6. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. CS-519 TO ESTABLISH ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF ALICANTE ROAD AND GALENA AVENUE, CALLE HIDALGO AND CAMINO DE AMIGOS, AND PASEO CERRO AND PASEO DESCANSO

[6. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. CS-519 TO ESTABLISH ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF ALICANTE ROAD AND GALENA AVENUE, CALLE HIDALGO AND CAMINO DE AMIGOS, AND PASEO CERRO AND PASEO DESCANSO]

CALLE HIDALGO AND CAMINO DE AMIGOS AND PASEO CERRO AND PASEO DESCANSO.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS AT THIS TIME? THE PUBLIC COMMENT SUBMISSION PERIOD FOR ITEM NUMBER SIX IS CLOSED.

THERE ARE NO IN-PERSON SPEAKERS. DEPUTY CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR VIRTUAL SPEAKERS.

THERE ARE NO VIRTUAL SPEAKERS FOR ITEM NUMBER SIX.

AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO ASK THOSE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NUMBER SEVEN TO PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND VIRTUALLY IF YOU ARE USING THE MEETING LINK TO LOG IN OR IF YOU'RE JOINING US BY PHONE, PLEASE PRESS STAR NINE NOW TO RAISE YOUR HAND.

COUNCIL. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MOTION.

MOVE ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE. SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

[7. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT 840 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE (CT 2024-0007/SDP 2024-0021/CDP 2024-0035, DEV2024-0004) ]

CITY COUNCIL. CITY MANAGER. THANK YOU. ITEM SEVEN IS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 840 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE.

FOR THE PRESENTATION, WE HAVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ERIC LARDY AND SENIOR PLANNER EDWARD VALENZUELA.

YES. THANK YOU. ON THE SLIDE OF THE PROCEDURES THAT WE'LL GO THROUGH RELATED TO THIS PRESENTATION, WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'M ERIC LARDY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, AND I'M JOINED IN THIS PRESENTATION BY SENIOR PLANNER EDWARD VALENZUELA.

THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION WILL TOUCH ON THREE MAIN ELEMENTS.

GIVEN THE NUMBER AND COMPLEXITIES OF RECENT STATE LAWS, FIRST I WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF HOW THESE NEW LAWS AFFECT CITIES REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESSES. EDWARD WILL THEN PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION.

THEN WE'LL CONCLUDE WITH AN OVERVIEW OF THIS.

MORE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES RAISED IN WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CITY STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THOSE CONCERNS.

NEW STATE HOUSING LAWS HAVE BEEN PASSED THAT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE HOW NEW HOUSING GETS APPROVED.

THE STATE'S GOAL IN PASSING THESE LAWS WAS TO ACCELERATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW HOUSING.

SO EVEN THOUGH CITIES HAVE TRADITIONALLY HAD CONTROL OVER HOW LAND IS USED, AND HERE IN CARLSBAD, THAT INCLUDES ESTABLISHING A CAP ON HOW MANY HOMES WOULD BE BUILT, TODAY WE FIND OURSELVES IN A MUCH DIFFERENT POSITION.

FOR EXAMPLE, NOT ONLY ARE HOUSING CAPS NO LONGER ALLOWED, CITIES MUST DESIGNATE ENOUGH LAND TO MEET PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS AT ALL INCOME LEVELS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PLANNING PERIOD. CARLSBAD DOESN'T GET TO DECIDE HOW MUCH HOUSING IS NEEDED.

[00:20:02]

IN FACT, WE HAVE LITTLE SAY IN WHAT PORTION OF THE REGION'S HOUSING NEEDS ARE ASSIGNED TO THE CITY.

THERE ARE THREE SPECIFIC STATE LAWS WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.

THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT IS AN OLDER LAW DATING BACK TO THE EARLY 1980S.

THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE LAW IS TO SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE NEW HOUSING BY CURBING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY DENY HOUSING PROJECTS.

THIS LAW MUST BE INTERPRETED AND IMPLEMENTED IN FAVOR OF APPROVING HOUSING PROJECTS AND ENCOURAGES INFILL DEVELOPMENT.

SINCE 2018, THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE MULTIPLE AMENDMENTS TO INCLUDE TO ADDITIONALLY CURTAIL A JURISDICTION'S ABILITY TO APPLY DISCRETION TO HOUSING PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE AFFORDABLE UNITS. ONE OF THESE CHANGES WAS IN 2020 AND REQUIRES CITIES CAN ONLY APPLY OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS TO HOUSING PROJECTS.

THESE ARE STANDARDS THAT PROVIDE CLEAR, MEASURABLE AND SPECIFIC DIRECTION FOR HOW TO APPLY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA, AND SHOULD BE SO CLEAR THAT EVERYONE WILL INTERPRET THEM THE SAME WAY.

SUCH STANDARDS INCLUDE BUILDING SETBACKS, BUILDING HEIGHT AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.

IN CONTRAST, ISSUES LIKE COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND BULK AND SCALE ARE OFTEN CONSIDERED SUBJECTIVE UNDER THESE STATE LAWS, SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS CANNOT BE USED TO DENY OR REDUCE DENSITY OF A HOUSING PROJECT.

ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT STATES THAT CITIES CANNOT DENY A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OR IMPOSE A CONDITION REQUIRING LOWER DENSITY, UNLESS THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.

THE ACT ITSELF PROVIDES CLEAR DECISION POINTS ON HOW A PROJECT IS REGULATED, AND, IF IT QUALIFIES FIRST, DOES IT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT? SECOND, DOES IT MEET ANY REQUIRED AFFORDABILITY CRITERIA? THIRD, IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS AND STANDARDS? AND FOURTH, DOES THE PROJECT HAVE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED? IF IT MEETS THESE CRITERIA, THE PROJECT CANNOT BE DENIED WITHOUT POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS.

STATE LAW DOES GIVE CITIES THE ABILITY TO DENY HOUSING PROJECTS, BUT THE FINDINGS ARE, BY DESIGN, DIFFICULT TO MAKE. THE CITY MUST IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS NO FEASIBLE METHOD TO SATISFACTORILY MITIGATE OR AVOID THE IMPACT. THE ADVERSE IMPACT MEANS A SIGNIFICANT, QUANTIFIABLE, DIRECT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT BASED ON OBJECTIVE WRITTEN PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY STANDARDS, POLICIES OR CONDITIONS. THIS IS A HIGH BAR TO OVERCOME, AND CITIES THAT HAVE TRIED TO APPLY THIS FINDING TO DENY DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS HAVE BEEN REJECTED IN COURT. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS A 2022 CASE AT THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT RULED THE DEVELOPERS OF A DENSITY BONUS PROJECT ARE ENTITLED TO WAIVE STANDARDS, EVEN IF THE PROJECT COULD BE REDESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE RELEVANT STANDARDS.

IN CREATING THESE LAWS, THE LEGISLATURE ANTICIPATED THAT THE CONDITIONS TO CREATE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT WOULD ARISE INFREQUENTLY.

THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT OF 2019, ALSO KNOWN AS SB 330, AMENDED THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND PLACED RESTRICTIONS ON THE APPLICATIONS THEMSELVES. IT GIVES APPLICANTS STRONGER VESTING RIGHTS.

WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE CITY CAN ONLY APPLY THOSE CODES AND FEES THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED.

EVEN IF THE DEVELOPER WAITS YEARS TO PULL THE BUILDING PERMITS.

THE STATE LAW ALSO REQUIRES APPLICANTS TO BE PROCESSED FASTER, WHICH FRUSTRATES COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND LIMITS OUR ABILITY TO HELP ADDRESS PUBLIC CONCERNS. IT RESTRICTS THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS TO FIVE AND COMMUNITY MEETINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY A JURISDICTION COUNT TOWARDS THIS FIVE MEETING CAP.

THIS LAW ALSO PROHIBITS CITIES FROM IMPOSING HOUSING CAPS OR MORATORIUMS ON DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CITIZEN APPROVED CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

UNFORTUNATELY, VOTER INITIATIVES DO NOT TRUMP THIS HOUSING LAW.

STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW IS ANOTHER HOUSING LAW THAT HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS IN THE 1970S, BUT IN THE PAST TEN YEARS HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERED TO GIVE DEVELOPERS MORE ALLOWANCES. UNDER DENSITY BONUS, DEVELOPERS CAN GET A DENSITY INCREASE BY AS MUCH AS 50% OVER THE CITY'S MAXIMUM, WHEN THEY ONLY RESTRICT 15% OF THE UNITS AS AFFORDABLE.

PRIOR TO 2021, THE MAXIMUM WAS 35%, AND WHEN IT WAS CHANGED IN 2024, THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL 50% DENSITY BONUS, ALLOWING FOR A 100% OVER DENSITY, WHICH WE REFER TO AS THE DOUBLE DENSITY BONUS.

AND IF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FRUSTRATE THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO ACHIEVE THAT DENSITY BONUS, THEY ARE ENTITLED UNDER DENSITY BONUS LAW TO WAIVE OR DEVIATE FROM THE STANDARDS, EVEN OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.

AND THE CITY MUST GRANT THAT DEVIATION UNLESS THERE IS A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.

[00:25:05]

AS YOU'LL SEE IN THIS ILLUSTRATION, WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, A DEVELOPER CAN EXCEED THE NUMBER OF UNITS ALLOWED UNDER ZONING IF A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF HOUSING IS PROVIDED AND IT CAN EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMITS AND THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO APPROVE IT.

THE STATE CONTINUES TO MAKE NEW CHANGES TO STATE LAWS.

TWO MAJOR ONES WERE PASSED IN THE SUMMER OF 2025 AS PART OF THE STATE BUDGET.

THEY INCLUDED ADDITION OF A NEW HOUSING EXEMPTION FOR PROJECTS UNDER 20 ACRES UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND AT LEAST 15 UNITS PER ACRE. THE BILL ALSO ADDED A NEW PROCESS FOR EXEMPTIONS THAT ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM THAT THEY CAN'T QUALIFY FOR AN EXEMPTION.

NEW TIME FRAMES AND A NUMBER OF EXEMPTIONS FOR A VARIETY OF USES.

THE CITY MAINTAINS A POSITION BETTER THAN MANY CITIES BECAUSE WE HAVE A CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT AND MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE AND OUR HOUSING ELEMENT ALLOCATION CAPACITY.

THE ACTIONS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS HAVE HELPED KEPT THAT STANDING, BUT IT IS AN ONGOING EFFORT.

UNDER EXISTING LAW, HCD HAS THE ABILITY TO REVIEW HOUSING ELEMENTS AND CAN DECERTIFY THEM IF A GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE, HCD FOLLOWS UP. HCD WROTE A LETTER TO THE CITY IN JULY 2024, CHECKING TO ENSURE WE PASSED A REZONE PROGRAM AND IN SUMMER 2026 ASKED SOME QUESTIONS RELATED TO SOME OF THE PROGRAMS IN OUR ANNUAL HOUSING REPORT.

IF WE WERE TO LOSE HOUSING ELEMENT STATUS CERTIFICATION STATUS, DEVELOPERS CAN SUBMIT AN APPLICATION AS A BUILDER'S REMEDY REGARDLESS OF THE GENERAL PLAN DENSITY, AS LONG AS IT HAS 20% AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THERE ARE A FEW EXAMPLES OF THIS AROUND THE STATE.

IN MAY 2026, WEST HOLLYWOOD APPROVED A BUILDER'S REMEDY PROJECT FOR A SIX STORY, 25 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING THAT WILL STAND 68FT IN A ZONE DESIGNATED FOR TWO STORIES AND 25FT. THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS HAS RECEIVED 16 APPLICATIONS FOR PROJECT SEEKING APPROVAL UNDER THE BUILDER'S REMEDY PROVISION. NINE HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND TWO HAVE PENDING LITIGATION.

AND LOCALLY, THERE'S A SEASIDE RIDGE PROJECT, A 259 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX IN DEL MAR.

THAT DISPUTE IS CURRENTLY HEADED TO THE COURTS, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INTERVENED IN DECEMBER OF 2025.

HCD IS AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW ANY ACTION OR FAILURE BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT IT FINDS INCONSISTENT WITH AN ADOPTED HOUSING ELEMENT OR HOUSING ELEMENT LAW.

IN DENYING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, THE CITY MAY BE SEEN AS VIOLATING STATE HOUSING LAW AND THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.

CITIES THAT HAVE BEEN FOUND IN VIOLATION CAN FIND THEIR HOUSING ELEMENT IN JEOPARDY, HAVE FINES AND HAVE LAWSUITS FILED.

THIS HAS BEEN A HIGH LEVEL DISCUSSION OF VERY COMPLEX LAWS.

IF ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE, THE CITY OFFERS A LIBRARY OF INFORMATIONAL BULLETINS ON THESE COMPLEX REQUIREMENTS.

THE EASIEST WAY TO ACCESS THE LIBRARY IS TO SEARCH CARLSBAD INFORMATION BULLETINS AND YOUR WEB BROWSER, AND THE FIRST RESULT SHOULD TAKE YOU TO THE SITE.

BEFORE I TURN IT BACK TO EDWARD, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN AND THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN HAVE ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY AND OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VILLAGE DATING BACK MANY YEARS.

THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY HAS ALLOWED 35 UNITS PER ACRE DATING BACK TO 2007, AND THE CURRENT ZONING WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE 2019 MASTER PLAN, ALLOWING 28 TO 30 UNITS PER ACRE AND FOUR STORIES.

IT WASN'T UNTIL CLOSER TO 2020, AND THE NEW LAWS RELATED TO HOUSING ELEMENTS, DENSITY BONUSES AND THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT THAT WE RECEIVED APPLICATIONS GOING UP AND TO AND ABOVE THE HEIGHT LIMIT, AND USING THE WAIVERS AND EXTRA UNITS TO PROPOSE PROJECTS WITHOUT AN ABILITY FOR THE CITY TO MEANINGFULLY INFLUENCE DESIGN. I'LL NOW TURN THE PROJECT, THE PRESENTATION, OVER TO EDWARD TO GO OVER THE PROJECT DETAILS.

