Jul 01, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting

[00:00:02]

GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE JULY 1ST MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.

[CALL TO ORDER]

HERE. LET THE RECORD SHOW COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY IS ABSENT.

COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. HERE. COMMISSIONER BURROWS.

PRESENT. VICE CHAIR FOSTER. PRESENT. AND LET THE RECORD SHOW CHAIR MEENES IS ABSENT.

COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT WITH COMMISSIONERS LAFFERTY AND MEENES ABSENT.

IF WE CAN PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED THIS EVENING BY COMMISSIONER BURROWS.

OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 3RD MEETING.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. MOTION TO APPROVE HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. AND SECOND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I THINK WE NEED A SECOND. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

PLEASE VOTE.

OKAY. WELL, THE SCREEN WENT REALLY QUICK.

I SAW 3 VOTES FOR YES, 2 ABSTAINED, 2 NOT PRESENT.

SO IT PASSES. OKAY. LET'S SEE. AND THEN WE MOVE ON TO.

BEAR WITH ME, PUBLIC. THIS IS MY FIRST DAY AS CHAIR HERE, SO IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE SLOWER THAN NORMAL, BUT I THINK WE HAVE SPEAKER SLIP AND MEETING PROCEDURES AS NEXT SLIDE.

IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY. NO, CHAIR. THERE'S NOT.

YEAH. THERE'S NO SPEAKER SLIPS. DO I READ THE MEETING PROCEDURES FOR SPEAKER SLIPS OR NO? OKAY, I CAN SKIP THAT. OKAY. OKAY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING PROCEDURES. OKAY. IF EVERYONE WOULD DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN.

I'LL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES THE COMMISSION WILL BE FOLLOWING FOR THIS EVENING'S PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPEN. STAFF WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MAY ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THE STAFF PRESENTATION.

THE APPLICANTS WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION AND RESPOND TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. THEY WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION.

THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL THEN BE OPEN.

A TIME SLOT OF THREE MINUTES IS ALLOTTED TO EACH SPEAKER.

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

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

THE COMMISSIONERS WILL THEN 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 CITY COUNCIL.

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

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

[1. HIBISCUS RESIDENCE - CDP 2025-0039 / NCP 2025-0005 (DEV2025-0093)]

YES, I VISITED THE SITE. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD.

I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. COMMISSIONER BURROWS.

I DROVE BY THE SITE. AND I HAVE ALSO DRIVEN BY THE SITE.

AND STAFF, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? THANK YOU, CHAIR. THE FIRST OF THE THREE AGENDA ITEMS TONIGHT IS THE HIBISCUS REMODEL.

IT IS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3995 HIBISCUS DRIVE.

AND HERE TO PRESENT THE STAFF REPORT IS SENIOR PLANNER KYLE VAN LEEUWEN.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. YES, TONIGHT, THE FIRST ITEM BEFORE YOU IS THE HIBISCUS RESIDENCE PROJECT.

[00:05:06]

THIS PROJECT SITE IS AT 3995 HIBISCUS CIRCLE, PROPERTY ABOUT 13,600FT².

IT IS IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONE. IT IS LOCATED IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, ALSO WITHIN THE APPEALABLE AREA OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND IT DOES CURRENTLY HAVE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS APPROXIMATELY 1141FT².

IT HAS A TWO CAR GARAGE AND HAS THREE BEDROOMS. THE STRUCTURE EXISTING IS CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING DUE TO A LESS THAN COMPLIANT SETBACK FOR THE CORNER OF THE GARAGE, AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN THERE. APPROXIMATELY FIVE FOOT SETBACK, WHERE NORMALLY A SIX FOOT SETBACK WOULD BE REQUIRED.

AND THAT IS WHY A NON-CONFORMING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT IS REQUIRED WITH THIS APPLICATION AS WELL. THE ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 2790FT², WITH THE FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO THE SINGLE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

THE PRODUCT WILL HAVE FOUR BEDROOMS AND AN OFFICE COVERED PATIO AND BALCONY, AND THERE IS AN ADU, BUT THAT IS PROCESSED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.

THAT ADU WAS CREATED FROM PARTIAL CONVERSION AND AN ADDITION AS WELL.

HERE'S THE ELEVATION OF THE HOME FROM THE STREET.

SO THE EXISTING HOUSE ON THE BOTTOM THERE AND THE END RESULT ON THE TOP.

IN TERMS OF CEQA, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY STAFF AND STAFF FOUND THAT THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF PREPARATION ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS UNDER CLASS ONE EXISTING FACILITIES.

