE. SO WHEN WE GET A REALLOCATION, WE LOOK AT WHAT IS OUR, HOW MANY UNITS HAVE WE BUILT OR HAVE IN THE PIPELINE TO BE BUILT, AND THEN WHAT IS THE ZONED CAPACITY FOR VACANT AND OR UNDERUTILIZED SITES. A MAJORITY OF THE SITES WE'VE INCLUDED ARE VACANT BECAUSE IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY YOUR UNDERUTILIZED SITES. YOU NEED EVIDENCE THAT THOSE ARE GOING TO REASONABLY DEVELOP WITHIN THE EIGHT-YEAR HOUSING CYCLE.

IF YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THAT AND FIND THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY, YOU NEED TO REZONE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR HOUSING ELEMENT. AND THAT'S WHAT THE CITY DID IN 2021. THERE WAS AN EVALUATION AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH CAPACITY. IF THIS SITE REMAINS VACANT IN THE NEXT HOUSING AMOUNT CYCLE AND WE DO A LOOK AROUND FOR POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE SITES, IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE INCLUDED IN THAT CYCLE. IF IT IS REZONED NOW AND REMAINS VACANT, WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT WHETHER WE THOUGHT IT COULD REASONABLY PROVIDE HOUSING AT THE DENSITIES THAT COULD BE INCOME LEVELS. AND IF IT IS REZONED AND CONSTRUCTED, WE WOULD REPORT IT AS UNITS BUILT.

BASED UPON THE INCOME CATEGORIES, WHICH LIKELY WOULD BE A COMBINATION OF ABOVE, MODERATE, AND THEN WHATEVER INCOME CATEGORY IS SHOWN.

FOR THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, BUT IT WOULD BE REPORTED, AND THEN WE WOULD NO LONGER HAVE IT IN OUR INVENTORY AND CAPACITY.

AND WHEN WOULD THE NEXT HOUSING CYCLE OCCUR? THIS CYCLE GOES THROUGH 2029. OUR NEXT HOUSING ELEMENT WILL ACTUALLY BE DUE IN 2031 OR 2032, BASED UPON SANDEX, NOT THIS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN, BUT THEIR NEXT REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN. SO PLANNING WILL BEGIN FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT TOWARDS THE END OF... THIS DECADE, AND IT WOULD BE DUE WITHIN A COUPLE YEARS FROM THAT. THANK YOU. FURTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. THANK YOU. ONE QUESTION ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PIECE, RECOGNIZING THAT, YOU KNOW, SUPPLYING CARLSBAD AND NORTH COUNTY IN GENERAL IS LOW.

WOULD WE BE ABLE, AS A CONDITION, IF APPROVING, TO RECOMMEND AND REMAND THIS TO CITY COUNCIL? COULD WE RECOMMEND A CONDITION FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT? IS THAT SOMETHING WITHIN OUR PURVIEW? AND I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS FOR YOU, MR. LARDY, OR FOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. I MEAN, I'LL START IT AND THEN SEE IF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY WANTS TO ADD ON. I MEAN, ANY PROJECT WOULD BE CONDITIONED TO PROVIDE OUR 15% INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, AND THE FORM THAT THAT TAKES IS THROUGH AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT. TO BE RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO GRADING OR BUILDING.

BECAUSE THIS IS A SUBDIVISION, IF IT GOT TO THAT POINT, IT WOULD BE A NEED TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUAL UNITS THAT WOULD BE FOR SALE, AFFORDABLE.

FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, WE HAVE HISTORICALLY TAKEN THAT 15% AND REQUIRED 20% INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. SO WE'VE SHARED THAT WITH THE APPLICANT AND BELIEVE THEY ARE ANTICIPATING THAT AS PART OF THEIR PLANS IF THAT MOVES FORWARD. THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT FOR ANY PROJECTS THAT WERE UPZONED IN THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN. AS WELL AS FOR ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WERE UPZONED BY THE CITY IN THE 2024 ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE. AND THEN I'LL ASK CITY ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, IF HE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD ON THAT. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER FOSTER. YEAH, I JUST GOT A QUESTION. FOR THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'LL BE MAKING THIS EVENING, DO WE NEED TO GET AS GRANULAR, OR SHOULD WE? I DON'T KNOW HOW TO REALLY KIND OF PHRASE THIS, BUT DO WE NEED TO GET AS GRANULAR? AS FAR AS IF IT SHOULD PURSUE AS AN R23, OR IF IT SHOULD BE AN R15 OR IS? IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT OUR OPINION IS, IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF IF IT PURSUES OR NOT PURSUES THE PROCESS? IT'S PRIMARILY IF YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO CHANGE FROM INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL. THE DETAILS OF THE SPECIFIC DESIGNATION REQUESTED AND THE SPECIFIC SITE DESIGN WOULD NEED TO BE WORKED OUT WITH THE APPLICANT IN THAT 12 TO 24 MONTH PROCESS.

I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT CLARIFIES WHAT DECISION WE ACTUALLY NEED TO MAKE. THANK YOU. THROUGH THE CHAIR, JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE COMMISSION STAFF AND THE COMMISSIONER REACT TO AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PROJECT APPLICANT. SO, THE SPECIFIC REQUEST IS THE R23 LAND USE DESIGNATION, WHICH HAS

[00:30:02]

BUT THAT IS WHAT THE SUBJECT OF THE MEETING IS THIS EVENING IS THE SPECIFIC LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUEST. AND THAT'S THE R23. THANK YOU, MR. STRONG. FURTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME OKAY WITH THE APPLICANT LINE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? OKAY, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL JUST NEED ONE AND I THINK THERE WE GO.

ANDREW COHEN, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT. I'M WITH LEVINE INVESTMENTS. WE OWN THE SITE. WE ALSO OWN THE ORIGINAL VIASAT CAMPUS THAT WE BOUGHT 25 YEARS AGO, WHICH WAS PHASE ONE. THEN WE BUILT PHASE TWO. WHICH IS CURRENTLY VACANT BECAUSE OF COVID AND VIASAT'S CONTRACTION OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT. THEN WE BUILT PHASE THREE, WHICH VIASAT IS OCCUPYING. THEN WE BUILT PHASE FOUR, AND THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO BUILD ON PHASE FIVE, WHICH THIS IS A SUBJECT OF.

THE PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT WHO IS EVENTUALLY BUILDING AND WHAT'S THERE, BECAUSE WE OWN EVERYTHING NEXT TO IT AND HAVE A VERY LARGE COMMITMENT TO THE AREA. WE SELECTED TOLL BROTHERS BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL OF QUALITY. MY UNDERSTANDING, WE'RE REALLY EARLY IN THE SEASON, TO USE A BASEBALL PUN, AND SO ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR IS TO BE ABLE TO PROCESS THIS APPLICATION.

WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH TRAFFIC AND ALL THE BUILDING CODES AND LIFE SAFETY ISSUES AND ALL THE OTHER ISSUES. SO WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE. I THINK ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS ARE GREAT, BUT THEY ALSO SHOW WHY WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS AND EITHER MAKE OUR COMPELLING ARGUMENT.

AND GET THROUGH OR NOT, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE FORWARD. WE HAD A COUPLE OF ALTERNATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR THIS SITE, WHICH ARE MUCH MORE DENSE, BUT I'LL LET THE FOLKS FROM TOLL BROTHERS SPEAK TO THAT, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HEARING IT. I THINK YOUR QUESTIONS SPEAK TO WHY WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, SIR.

ERIC EBELHARDT, TOLL BROTHERS. THANK YOU. TOUGH MAKING THAT 8.21 TIME, BUT LET'S GIVE IT A GO. GOOD EVENING, HONORABLE PLANNING COMMISSIONER MEANS, DISTINGUISHED CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION, AND RESIDENTS OF CARLSBAD. IT IS WITH MY GREAT HONOR THAT I PRESENT TO YOU. TOLL BROTHERS PLANS FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY LUXURY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT BRESSEY RANCH. AS I SAID, MY NAME IS ERIC EBERHARDT. I'M REPRESENTING TOLL BROTHERS. I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE THIS PROJECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND TO THE PUBLIC. OUR GOAL IS BEING ALLOWED TO FORMALLY APPLY FOR LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS FOR THIS SITE. TO START, I'D LIKE TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT TOLL BROTHERS. TOLL BROTHERS IS AN AWARD-WINNING FORTUNE 500 COMPANY AS AMERICA'S LUXURY HOME BUILDER.

WE BUILD MORE THAN HOMES. WE BUILD LASTING COMMUNITIES.

TRUSTED SINCE 1967, TOLL BROTHERS EMBRACES AN UNWAVERING COMMITMENT TO QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SERVICE. EACH TOLL BROTHERS HOME BLENDS QUALITY MATERIAL, WAS SUPERIOR, DESIGNED TO CREATE A DREAM HOME THAT IS UNIQUELY THE HOMEOWNER'S. THIS SITE IS 7.02 ACRES, LOCATED IN BRESSEY RANCH COMMUNITY OF CARLSBAD.

THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY GATEWAY ROAD TO THE NORTH, ALICANTE ROAD TO THE EAST, TOWN GARDEN ROAD TO THE SOUTH, AND THE OFFICE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS, OPERATED BY VIASAT TO THE WEST. THE SITE HAS A GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNED INDUSTRIAL, AND IT'S ZONED PLANNED INDUSTRIAL WITHIN THE BRESSEY RANCH MASTER PLAN.

ACCORDINGLY, WE WILL NEED TO REQUEST A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND BRESCI RANCH PLAN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOP THE HOMES ON SITE.

THIS VACANT REMNANT PARCEL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRADED WITH SUPPORTIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS ALONG EACH OF THE FRONTAGES.

OUR PROPOSAL FOR THE SITE INCLUDES A TENTATIVE TRACK MAP FOR 111 ATTACHED TOWNHOME-STYLE CONDOMINIUM UNITS. OUR NEW LUXURY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WILL HAVE A GATED ENTRANCE AND EXIT ON GATEWAY ROAD. THIS FOR SALE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY SHOWCASES FIVE PLAN TYPES.

RANGING IN SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM 1458 SQUARE FEET ALL THE WAY UP TO 2271 SQUARE FEET.

ON THIS SLIDE, WE SHARE OUR ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN FOR THE LUXURY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY IN BRESCIA RANCH. AGAIN, WE'RE PROPOSING 111 ATTACHED TOWNHOMES, ABUNDANT RESIDENT AND GUEST PARKING, INTERIOR DRIVE AISLES THAT CONNECT THE UNITS, AND PLENTY OF COMMON AREA OPEN SPACE.

THESE LUXURY TOWNHOMES WILL BE THREE STORIES AND GROUPED IN BUILDINGS THREE TO SIX. WE

[00:35:02]

IN GENERAL, THE FIRST FLOOR IS OF THESE NEW HOMES, HAS A GARAGE, A FOYER, A BEDROOM, AND A BATHROOM. SECOND FLOOR FEATURES A KITCHEN, A DINING AREA, A GREAT ROOM, AND A BATHROOM, AND A BALCONY. AND THE THIRD FLOOR WILL FEATURE THE REMAINING BEDROOMS AND BATHROOMS. THIS SLIDE SHOWCASES THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED FIVE-PLEX BUILDINGS, PROVIDING A GLIMPSE INTO THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND ENHANCED FULL EXTERIOR ARTICULATION. THAT TOLL BROTHERS BRAND IS KNOWN FOR.

THE ELEVATIONS HIGHLIGHT THE MATERIALS PROPOSED FOR THE EXTERIOR, SUCH AS THE CONCRETE FLAT ROOFS, STUCCO TREATMENT, IRON RAILINGS FOR VIEW, OFFSETTING STONE VENEERS.

NOTICE THIS ELEVATION HIGHLIGHTS THE BACK OF THE FIVE-PLEX BUILDING, AND YOU CAN SEE THE PLANE MOVEMENT, POP-OUTS, AND OUR ARCHITECTURAL ARTICULATION. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS CONFIGURATION, FOUR GARAGES ARE ACCESSED FROM ONE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, ONE GARAGE IS ACCESSED FROM THE SIDE. EVEN ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE BUILDINGS, BALCONIES, WINDOWS, AND A VARIATION OF MATERIALS AND DEPTH OF THE WALL PLANE, YOU ENHANCE THE VISUAL INTEREST AND INVESTMENT VALUE OF EACH BUILDING. THE TOLL BROTHERS DESIGNS ARE IN FULL COMPLIANCE AND ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. THIS SLIDE AND SET OF ELEVATIONS SHOWCASE THE SENSE OF GRAND ARRIVAL WITH OUR PROPOSED DESIGN FOR THE ENTRY, MONUMENT, AND PRIVATE COMMUNITY GATES.

THE GRAND ENTRY ON GATEWAY ROAD WILL INCLUDE A VARIETY OF LUSH LANDSCAPING, SEPARATE ENTRY AND EXIT GATES FOR VEHICLES, AND A PEDESTRIAN INTER-GATE.

OUR RESIDENT FRIENDLY DESIGN ALSO INCLUDES A LARGE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT IN THE FOCAL CENTER OF THIS PRIVATE TOLL BROTHERS COMMUNITY. THIS COMMON RECREATIONAL SPACE WILL INCLUDE AN OPEN LAWN AREA, A SHADE STRUCTURE WITH TABLES AND SEATING, BARBECUES, A RESTFUL BOTANICAL GARDEN WITH BENCH SEATING, ENHANCED PAVING AND LOUNGE SEATING, BIKE RACKS. FOR THOSE LIKE ME, HE LIKED TO TAKE A BREAK. TOLL BROTHERS PAYS CLOSE ATTENTION TO EVEN THE FRONT DOOR ARRIVALS, THOSE DETAILS. BEAUTIFUL AND LUSH LANDSCAPE PASEOS LEAD TO AN ENHANCED FRONT DOOR EXPERIENCE THAT NEW HOMEOWNERS TAKE PRIDE IN. AN ABUNDANCE OF SHARED OPEN SPACE SERVES AS AN IMPORTANT AREA FOR GATHERING AND FOR RESIDENTS TO INTERACT.

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARD, THE PROJECT WILL PROVIDE A TOTAL OF 18,626 SQUARE FEET OF COMMON OPEN SPACE, EYE-CATCHING AT THE CENTER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, AND NOTICEABLE FROM THE FRONT GATES. THE TOLL BROTHERS COMMUNITY WILL ALSO FEATURE ATTRACTIVE WALLS AND FENCES OF HIGH-QUALITY MATERIALS. I'M GOING TO MOVE QUICKLY THROUGH THIS.

OUR NEW TOLL BROTHERS LUXURY COMMUNITY IS DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH ALL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. THE MAJORITY OF THE LANDSCAPING IN THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LOW WATER USE. PROPOSED COLORFUL PLANNING PALETTES AND DESIGNER CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLANS.

CREATE A POSITIVE AND A RELAXING HOMEOWNER EXPERIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT. WE USE A VARIETY OF SHADE AND ORNAMENTAL TREES, AS WELL AS SHRUBS, GROUND COVERS, AND VINES TO ADD COLOR AND VIBRANCY

[00:40:01]

TO END THIS PRESENTATION, WE WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU THOUGHT FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION.

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS DISCUSSED FOR THIS SITE SO THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND RESIDENTS HAVE A POINT OF COMPARISON. WE STAND AT A CROSSROADS FOR THIS AND THE SITE WILL BE DEVELOPED.

INDUSTRIAL OR RESIDENTIAL, WHICH GENERATES THE HIGHEST OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE. A POPULAR PROPOSAL FOR PHASE FIVE, WHICH IS THE COLORED YELLOW, AS WAS DESCRIBED, ENVISIONS AND CAPTURES THE POPULAR TREND TOWARDS CREATING A LARGE AND INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL OR WAREHOUSE CAMPUS. THIS SHIPPING WAREHOUSE CONCEPT HAS PROVEN FINANCIALLY TO BE A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS MODEL, BASED ON A 24-7 ACTIVITY AND PACKAGE SHIPPING OPERATION. THANK YOU. YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. WE APPRECIATE IT.

NO, I'M SORRY. TEN MINUTES.

COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER MERTZ? WELL, HE WAS GAINED TO THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS.

