Jun 03, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting

ARE WE WERE READY TO GO? GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE JUNE 3,

[CALL TO ORDER:]

[00:00:10]

MINUTES CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL? COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

HERE. LET THE RECORD SHOW COMMISSIONER MERZ IS ABSENT.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. HERE. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD.

PRESENT. LET THE RECORD SHOW COMMISSIONER BURROWS IS ABSENT.

VICE CHAIR FOSTER. HERE AND CHAIR MEENES. PRESENT.

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

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

NEXT ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 6, 2026 MEETING.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

SO ON PAGE THREE WE TALKED ABOUT ON THE SECOND SENTENCE COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY STATED THAT THE PROPERTY COULD HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. AND WHAT CAME OUT OF IT WAS THAT ARTICLE.

AND I WONDERED BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THE RECESS, SHOULD THE ARTICLE HAVE BEEN THE REASON FOR THE RECESS AND SHOULD THE ARTICLE HAVE BEEN MENTIONED? WHAT'S USUALLY TYPICAL FOR MEETING MINUTES? MR. LARDY. WE TYPICALLY DON'T HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A MODIFICATION TO REFERENCE THE ARTICLE.

THE ARTICLE WE DO CONSIDER AS PART OF THE RECORD FOR THAT ITEM, AND WOULD MAKE IT AVAILABLE IF ANY RECORDS WERE PROVIDED ON THE ITEM.

SO IF THAT. SO DO YOU WANT ME TO PRODUCE THE ARTICLE? AND THEN WE CAN JUST ADD THAT AS THE REASON FOR THE RECESS.

YES. WE REQUEST THAT YOU ADD THAT AS PART OF A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES TO MAKE THAT MODIFICATION.

OKAY. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

LET ME GRAB THE ARTICLE. GREAT. ANY FURTHER, WE HAVE THE ARTICLE.

WE JUST WE WANT YOU TO MAKE A STATEMENT TO ADD A REFERENCE TO THE ARTICLE.

ANY FURTHER CHANGES TO THE MINUTES OF MAY 6TH? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH THE COMMISSION, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES AS STATED AND AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE REFERENCE TO THE ARTICLE ON THE MILLS ACT THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND THE REASON FOR THE RECESS. THANK YOU.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. CAN I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MAKES A SECOND, PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO. THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT THIS EVENING.

WE WILL REQUIRE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM FOR ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS.

REQUEST FORMS MUST BE TURNED IN TO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING.

ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES UNLESS THE 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.

THE REPRESENTATIVE MUST IDENTIFY THE GROUP, AND AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS OF THAT GROUP MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE MEETING AND THE PRESENTATION.

THOSE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP HAVE TEN MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS CHANGED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.

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

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

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY PROVIDING COMMENTS AS PROVIDED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE AGENDA.

PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE THOSE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED UP TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES.

ALL OTHER NON AGENDA ITEMS AND COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD AT THE END OF THE MEETING.

IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT NO ACTION CAN OCCUR ON THESE ITEMS. MINUTES CLERK. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS? NO, CHAIR WE DO NOT.

SEEING NONE, WE WILL BEGIN TONIGHT'S MEETING.

IF EVERYONE WILL DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN, I WILL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES.

THE COMMISSION WILL FOLLOW THIS EVENING FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS. PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPENED.

STAFF WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION. PLANNING COMMISSION MAY ASK QUALIFYING QUESTIONS ON THE STAFF PRESENTATION.

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

[00:05:05]

PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE OPENED. A TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES IS ALLOTTED TO EACH SPEAKER.

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

APPLICANT AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THOSE ISSUES AND QUESTIONS.

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

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

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

I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.

[1. SALK AVENUE APARTMENTS – (SDP2025-0001 DEV2025-0001) ]

COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. NO CONVERSATIONS, BUT I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. I WALKED THE SITE.

COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. COMMISSIONER FOSTER.

NO CONVERSATIONS FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. OKAY.

I WALKED THE SITE AS WELL, BUT I ALSO WAS CONTACTED BY CAROLINE SMITH ON BEHALF OF HANOVER COMPANY, AND SHE HAD ASKED IF SHE COULD SPEAK ABOUT THE PROJECT WITH ME.

I, BEING CHAIR, CHOSE TO INDICATE TO HER THAT I DO NOT DISCUSS AGENDA ITEMS PRIOR TO THE HEARINGS, AND SO THEREFORE NO DISCUSSION OCCURRED. WE HUNG UP THE PHONE AND THAT WAS THE END OF THE CONVERSATION.

SO WITH THAT, MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER ONE? YES. THANK YOU. BEFORE I INTRODUCE THE ITEM, I JUST WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE FIVE COMMISSIONERS, IT IS CUSTOMARY FOR US TO INFORM THE APPLICANT AND REQUEST IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE.

IT IS NOT A GUARANTEE THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON A CONTINUANCE.

BUT FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE WE'VE OFFERED, WE DO WANT TO REQUEST THE APPLICANT ENSURE THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE HEARING. YES, THEY INDICATED THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. WITH THAT I WILL INTRODUCE SENIOR PLANNER KYLE VAN LEEUWEN TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION OF THE SALK AVENUE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THANK YOU. THE PROJECT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE SALK AVENUE APARTMENT PROJECT.

IT IS A REQUEST FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A NEW MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

THE PROJECT SITE IS A 9.78 ACRE SITE. IT IS CURRENTLY GRADED BUT A VACANT SITE.

THERE IS ACCESS FROM SALK AVENUE TO THE SITE.

IT IS HOUSING SITE SEVEN, SO THIS IS A SITE THAT WAS RECENTLY REZONED IN 2024 AS PART OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM THAT ESTABLISHED AN R-30 RESIDENTIAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY AND CHANGE THE ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MULTIPLE ZONING.

THIS PROJECT IS ALSO WITHIN THE FENTON CARLSBAD CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN.

EXCUSE ME. THE PROJECT PROPOSES 397 UNITS, INCLUDING SOME DENSITY BONUS UNITS.

IT IS PROPOSED AT FIVE STORIES OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT OF 59FT WITH PROJECTIONS JUST UNDER 75FT.

THE PROJECT PROPOSES 542 PARKING SPACES, SOME OF WHICH IS WITHIN A FIVE STORY PARKING STRUCTURE, AND OTHER PARKING IS PROVIDED SURFACE LEVEL SURROUNDING THE BUILDING.

REGARDING DENSITY, THE BASE DENSITY CALCULATION FOR THE PROJECT SITE AT 9.78 ACRES IS 294 ALLOWED UNITS, WITH 59 OF THOSE UNITS DEDICATED TO LOW INCOME HOUSING, WHICH IS A 20% OF THE BASE DENSITY.

THE PROJECT IS ENTITLED TO A 35% DENSITY BONUS.

THAT DENSITY BONUS REPRESENTS 103 POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL UNITS, WHICH IS A TOTAL OF 397 UNITS.

AND THAT IS THE NUMBER THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED, AS WELL AS A HOUSING ELEMENT SITE IS REQUIRED THAT THE INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS 20%, NOT 15%. IT'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN.

THE PROJECT INCLUDES DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS AS ALLOWED WITH DENSITY BONUS STATE LAW.

THE FIRST WAIVER IS FOR HEIGHT GOING UP TO 59FT.

THE DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS INCLUDE A PARKING SPACE DIMENSION WAIVER.

THIS ALLOWS FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY IN PROVIDING PARKING.

THE DIMENSIONS ARE STILL CONSISTENT WITH BUILDING CODE. THERE'S A WAIVER OF A REQUIREMENT THAT 10% OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS BE PROVIDED AS THREE BEDROOM UNITS.

THIS IS ACTUALLY IN SLIGHT CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER REQUIREMENT THAT REQUIRES THE SAME PROPORTIONALITY OF UNITS WITHIN THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE.

THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE HAS LESS THAN 10% AS 3% UNITS.

SO THE PROJECT IS PROVIDING THE LOW INCOME UNITS AT THE SAME PROPORTIONALITY AS THE REST OF THE BUILDING THAT JUST HAPPENS TO BE LESS THAN 10%.

THE WAIVER IS INCLUDED FOR A FENCE HEIGHT WAIVER, WHICH ALLOWS FOR ONE OF THE RETAINING WALLS TO BE HIGHER THAN SIX FEET, GOING UP TO NINE FEET FOR A SMALL PORTION. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES EIGHT WAIVERS FROM OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FROM THE CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.