AND THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION ON NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND CONSISTENT WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR EXEMPTION.

AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THIS CEQA EXEMPTION AND THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND NONCONFORMING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT.

AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

MINUTES CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE. ARE THERE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS? NO, CHAIR THERE'S NOT. OKAY. SEEING THERE'S NO SPEAKER SLIPS, WE'LL NOW CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

I'M SORRY. OH. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS.

OKAY. MY APOLOGIES. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COME FORWARD? AND WHEN YOU COME FORWARD, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME INTO THE MIC? AND SO I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR BEING A PART OF BRINGING THAT DREAM TO LIFE FOR US.

SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR COMING TO THE PODIUM.

LET'S SEE. SO THE APPLICANT SPOKE AND I THINK AT THIS TIME, IS THERE ANY FURTHER CONVERSATION, ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF OR ANYTHING BY THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD.

JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON PARKING. IS THE HOPE FOR THE ADU PARKING TO BE ON THE STREET? I KNOW THERE WASN'T ANY ADDITIONAL GARAGE SPACE, SO JUST CURIOUS IF THAT WAS DETERMINED TO BE STREET PARKING.

YEAH. UNDER STATE LAW FOR ADUS, WE ARE LIMITED IN HOW MUCH PARKING WE CAN REQUIRE.

FOR ADUS THAT DO REQUIRE PARKING, THAT PARKING CAN BE MET BY THE DEPTH OF A 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY, WHICH THEY HAVE. GREAT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS BY THE COMMISSION ON THE PROJECT? SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? MOTION BY MR. BURROWS. MOTION TO APPROVE PROJECT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS MOTION? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD.

SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS. PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES. FIVE COMMISSIONERS WITH TWO ABSTAINING WHO ARE NOT PRESENT.

BEFORE WE GO ON TO THE SECOND ITEM. AND I APOLOGIZE, I SHOULD HAVE READ THIS BEFORE THE FIRST ITEM. THERE ARE TWO COMMISSIONERS NOT PRESENT.

[00:10:03]

TWO COMMISSIONERS ARE ABSENT. IF YOU REQUEST A CONTINUANCE, THE COMMISSION IS NOT OBLIGED TO GRANT THE REQUEST.

APPLICANT, DO YOU WISH TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE? AND THAT QUESTION IS GOING TO BE POSED TO THE NEXT APPLICANT OR PROCEED WITH THE HEARING TONIGHT.

[2. 4407 PARK DR CDP 2025-0016 / HMP 2025-0003 (DEV2025-0004)]

MY NAME IS DEBORAH SCHWAGER. I'M THE ARCHITECT FOR THE NEXT PROJECT.

AND ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENTS, WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE FOR THE AUGUST 5TH MEETING.

OKAY. SO THE REQUEST FOR THE CONTINUANCE FOR THE AUGUST 5TH MEETING.

LET'S SEE. YEAH, I THINK.

IS THERE A MOTION TO GRANT THE CONTINUANCE? I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND.

MOTION IS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BURROWS. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MERZ.

THIS IS ITEM NUMBER TWO, CORRECT? THIS IS ITEM NUMBER TWO, I BELIEVE.

IS THAT CORRECT? STAFF? ITEM NUMBER TWO. YES.

VOTE.

OKAY. CORRECT. OKAY. CONTINUANCE MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES YES, ONE VOTE NO AND TWO ABSTAINING. THANK YOU.

OKAY. WE'RE MOVING ON TO NUMBER THREE. VANDERBILT ADDITION AND REMODEL.

[3. VANDERWEIT ADDITION & REMODEL -SDP 2025-0011 / CDP 2025-0020 / (DEV2025-0007)]

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES, THEY ARE HERE. THEY DO NOT WANT A CONTINUANCE.

OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT WANT THE CONTINUANCE. SO WE'LL PROCEED THIS EVENING IF STAFF WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. AND TO HELP INTRODUCE THIS ITEM, THIS IS THE THIRD AND FINAL ITEM ON THIS EVENING'S AGENDA.

THIS IS FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DUPLEX.

IT ALSO INCLUDES THE WIDENING OF A DRIVEWAY TO ACCOMMODATE ONE VISITOR PARKING SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON GARFIELD STREET.

HERE TO PRESENT THIS ITEM IS PLANNER MACKENZIE VANZYVERDEN.