CAN I ASK HIM ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS ON THAT? YEAH, YOU WERE GAINED TO THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR THE SITE. I MEAN, COULD YOU ADDRESS THOSE? THANK YOU. ANY INVESTOR PROPOSAL CONSIDERED WILL IMPACT AND LOWER PROPERTY VALUES OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. EVEN THE HIGH-DENSITY RENTAL COMPLEXES ARE PROBLEMATIC AS THEY DON'T FAVORABLY ADDRESS THE AREA QUALITY OF LIFE. THE FOLLOWING IS A COUPLE RENDERINGS SHOWING THE INDUSTRIAL-SLASH-WAREHOUSE SCENARIOS BEING CONSIDERED BY RIGHT AND SCALE OF BUILDINGS PROPOSED. THESE INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVES COULD BE BUILT UNDER THE EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS. AS PROPOSED, LARGE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WITH FREQUENT TRUCK TRAFFIC...

WILL BE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS.

WE WANT TO BE CLEAR WITH THIS THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE FOR THE SITE WOULD OCCUR OR COULD OCCUR SHOULD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR LUXURY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY BE DENIED. WITH THAT, AGAIN, THANK YOU TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF FOR THE TIME THAT YOU'VE ALLOWED ME, AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL TAKE THIS UNDER CONSIDERATION. AND ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ENTIRE PROCESS.

TOLL'S NEW COMMUNITY PROVIDES RESIDENTIAL BUFFER. WE WILL PROVIDE A RESIDENTIAL BUFFER AGAINST EXISTING OR FUTURE INDUSTRIAL PLAN FOR THIS SITE, AND IT GIVES THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BY CREATING LUXURY RESIDENTIAL, IT GIVES THEM ALSO A BALANCE ON THEIR PROPERTY VALUES.

LASTLY, TOLL BROTHERS IS THE REAL DEAL. WE'RE NOT ENTITLING THIS PROPERTY FOR ANOTHER BUILDER TO BUILD OR TO BE BACK BEFORE YOU, PLANNING COMMISSION, SEEKING TO RENEGOTIATE A HIGHER DENSITY, WHICH WE KNOW THE COMMUNITY WILL HATE. NO, WE WANT TO BUILD A GATED ENCLAVE PERFECT FOR YOUNG PROFESSIONALS AND FAMILIES WANTING TO RESIDE IN CARLSBAD. WHY? BECAUSE WE RECOMMEND THAT A TRACTING STABLE LONG-TERM HOMEOWNERS ENHANCES PROPERTY VALUES.

WITH THAT, THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER MERTZ, DO YOU HAVE YOUR ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION? I DO. OKAY.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? YEAH.

COMMISSIONER HUMINGER. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PROJECTS IN CARLSBAD? WE DO. WOULD YOU MIND JUST, IF THEY'RE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, WHAT ARE THEY? IN PARTICULAR, IT'S NOT ONE THAT I'M WORKING ON, BUT IT'S CLOSER TO THE COAST. IT'S THE ONE THAT WE REFER TO AS JUNIPER. YEAH.

HOW MANY UNITS IS THAT? JUST ROUGHLY. SORRY, I DIDN'T WANT TO CATCH YOU OFF GUARD. NO, IT'S NOT. IF IT WERE MY PROJECT, IT'S LIKE, SNAP, I KNOW IT. IT'S WHAT? 21 UNITS.

THANK YOU. SORRY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. DO YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS? YES. CAN YOU ELABORATE? IT TENDS TO BE MORE AND MORE INCLUSIVE IN THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE DO.

TYPICALLY, IT'S REQUIRED BY THE CITY THAT WE DO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLES,

[00:45:01]

OUR AFFORDABLE UNITS, WHICH WE BASICALLY GAP THE SALES PRICE SO THAT THEY CAN AFFORD IT, OUR AFFORDABLES LOOK AND FEEL AND ARE EXACTLY LIKE THE ONES YOU WOULD PAY.

YOU KNOW, $500,000 FOR.

THEY'RE THE SAME. SO WE, AGAIN, THE REASON THAT WE DO THAT IS WE'RE SO STRONG ON MAINTAINING OUR BRAND, OUR LUXURY BRAND, THAT WE GO ABOVE AND BEYOND TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S DONE RIGHT.

THAT'S HELPFUL. HOW FAR IS THIS FROM TRANSIT AT THIS POINT? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE PROPOSING A GATED COMMUNITY, WHICH I THINK IS... ARE THERE OTHER GATED COMMUNITIES AROUND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? MAYBE ERIC LARDY COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I'M NOT FAMILIAR. NOT IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THIS PROJECT. I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE-CHECK, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT. ALONG EL CAMINO THERE ARE SOME BUS ROUTES, BUT WE'D HAVE TO CHECK THE FREQUENCIES OF THAT. OKAY. HOW ABOUT GATED COMMUNITIES? ARE THERE GATED COMMUNITIES AROUND HERE? NO, NOT IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY.

THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY. SEEING NONE, I'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

MINUTES, CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? WE DO.

WE HAVE TWO. GREAT. THE FIRST ONE IS BRUCE BANDEMER. AS OUR FIRST SPEAKER APPROACHES THE PODIUM, LET ME EXPLAIN THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY. EACH SPEAKER HAS THREE MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS.

TO HELP SPEAKERS STAY WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT, THE MINUTES CLERK WILL ACTIVATE THE LIGHTED TIMER. GREEN LIGHT MEANS SPEAK, YELLOW MEANS YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE, AND THE BLINKING RED LIGHT MEANS YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. PLEASE START BY STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION. NOT TO THE STAFF, THE APPLICANT, OR THE PUBLIC. AFTER WE HAVE RECEIVED ALL TESTIMONY FROM ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK, WE WILL ASK THE APPROPRIATE PERSON TO RESPOND TO THOSE QUESTIONS. PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE AND CLEARLY STATE YOUR NAME. HI, I'M BRUCE VANDEMER. I'M A RESIDENT OF BRESSEY RANCH. I'VE LIVED THERE SINCE 2010. I'M ALSO THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AT BRESSEY RANCH. THERE'S 523 HOMES IN BRESSEY, AND THERE'S 100... HOMES IN THE MULBERRY AREA OF BRESSEY RANCH. I'M NOT SUPPORTING THIS CHANGE. THE CITY'S PLAN, THE CORRIDOR, THE BUSINESS CORRIDOR, IS A GREAT GENERATOR OF JOBS.

AND WE ALL LOOK FOR KIND OF A BALANCE OF LIVE WORK. AND I CAUTION YOU ABOUT CONTINUING TO ERODE THAT BUSINESS CORRIDOR THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED.

THERE'S ALREADY A LARGE CHANGE THAT HAPPENED IN BRESSEY. WHEN THE SQUARE AND THE CONDOS WERE ADDED, THAT WAS 103 UNITS THAT WERE ADDED THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL RUSTY MASTER PLAN. WE SEE THAT TRAFFIC COME AND CUT THROUGH A GARDEN HOUSE AS THAT PEOPLE TRY AND AVOID.

GATEWAY. THIS PROJECT WOULD SIT RIGHT EXACTLY IN FRONT OF THE GARDEN HOUSE ROAD AND IT HAS A GREAT IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE AREA. I WOULD CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, DO YOU LOSE CONTROL OF, WITH ALL THE STATE LAWS ABOUT HOUSING? I HEAR YOU TALK ABOUT 111 UNITS, COULD BE 161.

SOME SUPPORT MORE UNITS BECAUSE YOU CAN GET THEM. IT HAS A GREAT IMPACT ON THOSE THAT ARE ALREADY THERE. I GUESS THAT'S MY COMMENTS FOR TONIGHT IS, YOU KNOW, PLEASE CONSIDER. HOW IT CHANGES THE ORIGINAL BRESCI MASTER PLAN, WHAT WE ALL BOUGHT INTO, YOU KNOW, IT WAS LIVE WORK, IT WAS JOBS THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE BECAUSE WE COULD COME TO THE BUSINESSES RIGHT IN THE AREA. THIS IS A BIG CHANGE, AND ALTHOUGH THE ALTERNATIVE USES, YOU KNOW, OUR BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL, THAT'S WHAT WE BOUGHT INTO, HOPING THAT THOSE WOULD BE JOBS THAT WE COULD WALK TO, OUR KIDS COULD WALK TO, AND OUR KIDS WOULD WANT TO LIVE IN THE AREA SO THEY COULD ALSO.

WORK IN THOSE AREAS. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER. DAVID PIERCE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. DAVID HAS A PRESENTATION THIS EVENING, JUST A MOMENT. THERE WE GO. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. YOU HAVE THREE

[00:50:01]

ACCORDING TO SANDAG, THERE ARE 47,000 JOBS IN THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT. THAT IS ONE OF THE LARGEST JOB CENTERS IN THE COUNTY, BUT... MORE OF THE EMPLOYEES COME FROM OCEANSIDE INSTEAD OF CARLSBAD. ONLY 16% OF THE EMPLOYEES LIVE IN CARLSBAD, SO THAT MEANS THAT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE CLOGGING UP THE HIGHWAYS, CLOGGING UP PALMYRA PORT ROAD AND EL CAMINO.

REAL, WHO WOULDN'T HAVE TO, SOME OF THEM AT LEAST, IF THIS PROJECT WERE APPROVED AND THEY LIVED HERE. REGARDING THE BUS ROUTES, THERE ARE ACTUALLY, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THREE BUS ROUTES WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THIS LOCATION. SHOWN HERE IS THE 309 AND 609 BUS. IT'S A VERY SHORT WALK TO THE BUS STOP, A SHORT RIDE TO THE CENTER OF THE JOB AREA, AND THEN A SHORT WALK TO THE JOBS OVER THERE.

ANOTHER BUS ROUTE GOES TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE LOCATION AND EAST TO PALOMAR COLLEGE. A THIRD BUS ROUTE GOES DIRECTLY TO SAGE CREEK HIGH SCHOOL. SO, AS THIS IS A MULTI-BEDROOM COMMUNITY, ANYONE, ALL THE STUDENTS, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO DRIVE.

THEY COULD JUST TAKE THE BUS.

NOW. I WOULD LIKE CLARIFICATION IF SOMEONE COULD ASK THEM LATER ON. REGARDING PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE EAST, IF THERE WERE A PEDESTRIAN GATE ON THE SOUTHEAST PART OF THE PROPERTY, IT WOULD BE ONLY A HALF-MILE WALK TO TRADER JOE'S. INSTEAD OF TWO-THIRDS OF A MILE. THAT CAN BE A BIG MENTAL BLOCK FOR PEOPLE TO DECIDE TO WALK IF IT'S TWO-THIRDS OF A MILE RATHER THAN HALF A MILE.

HERE'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE LONGER... HALF A MILE WALK, IT'S ALONG A MORE TRAFFICKED ROAD, GATEWAY, AND THEN AT THE END YOU HAVE TO WALK THROUGH A PARKING LOT, WHICH IS NOT THE MOST PLEASANT.

WHEREAS WITH THE SOUTHEAST GATE, YOU COULD WALK ONLY HALF A MILE ALONG A MUCH MORE PLEASANT, SHADY PATH THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WITH THE SECOND ENTRANCE, THE SOUTHEAST ENTRANCE OF TRADER JOE'S, NO NEED TO WALK THROUGH A PARKING LOT. I THINK A LOT MORE PEOPLE WOULD WALK TO TJ'S IF THERE WERE A SECOND GATE. WHICH I NEED CLARIFICATION FOR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PLEASE APPROVE THE REZONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MINUTES CLERK. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? NO CHAIR, WE DO NOT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY COMMENTS MADE BY THE PUBLIC COMMISSIONERS, AS IT RELATES TO MR. VANDERMEER, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS VERY MUCH. WE HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO ANY PUBLIC OUTREACH AT ALL. ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE THE REASON WHY WE WANT TO PROCEED FORWARD AND DO THE PUBLIC OUTREACH, HAVE OUR MEETINGS, MEET WITH THE INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS WITHIN STAFF, AND GET ALL OF THIS FEEDBACK. AS IT RELATES TO TRAFFIC ISSUES, ONE COULD ARGUE WE HAVEN'T PRESENTED ANY TRAFFIC STUDIES YET, THAT 111 UNITS WOULD BE LESS THAN IF WE HAD BUILT THE... APPROVED BY RIGHT BUILDINGS THAT WE HAVE.

WE HAVE 760,000 SQUARE FEET THAT WE LEASED TO VIASAT, OF WHICH 20% OF THAT HAPPENS TO BE VACANT AND FOR LEASE.

THAT'S THE SAME PERCENTAGE, I THINK, THAT'S THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, ABOUT 19% VACANCY FACTOR. SO WE'D LIKE TO ACTIVATE THIS.

WE'D LIKE TO ACTIVATE IT APPROPRIATELY.

BUT WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S THIS PROCESS WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH. ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR... IS FOR THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES TO CALL BALLS AND STRIKES WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, NOT JUST FOR CLOSING US OUT AND THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. WE'LL BE MEETING WITH MR. VANDERMEER AND THE BALANCE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE'D HAVE TO DO PUBLIC OUTREACH ANYWAY.

BUT AGAIN, I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU KINDLY. YOU HAVE ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE FROM TOM REILLERS. DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND? I CONCUR WITH WHAT ANDREW HAS SAID, AND THANK YOU, DAVID. THIS IS... AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE YOU'RE BASICALLY AT A CROSSROADS HERE. WE, BY BRINGING IN MORE RESIDENTIAL TO THIS PARTICULAR AREA, IT WILL INCREASE BUSINESSES WITHIN THE AREA. IT WILL PROVIDE THEM WITH GREATER...

ECONOMIC BENEFIT, AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IS A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE. AND SO MORE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO LIVE HERE. THEY WOULD BE ADJACENT TO THE WORK AREA, THE BIASAT, THE OTHER AREAS THAT WE HAVE. WE JUST NEED THE

[00:55:02]

BUT IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE CONSIDER, THOUGHTFULLY CONSIDER, MOVING US FORWARD.

AGAIN, I SUGGEST THAT YOU ALSO RESEARCH THOROUGHLY TOLL BROTHERS AND RESEARCH OUR BRAND. WE ARE WHAT WE SAY WE ARE, AND WE WILL PROVIDE HOUSING THAT WILL INCREASE PROPERTY VALUES IN THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS RAISED? NO, NOTHING THAT I THINK WE NEED TO RESPOND TO, BUT WE'RE STILL AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. STRONG, IF I MAY, ONE QUESTION DID COME UP REGARDING THE DENSITY YIELD AND WHETHER OR NOT ADDITIONAL UNITS WOULD BE PURSUED, EITHER THROUGH SOME DENSITY BONUS REQUEST. AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LARRY DID INDICATE THAT WE CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE A DENSITY BONUS REQUEST BEING PROCESSED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SUBJECT APPLICATION. I JUST WANT TO SHARE WHAT, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMISSION'S DELIBERATION, THAT... DENSITY BONUS IS DEFINED UNDER STATUTE. IT REQUIRES THE LOCAL AGENCY TO AWARD A DENSITY BONUS ABOVE THE MAXIMUM THAT'S PERMITTED BY THE GENERAL PLAN. OR ZONING AT THE TIME, OR IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. SO CURRENTLY THERE IS NO DENSITY, SO NO DENSITY BONUS COULD BE PURSUED WITH THIS APPLICATION. THANK YOU, MR. DURAL.

COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? AT THIS TIME, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. IS IT POSSIBLE TO REMAND THIS BACK TO STAFF? WELL, OKAY, LET'S BACK UP. THE QUESTION, BEFORE REMANDING ANYTHING, THE QUESTION WOULD BE, WHO ACTUALLY DETERMINED THE R23? WAS IT STAFF OR WAS IT ACTUALLY SUGGESTED BY THE DEVELOPER? MR. LORDY. THE APPLICATION INCLUDED R23 ON IT, SO WE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY SUGGEST THAT DESIGNATION. BUT R23, THIS ISN'T AN R23 PROJECT. THE PROJECT, I GUESS I SHOULD BACK UP.