[00:10:06]

THE PROJECT INCLUDES THREE CENTRAL COURTYARDS THAT PROVIDE A POOL, BARBECUES AND FIRE PITS, AS WELL AS OTHER EXTERIOR AMENITIES. THERE ARE AMENITY ROOMS WITHIN THE PROJECT, A CLUB ROOM, MEDIA ROOM, A CO-WORK SPACE AS WELL AS FITNESS FACILITY AND OTHERS.

IN TERMS OF ARCHITECTURE, THE PROJECT PROVIDES A DEFINED FIRST GROUND FLOOR WITH A 15 FOOT PLATE HEIGHT TOWER ELEMENTS ON THE MAIN FACADE.

BUILDING MATERIALS INCLUDE STUCCO, STONE TILE AT THE BASE, METAL GUARDRAILS, CONCRETE ROOF TILES, AND A DARK BRONZE COLORED STOREFRONT. AND HERE IS A RENDERING OF THE MAIN ELEVATION OF THE PROJECT.

IN TERMS OF CEQA PROCESSING. THIS PROJECT WAS EVALUATED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW AB 130 INFILL STATUTORY EXEMPTION.

THE PROJECT WAS FOUND TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THAT STATUTORY EXEMPTION, EXCEPT FOR ONE AREA OF COMPLIANCE, WHICH IS FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. IN THIS SCENARIO, THE SENATE BILL 130 OFFERS WHAT'S BEING CALLED A NEAR MISS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. ESSENTIALLY, WHEN A PROJECT MISSES A STATUTORY EXEMPTION OR CERTAIN CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS BY JUST ONE AREA OR ONE CONDITION, YOU CAN DO AN INITIAL STUDY OR PROVIDE OTHER CEQA DOCUMENTATION.

JUST STUDYING THAT ONE DISQUALIFYING CONDITION.

AGAIN, THIS IS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES FOR THIS PROJECT.

THROUGH THE INITIAL STUDY PROCESS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES WOULD BE REDUCED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH THE APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES. REGARDING THOSE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, THERE IS A PATCH OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROJECT.

THIS IS CONSIDERED HABITAT FOR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES INCLUDED THREAD-LEAVED BRODIAEA, CALIFORNIA GNAT CATCHER, AND CROTCH'S BUMBLE BEE. THIS SAGE SCRUB PATCH IS BUFFERED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT, SO IT IS NOT DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THE FOOTPRINT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED ARE THOSE FOR BIRD AND BUMBLEBEE SURVEY AND AVOIDANCE.

JUST TO HIGHLIGHT THIS A LITTLE MORE, THIS IS THE PROJECT SITE.

THE CIRCLE ON THE LEFT SHOWS WHERE THAT SITE IS, AND ABOUT 100 FOOT BUFFER FROM WHERE THE GRADED AREA IS TO THAT PATCH OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB. AS PART OF THE REQUIRED INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROCESS, THE DRAFT IS/MND WAS POSTED FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, SO THAT ANY INTERESTED PERSONS OR AGENCIES COULD COMMENT ON THE STUDY AND ITS CONCLUSIONS.

THE CITY RECEIVED TWO LETTERS OF COMMENT HIGHLIGHTING CONCERNS WITH THE INITIAL STUDY AND MND.

THESE LETTERS WERE RECEIVED OR RECEIVED FROM JIM MILLER AND THE SUPPORTERS ALLIANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY OR SAFER.

THE COMMENTS RECEIVED GENERALLY FOCUSED ON THE APPLICABILITY OF ASSEMBLY BILL 130 AND SENATE BILL 131 TO THE PROJECT SCOPE THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY. THE SCOPE OF SURVEYS AND SPECIES IDENTIFIED, THE BUFFER DISTANCES CITED BY THE INITIAL STUDY AND GENERAL IMPACTS TO HABITAT AND CONNECTIVITY. INCLUDED IN THE FINAL DRAFT INITIAL STUDY MND IS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS.

A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT WHICH EVALUATES THE CLAIMS FROM THE COMMENT LETTERS.

THIS RESPONSE. THESE RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CLARIFIES THAT THE APPLICABILITY OF AB 130 AND SB 130 IS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT AND RESPONDS TO ALL COMMENTS REGARDING THE SCOPE AND ACCURACY OF THE INITIAL STUDY.

THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ALSO ESTABLISHES THAT THE LETTERS RECEIVED DO NOT REPRESENT SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION AND OR RELY ON SPECULATIVE ANALYSIS.

ADDITIONALLY, STAFF EVALUATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND DETERMINED THAT NO NEW EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED THAT WOULD SUPPORT A FAIR ARGUMENT CLAIM OF UNMITIGATED IMPACTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT.

AHEAD OF THIS HEARING, THE SAFER GROUP SUBMITTED A SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESTATING SOME OF THEIR INITIAL COMMENTS.

THESE SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS, AGAIN DO NOT RAISE NEW POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND DO NOT IDENTIFY ANY INCREASE IN THE SEVERITY OF ANY IMPACTS DISCLOSED IN THE INITIAL STUDY MND AND STAFF CONCLUDES AND STAFF'S CONCLUSION THAT AN EIR IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT STILL STANDS, AS ALL POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS.

SO IN CONCLUSION, STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN, THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN, LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN AS WELL.

THE PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH DENSITY BONUS REQUIREMENTS PER STATE LAW AND FULFILLS THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS.

THE PROJECT DESIGN COMPLIES WITH THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, WITH THE EXCLUSION OF THE WAIVERS REQUESTED,

[00:15:03]

IT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE RESOLUTION, ADOPTING AN SB 130 FOCUSED INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU, MR. VAN LEEUWEN. HE DID MENTION THAT WE DID RECEIVE CORRESPONDENCE.

WITH THAT COMMISSIONERS CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THE DRAWINGS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS STAFF REPORT.

WAS THERE A REASON FOR THAT THAT WE RECEIVED? THE STAFF REPORT WAS THE PLANS WERE INCLUDED ON THE ONLINE PORTION.

IT WAS A SEPARATE LINE ON THE WEBSITE. WOULD YOU MIND REVIEWING THEM FOR US? THE INTERNET'S DOWN. I CAN'T GET THE DRAWINGS UP.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THEM REVIEWED.

UNLESS THE DEVELOPER WAS GOING TO REVIEW THEM WITH US.

DID YOU WANT THE FULL PLANS OR JUST THE PLANS THAT SHOW ELEVATIONS AND SITE PLANS? WELL, YOU KNOW ME, I WANT EVERYTHING, SO. WE'LL GET THEM UP HERE FOR YOU.

MORE OF THE SITE PLAN. AND WHAT THE GENERAL GROUND FLOOR PLAN IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

SEE, THIS WAS A COVERAGE MAP. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PLAN SHEETS IN THIS APPLICATION.

SO THE UNITS. OKAY. SO HERE'S KIND OF YOUR STORY BY STORY BREAKDOWN.

AND I'M SURE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE HAPPY TO GO OVER ANY OF THESE WITH YOU MORE THOROUGHLY.

HERE'S THE FIRST FLOOR. SO YOU SEE ROOMS HERE.

AND THE AMENITY AREAS TO THE LEFT AS WELL AS THE ENTRANCE.

SECOND FLOOR YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE THREE COURTYARDS ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF EACH OF THESE FLOORS.

HERE'S THE SITE SURVEY INCLUDED. HERE'S THE MAIN.

SITE PLAN AGAIN, A LITTLE CLOSER. LIGHTING STUDY.

AND THE RENDERINGS ARE IN THIS PACKET AS WELL. THE ELEVATIONS ARE HERE.

YEAH. SO YEAH. SOUTH ELEVATION IN CASE YOU CAN'T READ IT.

SOUTH ELEVATION ON THE BOTTOM. THAT'S THE OVERALL NORTH ELEVATION ON THE TOP.

GREAT. THIS IS KIND OF THE OVERALL WEST ELEVATION.

THIS IS KIND OF THE ANGLE OF THE MAIN ELEVATION HERE ON TOP HERE.

AND THIS IS KIND OF AN UNUSUAL ANGLE BUT IT COVERS SOME OF THE PARKING GARAGE.

I THINK IT'S A CUT THROUGH ON THE PARKING GARAGE.

HERE. ANOTHER SOUTH ELEVATION A PORTION. GREAT.

THAT'S ADEQUATE. I JUST WANTED TO GET A FEEL FOR IT.

AND THE OTHER QUESTION I WOULD HAVE OF STAFF IS THERE ANYTHING PROHIBITING GOING BELOW GRADE IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. MR. LARDY. THERE'S NOTHING PROHIBITING.

IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE DETAILED CONVERSATIONS, LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING MANAGER JASON GELDERT IS HERE.

HE INDICATED HE AGREED WITH ME, BUT. GOOD EVENING, JASON GELDERT ENGINEERING MANAGER, CITY OF CARLSBAD. THANK YOU, MR. GELDERT. SO MY QUESTION WAS WAS THERE ANYTHING IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT THAT PROHIBITED THE DEVELOPER FROM GOING BELOW GRADE TO EITHER HAVE PARKING OR LOWER THE BUILDING HEIGHT AT ALL? NO, THERE WAS NOTHING THAT ADDRESSED THAT. NOTHING THAT ADDRESSED THAT MEANING THERE WERE NO PROBLEM AREAS OR WAS THERE A REASON THAT YOU COULD THEY COULD ONLY BUILD SLAB ON GRADE IS, I GUESS MY QUESTION.

COULD THEY HAVE GONE BELOW GRADE? THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE REPORT ADDRESSED THE PROJECT, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE REPORT THAT SAID THEY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE. SO THAT MEANS POTENTIALLY THEY COULD HAVE BUILT UNDERGROUND PARKING.

[00:20:07]

UNDERSTOOD. BUT THEY'RE ALSO REQUESTING TO ALMOST DOUBLE OUR BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARD.

SO I'M ASKING THE QUESTION TO CLARIFY THAT THERE WASN'T ANYTHING PROHIBITING THEM TO GO BELOW GRADE.

THANK YOU. FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD.

WERE THERE ANY TRANSIT OR PARKING STUDIES DONE ON THIS PROJECT? YES. THE PROJECT WAS REQUIRED TO DO A LOCAL MOBILITY ANALYSIS.

AND AS I GUESS ONE TO BACK UP THERE A LITTLE BIT WITH THE REZONE OF THE PROPERTY THERE ARE ALSO MITIGATION MEASURES WITH THAT REZONE AND THE APPLICANT HAD TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THOSE.

AND ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS WAS FOR A VMT STUDY.

AND PART OF THAT VMT STUDY WOULD BE TO IDENTIFY ANY APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES TO ADDRESS ANY VMT IMPACTS.

SO THERE WAS A FULL VMT STUDY THAT HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT, AS WELL AS A LOCAL MOBILITY ANALYSIS AND A TRANSIT DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, I BELIEVE IS JUST ABOUT FINALIZED.

IS FINALIZED. YEAH, A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN IS IN IS IN A DRAFT FORM BUT ACCEPTABLE BY THE CITY AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU. AND THEN A LITTLE BIT OF A SEGUE INTO HOW WE GOT TO THIS REZONING.

CAN YOU JUST DESCRIBE THE PROCESS IT TOOK FOR THE PLANNERS TO GET THIS REZONED IN THAT 2025 HOUSING ELEMENT? WERE THERE ARE CERTAIN FACTORS THAT MADE THIS SITE YOU KNOW, OF INTEREST? WAS IT IS IT A GOOD SITE TO DEVELOP ON WHAT WERE THE FACTORS THAT KIND OF LED US TO THIS REZONING? YEAH. SO THERE WAS A PRETTY LONG PROCESS THAT THE COMMUNITY WAS INVOLVED IN GOING BACK TO 2020 WHEN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT WAS DUE IN 2021.

THERE WAS A HOUSING ELEMENT ADVISORY BOARD THAT HAD A MEMBER FROM THIS COMMISSION ON IT.

AND THEY LOOKED AROUND THE CITY AT DIFFERENT CRITERIA AND DIFFERENT SITES.

ONE OF THOSE CRITERIA WAS TO LOOK AT POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL SITES TO CHANGE FROM INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATIONS TO RESIDENTIAL, AND LOOKING AT WHETHER THAT WAS APPROPRIATE. THIS WAS ONE OF SUCH SITES THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT ADOPTION IN APRIL 2021 AS A POTENTIAL SITE, AND THEN THERE WAS ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY OUTREACH ON THOSE SITES ON WHETHER THEY WERE APPROPRIATE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ALTERNATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WAS PREPARED. AND THIS SITE WAS INCLUDED ON ALL OF THOSE MAPS AS A POTENTIAL SITE AMONG A FEW OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES THAT WERE REZONED TO A HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING. THERE WAS SOME COMMUNITY INPUT IN OPPOSITION ON THIS SITE.

THERE WERE SOME OTHER SITES THAT THERE WAS MORE, AND SOME SITES WERE ULTIMATELY REMOVED FROM THAT PROCESS, BUT THIS IS ONE THAT IT WAS INCLUDED. IT WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN JANUARY OF 2024, THROUGH A MEETING AT THIS BODY TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER IT.

YEAH. THANK YOU. I THINK THIS DEFINITELY DIFFERS FROM PAST SITE PLANS THAT WE'VE REVIEWED RECENTLY WHERE YOU KNOW, THERE HASN'T BEEN AS MUCH RESEARCH AND THOUGHT PUT INTO THIS SITE, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT BACKGROUND.

THE LAST QUESTION JUST ON THE CEQA. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF LETTERS.

JIM MILLER, SHAUN SMALLWOOD, REBECCA DAVIS PROVIDED PRETTY COMPELLING ARGUMENTS FOR WHY AN EIR MAY BE REQUIRED, ALTHOUGH THEY, YOU KNOW, SEEM TO DIFFER FROM THE ASSUMPTIONS AND RESEARCH DONE BY THE PLANNERS.

CAN YOU JUST DESCRIBE A LITTLE BIT WHY WE DIFFER FROM SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN THE THREE LETTERS RELATED TO THE EIR? I WILL START WITH SAYING WE DO HAVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT HERE WHO HELPED OR DID DRAFT THOSE DOCUMENTS.

SO THEY MIGHT BE MORE ABLE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.

YEAH, WE CAN WAIT IF THEY'RE PROVIDING A PRESENTATION. THOROUGHLY AND ACCURATE. YEAH, SURE. YOU GOT IT. MR. GELDERT COULD YOU CLARIFY FOR US OR PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN REGARD TO THE VMT STUDY THAT WAS DONE ON THE SITE? BUT YEAH, SO A VMT STUDY WAS DONE AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THEY DID HAVE.

WELL, THERE WERE SOME VMT IMPACTS, HOWEVER. WHAT IS THAT UNDER THE.

IF YOU GUYS. YEAH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND GIVE AN OVERVIEW.

SO ONE THING TO MENTION IS THIS IS THE FIRST WHAT WE CALL NEAR MISS CEQA DOCUMENT.

THIS WAS PART OF THE STATE LAWS THAT WERE CHANGED LAST SUMMER THAT ALLOWED NEW URBAN INFILL EXEMPTIONS FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

AND THERE IS A LIST OF CRITERIA FOR IF YOU MEET THESE CRITERIA, YOU QUALIFY FOR A CEQA EXEMPTION.

[00:25:01]

CONSIDER THAT A FEW MONTHS AGO. THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A VMT EVALUATION LIKE THE CLASSIC CLASS 32 INFILL EXEMPTION THAT HAD BEEN USED FOR PROJECTS IN THE VILLAGE, PRIMARILY WHERE THERE WAS A VMT IMPACT.

AND YOU NEEDED TO CONCLUDE THAT. THE AB 130 DOES NOT HAVE THAT.

THE NEAR MISS IN THIS CASE IS BECAUSE THERE IS HABITAT ON SITE.

AND SO BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF HABITAT ON SITE, WE DID A ONE ISSUE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT.

THE NEXUS FOR OUR VMT STUDY WAS IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT REZONE PROGRAM.

THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT OVERRIDES FOUND FOR IMPACTS TO VMT, PRIMARILY BECAUSE WE WERE ADDING 3,000 UNITS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, WHICH HAVE PEOPLE WHICH HAVE CARS WHICH DRIVE AROUND.

ADDITIONALLY, ONE OF THE STATE'S GOALS WAS TO NOT CONCENTRATE ALL OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ONE AREA, SUCH AS IN THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO. SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SUCH SITES THAT SPREAD THE HOUSING AROUND.

IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE MITIGATION MEASURES TO FIND THAT OVERRIDE, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO DO A VMT STUDY AND IMPLEMENT CERTAIN MITIGATION MEASURES. AND SO THERE'S A LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES IN THAT EIR THE MITIGATION MEASURE T1 I BELIEVE.