THANK YOU. SO THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR A MINOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN A MAJOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 3460 AND 3462 GARFIELD STREET, WHICH IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A 1628 SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY DUPLEX. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND HAS AN R 23 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, AND IT IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE.

SO HERE IS THE SITE PLAN WHICH DEPICTS THE FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO UNIT 3462 AND THE ADDITION OF IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL TO EXTEND THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY.

THE EXISTING GARAGES WILL BE CONVERTED INTO A PORTION OF AN ADU, WHICH IS GOING TO BE PROCESSED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.

AND ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S A PROPOSED 436 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED STORAGE STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARD.

THE SECOND STORY WILL BE COMPRISED OF AN ADU.

AS AFOREMENTIONED, IT'S NOT A PART OF THIS PROJECT.

AND THEN THE OTHER PORTION WILL BE AN ADDITION FOR UNIT 3462 AS WELL.

THE PEAK HEIGHT OF THE ADDITION WILL BE 27FT AT THE REAR EASTERN ELEVATION, WITH A TWO FOOT SIX INCH ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION, WHICH REACHES AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF 29FT AND SIX INCHES.

THE ADDITION WILL MATCH THE EXISTING DUPLEX ARCHITECTURALLY CONSISTING OF THE SAME MATERIALS AND ROOF PITCH.

THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 A, NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES.

[00:15:05]

THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MELLOW TWO SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND THE CEQA EXEMPTION DETERMINATION.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY STAFF PRESENTATION. IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. BEFORE WE HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH STAFF.

I APOLOGIZE, I FORGOT TO DO THE EX PARTE PART PRIOR TO THIS PRESENTATION BY STAFF.

SO JUST GOING DOWN THE LINE. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

YEAH I'VE DRIVEN BY THE SITE. COMMISSIONER MERZ.

YES, I WENT TO THE SITE AND WALKED TO WHAT I COULD FROM THE FRONT YARD.

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

AND I'M ALSO FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. AND SO NOW BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM FOR STAFF.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION REGARDING THE STAFF'S PRESENTATION? COMMISSIONER MERZ. YEAH, I NOTICED ON THE. IT'S KIND OF AN INTERESTING.

WELL, FIRST OFF, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF VERNACULAR? I SAW THAT IN THE PLANNING. IT MEANS LIKE COMMON OR GENERAL.

YEAH. I ALSO LOOKED IT UP WHEN I WAS.

AND THEN I NOTICED IT WAS INTERESTING. IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE ELEVATION NEAR THE BACK OF THE PACKAGE THAT IT SORT OF LOOKS LIKE IT RETAINS ITS.

YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK AT THE THE. LET'S SEE THE FRONT ELEVATION, IF YOU COULD.

LET'S SEE. YEAH, THE FRONT ELEVATION. IT'S INTERESTING.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT KIND OF RETAINS SOME OF THE DESIGN ON THE FRONT.

SO, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS, THERE'S A VERY DETAILED HISTORICAL RESOURCES REPORT ON IT.

BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT THE ELEVATION, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF ALTHOUGH THEY CONVERT THE GARAGE AND ALL, IT LOOKS LIKE IT KIND OF RETAINS THE SAME LOOK AND FEEL. WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT? YES, THEY ARE ADDING A COVERED FRONT PATIO ENTRANCE.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, YES. OKAY, GOOD. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE RIGHT QUESTION FOR YOU OR IF THE APPLICANT HAS A QUESTION.

ON PAGE THREE, THERE'S A CONDITION ADDED THAT IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNERS TO ENSURE AND PROVE TO THE CITY PLANNERS THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED. CAN YOU JUST ADD OR SHED A LITTLE BIT LIGHT ONTO THE, YOU KNOW, CONDITION, WHY THIS WAS ADDED AND A LITTLE BIT MORE ON, AGAIN, THE COMPLIANCE AND IF THIS IS A BETTER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY WAIT FOR THAT TO. THROUGH THE CHAIR, I'LL RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION. OUR APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE CERTAIN ATTESTATIONS OR DISCLOSURES FROM BOTH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE APPLICANT.

AND ONE OF THEM PERTAINS TO ANY KNOWN VIOLATIONS OF CODE ON THE PROPERTY EITHER CAUSING DELAY OR POSTPONEMENT OF MAKING A DECISION. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE CONDITION THAT WAS ADDED IS EITHER TO DOCUMENT THAT IT IS A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, MEANING THAT IT HAS SOME EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CITY PERMITTING DOCUMENTATION OR TO RELOCATE IT TO A LAWFUL LOCATION THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE ZONING STANDARDS.