WE'RE HAVING THAT PROBLEM TONIGHT. THE R23 DESIGNATION ACTUALLY CHANGED AS PART OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT REZONING PROGRAM. ONE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2021 AND THEN ULTIMATELY CODIFIED AS PART OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT. IN 2024 WAS TO AMEND THE MINIMUM DENSITY OF R23 AND BRING IT UP TO THE CURRENT 19 UNITS PER ACRE. PRIOR TO THAT, THE R23 HAD A MINIMUM DENSITY OF 15 UNITS PER ACRE. SO THIS PROJECT IS PROPOSED.

AT APPROXIMATELY 15.8 UNITS AN ACRE. SO THAT'S PART OF WHY THAT WAS SELECTED, I BELIEVE. IT WAS ONE OF OUR COMMENTS THAT THE APPLICATION WOULD NEED TO BE CHANGED IN SOME WAY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH EITHER THAT DESIGNATION'S MINIMUM DENSITY. OR GO TO AN R15. WE JUST HAVE NOT WORKED OUT THE DETAILS OF WHAT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS. IT WOULD LIKELY NEED TO CHANGE THE PRODUCT TYPE IF THEY WERE TO GO TO THE 19 UNITS PER ACRE DESIGNATION. AS THE MINIMUM, SO THAT IS AN OPTION AVAILABLE TO THEM. I THINK AT ITS CORE.

THOSE ARE DETAILS THAT WOULD BE MORE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROCESS IF THEY MOVED FORWARD.

WHAT WE'RE REALLY ASKING FOR NOW IS CONCEPTUALLY, WOULD YOU BE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL REMAND THE WHOLE PROJECT BACK TO US TO PROCESS AND GET THOSE DETAILS WORKED OUT AS PART OF THAT TO YOUR PROCESS. YEAH, AND THEN CAN YOU EXPLAIN? OKAY, THAT'S HELPFUL, BECAUSE SO THEY TECHNICALLY, IF IT DOES CHANGE TO R23, YOU'RE SUGGESTING THEY'D HAVE TO UP THE UNIT COUNT. I'M SUGGESTING THE APPLICATION THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR WOULD NEED TO BE INTERNALLY CONSISTENT.

SO, A MODIFICATION WOULD NEED TO BE MADE TO EITHER INCREASE THE UNIT COUNT OR DECREASE THE DESIGNATION REQUESTED. YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

BUT THE OTHER QUESTION IS, AND THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEY AS WELL, THE LAW THAT... DOES THAT HALF MILE RADIUS FOR TRANSIT, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE BUS STOPS THAT ARE AROUND EL CAMINO AND PALOMAR OR NOT? IT'S ONLY TRAINS. THAT DOES NOT. IT ONLY INCLUDES TRAINS OR HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSIT OF NONE

[01:00:02]

YOU CAN DO THAT WITH COMMENTS. AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION OR OPTION TWO WOULD BE RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL DENY IT. AND WHAT'S OUR POLICY ON GATED COMMUNITIES? WE DIDN'T RESEARCH OR WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO SPEAK TO THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE AT THIS MEETING. WE HAVE A POLICY? WHAT I WOULD LOOK AT IS IN THE BRESLIN RANGE MASTER PLAN TO CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S ALLOWED OR NOT ALLOWED. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY SPECIFIC CITY COUNCIL POLICY RELATED TO THEM. OKAY, THANKS.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME? OKAY.

WITH THAT, COMMISSION DISCUSSION. WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO START OFF WITH A DISCUSSION ITEM? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO START OFF BY LISTING OUT A FEW THINGS THAT I READ THROUGH ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT. WE, ON PAGE 10, 154, 153, AND 155, IT CONTINUALLY STATES THAT LAND VALUES ARE LOW, OR ARE HIGH, AND SUPPLY IS LOW.

THERE'S NOT ENOUGH RESIDENTIALLY ZONED SITES TO MEET THE CITIZEN'S REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS. AND CARLSBAD DEVELOPER COSTS ARE UP AND RESIDENTIAL SUPPLY IS LOW. AND IT CONTINUES ON IN BOTH THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE HOUSING ELEMENT THAT THE SUPPLY IS LOW, BUT... ALL IN THE CONTEXT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND AGAIN, TODAY WE ARE NOT HERE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE WONDERFUL DESIGNS THAT WE'VE SEEN. IT IS JUST SIMPLY ON THE CHANGE OF THE LAND USE AND CHANGE OF THE ZONE. SO I THINK I HAVEN'T REALLY HEARD A COMPELLING ARGUMENT TO GO OVER THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THE LAND USE KIND OF TERMS AND CONTEXT THAT OUR PLANNERS HAVE PUT TOGETHER. I THINK A MORE THOUGHTFUL APPROACH TO ZONING INSTEAD OF SPOT ZONING IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD REALLY CONSIDER. AGAIN, IT'S ZONED FOR INDUSTRIALS, SO IT'S NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO BUILD INDUSTRIAL. IT'S AN ALTERNATIVE TO BUILD HOUSING.

AND IF IT'S LUXURY AND IT'S NOT IN LINE WITH KIND OF WHAT OUR CURRENT PLANNERS HAVE OUTLINED, I THINK IT'S DEVIATING A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH, AND IT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE ONCE WE REMAND IT TO CITY COUNCIL. SO I WOULD REALLY RECOMMEND FOLKS CONSIDER KIND OF HOW THIS SPOT ZONING COULD AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING LAND USES. GOOD SUMMARY, COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD.

APPRECIATE THAT. FURTHER DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONERS.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER. FOR THE TOLL BROTHERS REPRESENTATIVE, I WAS REALLY SURPRISED WITH THE QUESTION COMMISSIONER HUBINGER ASKED WHAT OTHER TOLL BROTHERS COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN BUILT IN CARLSBAD. YOU MENTIONED A 20 UNIT ONE IN CARLSBAD VILLAGE. YOU GUYS BUILT ONE OF THE BIGGEST NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. YOU BUILT A 330 HOME UNIT ABOUT A MILE FROM THIS LOCATION. SO I WAS JUST SURPRISED YOU DIDN'T MENTION THAT. BY THE WAY, IN THAT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE'S TWO GATED AREAS, TWO GATED SECTIONS OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THAT'S PREVIOUSLY BEEN BUILT IN CARLSBAD. ANYWAY, SOMETHING YOU MIGHT WANT TO RESEARCH AND BE PREPARED FOR NEXT TIME YOU TALK. IT'S A GOOD POINT FOR YOU GUYS.

BUT ANYWAY, IN MY OPINION, THIS IS KIND OF AN EASY BLACK OR WHITE DECISION OF DOES THE APPLICANT WHO'S GOING TO TAKE ALL THE FINANCIAL RISK OF PURSUING THIS PROJECT HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE THAT FINANCIAL RISK AND SPEND HIS TIME AND MONEY AND PURSUE IT, OR DO THEY NOT? AND FOR ME IT'S VERY EASY IN BLACK AND WHITE. I THINK IF THEY WANT TO TAKE A SHOT AND GO FOR IT, I SUPPORT IT. I THINK THIS COULD FAIL. IT COULD PASS. WHO KNOWS? AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE JUST A RECOMMENDATION BODY.

WE'RE NOT A DECISION-MAKING BODY IN THIS ASPECT. IS THAT CORRECT, LARDY? CORRECT. YOU WOULD NOT BE A DECISION-MAKER IN EITHER THIS ACTION OR THE SUBSEQUENT ACTION. THE GENERAL PLAN IS ONLY AMENDED IN FINAL ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL. OKAY, SO I MEAN WE'RE JUST A RECOMMENDATION BODY. WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY EVEN MAKING A DECISION AS FAR AS A DECISION-MAKING BODY, AND WE'RE JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, HEY, YOU CAN TAKE A SHOT AND SPEND MONEY AND TAKE A SHOT AT THIS OR YOU CAN'T. SO I THINK IT'S WORTH, YOU KNOW, GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A SHOT, SO I SUPPORT THE PROJECT.

FURTHER DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONERS.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

REFERRING TO PAGE FOUR OF THE... CONSIDERATIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I

[01:05:01]

LIKE I SAY, I THINK WE'RE LEAVING 50 UNITS ON THE TABLE HERE IF WE DESIGNATE OUR 23. AND I'M CONCERNED THAT, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD'S QUESTION ABOUT THE HOUSING ELEMENT, 02,000 UNITS ARE ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW THAT WE STILL NEED TO FILL. SO PROPOSING A LUXURY.

COMPLEX THAT DOESN'T MEET OUR HOUSING NEEDS IS, ALTHOUGH POTENTIALLY APPROPRIATE, COULD ALSO STILL, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY VALUES ARE ONE THING, BUT HAVING OUR KIDS LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ANOTHER THING, AND WORKING CLOSE TO WORK IS ANOTHER THING. SO WORKING CLOSE TO WHERE YOU LIVE IS ANOTHER THING. SO I THINK THAT THERE'S A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE DENSITY AND THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. THE PROFICIENTS OF ADDITIONAL BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY. HOUSING IS ALWAYS A BENEFIT TO A COMMUNITY, AND I THINK WITH THE AMENITIES IN BRESSEY RANCH, I THINK IT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO CREATE HOUSING THERE. SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT. THE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED GENERAL AMENDMENT, I THINK A HIGHER DENSITY NEXT TO AN INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND A LOWER DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE A GOOD MIX. BUT I DO AGREE THAT THE SPOT ZONING IS A CONCERN. THE FINANCIAL LAND USE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE, I HAVE NO COMMENT ON THAT. THE STATE OF THE CURRENT MARKET, AGAIN, WE'RE IN A HOUSING CRISIS, SO RESIDENTIAL IS WHAT WE NEED.

THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE, THERE'S A PARK RIGHT THERE, THERE'S THINGS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, AMENITIES ARE THERE, BUT I DO, I AM CONCERNED WITH THE GATED. COMMUNITY ASPECT OF THAT, I THINK IF IT WAS NOT A GATED COMMUNITY, I THINK IT COULD BE A SUCCESSFUL ADDITION TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THEN THE LEVEL AND DIVERSITY OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION. OBVIOUSLY THE COMMUNITY IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS, BUT I DO FEEL THAT A TRANSITIONAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COULD BE A GOOD SUBSTITUTE FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MERTZ. THANK YOU. YEAH, I THINK THE THING THAT STUCK OUT TO ME WAS THE COMMENTS BY MR. COHEN OF LEVINE IN THE SENSE THAT I THINK HIS POINT WAS WELL MADE THAT THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEING BROUGHT UP ARE GOOD REASONS TO ALLOW THEM TO BASICALLY MAKE THAT APPLICATION AND MAKE THEIR CASE AND SEE IF THAT CASE CARRIES OR DOES NOT.

YOU KNOW, BEING IN THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY IN THIS AREA AND DOING THAT. I THINK SOME OF MY FRUSTRATION IS THAT, YOU KNOW, CITIES OR CENTRAL PLANNING WILL DECIDE WHAT'S BEST FOR A SITE WHEN REALLY IT'S THE MARKET DECIDES THE VALUE OF THE SITE. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROCESS TO ALLOW THESE THINGS TO COME FORWARD AND BE DECIDED OUT.

AND SO I SUPPORT OPTION ONE OF REMANDING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR FURTHER REVIEW. YEAH, I FEEL THE SAME WAY. I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR, AND THE REMAND WILL DO THAT, TO BE ABLE TO PROCEED THROUGH THE PROCESS AND LET THE PLAYING STAFF WORK THROUGH IT OVER THE NEXT 24 MONTHS AND BE ABLE TO PUT, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, ALL THE VARIOUS ISSUES REGARDING CEQA AND WHATEVER INTO PLAY. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. I SUPPORT THE PROJECT, TOO. I MEAN, DEVELOPERS... YOU GUYS OWN THE LAND. YOU TAKE THE RISK.

YOU'VE HELD THE LAND FOR SEVERAL YEARS. WE NEED HOUSING. I THINK A LOT OF THE STUFF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS JUST WAY TOO INTO THE WEEDS, TO BE HONEST.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE YOU GUYS A CHANCE TO PUT FORWARD A PROPOSAL, SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. AND I GUESS THAT'S TO REMAND IT BACK TO THE CITY FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS, I GUESS, RIGHT? SO I SUPPORT IT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD.

YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY ONE LAST THING AND I THINK COMMISSIONERS YOU BROUGHT UP A GREAT POINT THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER HAVE MADE A GREAT CASE BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN THE CASE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND I THINK YES WE MIGHT BE IN THE WEEDS ON WHAT MIGHT RESULT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT BUT THE REASON IT'S IN FRONT OF US IS NOT TO SAY RIGHT YOU OWN THE PROPERTY YOU HAVE A GREAT IDEA FOR IT, RIGHT THAT IDEA CAN CHANGE AND MORPH BUT IT'S IS THIS WHAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS AND WHY WHY WOULDN'T IT BE ZONED THAT WAY ALREADY AND IT'S ZONED THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE OF THE CORRIDOR, BECAUSE IT'S INDUSTRIAL. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, AGAIN, JUST REALLY CONSIDER AND ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO GO BEYOND JUST WHAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY. REALLY CONSIDER RIGHT THESE PLANS WERE MADE FOR A REASON THERE ARE STUDIES

[01:10:01]

COMMISSIONER HUBINGER MAKES THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER MERTZ MAKES THE SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.

OKAY. FIVE. YES, AND ONE RECUSED, AND COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD SAYS NO.

WITH THAT, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I WILL INVITE COMMISSIONER BURROUGHS BACK TO THE ROOM TO SIT ON THE DAIS AND PARTICIPATE IN THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, I WILL NOW

[2. RINCON ROOSEVELT - CT 2024-0008/SDP 2024-0022 (DEV2024-0105)]

COMMISSIONERS, ANY EX PARTE CONVERSATIONS? I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. I DROVE BY THE SITE. I KNOW THE SITE VERY WELL. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. I BROUGHT MY... IPAD SO I COULD READ THE DRAWINGS BETTER. JUST IN CASE. THANK YOU. I VISITED THE SITE, STOPPED AND WALKED AROUND WHAT I COULD THERE.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. AND I AM DROVE BY THE SITE. MR. STRONG, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER TWO? YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR. THE SECOND AGENDA ITEM IS CALLED THE RINCON ROOSEVELT PROJECT.

IT INCLUDES A TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEX AND BUILD A NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 33 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS.

HERE TO PRESENT THE ITEM IS SENIOR PLANNER SHANNA HARPER.

WELCOME. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU, MR. STRONG, CHAIRMAN MEANS, AND COMMISSION. GOOD EVENING. THIS PROJECT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE CONDOMINIUM BUILDING ON THREE PARCELS TOTALING 0.69 ACRES AT 2747 AND 2775 ROOSEVELT STREET. THE PROJECT SITE FRONTS ROOSEVELT STREET ON THE WEST SIDE AND IS ONE PARCEL SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH BEACH AVENUE. SURROUNDING LAND USES INCLUDE A TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING TO THE NORTH, THE U.S. POST OFFICE TO THE EAST, HENNESSY'S TAVERN TO THE SOUTH AND A MIX OF USES TO THE WEST INCLUDING AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP AND NICK'S STEAKHOUSE THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT OF THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN THIS DISTRICT DEFINES THE CORE OF THE VILLAGE AND PERMITS MIXED-USE BUILDINGS UP TO 45 FEET IN HEIGHT BY RIGHT AND A DENSITY RANGE OF 28 TO 35 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE THE PROJECT SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A REAL ESTATE OFFICE AND AN 8 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING PRIOR TO THE UNITS BEING VACATED, THE HOUSING AND HOMELESS SERVICES DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THAT FIVE OF THE EIGHT UNITS WERE CONSIDERED LOWER-INCOME UNITS AND ARE PROTECTED UNITS PURSUANT TO THE STATE'S HOUSING CRISIS ACT. WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THIS PROJECT IS THAT THESE FIVE LOWER-INCOME UNITS NEED TO BE REPLACED IN KIND.