AND THERE'S THINGS THAT APPLICANT IS REQUIRED AND CONDITIONED TO DO, SUCH AS PROVISIONS OF TRANSIT PASSES TO THEIR RESIDENTS TO HELP MITIGATE VMT.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE OVERALL HIGH LEVEL OF WHY AND HOW THEY STUDIED VMT.

THANK YOU. MR. LARDY. YEAH, I FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THAT BE ADDRESSED AND AT LEAST BE ELIGIBLE TO PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FURTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER. I JUST GOT ONE QUESTION.

MAYBE THIS IS JUST FOR MY OWN EDUCATION. SO WERE THE SITES PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED? IF THERE WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY, LET'S SAY, 400 CARS THERE, RIGHT.

THERE'S 397 PROPOSED UNITS, IS THAT RIGHT? YES.

TOTAL OF 397 PROPOSED UNITS. AGAIN, MOST OF THOSE TWO THIRDS ARE EITHER STUDIO OR ONE BEDROOM.

BUT YEAH THAT'S CORRECT. SO THIS IS PROBABLY A MINOR QUESTION, BUT IT'S STILL SOMETHING I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT.

SO WHERE THE SITE IS, IF YOU HEAD EAST TO GO TO EL CAMINO, THERE'S ACTUALLY, YOU CAN ONLY HEAD, YOU CAN ONLY HEAD SOUTH ON EL CAMINO. YOU CAN'T HEAD NORTH.

SO THE QUESTION IS WITH PROPOSED, YOU KNOW, 400, APPROXIMATELY 400 OCCUPANCY IN APPROXIMATELY 400 VEHICLES, IS THERE KIND OF LIKE THIS DOWNSTREAM EFFECT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THAT TRAFFIC PATTERN THERE TO OPEN IT UP SO CARS COULD ALSO HEAD NORTH. SURE. SO THE LOCAL MOBILITY ANALYSIS LOOKS AT ALL OF THOSE POTENTIAL IMPACTS.

AND ESTIMATES THE NUMBER OF CARS, NUMBER OF TRIPS AT EACH OF THOSE INTERSECTIONS ANYWHERE I'M TRYING TO THINK OF THE LIST, BUT YEAH, ALL OF THE DOWN FLOW INTERSECTIONS AND PART OF THAT VMT OR I'M SORRY THAT MOBILITY ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT WITH THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, NONE OF THE INTERSECTIONS WOULD BE DOWNGRADED BELOW A D LEVEL.

MOST OF THEM STAYING AT ABOUT A B LEVEL. I BELIEVE.

THERE WAS ONE AREA THAT POTENTIAL IMPACTS WOULD DOWNGRADE ALONG EL CAMINO, BUT THERE IS ALREADY ROAD WIDENING AND OTHER EL CAMINO. I CAN'T REMEMBER IF THEY WERE GOING TO EXTEND A EXPEND A TURN LANE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO THOSE ARE ALREADY IN THE WORKS. AND SO THAT WAS ALSO CONSIDERED NOT AN IMPACT THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO ADDRESS IN TERMS OF ADDITIONAL OR THE CITY OR THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO ADDRESS IN TERMS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE ON THE STREETS.

OKAY. SO THERE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY AND THE RESULT OF THAT STUDY WAS THE CITY DID NOT THINK THAT BY EXAMPLE, THIS SALK EL CAMINO INTERSECTION, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE MODIFIED AT ALL FOR A TRAFFIC PATTERN.

CORRECT. YEAH. THOSE STUDIES DID TAKE PLACE WITH OUR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS.

THE APPLICANT PROVIDES THEIR ANALYSIS DONE BY ONE OF THEIR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS.

WE REVIEW IT. I THINK THIS ONE HAD ABOUT THREE, 3 OR 4 ROUNDS TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WAS ACCURATE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND ADOPTED. YEAH. ANY FURTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? OKAY. COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.

STATE YOUR NAME. GOOD EVENING.

OKAY. THERE WE GO. WE CAN HEAR YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I'M JOE GAMBLE, I'M WITH THE HANOVER COMPANY.

WE'RE THE PROJECT APPLICANT. I WANTED TO START BY JUST THANKING EVERYONE FOR BEING HERE.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THIS EVENING TO CONSIDER OUR PROJECT.

[00:30:01]

I ALSO WANTED TO THANK CITY STAFF FOR A LOT OF TIME AND COORDINATION WITH US TO GET TO THIS POINT.

SO IN ORDER TO TRY TO AVOID BEING TOO REDUNDANT ON EVERYTHING THAT KYLE WENT OVER, WE JUST PUT TOGETHER A FEW QUICK SLIDES.

SO JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES, SOME LAYOUTS, THINGS LIKE THAT, AND KIND OF TALK HIGH LEVEL ON THE BUILDING.

SO THE SLIDE THAT'S UP RIGHT NOW. THAT'S ONE THAT KYLE HAD SHOWED EARLIER.

THAT'S KIND OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE PROJECT.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE WHERE KIND OF THE MIDDLE OF THAT FACE WHERE THE BALCONIES PROTRUDE A LITTLE BIT THAT'S THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE PROJECT.

AND THAT FACES SALK AVENUE. SO CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, KYLE.

OH. OH, HERE WE GO. AND THIS IS THE PROJECT SITE.

I KNOW WE ALREADY HAD A SLIDE UP SHOWING KIND OF WHERE IT IS. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE ALL FAMILIAR, BUT JUST WANTED TO SHOW AGAIN WHERE IT IS.

THIS IS OUR SITE PLAN. SO AS KYLE HAD INDICATED, IT'S ONE SINGLE FIVE STORY STRUCTURE.

ALL OF THE DESIGN IS REALLY GEARED TOWARDS TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE BEAUTIFUL VIEWS OF CARLSBAD AND THE CANYONS THAT ARE RIGHT THERE.

SO YOU CAN SEE THE COURTYARDS THAT ARE THERE ALL KIND OF LINE UP AND POINT OUT TO KIND OF THE NORTHWESTERN SIDE.

WE ALSO HAVE ALL OF OUR AMENITIES OUR INDOOR AMENITIES IN THAT DARKER YELLOW PORTION.

THAT'S ALSO ALONG SALK AVENUE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALL OF THE VIEWS AND THE BEAUTY OF CARLSBAD.

THERE'S A QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT PARKING AS WELL. YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'VE PUT THE PARKING GARAGE REALLY IN THE BACK OF THE SITE.

THERE'S KIND OF A NATURAL LITTLE VALLEY CREATED THROUGH THE TOPOGRAPHY HERE.

AND SO WHEN YOU PULL UP, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULDN'T REALLY BE ABLE TO SEE THE PARKING GARAGE FROM THE DRIVEWAY.

AND YOU DEFINITELY WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT FROM SALK AVENUE. SO IT IS REALLY OUT OF VIEW OF THE PUBLIC.

WANTED TO KIND OF RESHOW A COUPLE OF RENDERINGS.

WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS ONE. THE SECOND ONE, THIS IS A VIEW FROM OUR INTERIOR POOL COURTYARD.

THIS IS KIND OF MORE OF OUR ACTIVE SPACE. AND THIS HAS A CORRIDOR WHERE YOU CAN KIND OF DIRECTLY SEE OUT INTO THE NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE SITE.

AND THEN THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW LOOKING IN. THIS IS ALSO KIND OF IF YOU WERE STANDING ON THE NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE SITE LOOKING INTO THE BUILDING, INTO THAT POOL COURTYARD, THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD SEE.

SO THIS IS A SITE PLAN OR DIAGRAM SHOWING WHERE OUR INDOOR AMENITY SPACES ARE.

THIS PROJECT HAS ABOUT 11,000FT² OF INDOOR AMENITY SPACES THAT ARE DIVIDED UP INTO KIND OF SEVERAL USES.

THERE'S MULTIPLE LOUNGES, FOCUS ROOMS LOBBY, GOLF SIMULATOR A REALLY NICE GYM AND SOME CO-WORKING SPACES.

TO GO BACK TO THE OVERALL SITE PLAN. THIS KIND OF IS PROGRAMED TO SHOW SOME OF OUR AMENITIES.

THE TOTAL PROJECT HAS ABOUT 40,000 SQUARE FEET OF OUTDOOR AMENITY SPACE, WHICH THAT CONSISTS OF ALSO SEVERAL USES HERE WITH RESORT STYLE POOL WATER FEATURE, FIRE PITS, GRILLS, DINING TABLES, OUTDOOR LIVING SPACES, TVS, GAMING AND COWORKING.

THERE'S ALSO THREE COURTYARDS THAT ALL LINE UP, AND THEN TWO ACTIVITY LAWNS AND A DOG RUN.