SO THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS AN OPTION TO PURSUE EITHER TO OBTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT PARTICULAR CONDITION, WHICH WOULD NOT NEED TO BE SATISFIED UNTIL BUILDING PERMIT OCCUPANCY, WHICH WOULD OCCUR AFTER CONSTRUCTION.

YEAH. SO JUST TO CONFIRM, IF WE DO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT TODAY, IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE UP TO THE APPLICANT ON WHETHER TO RELOCATE OR SOMEHOW PROVIDE THAT KIND OF PERMITTING DOCUMENTATION WE JUST DON'T HAVE ON FILE? THAT'S CORRECT. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. STRONG. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY THE COMMISSION IN REGARDS TO STAFF'S PRESENTATION? COMMISSIONER BURROWS. MR. STRONG, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE 120 SQUARE FOOT SHED THAT'S NOT PERMITTED? I AM REFERRING TO THE 120 SQUARE FOOT SHED. THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE RECORD OF ITS PERMITTING.

IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THERE WAS NEVER ANY PERMITTING ISSUED.

SO WE'RE ASKING THE APPLICANT TO FURNISH SUCH DOCUMENTATION OR UNDER THAT ASSUMPTION THAT IT IS A LEGAL NON CONFORMING TO THEN LOCATE IT. SO IT WOULD BE CONFORMING TO CODE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. STRONG. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF? OKAY. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. OKAY. OH, OKAY. SORRY. I CHANGED MY MIND.

[00:20:02]

KRISTEN VON ZWECK, ARCHITECT ON THE PROJECT. I JUST WOULD ASK IF YOU COULD CONSIDER NOT HAVING US MOVE 120 FOOT SQUARE FOOT SHED, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. IT'S EXISTING. I DOUBT THERE ARE PERMITS.

THEY HAD NO ISSUES WITH IT WHATSOEVER. SORRY.

WOULD YOU MIND COMING BACK? I THINK WE HAVE A QUESTION FROM THE COMMISSION FOR THE APPLICANT. COMMISSIONER MERZ.

WELL, SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE ADDRESS FROM HERE? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT GETS ADDRESSED DURING THE PROCESS? I'M NOT SURE THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT HERE.

OR IS THAT HANDLED LATER DURING THAT, SO. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN STRIKE THE CONDITION.

AND IF IT IS STRICKEN FROM THE RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL, CITY STAFF WOULD BE PURSUING ITS TYPICAL ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES TO RELOCATE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. I BELIEVE IT'S 2.5FT FROM.

OR ONE AND A HALF. 1.2FT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, AS SHOWN IN THE EXHIBIT ON THE SLIDE.

AND THE MINIMUM SETBACK IS FIVE FEET. SO IT'D HAVE TO BE RELOCATED MORE THAN THE TWO FEET WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 3.8FT.

AND SO JUST SO I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, IF THEY CANNOT PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION SHOWING ITS PERMIT, WHICH IT PROBABLY ISN'T RIGHT. IS THEIR ONLY REMEDY IS THEN TO MOVE THE WHOLE THING LIKE ONE HALF FEET? CORRECT. YES. OKAY. IT WOULD BE MOVING IT MORE THAN ONE FOOT.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO. IT WOULD BE 3.8FT.

3.8FT. AND THEN. OKAY. AND THEN CAN STAFF PROVIDE A REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T GRANT THAT? OR IS THERE A. THE CONDITION ACTUALLY PROVIDES AN ABATEMENT PERIOD IN A SENSE WITHOUT ANY PUNITIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CITY.

TYPICALLY WHEN THERE IS A VIOLATION OF CODE, THERE WILL BE A NOTICE OF VIOLATION IN A CODE COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE TIMELINE TO BRING THAT OR TO ABATE OR DISCONTINUE THAT VIOLATION. AND IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT KNOWN IF THAT SHED HAS ANY ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING WORK.

TYPICALLY, STRUCTURES THAT ARE UNDER 120 SQUARE FEET DO NOT NEED A BUILDING PERMIT, BUT THEY DO STILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE.

IN ADDITION, BECAUSE THE. I CAN'T READ THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE EXISTING SHED AND THE PROPOSED WORKSPACE.

WHAT IS THE DIMENSION? I THINK IT'S SEVEN FEET.

SO THE OTHER ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE NEEDS TO BE A FIRE SEPARATION BETWEEN STRUCTURES.