ALSO, SINCE ALL STRUCTURES ON SITE ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT, HISTORIC RESOURCES REPORTS WERE PREPARED AND CONCLUDED THE STRUCTURES ARE NOT LISTED AS FEDERAL ON THE FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL HISTORIC REGISTER. SO HERE'S A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACK MAP HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOUR-STORY, 49,000-SQUARE-FOOT OR 559-SQUARE-FOOT MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH A GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE AND A PARKING GARAGE. A TOTAL OF 33 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE PROPOSED, INCLUDING 15 ONE-BEDROOM, SIX

[01:15:02]

IN EXCHANGE FOR THE 29% INCREASE IN DENSITY, STATE LAW REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO DESIGNATE AT LEAST 16% OF THE BASE DWELLING UNITS, OR FOUR UNITS IN THIS CASE, AS AFFORDABLE TO LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PURSUANT TO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS ALSO REQUIRED PER THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE.

AND THE STATE'S HOUSING CRISIS ACT. THIS TABLE HIGHLIGHTS THE RESPECTIVE REQUIREMENTS. TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE, A MINIMUM OF 15% OF THE BASE UNITS ARE REQUIRED TO BE LOW-INCOME.

FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT NUMBER IS FOUR. TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT, FIVE UNITS ARE CONSIDERED PROTECTED AND MUST BE REPLACED IN KIND WITH FOUR LOW-INCOME AND ONE EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME UNIT.

SINCE THE STATE'S AND THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT ADDITIVE, THE REQUIREMENT OF THIS OF THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. THE PROJECT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DESIGNATE FOUR OF THE 33 UNITS AS LOW INCOME UNITS AND ONE UNIT AS EXTREMELY LOW INCOME, THEREFORE SATISFYING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TWO STATE LAWS AND THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS. SO HERE'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND GROUND FLOOR PLAN FOR THE PROJECT.

THREE COMMERCIAL TENANT SPACES TOTALING 3,419 SQUARE FEET ARE PROPOSED AS ONE COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM UNIT. A PUBLIC ENTRANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY IS PROPOSED OFF ROOSEVELT STREET AND HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN ON THIS SLIDE. PARKING WILL BE PROVIDED IN A GATED PARKING GARAGE WITH 42 PARKING SPACES. 38 SPACES ARE PROPOSED FOR THE 33 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND FOUR SPACES ARE DESIGNATED FOR THE COMMERCIAL USES. SINCE THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN ONE HALF MILE OF THE CARLSBAD TRANSIT STATION, ASSEMBLY BILL 2097 STATES THAT THE CITY CAN ONLY REQUIRE THE PROJECT TO PROVIDE ADA ACCESSIBLE AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE SPACES. BASED ON THE NUMBER OF SPACES WHICH WOULD TYPICALLY BE REQUIRED FOR THE COMMERCIAL USE, ONE ADA SPACE AND THREE EV SPACES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE COMMERCIAL USES.

IN ADDITION TO VARIOUS MECHANICAL ROOMS IN THE PARKING GARAGE, A LONG-TERM BIKE STORAGE AREA IS PROPOSED. AS WELL AS A SHORT-TERM BIKE STORAGE AREA JUST OUTSIDE THE PARKING GATE.

HERE'S A SAMPLE UPPER FLOOR PLAN FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

SINCE THE UNITS ARE STACKED, EACH RESIDENTIAL FLOOR IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. THERE ARE 11 UNITS PER FLOOR, AND THE UNITS RANGE IN SIZE FROM 756 SQUARE FEET FOR THE SMALLEST ONE-BEDROOM UNIT UP TO 2,571 SQUARE FEET FOR THE FOUR-BEDROOM UNITS. TO SATISFY OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, EACH UNIT HAS A PRIVATE DECK.

AND NINE ROOFTOP DECKS ARE ALSO PROPOSED BUT UNASSIGNED AT THIS TIME. TO SATISFY THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AN AMENITY COURTYARD IS PROPOSED ON THE SECOND FLOOR.

SO HERE ARE A COUPLE OF ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS OF THE FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATIONS OF THE MIXED-USE BUILDING.

THIS ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IS CALIFORNIA CONTEMPORARY. THE HEIGHT AT THE ROOFLINE IS JUST UNDER 54 FEET. AND THE TALLEST ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION, WHICH IS THE ELEVATOR, IS JUST OVER 69 FEET. THE MIX OF MATERIALS INCLUDES BRICK AND GLASS BASE OF THE BUILDING AND A MIXTURE OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL FIBER CEMENT SIDING AND CEMENT PLASTER FOR THE UPPER FLOORS.

THE BRICK DETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR ALSO WRAPS AROUND THE CORNERS OF THE BUILDING TO CARRY THE ENHANCEMENT AROUND THE SIDE AND WITHIN PUBLIC VIEW. HERE'S ONE ADDITIONAL RENDERING OF THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THE PROJECT THAT PROVIDES A DIFFERENT ACTIVATED FRONTAGE PERSPECTIVE. THE OPENINGS FOR THE PRIVATE DUCKS CHANGES IN COLOR AND MATERIALS, AS WELL AS THE BLEND OF HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ELEMENTS, HELPED TO BREAK UP THE MASSING OF THE BUILDING THAT'S VIEWED FROM ROOSEVELT STREET. THE SHARED COURTYARD ON THE SECOND FLOOR ALSO PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL RELIEF SINCE IT IS 23 FEET WIDE, 60 FEET DEEP, AND OPEN TO THE SKY. IT HAS THE VISUAL EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT BUILDINGS ON THE UPPER FLOORS. SINCE THE PROJECT UTILIZES STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE UNITS, AN UNLIMITED NUMBER

[01:20:01]

THE TABLE ON THIS SLIDE SUMMARIZES THE 11 REQUESTED WAIVERS TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY FOUR FINDINGS FOR DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS. THE WAIVER MUST BE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE PROPOSED DENSITY.

IT CANNOT HAVE ANY HEALTH OR SAFETY IMPACTS. IT CAN'T VIOLATE ANY STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS. AND THE WAIVER CAN'T ADVERSELY IMPACT A PROPERTY THAT'S ON THE CALIFORNIA HISTORIC REGISTER. THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED WITH HISTORIC REPORTS, EXHIBITS, AND WRITTEN JUSTIFICATIONS, WHICH ARE ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT, THAT THE WAIVERS MEET THESE FINDINGS.

THE WAIVERS ARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE REQUESTED NUMBER OF UNITS. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STANDARDS WOULD PRECLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED, AND THE REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS BEEN PROVIDED. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, INCLUDING TODAY, WHICH HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE COMMISSION FOR REVIEW HAS PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON THREE AREAS OF CONCERN THE FIRST IS RELATED TO AN OFF-SITE SEWER LINE THE SECOND IS RELATED TO THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN AND HOW THIS PROJECT COULD IMPACT THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST AND THE THIRD IS RELATED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND VISIBILITY OF THE WEST ELEVATION AS VIEWED FROM STATE STREET IN THESE NEXT FEW SLIDES IT WILL GO INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ABOUT THESE CONCERNS AND THE CITY'S RESPONSE SO THERE'S AN EXISTING OFF-SITE SEWER LINE HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN ON THIS SLIDE WHICH PARALLELS THE REAR PROPERTY LINE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

THE CITY HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL CORRESPONDENCE LETTERS FROM THE OWNER OF THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP TO THE WEST AND HIS REPRESENTATIVES EXPRESSING CONCERN THAT THE PROJECT WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT THE INTEGRITY OF THE SEWER LINE. BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, THE SEWER LINE IS CURRENTLY USED BY APPROXIMATELY FIVE PROPERTIES. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT BE UTILIZING THIS OFF-SITE SEWER LINE FOR SERVICE AND WILL INSTEAD TIE INTO THE SEWER LINE IN ROOSEVELT STREET. BECAUSE THE PROJECT IS NOT PROPOSING TO UTILIZE THE OFF-SITE SEWER LINE FOR SERVICE, THE CITY HAS DETERMINED IT CAN ONLY REQUEST A 5-FOOT WIDE EASEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE. THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT HAS CONFIRMED THIS WIDTH IS ADEQUATE. THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE SEWER LINE WAS RESURFACED IN 2017. WITH ASSISTANCE FROM VIDEO TAKEN OF THE INTERIOR OF THE SEWER LINE, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY UPGRADES OR REPLACEMENTS. AND FINALLY, OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, MAY I GO BACK ONE MORE SLIDE, HAS DETERMINED THAT WITH THE INCORPORATION OF THE DEEPENED FOOTINGS OF THE BUILDING, ALSO SHOWN IN THE CROSS-SECTION ON THIS SLIDE, THE PROJECT WILL NOT IMPACT THE INTEGRITY OF THE LINE. SECOND AREA OF CONCERN EXPRESSED BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO THE WEST IS RELATED TO THE WAY THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY DRAINS DURING A RAIN EVENT.

ON THIS SLIDE ARE TWO EXHIBITS FROM THE CIVIL PLANS AND THE HYDROLOGY REPORT.

IN THE EXISTING CONDITION, DURING A RAIN EVENT, STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOWS TO THE LOWER CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, HIGHLIGHTED WITH THE STAR ON THIS SLIDE, AND COLLECTS IN THIS AREA SINCE IT'S THE LOWEST POINT OF THE LOT. THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE THE SITUATION AND REDUCE THE RUNOFF AT THIS CORNER. THE PROPERTY WILL BE GRADED SUCH THAT THE DRAINAGE WILL BE DIRECTED AWAY FROM THIS AREA AND INTO RAISED PLANTERS ON THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING.

THE END RESULT IS A REDUCTION IN THE RUNOFF FROM 2.08 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TO 0.05 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND ON THE SITE.

THE PROJECT AS DESIGNED MEETS THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS. THE FINAL AREA OF CONCERN EXPRESSED.

BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC RELATES TO SCREENING OF THE PARKING GARAGE WALL AS VIEWED FROM STATE STREET AND THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE BUILDING. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THESE PHOTOS, THERE ARE EXISTING STRUCTURES ALONG STATE STREET THAT WILL PARTIALLY SCREEN THE LOWER PORTION OF THE BUILDING, BUT THERE WILL STILL BE SOME WINDOWS OF VISIBILITY. WHEN THIS APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED, THE PROJECT DID NOT ORIGINALLY INCLUDE LANDSCAPE SCREENING IN BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.

TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE VIEWS OF THE PARKING GARAGE FROM STATE STREET, AS WELL AS ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS REQUIRING SCREENING FOR PUBLICLY VISIBLE BLANK WALLS, THE APPLICANT ADDED SHRUBS AT THE BASE OF THE BUILDING TO SOFTEN THE VIEWS OF THE WALL. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT TREES CANNOT BE PLANTED IN THIS AREA DUE TO THE PROPOSED SEWER MAINTENANCE EASEMENT. STAFF IS SATISFIED WITH THE ADDITION OF THE LANDSCAPING TO HELP SCREEN THE PARKING GARAGE WALL.

WITH RESPECT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, WITH EXCEPTION TO THE BRICK AND LARGE EXPANSE OF GLASS FOR THE STREET-FACING COMMERCIAL USES, THE SAME MATERIALS AND COLOR PALETTE, AS WELL AS MOST OF THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ELEMENTS, ARE UTILIZED ON ALL FOUR SIDES. FURTHER, THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, CALIFORNIA CONTEMPORARY, IS AN ALLOWED ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IN THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN. TO FURTHER STREAMLINE HOUSING PROJECTS AND INCREASE THE HOUSING STOCK IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ASSEMBLY BILL 130 WAS SIGNED

[01:25:02]

ESSENTIALLY, IF THE PROJECT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE EXCEPTIONS DON'T APPLY, THE PROJECT IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT.

MEANING THE EXEMPTION IS ABSOLUTE AND THE PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OR CEQA. THE PROPOSED HOUSING PROJECT IS THE FIRST PROJECT HERE AT THE CITY TO UTILIZE THIS EXEMPTION.

LISTED ON THIS SLIDE ARE THE QUALIFYING CRITERIA FOR A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PURSUANT TO AB 130, ALL OF WHICH THE PROJECT SATISFIES.

FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT, AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE NEEDS TO BE RESIDENTIAL. AND THE DENSITY NEEDS TO EXCEED 15 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE SITE IS REQUIRED TO BE LESS THAN 20 ACRES IN SIZE AND SURROUNDED BY URBAN LAND USES. THE PROJECT MUST ALSO BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN. AND FINALLY, THE STRUCTURES PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED CANNOT BE LISTED ON A NATIONAL, STATE, OR LOCAL HISTORIC REGISTER.

IN ADDITION TO MEETING THE DEFINITION OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, THE AB 130 PROCESS REQUIRES CONSULTATION WITH THE NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES. THE CITY SENT OUT NOTICES TO ALL CULTURALLY AFFILIATED TRIBES WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME FRAMES AND RECEIVED REQUESTS FOR CONSULTATION FROM THE RINCON BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS AND THE PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS. EACH TRIBE REQUESTED MONITORING DURING THE GRADING OPERATIONS FOR THE PROJECT, AND THE RESOLUTION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT INCLUDES THE TWO MONITORING CONDITIONS.

IN SUMMARY, STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING CODE, AND VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN. THE EXISTING PROTECTED APARTMENT UNITS WILL BE REPLACED IN KIND PURSUANT TO THE STATE'S HOUSING CRISIS ACT. THE REQUESTED DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS COMPLY WITH THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW FINDINGS. THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. THE STRUCTURES PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED ARE NOT LISTED ON A FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL HISTORIC REGISTER, AND THE PROJECT QUALIFIES AS A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

PURSUANT TO AB 130 AND IS THEREFORE STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM CEQA. STAFF IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE TRACK MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MS. HARKER. APPRECIATE IT.

COMMISSIONERS, CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER. THAT SEWER LINE IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, SO IS THAT ACTIVE? IS THAT BEING USED BY ADJACENT PROPERTIES? THAT IS CORRECT, YES, BY APPROXIMATELY FIVE PROPERTIES. FIVE PROPERTIES? YEAH. OKAY, I MISSED THAT. SORRY. THANKS.

ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANKS FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, AND THANKS FOR YOUR... THE CLARIFICATION OF ALL OF THIS INFORMATION. THE BIGGEST QUESTION I HAVE, CAN YOU JUST BACK UP A LITTLE BIT TO TALK ABOUT THE EXISTING PROTECTED UNITS BEING REPLACED IN KIND? SO THERE'S EIGHT UNITS ON THE SITE, BUT WE'RE REPLACING ONLY FIVE.

SO CAN YOU TELL ME WHY THERE'S NOT EIGHT BEING REPLACED? WELL, I DIDN'T GET INTO THE FULL DETAILS. ALL EIGHT ACTUALLY NEED TO BE REPLACED, BUT ONLY FIVE OF THEM ARE PROTECTED FROM AS FAR AS LIKE LOW-INCOME UNITS. WE RECEIVED HOUSING VERIFICATION FORMS FOR THREE OUT OF THE FIVE, AND THE TWO THAT WE DIDN'T RECEIVE INCOME VERIFICATION FORMS, THEY WERE ASSUMED TO BE LOW-INCOME, SO FIVE WERE ASSUMED TO BE PROTECTED. SO I GUESS THE OTHER THREE UNITS THAT ARE BEING REPLACED ARE BEING REPLACED AT MARKET RATE, OR WHAT'S THE... THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

BUT THEY WERE... ALL ONE-BEDROOM UNITS, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT, YES. AND THIS PROJECT PROPOSES 15 ONE-BEDROOM UNITS. SO THEY WILL BE REPLACED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. THEY JUST WON'T BE PROTECTED AS FAR AS LOW-INCOME UNITS.