THIS PROJECT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM BUILDING ON A 0.72 ACRE LOT AT 840 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE, FRONTING ON BOTH CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND JEFFERSON STREET.

SURROUNDING LAND USES INCLUDE A DENTAL OFFICE TO THE SOUTH AND WEST, OFFICE BUILDINGS TO THE NORTH, COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES TO THE EAST AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO THE WEST.

THE SITE IS PART OF THE VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT OF THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A HEIGHT LIMIT UP TO 45FT.

THE PROJECT SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A VACANT BANK BUILDING AND AN ASSOCIATED DRIVE THRU AND SURFACE PARKING LOT.

SINCE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED AS PART OF THE PROJECT, A HISTORIC RESOURCES REPORT WAS PREPARED.

THE ASSESSMENT DETERMINED THE BUILDING WAS NOT HISTORICALLY OR ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT.

A TENTATIVE MAP SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE FIVE STORY, 92,600 SQUARE FOOT MIXED USE BUILDING FEATURING 50 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS, THREE COMMERCIAL TENANT SPACES COMPRISING 3800FT² OF COMMERCIAL FLOOR SPACE

[00:30:10]

AND A GROUND FLOOR PARKING GARAGE. THE PROJECT FEATURES 191 BEDROOM UNITS, 192 BEDROOM UNITS AND 123 BEDROOM UNITS.

AS THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN, CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL IS REQUIRED.

HERE IS A RENDERING OF THE BUILDING SOUTHWEST FACING ELEVATION ACROSS JEFFERSON STREET.

AND HERE'S A RENDERING OF THE BUILDING'S GROUND FLOOR LOOKING SOUTHEAST ON JEFFERSON STREET.

THE VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT OF THE MASTER PLAN ALLOWS A DENSITY OF UP TO 35 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

THE SITE'S DENSITY YIELD RESULTS IN A BASE DENSITY OF 26 UNITS.

HOWEVER, THE PROJECT IS REQUESTING A DENSITY BONUS UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW TO PERMIT AN ADDITIONAL 24 UNITS FOR A TOTAL OF 50 DWELLING UNITS.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 92% DENSITY BONUS.

THE RESULTING DENSITY WILL BE INCREASED FROM 35 TO 69.4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

IN EXCHANGE FOR THE 92% INCREASE IN DENSITY, STATE LAW REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO DESIGNATE AT LEAST 15% OF THE BASE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, OR FOUR DWELLING UNITS, IN THIS CASE, AS AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND 15% OF THE BASE NUMBER OF UNITS, OR FOUR ADDITIONAL UNITS AS AFFORDABLE TO MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

AS PART OF THE DENSITY BONUS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SIX WAIVERS AND ONE INCENTIVE.

THE REQUESTED WAIVERS INCENTIVES DO NOT RESULT IN AN ADVERSE IMPACT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY.

THE WAIVERS REQUESTED INCLUDE A 63 FOOT SIX INCH BUILDING HEIGHT UP TO 71FT TWO INCHES WITH ALLOWED ROOF PROTRUSIONS AND FIVE STORIES EXCEEDING THE ALLOWED 45FT AND FOUR STORIES, PROPOSING NO TOP BUILDING SETBACK OFF JEFFERSON STREET, EXCEEDING THE PERCENT OF THE TOP FLOOR ENCLOSED SPACE.

INCREASED BUILDING FACADE LENGTHS WITHOUT A FIVE FOOT CHANGE IN ARCHITECTURAL PLAN.

AVERAGE DEPTH OF GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGE USES ALONG CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND A REDUCTION IN THE DEPTH OF PARKING STALLS.

THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING AN INCENTIVE TO REMOVE ALL COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

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

THIS TABLE HIGHLIGHTS THE RESPECTIVE REQUIREMENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE.

A MINIMUM OF 15% OF BASE UNITS ARE REQUIRED TO BE FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

FOR THIS PROJECT, 15% OR FOUR OF THE BASE UNITS ARE GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW INCOME COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE.

SINCE THE STATE AND CITY'S AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENTS ARE ADDITIVE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE. THE PROJECT APPLICANT WILL DESIGNATE FOUR UNITS AS VERY LOW INCOME AND FOUR UNITS AS MODERATE INCOME, SATISFYING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS OF STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW AND THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE.

HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND GROUND FLOOR PLAN FOR THE PROJECT.

THERE WILL BE THREE COMMERCIAL TENANT SPACES TOTALING 3800FT², A 50 VEHICLE PARKING GARAGE WITH DRIVEWAY ACCESS OFF THE JEFFERSON STREET ALLEY, AND A RESIDENTIAL PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE AND LOBBY OFF JEFFERSON STREET.

THE PROJECT WILL ALSO INCLUDE LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING, AS WELL AS SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING ON JEFFERSON STREET.

HERE'S A SAMPLE FLOOR PLAN FOR THE UPPER FLOORS.

SINCE THE UNITS ARE STACKED, FLOORS TWO THROUGH FIVE WILL HAVE A SIMILAR LAYOUT.

THE 50 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WILL RANGE IN SIZE FROM 876FT² TO 286FT² TO SATISFY OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.

EACH WILL HAVE A PRIVATE DECK RANGING IN SIZE FROM 63FT² TO 437FT².

THE SECOND FLOOR WILL HAVE A COMMON COURTYARD, AND THE FIFTH FLOOR WILL HAVE A COMMON AMENITY DECK FOR RESIDENTS.

SINCE THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN ONE HALF MILE OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE TRANSIT STATION, THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 2097, WHICH PROHIBITS CITIES FROM ACQUIRING MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

INSTEAD, DEVELOPERS PROVIDE PARKING BASED ON PREFERENCE AND MARKET DEMAND.

AB 2097 STATES THAT THE CITY CAN ONLY REQUIRE THE PROJECT, PROVIDE ELECTRIC VEHICLE AND ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE BEEN REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED USES.

BOTH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW AND THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN REQUIRE ONE PARKING SPACE FOR ONE BEDROOM UNITS, 1.5 PARKING SPACES FOR TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS, RESULTING IN 66 RESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED WITHOUT AB 2097.

FOR COMMERCIAL PARKING, THE APPLICANT HAS DECIDED TO USE THE RESTAURANT PARKING RATE OF ONE PARKING SPACE PER 170FT²,

[00:35:03]

FOR A TOTAL OF 23 PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED WITHOUT AB 2097.

AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVE TO WAIVE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT SINCE THE PROJECT SITE IS SUBJECT TO AB 2097 AND THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE COMMERCIAL PARKING. THE APPLICANT IS WAIVING THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE FOUR COMMERCIAL SPACES AND ONE COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION SPACE. THE PROJECT IS PROVIDING 50 TOTAL SPACES, INCLUDING 48 RESIDENTIAL SPACES.

THOSE 48 SPACES INCLUDE 27 ELECTRIC VEHICLE EV READY SPACES, FIVE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS AND TWO ACCESSIBLE SPACES.

THREE MARKET RATE UNITS AND ONE AFFORDABLE UNIT WILL NOT HAVE A PARKING SPACE.