SO THAT IS, YOU KNOW, REALLY ALL THAT WE WANTED TO KIND OF GO OVER TO JUST SHOW YOU GUYS PRETTY PICTURES.

WE HAVE OUR FULL PROJECT TEAM HERE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, OUR DESIGN GROUPS, ARCHITECTS.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. COMMISSIONERS CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.

COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. SO JUST TO CLOSE THE LOOP ON THE PRIOR DISCUSSION WE HAD ON THE RECLASSIFICATION, THE REZONING. WHEN DID YOU ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY? SO WE STILL HAVE NOT ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY. RIGHT NOW WE ARE UNDER CONTRACT TO PURCHASE IT.

OKAY. BUT I BELIEVE THE REZONING HAPPENED IN 2024.

I THINK AUGUST OF 24 MAYBE. AND SO EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED SINCE WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONFORMING TO THE ZONING AFTER THE REZONE.

OKAY, SO THE CITY CONTACT, HOW DOES THAT WORK? IS THAT A BID PROCESS WHERE THE. MR. LARDY. THE PROPERTY HAS AND STILL IS IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP SO THE CITY NEVER HAD AN INTEREST.

WE REACHED OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS IN OUR REZONING PROCESS TO TRY AND GAUGE INTEREST IN THE REZONING.

ANY PROPERTY OWNERS THAT SAID THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED WERE REMOVED FROM IT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO ATTEST TO THE STATE THAT WE THINK IT'S FEASIBLE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT COULD HAPPEN IN THE HOUSING PERIOD. IN THIS CASE, THE PROPERTY OWNER DID SEND US A LETTER STATING THEY WERE INTERESTED.

AND THEN SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THE APPLICANT TEAM SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION JUST FOR THE RECORD THE REZONE WAS APPROVED IN JANUARY OF 2024.

OKAY. OKAY. AND ONE OTHER QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PROJECTS IN CARLSBAD?

[00:35:04]

WHERE'S THE NEAREST PROJECT YOU HAVE TO US? WE FINISHED ONE IN LAGUNA NIGUEL ABOUT 18 MONTHS AGO.

IT'S CALLED HANOVER LAGUNA NIGUEL. MOST OF OUR PROJECTS ARE HANOVER PLUS, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE CITY IT'S IN OR GEOGRAPHIC AREA.

AND HOW WOULD YOU CLASSIFY YOUR COMPANY AS WHAT SORT OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY ON, HOW YOU WANT TO BLEND INTO THE COMMUNITY OR ON HOW YOUR BUILDINGS WANT TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY? WHATEVER YOU'RE SORT OF NAVIGATING PHILOSOPHY IS IN TERMS OF BUILDING WITHIN A COMMUNITY.

YEAH. SO WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON BEING A VERY HIGH CLASS DEVELOPER THAT WE ARE KIND OF BEST IN CLASS.

I THINK THAT REPUTATIONALLY MOST OF OUR COMPETITION, OUR CAPITAL PARTNERS WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

SO EVERYTHING THAT WE BUILD IS GENERALLY VERY HIGH END.

YOU KNOW, WE HAD A PRETTY LENGTHY PROCESS ON THIS ONE WITH STAFF, WITH OUR DESIGN TEAM TO GO THROUGH AND ARRIVE AT A DESIGN THAT WE FELT LIKE REALLY FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING SOMETHING THAT'S, YOU KNOW, UBER MODERN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT WOULD REALLY STICK OUT.

SO WE DID TRY TO BE REALLY THOUGHTFUL IN THAT SENSE, MAKE SOMETHING THAT KIND OF REALLY CREATED A PLACE HERE THAT BLENDED IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TRIED TO BE REALLY RECEPTIVE OF CITY COMMENTS ALONG THE WAY.

WE CERTAINLY WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. WE WOULD LOVE TO DO REPEAT BUSINESS IN CARLSBAD.

SO IT DOESN'T DO US ANY GOOD ANY FAVORS TO DO A BAD JOB ON, ON ANYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING.

THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD? THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL SPACE.

I'M FINDING IT HARD THAT WE ARE WAIVING OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL SPACE.

AND YET YOU'RE SIMULATING OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL SPACE WITH A GOLF SIMULATOR.

IS THERE ANY REASON YOU DIDN'T EXPLORE WALKING PATHS, OUTDOOR SPACES TO WALK, YOU KNOW, YOUR DOG STROLL WITH YOUR CHILD? YOU KNOW, WHY ARE WE SIMULATING OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT VERSUS JUST HAVING THAT AMENITY ON SPACE? SO I PULLED BACK UP KIND OF THE COLORED SITE PLAN THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE.

SO WE DO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF OUTDOOR AMENITY SPACE FOR A PROJECT THIS SIZE.

THE TOTAL OF THE THREE COURTYARDS TOGETHER IS ABOUT 40,000FT².

THE THREE COURTYARDS ARE ALL CONNECTED. THERE'S SIDEWALKS AROUND THE ENTIRE PROJECT.

SIDEWALKS WALKING DOWN TO THE ENTRANCE ALONG SALK AVENUE.

SO WE HERE, I CAN, I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE THE LANDSCAPE PLANS TO PULL UP, BUT I THINK WE DID TRY TO INCLUDE A GOOD BIT OF OUTDOOR AMENITY SPACE WITH THE 40,000FT². AS FAR AS THE GOLF SIMULATOR GOES THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK CARLSBAD IS A VERY GOLF CENTRIC CITY WITH LOTS OF MAJOR GOLF COMPANIES THAT ARE HERE.

SO WE KIND OF FELT LIKE IF YOU WERE GOING TO PUT A GOLF SIMULATOR SOMEWHERE, CARLSBAD MAY MAKE SENSE.

SO HOW DID WAVING THE AGAIN, OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL SPACE CONTRIBUTE TO THE BUILD? I'M PRETTY SURE YOU'RE WAVING HERE A NUMBER OF OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL SPACES.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE REASONING FOR THAT IS SO THAT AGAIN, YOU CAN BUILD.

ARE WE WAIT. SORRY, I'M ASKING OUR. DO YOU KNOW IF WE'RE.

I THOUGHT WE WERE AT THE REQUIREMENT. DO YOU MIND IF SCOTT UDALL COMES UP TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONER SCOTT UDALL WITH THE HANOVER COMPANY.

I WORK WITH JOE HERE ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. AND I BELIEVE WHAT I YOU MAY BE REFERRING TO, COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, IS THE WAIVER OF THE I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL SPACE.

I DON'T RECALL THAT BEING A STANDARD, BUT YOU MAY BE REFERRING TO THE EITHER THE PRIVATE OR THE COMMON OUTDOOR AREAS IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.

YEAH. THE COMMON OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL SPACE ON PAGE THREE OF FIVE.

OKAY. AND AND SO WITHOUT RECITING FROM MEMORY, THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET REQUIRED PER UNIT.

IT IS TYPICAL ON HIGH DENSITY PROJECTS. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A FIVE STORY BUILDING WHERE SOLVING FOR PARKING CIRCULATION AND THAT ON A SITE LIKE THIS, THAT THOSE WAIVERS ARE, YOU KNOW, THEY ADD, I'M SORRY, THE, THE REQUIREMENTS ADD UP TO A PHYSICAL AREA THAT KIND OF EXCEEDS THE ABILITY TO THEN DELIVER THE AMOUNT OF UNITS ALLOWED BY THE ZONING, INCLUDING THE AFFORDABLE UNITS. AND IT IS A IN PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA, IT IS OFTEN, YOU KNOW, WAIVED UNDER THE DENSITY BONUS STANDARDS IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, OBTAIN THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR THE PROJECT.

[00:40:03]

YOU KNOW, THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF OUTDOOR AREAS, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT BETWEEN THE COURTYARDS AND THE WALKING PATHS.

OKAY. ANY FURTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

MINUTES CLERK DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK? WE DO, HEATHER RILEY. PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM.

AS THE INDIVIDUAL APPROACHES, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS.

TO HELP SPEAKERS STAY IN THE TIME LIMIT THE MINUTES CLERK WILL ACTIVATE THE LIGHTED TIMER.

GREEN LIGHT MEANS SPEAK. YELLOW MEANS YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS AND THE BLINKING RED LIGHT MEANS TIME HAS EXPIRED.

PLEASE STATE BY. PLEASE START BY STATING YOUR NAME.

PLEASE. SURE. MY NAME IS HEATHER RILEY. I'M WITH ALLEN MATKINS.

THIS SPEAKER SLIP WAS SIMPLY AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, SO I'M HAPPY TO WAIVE THE TIME.