BUT DOES THAT... I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE IN-KIND REQUIRED BY SB 330. EIGHT MINUS FIVE IS THREE. SO THE PROJECT PROPOSES FOUR LOW-INCOME UNITS AND ONE EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME UNIT. SO THE LOW-INCOME REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT ARE DRIVEN BY THE STATE HOUSING CRISIS ACT REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE THE HIGHEST. SO THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE DOESN'T REQUIRE AS MANY, YOU KNOW, NOR DOES THE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

SO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT TAKE PRECEDENT HERE. AND THERE'S ONE ADDITIONAL. EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME UNIT THAT WE'RE GETTING BASED

[01:30:01]

THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF I MAY HELP CLARIFY. SO THE STATE LAW THAT WAS REFERENCED BY SENIOR PLANNER HARKER CONTAINS TWO KEY PROVISIONS. ONE IS THE REPLACEMENT UNIT FACTOR, SO ALL EIGHT UNITS NEED TO BE REPLACED ON SITE, AND SHANNON DID EXPLAIN THAT ALL EIGHT UNITS ARE TO BE REPLACED. THE OTHER PROVISION RELATES TO PROTECTED UNITS. AND IT REQUIRES LOCAL AGENCIES TO CAUSE A SURVEY TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE TENANT OR OCCUPANT OF THOSE UNITS TO INDICATE WHAT THEIR INCOME LEVELS ARE. IN THE EVENT THAT NO STATEMENT CAN BE OBTAINED OR SECURED BY THE APPLICANT OR IF THE TENANT IS UNWILLING TO FILL THE INFORMATION OUT, THE UNIT IS PRESUMED TO BE LOW INCOME. SO THROUGH THE CITY'S SURVEY, IT YIELDED THAT THERE WERE FIVE.

UNITS THAT WERE TO BE PROTECTED, FOUR OF WHICH WERE AT A LOW INCOME LEVEL AND ONE AT A VERY LOW INCOME LEVEL. SO THERE'S THE TWO PROVISIONS.

ONE IS REPLACED AND THE OTHER IS THE PROTECTED UNITS AND THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT.

THAT OVERLAPS WITH DENSITY BONUS LAW AND WITH INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. SO THE COMBINED EFFECT OF ALL THREE REGULATIONS, LOCAL WITH THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM. THE STATE WITH DENSITY BONUS LAW AND WITH THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT REQUIRES THE CITY TO IMPLEMENT THE FIVE RESTRICTED UNITS ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IN EFFECT DOES REPLACE AND PROTECT THOSE UNITS OR THOSE HOUSEHOLDS THAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN DISPLACED. THANK YOU, MR. STRONG. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

I GUESS THE I'M STILL MISSING THESE THREE UNITS. SO AND I ALSO REMEMBER DID. MS. HARKER, DID YOU MENTION THAT THESE ARE VACANT NOW, THESE EXISTING UNITS? YES, THE APPLICANT DID CONFIRM THEY'RE VACANT. SO I GUESS THAT ALSO BEGS THE QUESTION, BECAUSE THEY'RE VACANT, HOW DO WE COLLECT DATA ON THE INCOME LEVEL? I'M JUST LOSING THREE UNITS HERE, SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE QUANTIFYING THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE DATA FROM. THE RESIDENTS THAT YOU'RE SAYING ARE THERE THAT HAVE GIVEN INFORMATION, BUT ALSO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT NEXT STEP OF HOW TO MAKE SURE WE'RE REPLACING IN KIND. GOOD EVENING. NICOLE PIANO-JONES. I'M WITH THE HOUSING AND HOMELESS SERVICES DEPARTMENT. SO I'LL JUST JUMP IN AND ADD ON TO WHAT SENIOR PLANNER AND DIRECTOR STRONG HAVE SAID, IS THAT SO THE STATE LAW IS THAT YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE THE INCOME OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTS. IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE INCOMES OF THE RESIDENTS OR IF THE UNITS ARE VACANT, YOU HAVE TO PRESUME, THE STATE LAW SAYS THERE'S A PRESUMED PERCENTAGE.

SO WHEN THIS APPLICATION WAS BEING PROCESSED, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE INCOMES OF THE TENANTS AT THAT TIME.

WHAT WE DID WAS WE HAD THEM SUBMIT A CERTIFICATION FORM BASED ON THOSE FORMS AND THAT ASSUMED PERCENTAGE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET ALL OF THOSE. WE DIDN'T GET EIGHT FORMS BACK.

WE ONLY GOT THREE FORMS BACK, I BELIEVE. AND SO THE PERCENTAGE THAT WE APPLIED WAS TWO MORE PROTECTED UNITS. SO IF ALL OF THE UNITS WERE VACANT, WE WOULD STILL USE THAT ASSUMED PERCENTAGE.

TO BASICALLY SAY BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN THE CITY WE ARE SAYING THERE WERE THIS MANY UNITS ON THIS SITE THAT HAD LOW-INCOME TENANTS SO WE DID HAVE TO USE THAT PROVISION FOR THIS PROJECT AS WELL SO THE FOLKS THAT LIVED THERE THAT WERE LOW INCOME AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL TWO UNITS THAT WE DIDN'T YIELD ANY RESPONSE FROM IS BECAUSE OF THAT. ASSUMED PERCENTAGE.

SO THE OTHER THREE UNITS ARE ASSUMED WHAT? BECAUSE THEY'RE VACANT, DIDN'T I JUST HEAR THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ALSO ASSUMED? SO IT'S AN ASSUMED PERCENTAGE. SO WHAT'S THE PERCENTAGE? I GUESS IT'S UM IT WAS I BELIEVE 42 PERCENT.

YEAH SO IF ALL OF THE UNITS HAD BEEN VACANT ALL OF THE EIGHT UNITS WE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO CLAIM QUOTE UNQUOTE THAT 42 PERCENT OF THEM WERE LOW INCOME.

OKAY. AND THAT'S BASED ON THE TOTAL LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD PERCENTAGE FOR THE CITY. SO WE'RE GETTING UH SO WE'RE GETTING FIVE. FROM THE 8, BASED

[01:35:01]

FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME FROM A CLARIFICATION STANDPOINT? WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMEANS AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. AGAIN, I'M JONATHAN FRANKEL WITH RINCON HOMES. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS EVENING. IT'S MY PLEASURE TO BE BACK. I ALSO WANT TO THANK SENIOR PLANNER HARKER FOR ALL OF HER DILIGENT WORK.

SHE WORKED TREMENDOUSLY HARD ON THIS APPLICATION. WE'RE REALLY GRATEFUL. FOR ALL OF HER EFFORTS. AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, RINCON HOMES, OUR FIRM, IS BASED AND HEADQUARTERED HERE IN CARLSBAD. WE ARE CARLSBAD'S LOCAL HOME BUILDER, AND FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS WE'VE BEEN HERE SELLING AND BUILDING HOMES, PRIMARILY IN THE VILLAGE AREA. WE HAVE DEEP EXPERIENCE IN CONSTRUCTING A WIDE VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES, INCLUDING THESE MIXED-USE PODIUM BUILDINGS. IN FACT, THIS WILL BE OUR THIRD MIXED-USE PODIUM PROJECT IN THE GREATER VILLAGE AREA.

THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU... SERVES TO TRANSFORM WHAT IS TODAY AN UNDERUTILIZED PARKING LOT INTO A VIBRANT MIXED-USE COMMUNITY THAT WILL PROVIDE NEEDED HOUSING OPTIONS, SUPPORT OUR SMALL BUSINESSES THROUGH THE CREATION OF THE RETAIL SPACE, AS WELL AS PROVIDE, AS YOU'VE SAID, FIVE FOR SALE UNITS FOR LOW-INCOME AND EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME FAMILIES. AS WITH ALL OF OUR PROJECTS, OUR DESIGN PROCESS IS ITERATIVE AND IT BEGINS WITH DISCUSSIONS WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS, SOME IN THE COMMUNITY AND CITY STAFF.

THIS INCLUDES, OF COURSE, AREA RESIDENTS, AND IN THIS CASE, THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, LOCAL BUSINESS OWNERS AND RETAILERS, AND POTENTIAL FUTURE RESIDENTS.

AND WE HEARD A FEW KEY PIECES OF FEEDBACK AND INSIGHTS THAT WE WORKED TO ADDRESS IN THE DESIGN. FIRSTLY, PARKING. WE ARE ACUTELY AWARE THAT PARKING REMAINS A KEY ISSUE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE AREA, AND AS... MS. HARKER MENTIONED, DESPITE STATE LAW ALLOWING VERY LIMITED PARKING, AS A RESULT OF OUR PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT, WE HAVE ELECTED TO INCLUDE 42 PARKING SPACES IN THE PROJECT. WE'RE ALSO, AS A FIRM IN ALL OF OUR PROJECTS, EXPLORING CREATIVE WAYS TO ADD ADDITIONAL OFF-STREET PARKING THROUGH THE INCLUSION OF PARKING LIFTS. IN THESE MIXED-USE PODIUM BUILDINGS, YOU GET A FAIR AMOUNT OF GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT IN THE BUILDING, AND THAT'S IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE COMMERCIAL SPACE. AS WELL AS ALL THE MECHANICAL AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED TO THE BUILDING. SO WE DO ANTICIPATE BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL OFF-STREET PARKING IN THE FORM OF LIFTS.

WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE NUMBER QUITE YET AS WE WORK ON OUR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BUT WE DO ANTICIPATE A NUMBER OF THOSE SPACES WILL BE PROVIDED. NEXT, WE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS ABOUT THE DESIRE TO ACTIVATE THE STREET. AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS A HIGHLY UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. ALL THE BUILDINGS SIT VERY FAR BACK FROM THE STREET, AND IT'S MOSTLY PARKING. TODAY THERE'S NO RETAIL OR ANY OTHER REALLY ACTIVATED USE ON THE PROJECT SITE IN WHAT IS A VERY, AS YOU KNOW, ACTIVE AREA. SO THE PROJECT INCLUDES THAT ROUGHLY 3,500 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL USES. WE'RE ALSO DEDICATING 11 FEET OF OUR PROPERTY TO THE CITY FOR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO FACILITATE A REALLY NICE SIDEWALK AND PARKWAY EXPERIENCE. IT WILL BE A WIDE 11-FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK, WHICH WE THINK SERVES TWO FUNCTIONS.

ONE, OF COURSE, THE PEDESTRIANS THAT PASS IT, THE PATRONS OF THE BUSINESS.

BUT WE ALSO THINK IT REALLY SERVES. TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN A HIGH QUALITY TENANT MIX THERE WHEN YOU HAVE A REALLY NICE ATTRACTIVE FRONTAGE. AND THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S VILLAGE MASTER PLAN, AND WE'RE REALLY PLEASED TO BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THAT.

WE ALSO WORKED STRATEGICALLY WITH OUR DESIGN TEAM TO TRY AND INCORPORATE DESIGN FEATURES THAT REDUCE THE BULK AND MASS OF THE BUILDING. AND THAT'S KIND OF THREE WAYS THAT WE DO THAT.

FIRSTLY, THE INCORPORATION OF THE SECOND FLOOR AMENITY DECK RIGHT IN THE CENTER OF THE BUILDING, AS YOU SAW. IT. REALLY SERVES TO CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL BREAK IN THE WALL PLANE AND PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT ARTICULATION ON THE SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH FLOORS. THE FEATURE ALSO PROVIDES TRANSPARENCY THROUGH THE BUILDING AS MS. HARKER MENTIONED, WHICH WE THINK REALLY IS IMPORTANT FOR THE STREET EXPERIENCE AND MAKING THAT REALLY, REALLY VIABLE AND NICE. WE ALSO INCORPORATE A WIDE VARIETY OF ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS AND BUILDING MATERIALS, AS YOU SAW. AND THE TYPE OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE AND PROJECTION THAT I THINK BEST REPRESENTS THIS IS THE KIND OF WHITE BANDING THAT YOU SEE AROUND THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR. AND SO WE DO THINGS LIKE THIS TO REALLY CREATE AN ILLUSION OF A SMALLER SCALE ELEMENT WHEN YOU'RE WRAPPING TWO FLOORS IN A LARGER ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT.

ACTUALLY, YOUR EYE IS DRAWN TO THE LARGER FEATURE AND NOT THE WINDOW ELEMENTS.

BETWEEN EACH FLOOR. SO THAT'S

[01:40:01]

HOWEVER, IT'S REALLY UNIQUE IN THAT NEARLY 50% OF THIS PROJECT ARE PROVIDED AS ONE-BEDROOM UNITS. THAT'S A PRODUCT TYPE YOU RARELY SEE FOR SALE IN THE VILLAGE, REALLY ANYWHERE IN NORTH COUNTY. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DO IN OLDER PROJECTS. IT OFTEN DIDN'T MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE. BUT OVER OUR 15 YEARS WORKING AND SELLING IN THE VILLAGE, WE'VE CONSISTENTLY HEARD YOUNG COUPLES AND MOVE-DOWN BUYERS EXPRESS A NEED OR A DESIRE FOR ONE-BEDROOM UNITS. WE KNOW THAT THIS ALLOWS THEM TO ENTER THE MARKET AT A KIND OF MORE ATTAINABLE PRICE POINT, A MORE APPROACHABLE PRICE POINT. WE ALSO KNOW, IN TRACKING OUR SALES DATA THROUGHOUT THE YEARS AND LOOKING AT OUR INTEREST LIST FOR THIS PROJECT AND OTHERS, THAT THE MAJORITY OF OUR BUYERS ARE ACTUALLY ALREADY IN CARLSBAD. THEY ARE CARLSBAD RESIDENTS THAT ARE LOOKING FOR A NEW CONSTRUCTION OPTION.

AND IN RECENT YEARS, WE'VE HAD TREMENDOUS INTEREST FROM EMPTY NESTERS, RETIREES, WHO ARE INTERESTED IN MOVING DOWN TO AN ELEVATOR-SERVED, ONE-FLOOR BUILDING IN A VIBRANT AREA LIKE THE VILLAGE. AND SO WHEN WE KNOW THAT WHEN WE BUILD A PROJECT LIKE THIS, THOSE PEOPLE THAT CAN MOVE DOWN ARE OFTEN VACATING, LEAVING LARGER SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING YOUNG FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. AND SO WHEN WE ALLOW PROJECTS LIKE THIS TO HAPPEN, WE'RE REALLY SERVING AND MEETING THE HOUSING NEEDS OF A WIDE VARIETY OF EXISTING CARLSBAD RESIDENTS. SO WITH THAT, AGAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THIS EVENING. OUR ENTIRE DESIGN TEAM IS HERE. IN THE EVENT YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. FRANKEL. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER BURROUGHS.

FRANK, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THERE'S 42 PARKING SPACES PLANNED NOW, AND YOU MENTIONED THAT ADDING THESE LIFTS COULD POTENTIALLY ADD MORE, AND GRANTED, IT'S THE DESIGN PHASE AND YOU'RE JUST GIVING AN ESTIMATE, BUT COULD YOU ESTIMATE HOW MANY PARKING SPACES COULD BE ADDED IN ADDITION TO THE LIFTS? WE'RE THINKING RIGHT NOW, AND AGAIN, THIS WILL BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, BUT WE'RE THINKING AT LEAST 10 CAN BE ADDED THROUGH THE INCLUSION OF LIFTS. THANK YOU. FURTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANK YOU. I ASKED STAFF TO MOVE TO THE RENDERING THAT THEY SHOWED.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT PAGE THAT WAS ON. I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR SETBACKS ON THE SIDE YARDS. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THOSE SETBACKS AND WHY? BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE VILLAGE IN BARRIO IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA HAS ZERO LOT LINE SETBACKS. SO, NO, THE MORE RENDERED ONE THAT'S MORE REALISTIC. SORRY. THAT ONE SHOWS THE THAT'S GOOD, BUT THAT ONE'S NOT SHOWING THE I THINK IT WAS TOWARD THE END. BUT YOU SEE THE TWO SIDE AISLES, I GUESS, IS WHAT I'M CONCERNED WITH.

AND YOU HAVE PLANTING THERE, AND THERE'S BUILDINGS ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT ARE AT THE SETBACK ON BOTH SIDES.

BUT YOU SEE THE LARGE WALLED OPENINGS ON EITHER SIDE, AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT SPACE IS FOR AND WHY THOSE WOULD BE SAFE.

SURE, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. SO THERE'S TWO PRIMARY REASONS WHY WE NEED SPACE ON THE SIDE. ONE IS FOR OUR STORMWATER TREATMENT BMPS.

SO ALL OF THE STORMWATER THAT'S GENERATED ON THIS PROJECT WILL RUN OFF AND WILL BE TREATED PRIOR TO BEING DISCHARGED INTO THE MUNICIPAL STORMWATER SYSTEM.