THE EV READY SPACES ARE PRE-WIRED SPACES ALLOWED A CHARGER TO BE PLUGGED IN WITHOUT NEW ELECTRICAL WORK TAKING PLACE.

ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVE TO WAIVE COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THE APPLICANT IS VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING TWO COMMERCIAL, ACCESSIBLE SPACES THAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN REQUIRED.

POLICY 84 IS A COUNCIL POLICY ESTABLISHING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC OUTREACH.

THE RINCON CV PROJECT IS AN SB 330 PROJECT WITH STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE AT THE TIME SB 330 PRELIMINARY APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY.

SINCE THE SB 330 PRELIMINARY APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED IN AUGUST 2024.

THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO THE PREVIOUS VERSION OF POLICY 84, WHICH WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME, NOT THE CURRENT POLICY THAT WAS ISSUED IN NOVEMBER OF 2024.

PUBLIC OUTREACH FOR THE PROJECT BEGAN WITH THE INITIAL MAILING OF A NOTICE OF PROJECT APPLICATION OCTOBER 7TH, 2024. TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS WITHIN A 600 FOOT RADIUS OF THE PROJECT SITE, A TWO FOOT TALL BY THREE FOOT WIDE YELLOW NOTICE SIGN WAS ALSO POSTED AT THE PROJECT SITE ON THE SAME DATE.

ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 2025, NOTICES WERE MAILED TO AN ADDITIONAL 70 COMMERCIAL TENANTS IN 100 FOOT RADIUS OF THE SITE, COMPLETING THE INITIAL NOTICE OF PROJECT APPLICATION.

A STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH PUBLIC MEETING WAS SUBSEQUENTLY HELD ON FEBRUARY 18TH, 2025 AND WAS ATTENDED BY 11 INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

THE ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH REPORT IS INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT SEVEN IN THE STAFF REPORT.

FOLLOWING A TWO FOOT INCREASE IN THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT, AN ADDITIONAL NOTICE WAS MAILED OUT ON AUGUST 25TH, 2025 TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENANTS WITHIN 600FT OF THE PROJECT SITE TO INFORM THEM OF THE CHANGE.

IN TOTAL, 163 PROPERTY OWNERS AND 402 TENANTS WERE NOTIFIED THROUGH THE NOTICE OF PROJECT APPLICATION PROCESS.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERED THE PROJECT AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 6TH, 2026.

NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY WAS PROVIDED AT THE HEARING.

AFTER RECEIVING AND CONSIDERING WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT TO THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE REVIEW OF THE PROJECT. A NUMBER OF COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED.

THE COMMENTS RECEIVED RAISED CONCERNS ON TRAFFIC, PARKING, THE UNITS BEING USED AS SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS, AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN.

THE MIXED USE PROJECT IS ESTIMATED TO GENERATE 453 DAILY TRIPS, WITH 29 OF THOSE OCCURRING DURING THE AM PEAK HOUR AND 41 DURING THE PM PEAK HOUR.

CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE IS DESIGNED TO ADEQUATELY HANDLE THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROJECT.

INSTEAD, PARKING IS PROVIDED BASED ON BUILDER PREFERENCE AND MARKET DEMAND.

THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO PREPARE A CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN, WHICH WILL INCLUDE WHERE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WILL BE ABLE TO PARK.

THE EQUITABLE LAND USE ALLIANCE, OR ELUA FOR SHORT, SUBMITTED MULTIPLE PIECES OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE RINCON CVD PROJECT WITH SIX MAIN POINTS. SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS, HOA FEES AND EV BIKE SHARE PROGRAM, A PARKING CONDITION, PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT REVISIONS, EMERGENCY RESPONSE EVACUATION TIME STUDY FOR RINCON CVD.

ON THE NEXT FEW SLIDES, ERIC AND I WILL GO OVER EACH OF THE POINTS.

THE FIRST MAIN POINT THE BROUGHT UP IS SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS.

THE REQUESTED A PROVISION IN THE CC&RS PROHIBITING LEASES LESS THAN 30 DAYS FOR ALL UNITS BACKED UP BY A PROJECT A CITY PROJECT CONDITION.

[00:40:03]

THE CITY HAS A CONDITION, THE PROJECT TO PROHIBIT SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS OR RENTALS OF LESS THAN 30 DAYS BECAUSE TRANSIENT LODGING IS PROHIBITED FOR PROJECTS UTILIZING THE STATE PARKING BILL, AB 2097. THE NEXT POINT THE ELUA DISCUSSED IS HOA FEES.

THE REQUESTED DISCOUNTED HOA FEES FOR THE PROJECTS AFFORDABLE UNITS.

HOA FEES ARE FACTORED INTO THE COST OF AFFORDABLE UNITS.

REGARDING AN ELECTRIC BIKE SHARE PROGRAM, THE ELUA IS REQUESTING A WRITTEN COMMITMENT FROM THE DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE AN ELECTRIC BIKE SHARE PROGRAM.

THE DEVELOPER PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE VIA EMAIL WITH THE ELUA THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE THE BIKE SHARE PROGRAM.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS NO STANDARD REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE THE BIKE SHARE PROGRAM.

THIS LEADS THE NEXT REQUEST FROM THE ELUA REQUEST FOR A CONDITION, THE PROJECT RESTRICT FUTURE ACCESS TO ON STREET PARKING FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS, TENANTS, GUESTS AND CUSTOMERS. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAY ONLY ENFORCE OBJECTIVE, QUANTIFIABLE WRITTEN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OR CONDITIONS. THEY MUST BE APPROPRIATE TO AND CONSISTENT WITH MEETING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION, AS IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, BE APPLIED TO FACILITATE AND ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT AT THE DENSITY PERMITTED ON SITE, MEET THE DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVE AND BE BASED ON PUBLISHED CRITERIA.

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65863.2, SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS AB 2097, PROHIBITS THE CITY FROM IMPOSING OR ENFORCING ANY MINIMUM AUTOMOBILE PARKING REQUIREMENT ON DEVELOPMENTS LOCATED IN ONE HALF A MILE OF PUBLIC TRANSIT.

THERE ARE NARROW EXCEPTIONS TO THIS PROHIBITION, BUT NONE ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT.

SOME COMMUNITY MEMBERS MAY REQUEST NEW CONDITIONS BE ADDED TO THE PROJECT TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING, OR LIMIT THE PROJECT FROM USING PUBLIC PARKING IN THE FUTURE.

THIS APPROACH BY ATTEMPTING TO COERCE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE PARKING BY PRECLUDING THEM OR THEIR SUCCESSOR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES FROM USING PUBLIC PARKING IN THE FUTURE LIKELY VIOLATES AB 2097. ACTIONS TAKEN IN VIOLATION OF AB 2097 EXPOSE THE CITY TO CIVIL LIABILITY AND STATE ENFORCEMENT ACTION, WHICH MAY INCLUDE FINES, PENALTIES AND DECERTIFICATION OF THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT.

IF THE CITY COUNCIL WISHES TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED CONDITION FOR FUTURE PROJECTS, CITY STAFF RECOMMEND OBTAINING TECHNICAL ADVICE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BEFORE PROCEEDING. I WILL NOW HAND THE PRESENTATION BACK OVER TO ERIC FOR HIS FINAL POINTS.