I'M THE APPLICANT'S LAND USE ATTORNEY, AND I WAS GOING TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE, BUT WE CAN DO THAT DURING THE NEXT. I GUESS THE PORTION WHEN YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I DON'T NEED TO SAY ANYTHING OTHER THAN I HOPE YOU APPROVE THE PROJECT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MINUTES CLERK, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? THERE'S NO ONE ELSE. THANK YOU. I'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

DOES STAFF WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS IN REGARD TO THE PRESENTATION MADE BY THE APPLICANT? NO DIFFERENT ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RIGHT NOW. COMMISSIONERS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THE ITEM FURTHER IN REGARD TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD OF STAFF AND THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD.

YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO COME BACK TO THE CEQA QUESTION.

I KNOW I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE TOUCHED UPON, BUT I JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON FROM THE APPLICANT OR FROM CITY STAFF ON COMMENTING THE THREE LETTERS THAT WERE PRETTY COMPELLING OF WHY THERE SHOULD BE AN EIR. AND AGAIN, BACK TO THE NEAR MISS.

SO JUST ANY FURTHER DETAIL THAT CAN BE PROVIDED RELATED TO WHY THOSE LETTERS.

YOU KNOW, THEY'RE MORE OF A SPECULATION RATHER THAN, YOU KNOW, FACT.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. I'D BE HAPPY TO RESPOND. MY NAME IS BOB STARK. I'M WITH MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, AND WE WERE THE AUTHORS OF THE CEQA DOCUMENT.

SO GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. AND I KNOW WHEN YOU SEE THE LETTERS, THEY ARE LENGTHY AND THEY CAN BE INTIMIDATING.

THIS IS UNFORTUNATELY, OLD HAT FOR US. WE SEE SIMILAR LETTERS AND LETTERS, ESPECIALLY FROM THE SAFER ORGANIZATION ON JUST ABOUT EVERY HOUSING PROJECT WE WORK ON LATELY UP AND DOWN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

SO JUST BECAUSE IT'S VOLUMINOUS AND THERE'S AN ABUNDANCE OF RESEARCH CITED AND CURRICULUM VITAE AND ARGUMENTS DOES NOT NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE FACTS, AND THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY REQUIRED TO PUSH INTO AN EIR.

ANOTHER THING I'LL MENTION, THERE SEEMS TO BE A COMMON MISCONCEPTION THAT AN EIR SOMEHOW MAGICALLY PROVIDES MORE COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS.

THAT IS NOT THE CASE. IT'S NEVER THE CASE UNDER CEQA.

IT'S THE SAME BIOLOGICAL PROMPTS AND QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE ANSWERED.

THE SAME METHODOLOGIES MUST BE EMPLOYED. THE SAME LEVEL OF REPORTING IS REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACTS, OR THAT IF THERE ARE IMPACTS, THAT THEY ARE MITIGATED WHEREVER POSSIBLE TO BRING IT BELOW THAT ESTABLISHED THRESHOLD.

THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IS VERY FORTUNATE. YOU HAVE A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN.

WE'RE NOT GIFTED THAT IN MANY OTHER CITIES THAT WE WORK IN.

YOU'VE SPENT YEARS AND YEARS TO DEVELOP THAT PLAN AND COME UP WITH A HOLISTIC APPROACH ON HOW YOU'RE APPROVING AND EVALUATING PROJECTS.

THIS PROJECT IS OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDS BOUNDARIES OF THAT.

HMP. IT IS COMPLIANT WITH ALL OF THE STANDARDS IN THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN AS FAR AS BEING ADJACENT TO HABITAT.

ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN VERY MUCH DETAILED THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENTS.

ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED, WE DID PROVIDE DETAILED RESPONSES TO.

SO THAT'S ALL IN YOUR PACKAGE. AND I CAN TELL YOU.

YES. I THINK KYLE DID A GREAT JOB OF SORT OF OUTLINING THE MAIN TAKEAWAY IS THAT A LOT OF IT, WHILE VOLUMINOUS IS SPECULATIVE. IT'S FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, THE KITCHEN SINK APPROACH HERE SOME OF THE THINGS WE SEE IN THERE ARE YOU DIDN'T DO ENOUGH SURVEYS. WE DID ESTABLISH THAT WE HAVE SURVEYED, WE KNOW WHAT'S ON THE SITE.

WE KNOW HOW TO MITIGATE FOR IT. THERE ARE ISSUES ASSERTED AND EXTRAPOLATED FROM STUDIES THAT WERE PREPARED IN CANADA ON BIRD STRIKES HITTING WINDOWS. AND THEY HAVE TAKEN THAT TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE WILL BE, ON AVERAGE,

[00:45:03]

ALSO UPWARDS OF 4000, I BELIEVE, ROADKILL INCIDENTS THAT WILL RESULT FROM THIS PROJECT.

NOTHING, MIND YOU, OR ANYTHING RELATED TO DIRECT IMPACTS.

THERE IS THAT PATCH OF HABITAT THAT THE BUFFER IS THERE.

MITIGATION MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT PRE-CONSTRUCTION THAT IS SURVEYED, IF THERE ARE ANY GNAT CATCHERS OR ANY OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES THERE, THAT THEY ARE ADEQUATELY DISTANCED, PROTECTED, NOISE LEVELS, MONITORED, ETCETERA.

BUT YEAH, CATS, ROADKILL. WHAT ELSE DID WE HAVE HERE? YEAH, THE BIRD KILLS. THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT CROTCH'S BUMBLE BEE IS A NEW SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE.

WE ACTUALLY DID GO OUT SUBSEQUENT TO THE PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS AND COMPLETED THE FULL SUITE OF PROTOCOL SURVEYS TO DOCUMENT ABSENCE OF THAT SPECIES, REPORTED THAT TO FISH AND WILDLIFE.

THEY AGREED, AND I'LL CONCLUDE WITH THE FACT THAT YOUR OWN CITY BIOLOGIST HAS BEEN A PARTNER IN THIS PROJECT AND REVIEWED ALL OF THE BIOLOGICAL REPORTS, PROVIDED INPUT WE TOOK IN THAT INPUT. WE REVISED AND AND REVISITED ANY ISSUES THAT WE NEEDED TO.

AND SHE CONCURRED WITH ALL OF THE METHODS, THE SURVEYS, THE FINDINGS, AND THE MITIGATION PROGRAM.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. LARDY. DO YOU HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR US? YEAH, A COUPLE OF THINGS JUST TO KIND OF REPEAT AND ONE THING TO CLARIFY.

SO THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS OF THE PLAN.

I MEAN IT'S DISTURBED HABITAT. BUT THAT'S WHAT OUR PLAN THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN DOES.

IT'S A CITY WIDE PLAN. SO THE SITE IS IN IT, BUT IT'S NOT DESIGNATED AS OPEN SPACE IN THAT PLAN.

AND SO IT'S IMPLEMENTING THE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR BOTH DIRECT ANY DIRECT IMPACTS AND INDIRECT ONES.

WE ALSO HAD INFORMATION PREPARED IN AN EMAIL TO THE COMMISSION AS PART OF A PACKAGE WITH MORE DIRECT RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD FROM THE APPLICANT TEAM AND THE CONSULTANT, THE CONSULTANT WORKED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S OUR DOCUMENT.

SO THE CITY REVIEWED THE DOCUMENT. THE CITY AGREES WITH THE DOCUMENT, AND IT'S PART OF OUR RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MND AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION PACKAGE. THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I WOULD HAVE, UNLESS THERE'S FOLLOW UP ON THIS TOPIC, IS THERE WAS ANOTHER LETTER THAT WAS RECEIVED RELATED TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PRICING.

WE'VE REVIEWED THAT, BUT WE HAVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE EXECUTED UNDER REVIEW BY HOUSING AND HOMELESS SERVICES PRIOR TO GRADING OF THIS PROJECT. THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON DRAFTING THAT, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO BE SET AT A RENT LIMIT, WHICH INCLUDES FEES. AND THOSE ALL NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT RENT LIMIT FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT OF THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. JUST ONE MORE QUICK CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE CEQA.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, THE CITY REQUIRED THE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURE BIOLOGICAL REPORT. AND THE APPLICANT DID THE CITY COMMISSION, MICHAEL BAKER TO DO THE REPORT OR DID THE APPLICANT HIRE MICHAEL BAKER TO DO THIS REPORT? MR. LARDY.