AND SO ON THOSE SIDE YARDS, WE ACTUALLY HAVE TREATMENT FACILITIES. SO WE'RE ROUTING THE DRAINAGE FROM THE ROOF AND OTHER AREAS OF THE PROJECT TO THOSE SIDE YARDS. YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THOSE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THEM. THE SECOND REASON IS RELATED TO FIRE. WE ACTUALLY WORK CLOSELY WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WITH DARCY AND HER TEAM. TO INCLUDE SOME ENHANCED FIRE FEATURES AROUND THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THAT'S A STANDPIPE THAT ALLOWS FOR ADDITIONAL FIRE HOSE CONNECTION. AND SO THEY NEED WALKING ACCESS TO THAT, AND THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T COME RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

BUT THERE ARE NO OPENINGS ON EITHER SIDE, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT'S ALL THE GARAGE, RIGHT? ON BOTH SIDES? THERE'S A STAIRWELL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING IN THE SIDE YARD. YOU CAN

[01:45:01]

AND THAT'S THE CONCERN I HAVE WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. I THINK EVERY OTHER PIECE IN CLARIFYING THAT EIGHT-UNIT CHANGE IS VERY HELPFUL. BUT THOSE TWO ALLEYS STRIKE ME AS A REAL SAFETY CONCERN. AND AS MUCH AS YOU WANT TO SECURE THEM, I SEE WHAT GATED THINGS HAPPEN IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS SECURED.

SO THOSE ARE... THOSE... TWO ALLEYS ON THE SIDE YARDS ARE THE BIG CONCERN THAT I HOPE WE CAN WORK OUT BECAUSE THAT'S A REALLY BIG SAFETY CONCERN FOR ME. THANKS. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER MERTZ. THANK YOU.

YEAH, THANKS FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. BOTH OF THEM WERE VERY HELPFUL. SO THE QUESTION ON PAGE 5 OF THE PACKAGE, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE PARKING, IT MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THE CITY CAN REQUIRE THE, THE CITY MAY REQUIRE THE PROJECT PROVIDE THE EV SUPPLIED EQUIPMENT, INSTALLED PARKING SPACES, AND SPACES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.

AND IT ALSO INCLUDES THE REQUISITE ADA AND EV PARKING.

DO WE KNOW WHAT THE, WHAT'S THE TOTAL NUMBER? COULD YOU SHOW THAT AGAIN, THE TOTAL NUMBER? IS THERE ANY, IS THAT DICTATED BY THE NUMBER OF ADA AND EV SPACES? IS THAT DICTATED BY THE CITY? THAT NUMBER IS BASED ON THE WHAT WOULD TYPICALLY BE THE REQUIRED AMOUNT FOR THE COMMERCIAL USE. SO IT'S A PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE WHAT WOULD TYPICALLY REQUIRED FOR THE COMMERCIAL USE SO IT COMES FROM THE THE BUILDING CODE OH THAT COMES FROM THE CODE.

YEAH, OKAY, SO THERE'S NO OKAY, SO THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY FLEXI- SO THERE'S A TOTAL OF 38 RESIDENTIAL AND FOUR COMMERCIAL AND THEN OF THE TOTAL SPACE IS 380, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE 16 EV SPACES ON THE SITE? THAT'S CORRECT, YEAH, OF VARYING CAPABILITIES.

WELL, YOU KNOW, IT DOES SEEM, AND I GUESS THIS IS KIND OF A QUESTION, SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, LIKE IN WORKING IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE, YOU SEE SITUATIONS WHERE SOMETHING IS REQUIRED, BUT THEN THERE WILL BE, YOU KNOW, EMPTY, MAYBE SAY EMPTY EV SPACES OR A LOT OF EMPTY ADA SPACES. IS THERE ANY FLEXIBILITY WITHIN, LIKE, TO... IF WE FIND THOSE THINGS ARE UNDERUTILIZED, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, IT'S A FAIRLY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS A CHALLENGE WITH PARKING AND SAY, YOU KNOW, AFTER A YEAR OF THIS THING IS BEING BUILT, WE FIND THAT THE EV SPACES ARE, YOU KNOW, NO ONE CAN PARK THERE AND YOU'VE GOT LIKE EIGHT EV SPACES SITTING VACANT ON A SPACE, YOU KNOW, PARKING IS A CHALLENGE THERE.

SO IS THERE, IS THIS A QUESTION I HAVE? IS THERE A WAY TO FLEXIBILITY FOR THE, TO LOOK AT THAT OR COME BACK TO THE CITY, SAY AFTER IT'S BUILT AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE BUILT THIS THING AND...

WE'VE GOT THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRED 16 EV SPACES, AND, YOU KNOW, OVER HALF OF THEM ARE SITTING VACANT, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN A TIGHT PARKING SITUATION. I DON'T BELIEVE ALL OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE WIRED TO BE UTILIZED RIGHT AWAY AS EV SPACES, AND I'LL DEFER TO MR. FRANKEL TO ELABORATE ON THAT. YEAH, SO IT IS TRUE THAT NOT ALL OF THEM WILL BE EV, MEANING A CHARGER WILL BE INSTALLED.

HOWEVER, THE PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WILL BE. WILL BE PRIVATE. SO UNLIKE A PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE WHERE THEY MAY HAVE AN EV SPACE THAT'S EV ONLY, WE MAY INSTALL A CHARGER AND THE RESIDENT MAY ELECT NOT TO USE THAT CHARGER. THEY MAY NOT OWN AN EV. SO OUR OBLIGATION IS TO INSTALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

WHETHER THE HOMEOWNER ULTIMATELY HAS AN EV, WE THINK IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE AMENITY.

FOLKS DO, AND IT'S GOOD TO HAVE. BUT IN A PRIVATE CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX LIKE THIS. GENERALLY, YOU KNOW, IF THEY DON'T OWN AN EV, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO PARK THERE, UNLIKE A GARAGE WHERE YOU'RE UNABLE TO PARK THERE IF YOU DON'T OWN AN EV.

THAT'S A VERY HELPFUL

[01:50:03]

THAT'S LIKE A 1.16 PER THOUSAND RATIO. DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH JUST THE COMMERCIAL JUST BEING UNDER-PARKED? FOR WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN TERMS OF HAVING A VIBRANT RETAIL SPACE THERE? YEAH, WE REALLY BELIEVE IN THE LONG-TERM WALKABILITY FACTOR IN THE VILLAGE. AND SO IF THIS WERE AN AREA MAYBE ON THE EASTERN PART OF TOWN, I THINK WE WOULD HAVE MORE OF A CONCERN ABOUT THE VIABILITY.

BUT HERE, I THINK WE'VE FOUND IN OUR OTHER PROJECTS AS WELL THAT WE'VE ATTRACTED HIGH-QUALITY COMMERCIAL USERS, AND WITH THE PARKING WAS RELATIVELY LIMITED. I MEAN, THERE'S ALWAYS A TRADEOFF BETWEEN DEDICATING MORE LAND TO COMMERCIAL PARKING US. AS COMPARED TO THE RESIDENTIAL.

AND I THINK BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE, WE THINK THIS MIX WILL WORK FOR THE AREA. AND THAT'S A GOOD POINT. YOU DID MENTION, AND BY THE WAY, I REALLY FOUND YOUR PRESENTATION VERY INTERESTING, COVERED SOME REALLY GOOD POINTS. YOU DID MENTION, I THINK, THIS IS YOUR THIRD PROJECT PODIUM WITH RETAIL.

AND IS THE RETAIL PARKING SIMILAR ON THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT YOU DID? AND WHAT WAS YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THOSE? YES.

THE RETAIL IS SIMILAR. AND SO I THINK WHAT WE LOOK FOR IS FOR A TENANT MIX. YOU KNOW, FOLKS THAT MAYBE HAVE DIFFERING OPERATING HOURS, DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT ATTRACT PATRONS AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF DAY. ONE OF OUR BUILDINGS, OUR GRANT JEFFERSON BUILDING, THAT IS A FITNESS STUDIO. THAT DEMOGRAPHIC ATTRACTS KIND OF A RUSH AT CERTAIN TIMES OF DAY. THEIR CLASSES STOP AT A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.

AND SO WE JUST LOOK TO DIFFERENTIATE WHEN WE'RE SEEKING THE TENANTS.

BUT GENERALLY, YES, THE PROJECTS WERE SIMILAR IN TERMS OF HOW MANY PARKING SPACES WERE PROPOSED. AND WE FIND, GENERALLY, GIVEN THE PARKING SUPPLY LOCALLY AND THEN THE OPERATIONAL NEEDS OF THE TENANTS, THAT IT'S WORKED OUT WELL.

OKAY, AND ARE ALL THOSE RETAIL UNITS OCCUPIED IN YOUR OTHER PROJECTS? IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU'VE BUILT, THIS IS YOUR THIRD ONE, SO YOU DO HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THAT. AND IN YOUR EXPERIENCE IN DEALING WITH THOSE OTHER BUILDINGS THAT YOU'VE HAD THAT WITH THE RETAIL, ARE THOSE, WERE THOSE? FILLED 100% OCCUPIED WITH THAT EXPERIENCE? THEY ARE CURRENTLY FILLED. I WILL, I WILL, YOU KNOW, BE FULLY TRANSPARENT. THAT'S OFTEN GROUND FLOOR RETAIL AND A MIXED USE CAN BE DIFFICULT TO FILL. I AGREE. AND SO I KNOW, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER MURR IS BASED ON YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, BEING THAT OUR GRAND JEFFERSON SPACE WOULD LEASE UP MAYBE A LITTLE BIT FASTER THAN IT DID, BUT IT DID. AND I THINK THAT NOW THAT WE HAVE A REAL NETWORK IN TOWN, BEING HERE LOCAL, ON THE GROUND IN THE VILLAGE, I'M IN THE VILLAGE FOUR TIMES A WEEK AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE REALLY JUST TALKING TO LOCAL BUSINESS OWNERS. I SPOKE TO A NUMBER OF BUSINESS OWNERS AT THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE ASSOCIATION WHEN WE PRESENTED THIS PROJECT FOR FEEDBACK.

MANY OF THEM ACTUALLY APPROACHED ME AND SAID, HEY, WE WOULD LOVE TO BE IN TOUCH.

MAYBE DON'T WORK THROUGH A TRADITIONAL BROKER SETUP. SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE GOOD SUCCESS, BUT TRADITIONALLY, HISTORICALLY, DEPENDING ON WHERE THE MARKET IS, IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO LEASE OUT. BUT JUST IN SUMMARY, THOUGH, SO THE OTHER ONES YOU BUILT WERE SIMILAR PARKED TO A SIMILAR RATIO OF THIS, AND THEY'VE WORKED OUT.

CORRECT. OKAY, GOOD. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY. I WILL NOW OPEN THANK YOU VERY MUCH OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

MINUTES, CLERK? DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? WE DO. WE HAVE THREE.

HOW MANY? THREE. THREE. DAVID PIERCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AS OUR FIRST SPEAKER APPROACHES TO THE PODIUM, LET ME EXPLAIN THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURES ON PUBLIC TESTIMONY. EACH SPEAKER HAS THREE MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS.

TO HELP SPEAKERS STAY WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT, THE MINUTES CLERK WILL ACTIVATE THE LIGHTED TIMER. THE GREEN LIGHT MEANS SPEAK, YELLOW MEANS ONE MINUTE, AND THE BLINKING RED MEANS YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

PLEASE START BY STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, NOT TO STAFF, THE APPLICANT, OR THE PUBLIC. AFTER WE HAVE RECEIVED ALL TESTIMONY FROM EVERYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK, WE'LL ASK THE APPROPRIATE PERSON TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS. PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE AND CLEARLY STATE YOUR NAME. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS DAVID PIERCE. I LIVE NEAR THE DOVE LIBRARY.

FOR THIS PROJECT, I SUPPORT APPROVING. THE PROJECT, I'LL FOCUS ON THE ECONOMIC EFFECT FOR THE HOUSING MARKET IN CARLSBAD. SO EVERY NEW MARKET RATE HOME HELPS LOWER RENT FOR LOW-INCOME EARNERS IN EXISTING APARTMENTS NEARBY.

IT MIGHT NOT SOUND OBVIOUS, IT MIGHT BE COUNTERINTUITIVE, BUT THE DATA BEARS IT OUT.

[01:55:03]

SO LANDLORDS, THEY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS, AND WHEN THE LEASE EXPIRES FOR SOMEONE OF THE WORKING CLASS OR MIDDLE CLASS, THEY CAN DEMAND MUCH HIGHER RENT BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE SOMEONE WEALTHY ENOUGH TO AFFORD IT, AND SO THE LOWER INCOME CAN GET DISPLACED. NEW MARKET RATE APARTMENTS ABSORB THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE WHO WANT TO MOVE INTO CARLSBAD. THAT WAY, NEW RESIDENTS OF CARLSBAD WHO ARE WEALTHY DO NOT DISPLACE EXISTING LOWER INCOME RESIDENTS, AND WEALTHY CURRENT RESIDENTS OF CARLSBAD CAN MOVE OUT OF OLDER HOMES. AND INTO THESE NEW ONES. NOW, THOSE OLDER HOMES, THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC DESIGNATION. THEY'RE KNOWN AS CLASS C. THEY'RE GENERALLY MULTIPLE DECADES OLD.

THEY MIGHT NOT BE ESPECIALLY WELL-MAINTAINED, BUT THEY HAVE TRADITIONALLY BEEN SOMETHING CALLED NATURALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH MEANS IT'S AFFORDABLE RENT-WISE FOR LOWER-INCOME PEOPLE WITHOUT ANY GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY.

INTERESTINGLY, APPROVING NEW...

MARKET RATE HOMES, WHILE THAT MIGHT INCREASE THE AVERAGE HOME PRICE IN A CITY BECAUSE THEY'RE BRAND NEW, IT IMMEDIATELY DECREASES THE RENT OF CLASS C OLDER APARTMENTS. THESE CHARTS SHOW MANY CITIES IN THE U.S.

THE ONES WITH THE GREATEST INCREASE IN RENT FOR CLASS C HAD BELOW AVERAGE INCREASES IN SUPPLY. THE ONES WITH THE MOST DECREASE IN RENT FOR CLASS C HAD THE GREATEST NEW SUPPLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. LORI ROBBINS. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, AND PLEASE INDICATE TO US YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNERS.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. MY NAME IS LORI AND I LIVE IN THE VILLAGE, BUT I'M NOT JUST A RESIDENT. I'M A GRADUATE OF THE BOSTON ARCHITECTURAL COLLEGE AND I'VE SPENT MY CAREER IN DESIGN FIRMS. I HAVE EXPERIENCE MAKING COST-EFFECTIVE CHANGES TO MAKE DESIGNS BETTER. I'M HERE BECAUSE THE RINCON...

ROOSEVELT PROJECT MISSES THE MARK ON COMPATIBILITY WITH OUR VILLAGE AESTHETIC.

THIS PROJECT PRESENTS AS COMMERCIAL, NOT A HOME. WHILE OUR VILLAGE ARCHITECTURE IS ECLECTIC, OUR RESIDENCES ARE NOT INDUSTRIAL. SO IF WE GO BACK TO THIS, IF YOU TAKE YOUR HAND AND YOU BLOCK THE RIGHT...

SIDE OF THIS ELEVATION AND JUST LOOK AT THE LEFT SIDE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS BUILDING IS BETTER SUITED AS AN ENTRANCE TO A DEPARTMENT STORE THAN A HOME TO LOVE. THE MASSIVE WHITE SQUARE IS JUST WAITING FOR A MACY'S SIGN. THE WINDOWS BEHIND THE SQUARE ARE SMALLER. AND CAN POTENTIALLY DENY FUTURE RESIDENTS OF AIR AND LIGHT.

THE DEVELOPER CAN DO BETTER.