IF THERE'S AN EGRESS WINDOW EITHER ON THE EXISTING SHED OR THE NEW SHED, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A SIX FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN THOSE STRUCTURES.

SO THE.

USE THE MICROPHONE TOO, PLEASE.

AT ANY RATE, IF IT WAS NOT ADDRESSED THROUGH THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS, THERE WOULD BE A MORE RIGID COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE THAT WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE ABATEMENT, DISCONTINUANCE OR RELOCATION, IN THIS CASE AT A FASTER SCHEDULE THAN WHAT'S PROPOSED IN THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL.

SO I GUESS. SO THE REMEDY. SO DID I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY THEN.

SO THE ONLY REMEDY THEN IF THEY CAN'T FIND IT'S PERMANENT, WHICH IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT IS.

AND THEN THE ONLY REMEDY IS TO MOVE IT. THEY CAN'T.

THERE'S. OR THERE'S NO OTHER PROCESS OTHER THAN MOVING IT, IF IT'S FOUND TO BE THERE'S NO PERMIT FOR THAT? DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? IT COULD BE THAT.

OR THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD MODIFY THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK, MEANING IT REDUCES THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING SHED.

BY LIKE SEVEN SQUARE FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? OR IT'S 127 RIGHT NOW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I THINK IT'S 127. 120. IT'S 120. CORRECT. AND SO IF THEY REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY HOW MUCH TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT, THEN. IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE FIVE FOOT SETBACKS ON BOTH PROPERTY LINES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. SO IS THIS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'RE SAYING THAT IT HAS TO BE MOVED OR IT'S NOT? IT'S I UNDERSTAND IT. SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IF WE APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION, THEN AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THEN IT'S UP TO THE CITY SEPARATELY TO ADDRESS THIS INDIVIDUALLY.

RIGHT? IT IS. AND THE CHALLENGE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER IS THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL ZONE REQUIRES A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

SO IF IT IS NOT ASSOCIATED OR ENJOINED WITH THIS ACTION THIS EVENING, THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY HAVE TO GET A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT JUST TO ADDRESS THE

[00:25:08]

RIGHT. SO SHE'S SAYING. I'M JUST CLARIFYING. SHE'S SAYING DON'T MAKE IT PART OF THE REQUIREMENT.

AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S BETTER TO MAKE IT PART OF THE REQUIREMENT.

I'M IMPLYING THAT IT WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO ADDRESS IT THROUGH THIS PROCESS, RATHER THAN PAYING A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING FEE AND GOING THROUGH AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

OKAY, SO I'M TRYING TO SQUARE THESE TWO. YEAH.

OKAY. AND THEN I GUESS. YEAH. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER MERZ.

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, I CERTAINLY WOULD. I THINK THE PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT MAKES IT.

SEEMS LIKE IT TO BE A REASONABLE REQUEST. I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING AT THE SAME POINT, THOUGH, I DON'T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT OR SOMETHING.

I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S A COMPELLING REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GRANT THIS, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME. OBVIOUSLY, I WOULD THINK IT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS, AND WE'RE TALKING THREE FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN THERE THAT LONG.

I GUESS IF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THERE'S NOT A HEALTH OR SAFETY ISSUE REASON.

I MEAN, CAN STAFF GIVE US A REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T GRANT THAT TO THEM? THE PASSAGE OF TIME DOES NOT CURE VIOLATIONS.

RIGHT. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHAT.

I DON'T KNOW IT'S A FAIR QUESTION, BUT YOU KNOW, WHAT HARM IS DONE AS A RESULT OF HAVING THAT NONCONFORMING BEING THREE FEET OVER THE LINE? THAT'S I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. IT SOUNDS LIKE A NEBULOUS QUESTION.

I'M KIND OF STRUGGLING WITH WORDS THERE, I APOLOGIZE. DO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, EITHER FOR APPLICANT OR STAFF? I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, IF I MAY.

SO IN THE EVENT THAT THE COMMISSION WERE TO. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORD THIS EITHER.

IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSION WERE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WE MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM, WE GO TO A VOTE.

HOWEVER, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE REMOVAL OF THE SHED WOULD NOT BE PART OF IT.

CAN THAT BE DONE? AND THE SECOND PART OF THAT QUESTION IS, IN THAT MOTION, IS THAT DECISION FINAL OR DOES THIS GO TO CITY COUNCIL OR DOES THIS GO ANYWHERE PAST THIS THAT CAN POTENTIALLY REVERSE THAT DECISION BY THE COMMISSION? THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE FINAL DECISION MAKER ON THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING THE ENTITLEMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

ANY DECISION IN ITS ENTIRETY OR OVER A SPECIFIC CONDITION CAN BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN TEN CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DECISION BEING MADE.