THE APPLICANT HIRED MICHAEL BAKER TO DO THAT REPORT UNDER OUR APPROVAL OF SCOPE AND REVIEW PRIOR TO, DURING AND AFTER PUBLIC REVIEW. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF. DISCUSSION.

I DO HAVE TO. I DO HAVE TO SAY MYSELF LOOKING AT THE PROJECT, YOU KNOW, ONE, THIS I THINK IS THE VERY FIRST APPLICATION WE'VE HAD FOR ONE OF THE SITES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED BY OUR HOUSING ELEMENTS.

AND THAT, AS MR. LARDY INDICATED, IT WAS MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS OF IDENTIFYING.

AND THEY IDENTIFIED 16 SITES AND THIS BEING ONE OF THEM AS TO, YOU KNOW, REZONING COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DROVE THAT WAS HOUSING, HOUSING LEGISLATION FROM SACRAMENTO.

AND I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT LOOKING AT THIS SITE WITH THE NUMBER OF UNITS, 397 UNITS IT DOES HELP SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD BEING ABLE TO MEET OUR RHNA NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE.

AND, THIS IS GOING TO BE IDEAL. ONE ONE OF THE 16 SITES WILL NOW BE DEVELOPED AND SECOND OF ALL,

[00:50:02]

SO I THINK FROM THAT STANDPOINT IT'S IDEAL. I DO HAVE TO SAY THE ARCHITECTURALLY THE SITE IS, I MEAN THE ELEVATION OF THE, PROJECT IS, EXCELLENT.

I REALLY THINK THAT YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN DESIGNING A BUILDING THAT IS VERY APPEALING FOR THE AREA AND CONSISTENT WITH, YOU KNOW, BEING RESIDENTIAL WHERE SO MANY OF THE OTHER SITES, I GUESS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF SALK AVENUE ARE MORE INDUSTRIAL.

IT DOES STAND OUT. AND I THINK IT'S REALLY WELL DESIGNED FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. YEAH, I'M GOING TO KIND OF BUILD ON WHAT YOU SAID REGARDING, I THINK IT'S COMMENDABLE, REALLY, THE WHOLE PROCESS, HOW IT STARTED IN 3 OR 4 YEARS AGO.

LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED. THE CITY WORKED THROUGH IT.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A RESPECTABLE DEVELOPER HERE THAT'S DEVELOPING IT.

I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA. MY DOCTOR'S UP IN THAT AREA, SO I DRIVE BY IT ALL THE TIME.

AND, IT'S NICE TO HAVE THE DIVERSITY OF HOUSING SOMEWHERE ELSE OTHER THAN THE BARRIO.

AND COMMISSIONER FOSTER MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, ABOUT MAKING A RIGHT ON EL CAMINO.

I MEAN, YOU CAN MAKE A LEFT ON SALK AND A RIGHT ON COLLEGE AND THEN GET OUT TO EL CAMINO REAL TOO.

SO IT'S A, IT'S NOT A HIGHLY DENSE AREA. AND SO IT'S A, IT SEEMS LIKE A REALLY GOOD PLACE TO PUT APARTMENTS.

AND I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO COMMEND THE CITY AND THE PEOPLE THAT WORKED ON IT BECAUSE IT'S A PROJECT THAT INDICATES THAT THE PROCESS AND THE CITY WORKS.

AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING. ALL RIGHT.

AND I'M ALSO VERY SATISFIED WITH THE CEQA PROCESS.

I THINK THAT WAS REALLY WELL DONE AND WORKED THROUGH METHODICALLY.

AND I'M REALLY HAPPY ABOUT THE PROJECT. I INTEND TO SUPPORT IT.

COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING ALL THE IN-DEPTH QUESTIONS.

WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT THIS PROJECT IS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, MEETING THAT AFFORDABLE DENSITY BONUS THAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO PUSH.

AND OF COURSE, THE RHNA NUMBERS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MEET HERE THE BACKING OF JUST THE CITY COUNCIL AND FOLKS THAT GOT US HERE TODAY THROUGH THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IN 2024.

CEQA AGAIN, BEING EXTREMELY IN DEPTH AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON YOU KNOW, THE LETTERS AND THE COMMUNITY INPUT.

I DO LIKE THAT IT'S NEAR BUSINESSES, RIGHT? IT'S NEAR WHERE FOLKS, YOUNG AND OLD ARE GOING TO WORK.

I THINK THE ONLY DOWNSIDE OF THIS IS DUE TO THE DENSITY BONUS.

WE'RE WAIVING OPEN SPACE. AND I THINK IT'S REALLY CRITICAL, RIGHT.

EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT NEAR YOU KNOW, THE DOWNTOWN AREA THAT WE STILL INCLUDE SPACES FOR PEOPLE TO WALK AND ENCOURAGE THAT RECREATIONAL OUTDOOR SPACE FOR FAMILIES, FOR RESIDENTS. YOU KNOW, A GOLF SIMULATOR IS VERY INTERESTING IN MY OPINION, COMPARED TO A PLAYGROUND OR A WALKING PATH OR, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL AMENITIES THAT ARE JUST WILL LIVE AND OUTLAST YEAR BY YEAR.

SO SOMETHING TO CONSIDER FOR DEVELOPERS. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT NEAR A DOWNTOWN AREA AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT CARLSBAD RESIDENTS REALLY VALUE IS OUR OUTDOOR SPACE HERE.

SO I REALLY ENJOY THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT.

AND I THINK OUR HANDS ARE A LITTLE BIT TIED AGAIN WITH DENSITY BONUS LAW AND WAIVERS.

BUT ALL TOGETHER, I THINK THE POSITIVES OUTWEIGH THE WAIVER OF THAT OPEN SPACE.

WELL SAID. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. I WAS HAPPY TO SEE THAT ONE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT SITES IS BEING DEVELOPED TO BE ABLE TO CREATE YOU KNOW, A MINIMUM OF 59 UNITS, I THINK THE BREAKDOWN AND THE OPEN SPACE, THE BREAKDOWN OF THE UNITS AND LACKING THOSE THREE BEDROOMS, I THINK IS A LITTLE BIT OF A MISSTEP. AND I ALSO FEEL THAT THE OPEN SPACE BALCONIES THAT ARE IN THE DESIGN THE PERSONAL SPACE OF THOSE IT WILL BE A REALLY FLAT FACADE.

AND BECAUSE OF THE EXCEPTIONAL HEIGHT INCREASE IT WILL STICK OUT, IT WILL BE VERY VISIBLE WHICH MIGHT PROVIDE A VIEW COULD BE HIGHER RENTS. WHO KNOWS? BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT ULTIMATELY THIS IS A WIN FOR THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE 59 AFFORDABLE UNITS AND GAIN MORE STOCK OF HOUSING FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. COMMISSIONER FOSTER.

SURE. YEAH. I MEAN, RIGHT NOW, THIS IS JUST DIRT, AND IT'S BEEN DIRT FOR A LONG TIME.

[00:55:03]

YOU'RE GOING TO GET 400 APPROXIMATE UNITS FOR HOUSING, WHICH, YOU KNOW, CONTRIBUTES TO OUR HOUSING NEEDS FOR THE CITY.

SO YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T, I THINK THIS IS KIND OF LIKE A NO BRAINER FOR APPROVAL IN MY OPINION.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MAY I HAVE A MOTION? I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BASED UPON STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MEENES. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FOSTER.

PLEASE VOTE. 5, 0. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU FOR PROCEEDING ON WITH THE PROJECT.

I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY. COMMISSIONERS. COMMENTARY AND OR REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS.

[COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTARY AND REQUESTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS]

AND I'VE ACTUALLY COMMENTED ON A FEW TIMES MYSELF, BUT THE MORE I LISTEN TO HER, THE MORE ACTUALLY I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY A GOOD IDEA.

AS OPPOSED TO MAYBE THE WAY I THOUGHT ON OTHER PROJECTS.

SO MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE YOU MENTIONED THAT UNDERGROUND PARKING IS NOT IN THE CODE IN ANY SORT OF LIKE SIGN CODE WITH THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, IS THAT CORRECT AS A REQUIREMENT FOR A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT? CORRECT. THERE'S NO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT REALLY ANYWHERE FOR IT.

THERE'S A REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE THE PARKING AND THEN THERE'S WAIVERS AND EXCEPTIONS FROM THAT.

I THINK ECONOMICALLY IN THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO, WE STARTED TO SEE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT WITH SORT OF SOME UNIQUE THINGS.

BUT THEN AB 2097 CAME IN AND REMOVED ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO.

AND SO WE EVEN PROJECTS THAT WERE AT ONE POINT PROPOSED WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING A FEW YEARS AGO THEY'VE BEEN RESUBMITTED WITHOUT THAT.