WHY NOT INTRODUCE MORE ELEMENTS THAT OFFER TEXTURE AND CHARM? FOR INSTANCE, ADD MORE OF THE WOOD SIDING TO SOFTEN THE EDGES. OR HOW ABOUT INTRODUCING... JULIET BALCONIES WITH DECORATIVE RAILINGS

[02:00:02]

THIS COULD POTENTIALLY BE DONE WITHOUT CHANGING THE WINDOW SPEC AND WOULD ADD UPSCALE TEXTURE AND RESIDENTIAL DETAILS. WHILE THE PLANTERS ON THE SIDE AND THE REAR ARE A START, THE LOWER FLOORS STILL FEEL BLANK. BIG CONCERN IS THE REAR ELEVATION. IT COMPLETELY ABANDONS THE WOOD DETAILING. A PROJECT OF THIS SCALE SHOULD BE 360 DEGREES. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE BACK FROM STATE STREET, AND FUTURE PROJECTS BEHIND THE BUILDING SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE SUBJECTED TO A BACK ALLEY AESTHETIC.

PLEASE ASK STAFF AND THE COMMISSIONERS TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE SURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MINISTER CLARK, IS THERE ANY FURTHER SPEAKERS? LARRY WEINBERGER. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE. I AM LARRY WHITE. I'D LIKE TO ASK MR. CHAIRMAN FOR SOME ADDITIONAL TIME. I THINK IN VIEW OF THE FACT THERE'S VERY FEW SPEAKERS TONIGHT, I'M NOT GOING TO GO VERY LONG, BUT I DO HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS TO RAISE, SO HOPEFULLY YOU DON'T CUT ME OFF AT THREE MINUTES. WOULD YOU CONSIDER FOUR MINUTES? IT SAYS YOU HAVE THAT DISCRETION. I WILL GIVE YOU FOUR. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AND I KNOW YOU ALL WORK HERE HARD TO DO WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, AS WE ALL HAVE THE SAME INTEREST, THEREFORE. MY BACKGROUND IS AS A DEVELOPER, SO I CERTAINLY AM NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT, BUT I DO LIKE AND FAVOR GOOD DEVELOPMENT.

SO, KEEPING THAT IN MIND. I ALSO DON'T KNOW A LOT OF THE LOCAL RULES HERE, AND THEREFORE I'LL POSE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. HOPEFULLY YOU'LL DISCUSS THEM AFTER I SIT DOWN AND GIVE SOME ANSWERS TO THEM. SO, NUMBER ONE, LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE GENTLEMAN SHOWS A VERY NICE RENDERING THERE, AND THERE'S A LOT OF LANDSCAPING ON IT. IS THAT LANDSCAPING GOING TO BE PART OF ANY FINAL GRANTING OF APPROVAL THAT WOULD BE GIVEN TO THIS APPLICANT? AND IF SO, WHAT... PROCEDURES DO YOU HAVE IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT LANDSCAPING, ONCE PLANTED, MAINTAINS ITSELF AS HEALTHY AND IS REPLACED WHEN NO LONGER HEALTHY? FOR EXAMPLE, ON SOME OF THE STREETS RIGHT NEARBY THIS AREA.

HERE, THERE ARE DEAD SECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CUT OUT FOR TREES, WHICH NO LONGER HAVE TREES IN THEM. IN FACT, THAT CREATES TRIP AND FALL HAZARDS. THEY'RE LEFT UNATTENDED FOR MANY, MANY YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE ALREADY. SO I THINK THERE HAS TO BE SOME KIND OF CITY ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM WHERE THESE PLANTINGS ARE ENSURED TO CONTINUE TO BE IN EXISTENCE IN A HEALTHY, GROWING STATE AND FORM. I DON'T SEE ANY AIR CONDITIONING UNITS ON ANY OF THE RENDERINGS. I KNOW THAT THERE'S A PROJECT ON STATE STREET THAT WAS BUILT, AND I SPOKE TO THE PLAN PERSON WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THAT PROJECT. THE PERSON TOLD ME, YES, THAT WAS A MISTAKE. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT PROJECT, IT'S CALLED LIGHT, SEA LIGHT, SEA GLASS, SORRY. SEA GLASS, FROM THE STREET, YOU SEE EIGHT UGLY AIR CONDITIONING UNITS ON THAT ROOFTOP. THERE ARE MANY OTHER PROJECTS IN THE VILLAGE WHICH HAVE SHIELDED AIR CONDITIONING UNITS. SOME OF THE ONES ON STATE STREET, RIGHT, ABUTTING THIS PROPERTY, HAVE SHIELDED UNITS. IT'S A MUCH NICER, AESTHETIC LOOK. AS FAR AS, IS THIS THE TIME FROM FOUR MINUTES OR THREE MINUTES? I HAVE TO ADD THE MINUTE ON AFTER THE THREE MINUTES ARE UP.

THANK YOU. PLEASE ADD A MINUTE AND A HALF IF YOU WOULD. SO AIR CONDITIONING UNITS, HOPEFULLY WE GET SOME ANSWERS ON THAT. THE PARKING SIZE, THE VILLAGE REQUIREMENT IS 8.5 BY 20. NOW, 8.5 FEET, A CAR IS ABOUT SIX FEET WIDE. TODAY, YOU HAVE MOST PEOPLE DRIVING SUVS.

IT'S HARD TO OPEN THAT DOOR, EVEN IN AN 8 1/2-FOOT-WIDE SPOT. THIS APPLICANT WANTS TO REDUCE IT DOWN TO 8 FOOT BY 16. NOT REALLY A GOOD PARKING SPOT. IT'S TOO HARD TO GET OUT, IN AND OUT. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE DINGING EACH OTHER.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULDN'T BE REDUCING THE SIZE OF. AS FAR AS TOLL BROTHERS' APPLICATION, THEY REFERRED, I BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT 15 UNITS PER ACRE. TOTALLY DIFFERENT LOCATION, TOTALLY DIFFERENT AREA. BUT HERE YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS AMOUNTS TO ABOUT... 48 UNITS PER ACRE. VERY, VERY INTENSIVE USE OF THIS PROPERTY, NOT EVEN NEARLY AN ACRE, MAYBE TWO-THIRDS OF AN ACRE.

[02:05:01]

NO, FOUR WERE PROVIDED. FOUR WERE PROVIDED. I'M SORRY, SIR. FOUR MINUTES ARE UP. FOUR MINUTES ARE UP. I'M REALLY SORRY. WE TRULY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS THIS EVENING. SIR, THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU COMING THIS EVENING. TRULY APPRECIATE YOU COMING THIS EVENING. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY COMMENTS MADE BY ANY OF THE SPEAKERS THIS EVENING? OKAY. WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY SPEAKERS THIS EVENING? CHAIRMAN MEANS, YES, I WOULD.

COMMISSIONER, I MEAN, MRS. HARKER? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND. THANK YOU. YES. OKAY, SO AS IT RELATES TO THE LANDSCAPING, THERE IS A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED. LET ME PULL UP THE SLIDE. SO THERE IS ACTUAL PLANTING AND SHRUBS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO HELP SCREEN THE REAR ELEVATION, AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE STORMWATER BASINS ALONG THE SIDE ELEVATION HERE.

THERE'S A BUTTON. ALSO ANOTHER BASIN ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO THESE ARE REQUIRED, THESE BASINS ARE REQUIRED FOR STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS.

SO IF THEY ARE NOT MAINTAINED, THEY'D BE IN VIOLATION OF THE PERMIT. SO THAT SHOULD REMAIN PLANTED. I WOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE SAME THING FOR THE SHRUBS AS WELL. YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE PROCESS. AND IF IT DIES, IT SHOULD BE REPLANTED AND MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY. AS FOR THE, LET'S SEE, THE AC UNITS. THEY WILL BE SCREENED. YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY SEE THEM. ACTUALLY, MAYBE I HAVE A PLAN, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT I REVIEWED AS PART OF THE PROCESS. THERE ARE PARAPETS INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN, WHICH WILL SCREEN THE ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT.

PARKING SIZE REDUCTION. THE SPACES ARE ACTUALLY IN BETWEEN A STANDARD PARKING STALL AND A COMPACT PARKING SPACE, SO THEY DO EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS DIMENSIONS FOR COMPACT SPACES.

BEYOND THAT, IF IT'S NOT A HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT. AND IF THEY MEET THE FINDINGS FOR THE DENSITY BONUS WAIVER, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE GRANTING. AS FAR AS THE DENSITY, I DON'T ACTUALLY RECALL WHAT THE COMMENT WAS, BUT STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW ALLOWS THEM TO GO UP TO 48 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AS LONG AS THEY PROVIDE THE REQUISITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO THAT CONCLUDES MY RESPONSE.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? COMMISSIONER MERTZ. SO THE QUESTION CAME UP.

DURING THE PRESENTATION, YOU SAID THAT IT MET THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE VILLAGE. I BELIEVE YOU STATED THAT IN YOUR PRESENTATION. IS THAT CORRECT? THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE VILLAGE. THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED FOR 11 WAIVERS. TEN OF THEM ARE FROM THE AREA-WIDE STANDARDS AND THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.

AND THEY PREPARED EXHIBITS SHOWING THAT IF THEY WERE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD, THEY WOULD PRECLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED.

OKAY, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FOSTER. YEAH, I JUST GOT TWO QUESTIONS. SO I THINK WHAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM THE PUBLIC WAS ASKING, SPECIFICALLY WITH LANDSCAPING, WAS ACTUALLY THE FRONTAGE. SO THE APPLICANT'S, I BELIEVE, PROVIDING LIKE 11-FOOT EASEMENT OR ACCESS FOR THE SIDEWALK AND FOR THE LANDSCAPING OF THE TREES. AND SO I THINK THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION WAS, IN THE EVENT THOSE TREES, LIKE, WHO'S GOING TO, OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT, I WOULD ASSUME, PAYS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE TREES.

BUT THE QUESTION IS, WHO'S PAYING FOR THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF THE TREES? WHAT IF THE TREES DIE? WHO PAYS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF TREES? I THINK THAT'S, CAN YOU PROVIDE SOME CLARITY THERE AS FAR AS THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY? SO THE FIVE TREES THAT ARE FEWER EXISTING, FEWER PROPOSED, ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED. THEY ARE REQUIRED STREET TREES,

[02:10:01]

THERE IS A CONDITION IN THE PROJECT RESOLUTION RELATING TO PRUNING THE TREES. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY OF CARLSBAD BEFORE THEY DO ANYTHING TO THE TREES, AS FAR AS PRUNING. SO I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO DEFER. MR. STRONG, CAN YOU PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE MAINTAINING THE TREES AND NOT THE APPLICANT? MR. STRONG, THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION IS JUST, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. THERE'S, I THINK, 11 WAIVERS REQUESTED IN THIS DUE TO THE DENSITY BONUS LAW. IS THERE A LIMIT ON HOW MANY WAIVERS AN APPLICANT CAN PRESENT? THERE IS NO LIMIT.

IT'S UNLIMITED, SPECIFICALLY STATED IN STATE LAW, AS LONG AS YOU MEET THE FINDINGS. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. I JUST WANTED CLARITY. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF APPLICANT OR STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANK YOU, CHAIR MEANS. ARE ANY OF THE TREES THAT ARE EXISTING HISTORIC? WE ARE IN THE VILLAGE. I CANNOT CONFIRM THAT.

THROUGH THE CHAIR. WE DO HAVE A HISTORIC TREE INVENTORY, CORRECT? WE HAVE A HERITAGE TREE INVENTORY. THOSE TREES CAN BE REPLACED UNDER LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT THE VETTING PROCESS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A HERITAGE TREE CAN BE REMOVED IS THROUGH THE REFERRAL PROCESS.

SO, WHEN AN APPLICATION IS RECEIVED, THE APPLICATION MATERIALS ARE FORWARDED TO THE PARK AND REC STAFF, AND WE HAVE SPECIFICALLY A TREE ARBORIST THAT REVIEWS THOSE APPLICATIONS AND DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY HERITAGE TREES. AND IF THERE ARE HERITAGE TREES, IF THEY CAN BE REMOVED. AND TYPICALLY, THAT DELIVER WRITING ISSUE IS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE TREE. IN THIS CASE, PARKS AND REC STAFF HAS AGREED TO THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES THAT ARE PRESENTED IN THE APPLICATION. BUT THE HERITAGE TREE INVENTORY IS IN THE URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN. THERE ISN'T A SPECIFIC HISTORIC TREE INVENTORY.

HOWEVER, LANDMARKS AND OTHER...

ARTIFACTS AND RESOURCES COULD BE PLACED ON A HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY, BUT THERE ARE NONE CURRENTLY.

NONE THAT ARE HERITAGE TREES, OR NONE THAT ARE PLACED ON A LIST? NONE THAT ARE HISTORIC. NO TREES ARE CURRENTLY LISTED ON THE HISTORIC INVENTORY, BUT THERE ARE TREES LISTED IN THE HERITAGE TREE PROGRAM.

BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF THE TREES ON THIS SITE ARE... FRONT OF THIS SITE ARE HERITAGE TREES. I WAS NOT A PART OF THE APPLICATION REVIEW, BUT AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THERE ARE EXPERTS THAT ARE ON.

CITY STAFF IN THE PARKS AND RECS DEPARTMENT THAT REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION AND SCREENED THE APPLICATION AGAINST THE HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM.

SO AT THIS POINT, IT'S ASSUMING THAT NONE OF THE TREES ARE ON THE HERITAGE TREE INVENTORY. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT NO TREES ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED. THEY'RE ADDING TWO STREET TREES IN ADDITION TO THREE STREET TREES FOR A TOTAL OF FIVE. RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, BECAUSE COMMISSIONER FOSTER MENTIONED THAT ABOUT THE TREES, SO I WANTED TO JUST, BECAUSE I KNOW. WE DO HAVE A PROGRAM FOR TREES, AND I WONDERED, BECAUSE THIS IS AN OLDER PART OF THE VILLAGE AREA, I WONDERED IF THE TREES WERE... I CAN TELL YOU THAT NOWHERE IN THIS PROCESS DID I RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK FROM THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, AND THEY WERE INVOLVED IN ALL THE REVIEWS OF THE PROJECT. THAT THERE WAS A HERITAGE TREE ON THE SITE.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS BASED ON THE GRADING. IT SAYS THAT A MAXIMUM OF FIVE FOOT CUT BELOW THE EXISTING GRADE IS PROPOSED FOR REMEDIAL GRADING. SO WHY WASN'T THE... IT PROPOSED TO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO DO THIS FOR REMEDIAL GRADING, WHY WASN'T IT REQUESTED OR PROPOSED THAT? MAYBE THIS GARAGE WOULD BE LOWERED FIVE FEET TO BE ABLE TO LIMIT SOME OF THAT HEIGHT THAT WE'RE CONCERNED WITH? OBVIOUSLY, 70 FEET IS A BIG DEAL, AND WE'RE WORKING WITH 45 HERE, SO IT'S A BIG QUESTION.

UNDERSTOOD, AND I DO AGREE THAT THERE'S OBVIOUSLY... A HUGE BENEFIT TO GOING UNDERGROUND FOR A PARKING GARAGE, BUT BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE THUS FAR WITH MY PROJECTS, IT MAKES THE PROJECT FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE AND COST PROHIBITIVE. WELL, THERE'S A LOT OF INFEASIBILITY WITH ALL DEVELOPMENTS, SO I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S THE

[02:15:04]

SO THEY NEED AN AREA FOR THESE PLANTERS FOR THE PROPERTY TO DRAIN PROPERLY. SO, I MEAN, MAYBE A COUPLE OF FEET IN WIDTH, BUT THEY ARE REQUIRED FROM A BMP PERSPECTIVE. SO I THINK BOTH OF THOSE CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS THE INCREASED WIDTH FOR THE SETBACK. AND THE APPLICANT CAN FENCE IT OFF, AS HE INDICATED. I GUESS IT REALLY BECOMES A SAFETY CONCERN BECAUSE... IF THEY HAD JUST MOVED IT EITHER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN A WIDER DRAINAGE AREA, BUT ALSO ACCESS FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AS WELL. SO I TEND TO THINK THAT THESE ALLEYS COULD BE SAFETY CONCERNS FOR OUR COMMUNITY. BUT LET'S SEE WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THINKS.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY, WITH THAT, WE'LL OPEN UP FOR COMMISSION DISCUSSION. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST? COMMISSIONER BURROUGHS. SO, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING IN THE VILLAGE, BUT I DO RECOGNIZE THAT WE'RE BOUND BY DENSITY. BONUS, AS WELL AS AB 2097 FOR THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THE PROJECT HERE. IS PROVIDING 42 PARKING SPACES, AS WELL AS POTENTIALLY MORE OF THOSE LIFTS AS THOSE GO THROUGH. AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT. THE APPLICANT AGREED TO ADD THE SHRUBS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE PARKING LOT VISIBILITY CONCERNS IN THE DESIGN SPECS. SO I SUPPORT THE PROJECT. FURTHER DISCUSSION BY COMMISSION? NOTHING FURTHER? MAY I? COMMISSION MERTZ? YEAH, SO I SUPPORT THE PROJECT. I THINK THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION WAS VERY INSIGHTFUL. MS. HART, COULD YOU PUT UP SLIDE NUMBER TWO AGAIN, THE ONE THAT SHOWED THAT? IT WAS THE ONE THAT SHOWED THE ELEVATION. NO, NOT THAT ONE.