IN TERMS OF NEXUS OF ADDING THIS CONDITION, THERE IS NO IMPEDIMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO STRIKE THAT LANGUAGE FROM THE CONDITIONS. THERE IS NO ZONING STANDARD THAT REQUIRES THE APPLICANT OR PROPERTY OWNER TO CURE THIS VIOLATION, AS IT'S RELATED TO THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT'S BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING.

THE APPLICATION MATERIALS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SUBMITTED ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ANY VIOLATIONS THAT EXIST ON THE PROPERTY COULD DELAY THE PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATION OR CAUSING ITS DENIAL.

BUT SINCE THE VIOLATION OF THE EXISTING SHED IS NOT CONNECTED TO OR ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED DETAILS OF THE REQUEST, THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN STRIKE THAT LANGUAGE.

WHAT I AM SUGGESTING IS THAT THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CAN INCLUDE IT TO PREVENT ANY UNNECESSARY FEES THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER MIGHT HAVE INCURRED WITH. IF THERE IS A CODE VIOLATION OPEN ON THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE UNDER THE COASTAL ACT, DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES DEMOLITION, ALTERATION, MODIFICATIONS, NEW CONSTRUCTION.

AND IT WOULD REQUIRE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO REMOVE IT FROM THE PROPERTY.

SO THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FEE IS $6,000 OR SO.

SO IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO ADDRESS IT AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, BUT IT CAN BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY.

[00:30:02]

BUT IF A CODE VIOLATION IS OPEN ON THIS PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL NEED TO COMPLY REGARDLESS OF HOW LONG THAT STRUCTURE HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE. THANK YOU, MR. STRONG. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS IN RESPONSE? OKAY, WE HAVE TWO. MISS FITZGERALD. YEAH, I HAVE A SEPARATE QUESTION JUST ON THE TITLE.

SO ON PAGE 35 FOR THE OCCUPANT HISTORY, I SEE THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH, YOU KNOW, FROM CENSUS DATA.

WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT GAP FROM 1951 TO 1988 IN TERMS OF OWNERSHIP.

IS THERE ANY, YOU KNOW, BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND CAN WE CONFIRM THAT, YOU KNOW, THE TITLE WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO ROBERT MERRILL AND THEN ONWARD TO THE APPLICANT TODAY? SO ANY INFORMATION THAT CAN SHED LIGHT TO THIS PAGE 35.

STAFF, IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND. THE INFORMATION ON PAGE 35 OF 84 RELATES TO THE HISTORICAL RESOURCES REPORT.

AND THAT IS A COMPENDIUM OF AVAILABLE DOCUMENTATION DEMONSTRATING ITS HISTORY BOTH THROUGH PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, BUT ALSO ANY STRUCTURAL OR IMPROVEMENTS MADE ON THE PROPERTY.

SO THAT IS USED AS A BENCHMARK TO MEASURE WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY HAS ANY HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CEQA.

ONE OF THOSE CRITERION IS WHETHER THERE WAS ANY PERSONS OF SIGNIFICANCE THAT HAVE LIVED ON THE PROPERTY.

SO THE DATA RETRIEVAL PROCESS LOOKS AT ARCHIVAL RECORD AND TRIES TO ASSESS WHETHER THERE'S ANY DOCUMENTATION OF PREVIOUS OWNERSHIP THAT WOULD ELEVATE OR RISE TO THAT CRITERION. OUTSIDE OF THAT, OUR PERMITTING PROCESS TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP IS DOCUMENTED THROUGH A TITLE REPORT AND TITLE SEARCH.

SO WE LOOK AT THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP AND THAT WOULD GIVE AUTHORIZATION TO FILE THE APPLICATION.

BUT ANYTHING BEYOND THAT IN TERMS OF HISTORICAL RECORDS, IS NOT RELATED TO THE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ITSELF.

IT'S MORE OF ITS HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CEQA.

THANK YOU. SORRY, THROUGH THE CHAIR. THE OMISSION OF ANY TIME PERIODS IS JUST THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE TO REPORT? COMMISSIONER MERZ. YEAH. SO GETTING BACK TO THE PERMIT, I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE PATH FORWARD HERE AND WHAT THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING.

I GUESS WE GO TO PAGE 11 OF 84 AND NUMBER 15.