EVEN IF WE HAD SUCH A REQUIREMENT THERE COULD BE A WAIVER POTENTIALLY TO THAT.

AND THE STANDARD FOR REJECTING A WAIVER WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY FINDING.

I THINK FOR PARKING THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT. AND IT'S PRETTY ESTABLISHED IN THE LITERATURE OF THE COST OF DOING THE UNDERGROUND PARKING.

SO I THINK THERE WOULD NOT BE A LOT WE COULD DO RELATED TO SORT OF PUSHING BACK AND REQUIRING THAT.

IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD SUPPORT IF AN APPLICANT WANTED TO UTILIZE THAT.

SO SO JUST TO CLARIFY. SO IF SO, IF THE CITY DID REQUIRE BY EXAMPLE, THIS WAS APPROXIMATELY 400 UNIT COMPLEX, LIKE IF THE CITY DID HAVE SOME SORT OF REQUIREMENT OF I DON'T KNOW 50 UNITS PLUS, YOU KNOW, UNDERGROUND PARKING IS REQUIRED OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. EVEN WITH LIKE AN SB 49, THEY COULD JUST REQUEST A WAIVER ANYWAY AND IT GOES OUT THE WINDOW ANYWAY.

IS THAT CORRECT. A WAIVER? A WAIVER HAS TO PHYSICALLY PRECLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF IT.

AND SO WAIVERS ARE TYPICALLY THINGS LIKE HEIGHT OR NOT PROVIDING CERTAIN THINGS.

OR THEY COULD REQUEST AN INCENTIVE. AND THERE'S A CERTAIN NUMBER OF INCENTIVES.

AN INCENTIVE COULD BE SOMETHING FINANCIAL. SO IT PROBABLY WOULD BE SOME SORT OF INCENTIVE REQUEST WHERE THEY DO NEED TO PUT TOGETHER AN ARGUMENT.

NO LONGER DO THEY NEED LIKE PRO FORMAS. AND I THINK SOMEONE COULD FAIRLY EASILY PUT TOGETHER AN ARGUMENT THAT UNDERGROUND PARKING WAS A COST AND INCLUDE THAT AS AN INCENTIVE.

AND IT'D BE DIFFICULT FOR US TO PUSH BACK AGAINST.

OKAY, MR. FOSTER. YEAH. COMMISSIONER FOSTER, I HAVE TO SAY, IT'S WELL SAID.

AND IT COMES BACK TO YOU KNOW, MY THOUGHTS AS WELL, THE IMPACT OF HOUSING LEGISLATION OUT OF SACRAMENTO.

YOU CAN SEE THE RAMIFICATIONS. IT'S LIKE A SNOWBALL AS TO, YOU KNOW, AND YOUR COMMENTS, A GOOD ONE IN REGARD TO THAT.

AND YET, AS MR. LARDY INDICATES, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, YOUR HANDS ARE TIED.

EXCEPT WE'RE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING AS SACRAMENTO NOW, IF YOU SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO FORCE DEVELOPERS TO PUT IN UNDERGROUND PARKING, WHICH WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE COST. AND I DON'T YOU KNOW, IT'S A WISE BUSINESS DECISION.

SO, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY I THINK WE'RE IN A GOOD PLACE WHERE IT'S NOT REQUIRED.

BUT IF PEOPLE WANT TO DO IT AND WE'VE SEEN MORE AND MORE PROJECTS, ESPECIALLY IN THE BARRIO AREA THAT HAVE ADDED IT.

SO IT PAYS BACK. AND I THINK THAT'S THE BEST POLICY IS TO LET THE DEVELOPER SEE IF IT WORKS FINANCIALLY FOR THEM.

GOOD COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. I GUESS TO CLARIFY, THE MAIN REASON THAT I LOOK FOR UNDERGROUND PARKING,

[01:00:03]

I MEAN, THERE'S JUST ALL KINDS OF REASONS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PROBLEMS. BUT ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS I AM CONCERNED WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING ISN'T SO MUCH THE PARKING ASPECT AS MUCH AS IT IS HOW IT.

AND IN THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT THE CONDITION WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING PARKING UNDERNEATH THE HOUSING TO ELEVATE THE BUILDING HEIGHT AND GET MORE UNITS.

MY CONCERN IS ALWAYS THE BUILDING HEIGHT AND HOW DO WE.

WHAT IS THE, I GUESS THE CONCERN TO ME, THE CONCERN IS WE'VE ESTABLISHED AS A COMMUNITY CERTAIN BUILDING HEIGHTS.

AND THEY MAY NOT POSE A HEALTH OR SAFETY RISK TO ELEVATE THEM.

BUT IF YOU PUT PARKING ON GRADE AND THEN PUT UNITS ABOVE THAT, YOU ARE ULTIMATELY GOING TO GET HIGHER BUILDING HEIGHTS. AND IT MIGHT BE IT MAY NOT BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO SOLELY SAY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE ONLY UNDERGROUND PARKING, ESPECIALLY ON A NINE ACRE LOT.

IT MAY NOT MAKE ANY SENSE, BUT IN SOME OF THE SMALLER AREAS, OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE ARE BEING MORE INNOVATIVE.

MY CONCERN IS ALWAYS HOW DO WE MAINTAIN THE BUILDING HEIGHTS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A MORE CONSISTENT COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVE THESE SORT OF YOU KNOW, TOWERS STICKING UP EVERYWHERE.

SO, YOU KNOW, IN SORT OF A RANDOM FASHION, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE LIKE A CENTRAL CORE DOWNTOWN WHERE THE HEIGHTS ARE VERY DENSE.

AND, YOU KNOW, THIS PROJECT OVER THERE, FIVE STORIES VERSUS ALL THE 2 OR 3 STORY BUILDINGS OVER THERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOING TO BE REALLY SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. SO SO THAT'S THE ONLY COMMENT THAT I WOULD MAKE, IS I'M REALLY JUST LOOKING TO LOWER THE BUILDING HEIGHT IF WE CAN.

IF I COULD JUST TO KEEP US ON TRACK, THIS ISN'T AN AGENDIZED DISCUSSION.

THE PURPOSE IS JUST FOR BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS, REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES AND REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. SO IF THERE'S A REQUEST FOR SOME KIND OF PRESENTATION FOR A DISCUSSION ON BUILDING HEIGHTS OR UNDERGROUND PARKING, I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU KEEP IT TO THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT OTHERWISE NOTICED FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. HISTORICAL.

I HAVEN'T HAD A MINUTE TO LOOK. I KNOW DID THEY DO THE AND MR. LARDY MAY KNOW, DID THEY DO THE THIRD GRADE AWARDS ALREADY OR IS THAT UPCOMING? I BELIEVE THEY DID AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING LAST WEEK.

YEAH, I THOUGHT MAYBE SO. MOST OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN THIRD GRADE SUBMITTED ARTWORK AND IT CAN BE VIEWED AT COLD LIBRARY ALL SUMMER.

SO AND THEY, WHAT THEY DO IS THEY DOCUMENT SOME OF THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS AROUND THE VILLAGE OF CARLSBAD.

SO IT'S REALLY NEAT EXHIBIT AND IT'S A REALLY FUN PRESENTATION IF ANYONE'S EVER SEEN IT.

AT CITY COUNCIL, THEY GIVE THE KIDS AWARDS AND IT'S LOVELY.

SO THANKS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS IN REGARD TO.

CITY PLANNER. YES. JUST LOGISTICAL THINGS. WE ARE GOING TO BE CANCELING THE NEXT MEETING.

WE DO HAVE A FEW PROJECTS FOR THE JULY 1ST MEETING, A FEW CDPS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND REMODELS.

SO THAT'LL BE ON THE AGENDA. WE'RE LOOKING AT CANCELING THE JULY 15TH MEETING, AND THEN ON AUGUST IS TBD.

BUT AT THIS POINT, WE DO HAVE AGENDA ITEMS ON BOTH OF THE MEETINGS.

THAT IS ALSO ALWAYS SUBJECT TO CHANGE THAT FAR OUT.

THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 12TH HEARD THE PRESENTATION RELATED TO THE TOLL BROTHERS RECOMMENDATION, AND THEY DID REMAND THAT BACK TO STAFF FOR PROCESSING.

SO THAT APPLICATION WILL MOVE FORWARD HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED YET.

WE'LL KNOW MORE ON SCHEDULE. WHEN THEY DO RESUBMIT.

CITY ATTORNEY. NOTHING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

WITH THAT I WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:04.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.