THE FINAL TWO POINTS RAISED ARE RELATED TO EVACUATIONS AND THE SAFETY ELEMENT.

THE CITY HAS DONE A LOT RELATED TO ITS PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT AND IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE LATEST LAWS.

IT'S PART OF OUR HOUSING ELEMENT REZONE PROGRAM IN JANUARY 2024.

THERE WAS AN UPDATE TO OUR PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT TO REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH TWO MAIN LAWS.

THE FIRST, SB 99, WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO IDENTIFY AREAS WITH A SINGLE POINT OF ENTRY AND A HIGH FIRE HAZARD AREA, AND AB 747 THAT REQUIRED THE CITY TO IDENTIFY EVACUATION ROUTES AND THEIR CAPACITY, SAFETY AND VIABILITY UNDER A RANGE OF SCENARIOS.

THE SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE IDENTIFIED EVACUATION ROUTES IN COORDINATION WITH THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND UPDATED TABLE SIX THREE AND THE SAFETY ELEMENT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED IN 2011 AND VERIFIED THROUGH THIS UPDATE PROCESS.

SINGLE POINTS OF ENTRY IN HIGH FIRE HAZARD AREAS WERE IDENTIFIED IN A NEW FIGURE.

FIGURE 613 AND IS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE THEN GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 2022 TECHNICAL ADVISORY ON FIRE HAZARD PLANNING.

THE CALIFORNIA BOARD OF FORESTRY FIRE PROTECTION, CAL FIRE, REVIEWED AND SIGNED OFF ON THE SAFETY ELEMENT IN SEPTEMBER 2023, AND THAT WAS WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IN JANUARY 2024.

THE FINAL COMMENT REQUESTS AN EVACUATION STUDY OF THIS BUILDING PRIOR TO APPROVAL.

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD, A REQUIREMENT TO DO AN EVACUATION STUDY.

THEREFORE, IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REQUIRE.

FIRE DID REVIEW AND SIGN OFF ON THE PLANS PROPOSED IN THIS PROJECT.

STAFF HAS REVIEWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA AND UNDER THE PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE PROJECT, BASED UPON THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED, QUALIFIES FOR A CLASS 32 INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXEMPTION.

THE PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED AND DEEMED COMPLETE PRIOR TO THE NEW HOUSING INFILL EXEMPTION THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE LAST SUMMER.

TO QUALIFY FOR THE EXEMPTION, THE PROJECT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AS MODIFIED BY DENSITY BONUS, BE LOCATED WITHIN CITY LIMITS ON A SITE OF NO MORE THAN FIVE ACRES, NOT HAVE BIOLOGICAL, TRAFFIC, NOISE, AIR OR WATER QUALITY IMPACTS. THE STUDIES RELATED TO THIS DRAFT EXEMPTION WERE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE ON MARCH 16TH, 2026 AND SENT VIA EMAIL TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES THAT EXPRESSED INTEREST IN EITHER THIS PROJECT OR OUR NOTICES IN GENERAL.

IF A PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR AN EXEMPTION BY LAW, A CITY HAS TO APPROVE THE EXEMPTION AS NOT APPROVING AN EXEMPTION CAN BE SEEN AS A

[00:45:08]

DISAPPROVAL OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. THE PROJECT WAS ANALYZED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE REQUIRED LAWS, CODES, POLICIES AND STANDARDS AND WITH THE EXCEPTIONS THAT ALL OF THESE STATE LAWS ALLOW THEM ARE CONSISTENT WITH THEM.

THE STAFF REPORT AND RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU TODAY CONTAIN ALL THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS TO SUPPORT OUR RECOMMENDATION.

THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. WE ARE RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT ONE.

WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. IS ANYONE ON THE COUNCIL HAVE ANY DISCLOSURES TO MAKE? MISS BHAT-PATEL? YES. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION.

AND YES, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE APPLICANT AND I SPOKE TO THEM YESTERDAY TO CHECK IN REGARDING THE WAIVERS AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH THAT THEY CONDUCTED.

MISS ACOSTA, THANK YOU. YES. I SPOKE WITH MR. JONATHAN FRANKEL, REPRESENTING THE PROJECT AT THE ART IN THE VILLAGE EVENT ON JUNE 28TH.

HE HAD A BOOTH THERE. MISS BURKHOLDER? YES. THANK YOU.

I HAD A MEETING WITH MR. JONATHAN FRANKEL REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2025. MR.. SHIN. ANY DISCLOSURES? YES. I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH JONATHAN FRANKEL AS WELL, AND IT WAS NOVEMBER 7TH AND I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. FRANKEL, BUT NOT REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? MISS BURKHOLDER? THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE ONE WITH THE HEIGHT WAIVER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THIS PROJECT, DO WE HOW DOES THAT RELATE IN HOW DOES IT DIFFER IN RELATION TO THE SMART AND FINAL PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO BE ACROSS THE STREET? SURE. IT'S SIMILAR TO SMART AND FINAL PROJECT.

BOTH PROJECTS ARE PROPOSING FIVE STORIES IN A ZONE WHERE ONLY FOUR WOULD BE ALLOWED.

THIS PROJECT IS PROPOSING APPROXIMATELY 64FT.

SO IS THE SMART AND FINAL PROJECT. BOTH PROJECTS WILL HAVE ARCHITECTURAL AND EQUIPMENT PROTRUSIONS UP TO APPROXIMATELY 70FT.

THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. THANK YOU. MISS ACOSTA.

THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION AND ALL OF THE INFORMATION.

CAN YOU REMIND US WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION? WHAT KIND OF COMMENTS WE GOT THERE AND WHAT THE VOTE WAS? YEAH. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER. THE, AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE VOTE WAS 6 TO 1 IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT, WITH ONE COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT.

AND MOST OF THE CONCERNS WERE REGARDING HISTORICAL OF THE HISTORICAL NATURE OF THE BUILDING, WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE PRESERVED, THE UNION BANK BUILDING.

THERE'S ALSO CONCERNS REGARDING SOME PARKING ISSUES AS WELL.

THANK YOU. AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THE THAT HISTORICAL NATURE, YOU IT WAS DETERMINED AND IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE PRESENTATION THAT THERE IS NO HISTORICAL DESIGNATION OR ANYTHING FOR THIS BUILDING. IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'S NO HISTORICAL DESIGNATION. WE TREAT THE APPLICANT COMMISSION AND SUBMITTED A HISTORIC REPORT DOCUMENTING THAT.

WE DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S HISTORIC RESOURCE THERE. OKAY, GREAT.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? NOW WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT.

YOU'LL HAVE TEN MINUTES, SIR.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR BLACKBURN AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I'M JONATHAN FRANKEL WITH RINCON HOMES, AND I SERVE AS OUR VICE PRESIDENT OF FORWARD PLANNING. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROJECT THIS EVENING. COUNCIL THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU WILL TRANSFORM A LONG VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED FORMER BANK AND DRIVE THROUGH IN INTO A VIBRANT, MIXED USE COMMUNITY. IT WILL DELIVER BOTH MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SUPPORT OUR LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WITH ON SITE RETAIL AND MAKE SIGNIFICANT FRONTAGE AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS TO BOTH CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND JEFFERSON STREETS.