RIGHT? IS THAT WHERE WE'RE AT? AND SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS AND THEN THE PATH FORWARD WITH WHAT STAFF IS, WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING WE DO.

I GOT A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHERE WE'RE AT AND WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO HERE.

MR. STRONG. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO IMPOSE THE CONDITION, WHICH PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, TO EITHER RETRIEVE THE RECORDS TO SHOW THAT IT WAS PREEXISTING AND OBTAIN SOME PERMITTING RECORD.

BASED ON THE TESTIMONY THIS EVENING, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT EXISTS.

THE OTHER OPTION IS, OR AS PART OF THAT RECOMMENDATION, IS TO ALLOW THIS COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW ITS REMOVAL OR RELOCATION TO A LAWFUL PLACE ON THE PROPERTY.

WITHOUT THAT CONDITION, AND IF A CODE VIOLATION IS OPENED, THE APPLICANT OR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WILL HAVE TO OBTAIN A SEPARATE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH FEES AND A PROCESS TO REMOVE THE STRUCTURE.

SO IT OFTEN COULD RESULT IN PENALTIES OF FINES FOR NOT OBTAINING OR SECURING A PERMIT BY A SPECIFIED TIME FRAME. SO STAFF'S OBJECTIVE WAS TO PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE OR TO OBTAIN COMPLIANCE UNDER THE EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS.

SO I ARGUE, I MEAN, IT'S OUT OF BOUNDS, BUT IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE THAT AS MUCH AS THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THAT, ARGUABLY IT'S IN IN APPLICANT'S BEST INTEREST TO LEAVE THIS IN BECAUSE OF THE ONGOING ISSUES AND ASSOCIATED COSTS WITH NOT DEALING WITH IT. YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. THAT WAS A LOT. COMMISSIONER BURROWS.

[00:35:05]

OKAY. JUST THE VIOLATION. SORRY. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE VIOLATION IS ON THE PROPERTY AND IF IT IS REASONABLY RELATED TO THE DETAILS OF THE REQUEST. CITY STAFF WOULD MORE AGGRESSIVELY ADDRESS THAT MATTER AS PART OF THE CITY REVIEW PROCESS.

THERE ARE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN CHAPTER 110 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE THAT ALLOWS THE CITY TO RECORD A RESTRICTION ON THE PROPERTY THAT PREVENTS LAND USE DEVELOPMENT UNTIL VIOLATIONS ARE CURED.

THE CITY HAS YET TO UTILIZE THAT SECTION OF THE CODE, BUT IT DOES EXIST.

BUT UNTIL SUCH TIME A NOTICE OR RESTRICTION IS PLACED ON THE OUR PROPERTY, THE CITY WOULD NOT BE LIMITED IN ITS ABILITY TO CONTINUE PROCESSING APPLICATIONS.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, LIKE I SAID, THE REMEDY IS KNOWN TO EITHER DOCUMENT ITS EXISTENCE OR TO RELOCATE OR REMOVE THE STRUCTURE.

AND AS A COURTESY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE IT COVERED UNDER THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, RATHER THAN REQUIRING THE PROPERTY OWNER TO OBTAIN A NEW COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND GOING THROUGH A PROTRACTED PROCESS THAT COULD RESULT IN FINES.

THANK YOU, MR. STRONG. COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT, IF THAT'S OKAY. AFTER HEARING.

YEAH. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND COMING TO THE PODIUM. SORRY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS PROCESS IS TOTALLY ORTHODOX.

LIKE IT IS. IT'S PROBABLY NOT, BUT THAT'S OKAY.

AFTER HEARING EVERYTHING YOU'VE HEARD IN THE LAST, YOU KNOW, 15, 20 MINUTES, YOU KNOW, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED? I'M JUST INTERESTED IN BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF.

WELL, I DO HAVE A QUESTION. WHEN YOU SAY CODE VIOLATION, WHO WOULD BE ISSUING THAT? IS IT A NEIGHBOR OR IS IT THE CITY OR IS IT SPECIFICALLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WOULD ISSUE THAT? UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, THE ENFORCING DIVISION OR THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM AS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE, BY JURISDICTION, ALLOWED TO ISSUE NOTICES OF VIOLATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS AND POTENTIALLY ISSUE NOTICES OF RESTRICTION ON LAND USE DEVELOPMENT.

BUT TYPICALLY, IS THAT ONLY DONE WHEN A NEIGHBOR COMPLAINS? OR. UNLESS THERE'S A HEALTH OR SAFETY ISSUE, YES.