THE ONE THAT IT WAS, IT WAS, OH. THAT ONE RIGHT THERE.

THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. YEAH, ITEM TWO. I APOLOGIZE. ITEM TWO. IT WAS HELPFUL WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PACKAGE AND THEN I SAW THIS ONE. IT WAS VERY HELPFUL, THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPLICANT AND SEEING IT FROM THIS ANGLE IS VERY MUCH DIFFERENT. IT WAS VERY HELPFUL TO SEE IT. I THINK THE OTHER THING I APPRECIATED ABOUT WAS THE NUMBER OF, THE COMMENTS ON THE NUMBER OF SINGLE BEDROOM UNITS AVAILABLE.

AND UNDERSTAND THE MARKET. AND THEN ALSO, TOO, I THINK I HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH THE PARKING. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE WITHIN THE STANDARDS FOR THE PARKING, BUT I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT THE LIFTS. AND THEN ALSO, TOO, THEIR SUCCESS WITH TWO OTHER MIXED-USE PROJECTS THAT HAD SIMILAR PARKING ON IT, TOO. SO I THINK IT ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS ON THAT. I DO RECOGNIZE, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS OF THE PUBLIC. MR. PIERCE IS LONGER HERE, AND THEN THE OTHER PERSON'S NAME, I CAN'T REMEMBER. I APPRECIATE THEM COMING. I THINK THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON DESIGN, AND I THINK I GET THAT. BUT I APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND I DO SUPPORT THE PROJECT.

THANK YOU. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AS WELL THIS EVENING. ONE COMMENT I DO

[02:20:02]

ON THE GROUND FLOOR AT THIS PROJECT. I THINK GIVEN ITS LOCATION, IT'S IDEAL. GIVEN IT'S ON ROOSEVELT AND THERE'S OTHER SHOPPING LOCATION ACROSS THE STREET AS WELL, SO I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THERE'S RETAIL INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT VERSUS HAVING TO BE JUST RESIDENTIAL.

FURTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER FOSTER? YEAH, I THINK YOU TIED UP AN EXCELLENT PIECE OF PROPERTY HERE. I MEAN, THIS IS SUCH AN AWESOME SPOT. I MEAN, AND IT'S SO NEGLECTED RIGHT NOW. THERE'S SO MUCH DEFERRED MAINTENANCE ON THAT PROPERTY. SO, I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS LIKE A BREATH OF FRESH AIR, WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING HERE, IN MY OPINION. AND TO PIGGYBACK ON CHAIR MEANS, THE IDEA OF PUTTING RETAIL, SPECIFICALLY FOOD AND BEVERAGE, RIGHT THERE, IS LIKE A NO-BRAINER, A COFFEE SPOT, WHATEVER. LIKE, THERE'S A POST OFFICE RIGHT THERE. I MEAN, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME IN AND OUT. THEY'RE GOING TO WANT A DRINK. THEY'RE GOING TO WANT A WHATEVER. I THINK IT'S A GREAT PROJECT. AND AS FAR AS SAFETY, THIS WAS RAN BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DID NOT VOICE ANY CONCERNS OF SAFETY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? WELL, TO CONFIRM, THEY DID HAVE TO REQUIRE AN ALTERNATIVE MEANS AND METHOD PLAN, WHICH THEY HAVE APPROVED.

OKAY, SO THEY MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROJECT TO MAKE IT SAFE FOR THE COMMUNITY? THAT IS CORRECT. SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DON'T SEE ANY ARGUMENT PERSONALLY OF THIS PROJECT PROPOSING ANY SORT OF ADVERSE SAFETY ISSUES TO THE COMMUNITY OF CARLSBAD, AND SO I SUPPORT THE PROJECT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, MAY I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER MERTZ. THAT'S RIGHT. I MAKE A MOTION TO PLAN COMMISSION ADOPT, PLAN COMMISSION RESOLUTION, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE TRACK MAP. DO I HAVE TO READ ALL THAT OUT, OR WHAT'S THE PROCESS? STAFF RECOMMENDATION. YEAH, I MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU FOR MY IDEA. MOTION MAY HAVE A SECOND. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MAKES THE SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. ALL RIGHTY, WE HAVE SIX YES, AND COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, NO.

[3. 2026 Commission Appointments]

SO, TO FACILITATE DISCUSSION AND VOTING ON THIS ACTION, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT SOLICITED INTERESTS. AND WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN SERVING AS CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR FOR THE REMAINDER OF 2026. AND THEN, SEPARATELY... THROUGH, THE PRESIDING, OFFICER COULD ENTERTAIN MOTIONS AND A SECOND MOTION TO TAKE VOTE, FIRST BEING FOR CHAIR, AND THEN A SECOND VOTE FOR VICE CHAIR. SO, IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CITY STAFF'S AVAILABLE TO HELP FACILITATE THIS CONVERSATION.

OTHERWISE, I'LL TURN IT BACK TO THE CHAIR. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I'LL NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY MINUTES.

CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? NO, CHAIR, WE DO NOT.

WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

COMMISSIONERS, FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF BEFORE WE PROCEED ON, OKAY? COMMISSIONER FOSTER. THIS IS JUST KIND OF INTERESTING JUST BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY POSITIONS THAT ARE. THERE'S A FEW POSITIONS THAT WILL TERM OUT, AND THEN THERE'S POSITIONS THAT ARE UP IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO THE QUESTION, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IS THAT THIS CONVERSATION IS JUST FOR THE REST OF THE CALENDAR YEAR OF 2026? MR. STRONG. THAT'S CORRECT.

ANNUALLY, THE COMMISSION APPOINTS THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR TO SERVE THAT CALENDAR YEAR.

IT IS NOW FEBRUARY, THE SECOND MEETING OF FEBRUARY. SO TYPICALLY, WE'LL SCHEDULE THESE EARLIER IN THE YEAR OR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CALENDAR YEAR. SO THE NEW CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR CAN SERVE THE FULL CALENDAR YEAR.

THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WAS SCHEDULED AT A PREVIOUS MEETING, WAS CONTINUED BECAUSE OF SOME ABSENCES. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S BEING HEARD. FEBRUARY.

THANKS. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME? OKAY. WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN FILLING THE POSITION OF CHAIR, INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS? COME DOWN. I THROW MY THING INTO THE HAT FOR 2026. ANY OTHER? COMMISSIONERS WISH TO,

[02:25:02]

OKAY, THAT'S HELPFUL. THAT'S HELPFUL. NO, IT WAS KIND OF THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE POSITION OF CHAIR? CAN WE MAKE A COMMENT? IT'S OKAY TO MAKE, WE CAN MAKE COMMENTS AT THIS TIME. OKAY, SO I DID SERVE AS CHAIR PREVIOUSLY. I THINK IT'S GOOD TO HAVE ROTATING FOR PEOPLE TO DO THAT. I THINK CHAIR OF THE MEANS HAS DONE A FANTASTIC JOB. I'D SUPPORT HIM IF HE WANTS TO CONTINUE DOING THAT.

BUT I THINK ALSO, TOO, IF... I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO DO IT, SO I THINK YOU'VE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB AS CHAIR. SO I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

I THINK THE CAVEAT WOULD BE IS THAT IF YOU SERVE ANOTHER ONE, THE MORE JUNIOR PEOPLE ON HERE, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE. SO I THINK BY HAVING, IF NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO STEP UP, I THINK YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB. AND STILL ALLOWS SOME OF THE FOLKS HERE TO SERVE IN THE FUTURE, TOO.

SO I THINK THAT'S GOOD. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE POSITION OF CHAIR? OKAY. IF I MAY MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT, SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO AREN'T INTERESTED, MAYBE IN A YEAR, WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE FUTURE. THEREFORE, WE NEED TO HAVE A NOMINATION AND MOTION FOR THE POSITION OF CHAIR. CAN I HAVE THAT? COMMISSIONER FOSTER. ARE WE ALSO NOMINATING THE VICE CHAIR AS WELL? THAT WILL BE A SECOND MOTION. OH, IT'S A SECOND MOTION. OKAY. I NOMINATE THE ROYAL. CHAIR MEANS FOR CHAIR FOR 2026, UNTIL THE END OF TIME.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER MAKES THE MOTION. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD.

COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MAKES A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.

UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT IN MIND, MAY I HAVE INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS FOR VICE CHAIR. WHO IS INTERESTED IN VICE CHAIR FOR 2026? INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS. WE'VE GOT TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE OF YOU. I JUST WANT TO SAY, VICE CHAIR HUBINGER IS THE BEST VICE CHAIR I HAVE EVER SEEN ON A COMMISSION, EVER. AND I HOPE HE CONTINUES. OKAY, ANY INTERESTING COMMENT? ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE POSITION OF VICE CHAIR? WELL, I THINK, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER FOSTER AND COMMISSIONER HUMER WOULD BOTH BE GOOD CHOICES. DOES EITHER OF THEM WANT TO DO IT? I DON'T CARE. I'LL DO IT, OR HE CAN DO IT.

BUT IF HE WANTS TO DO IT, THAT'D BE GREAT. OKAY. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. I MEAN, IN A WAY, IT SHOULD BE A SUCCESSION.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO SUCCEED, RIGHT? IN OTHER WORDS, A SUCCESSION TO THE CHAIRMANSHIP, THE WAY I WOULD ENVISION IT.

OKAY. YEAH. CAN YOU SPEAK IN YOUR MICROPHONE, PLEASE? YES. SO THE DISCUSSION WE SHOULD HAVE IS WHOEVER WANTS TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR SHOULD CONTEMPLATE POTENTIALLY BEING CHAIRMAN. OKAY. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE NOT.

AT THIS POINT, DESIRING TO...

RIGHT. OKAY, WELL, THEN, OKAY, I THINK THAT I WOULD WANT TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER FOSTER FOR VICE CHAIR. WELL, LET... OR, OKAY. YEAH, SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM, BUT WHAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT IS WHOEVER WANTS TO BE VICE CHAIR SHOULD AT LEAST BE IN A SUCCESSION TO POTENTIALLY BE CHAIR. AND SO YOU'RE GETTING A TWO FOR ONE.

RIGHT? YOU'RE GETTING SOMEONE

[02:30:02]

APPRECIATE THAT. SO INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS. SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER FOSTER'S INTERESTED. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER IS INTERESTED. NO, I'M NOT REALLY. I MEAN, I WILL SERVE AS VICE CHAIR, BUT I DON'T REALLY WANT TO BE CHAIRMAN. SO AN INTERESTING THING WITH THE WHOLE COMMISSION, RIGHT, IS THAT WE DO HAVE THREE PEOPLE THAT ARE TERMING OUT, AND THEN HUBINGER HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR ANOTHER TERM, IF HE SO WANTS TO. AND THEN US THREE, WE CONTINUE ON, I THINK, RIGHT? RIGHT. CORRECT. RIGHT.

CORRECT. YEAH, I WILL HAVE TO BE REAPPOINTED, BUT THE APPLICATION, I DON'T BELIEVE, OPENS UNTIL OCTOBER.

SO I'LL BE SERVING UNTIL THEN, AND THE DECISION WILL BE MADE AFTER THAT. OKAY. I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION. I WOULD LIKE TO EVENTUALLY, YOU KNOW, PLAY A LARGER ROLE, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE I'M STILL GETTING MY SEA LEGS, STILL, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING HOW THINGS FLOW AND FUNCTION.

BUT, YEAH, I'LL PUT IT AT THAT. OKAY. SO, YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S BASICALLY, SO COMMISSIONER BURROUGHS AND I ARE... YOU KNOW, WE'RE PUSHED THROUGH TO NEXT YEAR, LIKE, WITHOUT ANY KIND OF RE-EMPLOYMENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO UNLESS COMMISSIONER BURROUGHS WANTS TO DO IT, I'M HAPPY TO DO VICE CHAIR. IT'S UP TO YOU. OKAY. HE DIDN'T ANSWER.

I WOULD BE INTERESTED AT SOME POINT, BUT LIKE YOU SAID, WE HAVE A FEW YEARS POTENTIALLY. SO IF YOU WERE INTERESTED IN TAKING IT RIGHT NOW, I'D SUPPORT THAT. I'LL CHALLENGE YOU TO A THUMB WAR. NO, I'M JOKING. YEAH, I'LL JUST TAKE IT. I'LL TAKE IT SO LONG AS EVERYBODY ELSE WANTS IT. THAT ACTUALLY SETS UP A SUCCESSION, RIGHT? CHAIR, VICE CHAIR. I MEAN, RIGHT. OKAY. I MEAN, IT MAKES SENSE BASED ON THE TERM. YEAH. GOOD DISCUSSION. I APPRECIATE THAT.

ALL RIGHTY. SO WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, YOU WISH TO SAY SOMETHING? I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. WHAT'S OUR POLICY ON THE SUCCESSION? DO WE HAVE IT? I THOUGHT WE ESTABLISHED ONE AT ONE POINT AND MAYBE IT'S GOTTEN REPEALED.

WHAT'S OUR POLICY? I'LL CONFIRM AND LOOK AT THE BYLAWS, BUT I BELIEVE THERE IS NO SUCCESSION POLICY. EACH YEAR CAN BE TAKEN ANEW, AND IT'S UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPOINT ITS MEMBERS TO PRESIDE OVER THE MEETINGS.

COMMISSIONER MERTZ? YEAH, TO YOUR POINT, SO I WAS NOT VICE CHAIR AND I WENT RIGHT TO BEING CHAIR. A FEW YEARS AGO.

YOU'RE EXCEPTIONAL. THANK YOU.

AND ALTHOUGH MY WORST EXPERIENCE ON PLANNING COMMISSION WAS THIS DISCUSSION WHEN I WAS THE CHAIR, IT WAS THE ABSOLUTE WORST EXPERIENCE I'VE EVER HAD. ONE, I'LL GO DOWN IN INFAMY.

BUT I WILL SAY, I THINK COMMISSIONER FOSTER, I'VE BEEN IMPRESSED WITH HIS COMMENTS AND HIS OBSERVATIONS, AND I THINK HE WOULD DO A VERY GOOD JOB AS VICE CHAIR, AND I THINK HE'D BE A GREAT CHAIR IN THE FUTURE.

GOOD DISCUSSION. EXCELLENT.

THEREFORE. I GUESS THERE'S NO ONE ELSE INTERESTED AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME OTHER THAN COMMISSIONER FOSTER. SO, WITH THAT IN MIND, CAN I HAVE A MOTION FOR VICE CHAIR? MOTION BY, OKAY, COMMISSIONER BURROUGHS. MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER FOSTER TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR. OKAY, COMMISSIONER BURROUGHS MAKES THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER MERTZ MAKES THE SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.

CONGRATULATIONS COMMISSIONER FOSTER. YOU ARE NOW VICE CHAIR. ALRIGHTY, WITH THAT, IS

[COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTARY AND REQUESTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS]

HOW ABOUT OUR CITY PLANNER, THOUGH? MR. STRONG. I'M JUST GOING TO SAY, MR. STRONG.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. THE MEETING ON MARCH 4TH WILL BE CANCELED.

WE'LL RECONVENE ON MARCH 18TH, AND WE HAVE TWO ITEMS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED. ONE IS THE DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE, AND THE OTHER IS THE EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING PROJECT. AND OUR ILLUSTRIOUS CITY ATTORNEY. THANK YOU.

NOTHING FROM ME. THANK YOU

[02:35:01]