AS A FIRM, WE BRING SUBSTANTIAL EXPERIENCE IN DESIGNING AND DELIVERING HIGH QUALITY, MIXED USE COMMUNITIES.

THIS WILL BE OUR FOURTH MIXED USE PROJECT IN THE GREATER VILLAGE AREA AND AS A FIRM, WE'VE BEEN WORKING IN THE CITY FOR 15 YEARS.

OUR OFFICE IS JUST SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT SITE AND WE SPEND MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK, WE ARE IN THE VILLAGE AND WE HAVE A GREAT FAMILIARITY WITH IT.

WE FOCUS EXCLUSIVELY ON CREATING FOR SALE COMMUNITIES THAT ALLOW INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES TO REALIZE THE BENEFITS OF HOME OWNERSHIP.

THE STAFF DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF DESCRIBING SOME OF THE PROJECT DETAILS, AND I'M GOING TO TRY AND RESPECT YOUR TIME AND NOT REPEAT THEM.

I DO, HOWEVER, WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW WAYS IN WHICH THIS PROJECT IS UNIQUE.

[00:50:01]

FIRSTLY, AS STAFF DID BRIEFLY MENTION, THE PROJECT SETS ASIDE 30% OF THE BASE DENSITY AS DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THAT IS DOUBLE WHAT IS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCE. AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL, IT IS THE VERY FIRST PROJECT IN THE CITY TO OFFER FOR SALE DEED RESTRICTED HOMES FOR MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES.

WE FREQUENTLY REFER TO THIS INCOME CATEGORY, THESE FOLKS, AS THE MISSING MIDDLE.

THESE WOULD BE TWO TEACHERS OR PUBLIC SAFETY PROFESSIONALS THAT MAKE TOO MUCH TO QUALIFY FOR DEEP SUBSIDIES.

AND BUT TOO LITTLE TO AFFORD A UNIT AT MARKET RATE.

THIS DEMOGRAPHIC IS REALLY UNDERSERVED BY THE MARKETPLACE IN GENERAL.

AND IN FACT, THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN 14 UNITS OF DEED RESTRICTED MODERATE INCOME HOUSING PERMITTED IN THE CITY IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, ALL OF WHICH ARE RENTAL PROJECTS. THERE ARE, OF COURSE, A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE ULTIMATE SALES PRICE OF AN AFFORDABLE UNIT, BUT WE ANTICIPATE THESE HOMES WILL SELL, THESE MODERATE INCOME HOUSES WILL SELL FOR APPROXIMATELY 375 TO $425,000.

AND IN ADDITION TO SERVING MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES FOUR HOMES FOR VERY LOW INCOME FAMILIES.

AND WE ANTICIPATE THESE THESE HOUSES SELL FOR AROUND $150,000.

SECONDLY, IN CONTINUING ON THE THEME OF AFFORDABILITY.

NEARLY 80% OF THE HOMES IN THIS PROJECT ARE 1 OR 2 BEDROOM UNITS.

AND IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, WE'VE SEEN A REAL EXPLOSION OF INTEREST IN SMALLER UNITS FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.

ONE, THEY ARE, OF COURSE, A MORE APPROACHABLE PRICE POINT.

THEY ARE CHEAPER BY DESIGN, ALLOWING BOTH YOUNG FAMILIES AND MOVE DOWN BUYERS, EMPTY NESTERS WHO ARE MOVING OUT OF A LARGER HOME TO GET INTO A NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT.

WE ARE ASKED ALMOST WEEKLY BY THESE FOLKS WHETHER WE HAVE ANY PROJECTS WITH ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS, AND THIS PROJECT RESPONDS DIRECTLY TO THOSE NEEDS.

AND WHAT'S REALLY INTERESTING IS THESE INQUIRIES, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM COME FROM FOLKS THAT ALREADY LIVE IN CARLSBAD.

AND I ACTUALLY ASKED OUR IN-HOUSE SALES TEAM TO PULL OUR RECORDS OVER A NUMBER OF PROJECTS IN THE PAST THREE YEARS.

A MAJORITY OF ALL THE HOMES THAT WE SELL IS SOLD TO A FAMILY THAT ALREADY LIVES HERE IN THE CARLSBAD COMMUNITY.

AND SO BY APPROVING PROJECTS LIKE THESE, YOU ARE VERY MUCH LITERALLY CREATING HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR OWN CONSTITUENTS.

I THINK THERE IS A MISCONCEPTION THAT THESE PROJECTS SERVE FOLKS THAT ARE COMING FROM ELSEWHERE, AND CERTAINLY THAT HAPPENS. BUT AGAIN, WHAT WE SEE IS THERE IS TREMENDOUS DEMAND FROM FOLKS WHO LIVE HERE WHO WANT TO STAY HERE BUT ARE INTERESTED IN NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A DIFFERENT TYPE OF HOUSING. AND CERTAINLY THAT THEN FREES UP THAT HOUSING SUPPLY FOR YOUNGER FAMILIES WHO MAY NEED MORE SPACE TO MOVE INTO THOSE LARGER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

FURTHER, THE PROJECT YOU SEE IS THE RESULT OF SIGNIFICANT ONGOING ENGAGEMENT WITH AREA RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS AND AREA STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING THE EQUITABLE LAND USE ALLIANCE.

AND AS A RESULT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, WE HAVE AGREED TO VOLUNTARILY PROVIDE AN ON SITE BIKE SHARE PROGRAM.

WE HAVE AGREED TO THE CONDITION RESTRICTING SHORT TERM RENTALS LIKE AIRBNBS.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE DESIRE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

AND WE ALSO HAVE EVALUATED ALL OPTIONS TO INCREASE PARKING ON SITE.

WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT PARKING AVAILABILITY IS AN AREA WIDE CONCERN THAT EXTENDS FAR BEYOND ONE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT.

THAT BEING SAID, AS A LOCAL BUSINESS THAT IS DEEPLY INVESTED IN THIS AREA, WE DID EVALUATE ALL OPTIONS TO INCREASE PARKING ON SITE, AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHY WE ADDED ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO OUR PARKING GARAGE AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT, TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE UP TO 23 ADDITIONAL MECHANICAL LIFTS IN OUR GROUND FLOOR PARKING GARAGE.

WHAT THIS WILL ALLOW US TO DO IS TO INCREASE PARKING BY ABOUT 50%, AS COMPARED TO WHAT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SPACES BEING 73. WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THESE POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL SPACES IN OUR OFFICIAL PARKING COUNT IN ORDER TO BE CONSERVATIVE, JUST TO ENSURE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE ELECTRICAL CAPACITY TO SERVE THESE ADDITIONAL MECHANICAL LIFTS.

WE HAVE CONFIRMED THAT AT THIS POINT, AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE 23 ADDITIONAL PARKING SYSTEMS. YOU KNOW, ZOOMING OUT JUST A BIT WE'RE CERTAINLY AWARE THAT AS BUILDERS, AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO WORK WITH ALL PARTIES TO TRY AND ADDRESS PARKING AVAILABILITY IN THE VILLAGE.