SO MY QUESTION AGAIN, THE FACT FINDING QUESTION I HAVE IS, IN THE BEGINNING, YOU ASKED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING SHED, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONER REMOVAL OR MOVEMENT NOT BE INCLUDED.

SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, DO YOU STILL HOLD THAT POSITION AFTER EVERYTHING YOU'VE HEARD, OR DO YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT POSITION? I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO CONFER WITH MY CLIENT. SURE.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO JUST GO WITH THAT. MOVE IT OR DEMOLISH IT AS NEED BE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF OR FOR APPLICANT? I THINK WE'VE HAD SO MUCH CONVERSATION THAT I MISSED A PART WHERE I'M SUPPOSED TO ASK IF THERE'S ANY SPEAKER SLIPS.

MINUTES CLERK? NO, CHAIR. THERE'S NO SPEAKERS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. JUST GOING DOWN MY LITTLE PUNCH LIST OF QUESTIONS HERE.

WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED? NO, CHAIR.

OKAY. AND I ALREADY ASKED IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

SEEING NONE. WE'LL NOW OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSIONS.

WOULD ANY COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER MERZ. I'LL VOTE TO APPROVE THE PROJECT.

I, YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING IN LOOKING AT THE SITE AND SEEING IT'S A NEAT LOOKING BUILDING.

AND I LIKE THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION SORT OF CAPTURES THE SAME STYLE AND DESIGN.

SO I LIKE THAT. AND I ALSO DO APPRECIATE MR. STRONG'S EXPLANATION ON HOW THIS FLOW WITH UNPERMITTED STRUCTURE WENT.

[00:40:03]

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MERZ. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? NO COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD? NO COMMENT.

COMMISSIONER BURROWS? NO COMMENTS. I GUESS THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE JUST DID A LOT OF PROBLEM SOLVING IN REAL TIME OF POTENTIALLY THE BEST PATH FORWARD. AND SO I THINK WE TRIED OUR BEST HERE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST PATH, YOU KNOW, FOR THE, YOU KNOW, LISTENING TO THE APPLICANT.

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WOULD SOMEONE FROM THE COMMISSION LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER BURROWS. MOTION TO APPROVE PROJECT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

WE GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MERZ. PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES WITH FIVE VOTES YES. AND TWO ABSTAINING.

SORRY. TWO ABSENT. MY APOLOGIES. FIRST RODEO HERE.

OKAY. WE'LL NOW CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING. AND I THINK.

LET'S SEE. SO THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF TONIGHT'S MEETING.

I APPRECIATE IT. SAYS I NEED TO EXPRESS APPRECIATION TO STAFF AND PUBLIC.

[COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTARY AND REQUESTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS]

IS THERE ANY REPORT FROM ANY COMMISSIONER? COMMISSIONER HUBINGER? NO. MERZ? NO REPORTS. IS THERE ANY REPORT FROM THE CITY PLANNER? NOTHING TO REPORT OTHER THAN THE CONTINUANCE OF THE ITEM 4407, WHICH WAS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO THIS EVENING WILL BE CONTINUED TO A DATE CERTAIN OF AUGUST 5TH. WE'LL LIKELY RE NOTICE THAT BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE MADE THOSE REMARKS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IT WASN'T OPENED. I BELIEVE THE JULY 15TH MEETING MAY BE CANCELED.

WE'RE CHECKING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO BUSINESS, BUT WE ARE DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE A MEETING ON AUGUST 5TH. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. STRONG. IS THERE A REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MR. LYONS? NO REPORT. I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR STEPPING IN TO CHAIR THE MEETING THIS EVENING.

DID A GOOD JOB. YOU KNOW, I TRIED MY BEST, BUT I'M NO CHAIR MEENES, SO I APPRECIATE IT.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR STEPPING IN FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. ARE YOU GOING TO BE WITH US FULL TIME? I WILL BE YOUR BACKUP.

BACKUP. IN THIS ROLE. OKAY. WELL, WE'RE PRETTY AWESOME, SO IT'LL BE NICE TO BE HERE NOW.

OKAY. WELL LET'S SEE, I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING.

SO THE ONLY OTHER THING I GOT TO SAY IS WORLD CUP'S ON TONIGHT.

US PLAYS AT 8 P.M. SO GO HOME, GET IN FRONT OF A TV AND GO USA.

AND OTHER THAN THAT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STANDS ADJOURNED AT 5:42 P.M.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.