WE ARE AWARE OF A NUMBER OF INTERESTING CREATIVE STRATEGIES THAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE EMPLOYED TO ALLEVIATE PRESSURES ON PARKING DEMAND AND TO INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY OF PARKING. AND CERTAINLY, WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY, READY, AND WILLING TO DONATE OUR TIME AND BRING ANY RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE TO THE EXTENT WE COULD BE HELPFUL IN SUPPORTING THE CITY IN THAT EFFORT.

PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL ON US. AGAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROJECT.

OF COURSE, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MR. FRANKEL? MISS BURKHOLDER,

[00:55:03]

THANK YOU, MR. FRANKEL. WHAT IS THE E-BIKE SHARE PROGRAM EXACTLY? SURE. SO WE'VE WE HAVE AN ON SITE BIKE STORAGE SPACE IN THE GROUND FLOOR PARKING GARAGE.

AND SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE WILL PURCHASE, WE THINK THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE 7 TO 10 OF THEM.

WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW BIG THEY ARE AND HOW MUCH WE CAN ACCOMMODATE, AND THAT THOSE WILL BE STORED THERE FOR RESIDENTS, AND THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CHECK THEM IN AND OUT VIA AN APP SYSTEM THAT WE WORK WITH A THIRD PARTY VENDOR TO SUPPLY.

OKAY. HAVE YOU BEEN TO SAN DIEGO AND SEEN THE GREEN E-BIKES EVERYWHERE? I DON'T WANT THAT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS JUST FOR YOUR RESIDENTS AND THEY'LL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THEM BACK TO THE THE BUILDING AND PUTTING THEM BACK IN STORAGE BECAUSE BECAUSE IF THEY'RE ALL OVER THE VILLAGE, THAT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO WORK, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. ABSOLUTELY. AND SO THE APP IS REGISTERED TO AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER.

AND SO WHEN THEY CHECK OUT THE BIKE, IF THEY DON'T BRING IT BACK OR IF THEY LEAVE IT SOMEWHERE THAT'S BOTH GPS ENABLED.

SO WE'LL BE ABLE TO TRACK WHERE IT IS. AND THEY WILL ALSO BE FINED OR CHARGED.

THAT PENALTY WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE CC&RS. OKAY.

AND THEN DID YOU RECEIVE THE EMAILS FROM ELUA? I DID RECEIVE A COPY BEFORE THE MEETING EARLIER TODAY.

YES, WE WERE TALKING WHEN THEY PUT THAT GRAPH OF THE PARKING ON THERE BECAUSE YOU WERE TALKING PRETTY FAST.

I THINK WHAT YOU SAID IS NOW THERE'S 73 SPACES INSTEAD OF 50.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY, SO WE'RE STILL SHORT 37 ACCORDING TO THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID BECAUSE THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY HAD.

BUT I APPRECIATE THAT YOU ARE MAKING THE EFFORT THERE.

THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. MISS ACOSTA, THANK YOU, MR. FRANKEL, FOR THE FOR THE OVERVIEW. AND I WANT TO DRILL DOWN ON THE PARKING A LITTLE BIT MORE, ESPECIALLY THAT 73, NOT JUST THE 50 THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US BY STAFF.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE SPOT WHO THE SPOTS ARE RESERVED FOR.

IF THEY'RE RESIDENT, COMMERCIAL, IF THEY'RE EV NOT.

IF YOU COULD JUST EXPLAIN A LITTLE MORE. THANK YOU. SURE. SO WE'RE STILL WORKING ON IDENTIFYING EXACTLY WHERE IN THE GARAGE EACH ONE OF THE MECHANICAL LIFT SYSTEMS WILL GO.

THEY ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSIGNED TO A RESIDENTIAL UNIT.

SO AN INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE MADE AWARE THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS.

IF THEY WISH IT TO BE INSTALLED, WE WOULD INSTALL IT ON THEIR BEHALF AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BE THERE.

WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT IT WOULD ALSO GO IN THE SAME SPOT AS AN EV CHARGER, BECAUSE THERE COULD BE SOME CONFLICT IN TERMS OF CLEARANCES, VERTICAL CLEARANCE. BUT WE DO KNOW THAT WE DO HAVE 23 SPACES.

AND AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE FOR THE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. OKAY.

SO TO CLARIFY, HOW MANY ARE SET FOR COMMERCIAL.

NONE OF THE MECHANICAL LIFTS WOULD BE INTENDED TO BE FOR THE COMMERCIAL USERS. RIGHT. I'M JUST TRYING TO GO BACKWARDS. SO WHAT WAS THE NUMBER? THERE WERE THERE WERE TWO PARKING SPACES THAT WERE SET ASIDE FOR THE COMMERCIAL. OKAY. ALL THE ALL THE FOLKS THAT WOULD BE GOING TO THE HOW MANY BUSINESS TENANTS, COMMERCIAL TENANTS? THREE. SO WE HAVE ABOUT 3800FT².

EXACTLY HOW THAT GETS DEMISED IT COULD BE THREE. IT COULD BE FOUR SMALLER, YOU KNOW, TENANTS.

IT'S IT'S A LITTLE BIT TO BE DETERMINED. OR THERE COULD BE ONE LARGE TENANT THAT WANTS A LOT OF SPACE, BUT THERE WILL BE TWO PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE IN TOTAL.

OKAY. AND OF COURSE, WE HOPE THAT BUSINESSES ARE SUCCESSFUL AND HAVE MORE THAN TWO GUESTS OR TWO.

YOU KNOW, FOLKS COMING IN TO PURCHASE THINGS OR TO GO DO BUSINESS.

SO WE APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH US ON OTHER PARKING SOLUTIONS FOR THE VILLAGE BECAUSE IT IS A REAL ISSUE.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. FRANKEL IN THE, THE, THE PRESENTATION WE GOT FROM OUR STAFF IS THAT IT WAS 50 PARKING SPOTS. AND YOU'RE REPRESENTING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE 73.

ARE YOU ABLE TO ETCH THIS IN STONE? SO IT'S NOT JUST YOU PRESENTING IT, BUT LATER WE END UP WITH 50.

ARE YOU AGREEABLE TO DOING THAT WITH OUR STAFF? YEAH. WE WOULD BE AGREEABLE. OF COURSE, TO WORK WITH STAFF DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE THAT WE IDENTIFY THOSE WHERE THOSE MECHANICAL LIFTS WILL GO.

ABSOLUTELY. AND STAFF YOU'LL YOU'LL HOLD THEM TO THAT.

WE DO NOT HAVE A CONDITION IN FRONT OF YOU THAT WE COULD ADD TO THE PROJECT.

WE WERE NOT AWARE THAT THE APPLICANT HAD AGREED TO THAT.

WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH THEM, BUT TO BEFORE TODAY THEY WERE NOT WILLING TO AGREE TO PUT IN THOSE SPACES.

ONE OF SO THE PROJECT IN FRONT OF YOU IS 50 SPACES.

IF WE WERE TO WRITE A CONDITION, WE WOULD NEED TO LIKELY GO INTO RECESS TO WRITE SOMETHING TO INCLUDE IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION. I THINK MR. FRANKEL IS A MAN OF HIS WORD. AND IF HE SAYS HE'S GOING TO DO IT, PLEASE HOLD HIM TO THAT.

AND THEN MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS ACCORDINGLY. SO WHEN IF WE CHOOSE TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT, WE COULD THEN TELL YOU TO ADD THOSE 23 UNITS, THOSE 23 SPOTS.

THE, THE, OR WOULD YOU PREFER WE TAKE A QUICK RECESS AND YOU ADD THAT.

I THINK THE BEST WAY, IF YOU WANTED TO CONDITION THE PROJECT WOULD BE TO WRITE A CONDITION.

[01:00:01]

THE PROJECT IN FRONT OF YOU, AS PROPOSED, IS ONLY 50 SPACES, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU WHAT WE'VE PRESENTED.

ANYBODY ON THE COUNCIL HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO A TEN MINUTE BREAK SO THEY CAN DO THAT? OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A TEN MINUTE RECESS FOR YOU TO TAKE CARE OF THAT. WE'LL RECONVENE AT TEN AFTER SIX.

CALLING THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER, MR. FRANKEL.

THANK YOU. SO I DID TALK TO A COUPLE OF MEMBERS OF OUR CONSTRUCTION TEAM.

ONE POINT THEY MADE, WHICH I DID NOT THINK OF, AND I WISH THAT I DID, WAS THAT THERE COULD BE INSTANCES IN WHICH SOME RESIDENTS DO NOT WANT A MECHANICAL LIFT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LARGE TRUCK, OR THEY HAVE A SPRINTER VAN, OR THEY HAVE A VEHICLE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY PRECLUDE THEM FROM PARKING IN THE SPACE. IF THERE WERE A MECHANICAL LIFT.

SO WHAT WE WOULD INTEND TO DO IS TO OFFER THESE 23 UNITS THE ABILITY TO INSTALL A MECHANICAL LIFT.

AND IF THEY, IF THEY DESIRE TO HAVE A LIFT INSTALLED, THAT WILL OCCUR.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'D BE WILLING TO DO. AGAIN, THERE MAY BE SOME INSTANCES IN WHICH FOLKS DO NOT WISH TO DO THAT FOR WHATEVER PERSONAL LIFESTYLE REASON THAT THEY HAVE, BUT WE ARE HAPPY TO AGREE TO A CONDITION THAT WE WILL OFFER LIFTS TO UP TO 23 FUTURE RESIDENTS.

AND THAT WOULD BE OFFERING THEM TO ALL OF THE RESIDENTS, NOT JUST TO 23 SPECIFIC.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES. AND I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK OUT, YOU KNOW, IS THAT A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE BASIS? OBVIOUSLY, UNTIL THEY'RE OUT, I THINK THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE SOME DETAILS THAT WE'D HAVE TO WORK OUT WITH STAFF, BUT WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO OFFER TO THOSE TO 23 MECHANICAL LIFTS TO THE FUTURE RESIDENTS.

MR. LARDY. THAT WE CAN, IF YOU COULD TURN ON, WE DRAFTED A CONDITION BASED ON WHAT WE FIRST HEARD TONIGHT FROM THE APPLICANT RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF THE 23 SPACES. I THINK THERE COULD BE SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS IF THAT'S THE CITY COUNCIL'S DESIRE TO TURN THIS INTO AN OFFERING, I THINK PRACTICALLY IT BECOMES A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT FOR US TO ENFORCE IF IT'S NOT AN ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVE CONDITION, WHICH IS THE STANDARD THAT IS REQUIRED FOR PROJECTS.

THANK YOU AND HELP ME. WHERE DID WE LEAVE OFF? DID ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. FRANKEL? I DO. MISS BURKHOLDER. THANK YOU. JUST BASED ON THIS THESE 23 LIFTS THAT YOU WOULD BE OFFERING, THE TENANT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING FOR THAT, RIGHT? OR ARE YOU GUYS SAYING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO COVER THE COST OF THOSE OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE LIFT? YEAH. I DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT. YEAH. I MEAN, MEANING THE OVERALL PURCHASE PRICE OF THE HOME COULD REFLECT THE INSTALLATION COST OF THE LIFT. IT COULD BE ADDED AS AN OPTION. THERE'S A, THERE'S A NUMBER OF WAYS THAT YOU WOULD STRUCTURE AN AMENITY LIKE THAT.

SO I DON'T KNOW SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. FRANKEL? MISS ACOSTA.

THANK YOU, AND I GUESS I DON'T KNOW WHO THE QUESTION IS REALLY FOR, BUT IF THIS IS NOT CORRECT, MAYBE THIS IS FOR MR. LARDY BECAUSE THEY'RE OFFERING TO OFFER NOT TO INSTALL.

WHAT WOULD THE LANGUAGE BE THEN? WHAT ARE WE CONSIDERING? BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING NOW, I THINK IT WOULD BE PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OF THE FIRST RESIDENTIAL UNIT, THE PROJECT WILL OFFER TO INSTALL MECHANICAL LIFTS 23 SPACES.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT IS AGREEING TO THE CONDITION THAT WE WROTE DURING THE BREAK.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I HATE TO DO THIS. WOULD IT WORK IN EVERYONE'S BEST INTEREST TO TAKE ANOTHER BREAK AND ADJUST THE CONDITION ACCORDINGLY, MR. LARDY? WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT IF THAT'S THE COUNCIL'S PREROGATIVE.

WELL, WE'RE HERE, WE'RE HERE DOING THIS. WE MIGHT AS WELL DO IT RIGHT. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED? FIVE MINUTES. YES, FIVE MINUTES PLEASE. ALL RIGHT.

ANOTHER FIVE MINUTE RECESS. WE'LL CONVENE AT 22 AFTER.

CALLING THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER, MR. FRANKEL, MR. LARDY, EVERYTHING SQUARED AWAY? YES. IF THE CLERK WOULD PUT UP THE CONDITION.

ON THE SCREEN IS THE REVISED CONDITION. BASED UPON THE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY, THE NEW TEXT IS UNDERLINED, ADDING OFFER TO INSTALL AND IF ACCEPTED, INSTALL.

WE DISCUSSED WHETHER HOW WE WOULD GET EVIDENCE OF THAT.

SO WE ADDED A SENTENCE THAT EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY PLANNER.

SO THE CITY COUNCIL COULD INCLUDE THIS IN A RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROJECT TO ADD IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION THAT'S INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT ONE.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. SHIN, JUST CONFIRMING YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE IT SO THAT IT'LL BE THAT THE HEIGHT CLEARANCE AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE UTILITIES FOR THE ELECTRICAL WILL BE PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF IF THE PERSON PRIOR TO OR LIKE, LET'S SAY THEY'RE BUYING IN THAT FIRST PHASE JUST SAYS, I DON'T WANT THIS.

[01:05:05]

IT'LL STILL BE READY AND PLUMBED AS THOUGH THE NEXT BUYER WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

I'M GOING TO OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? THANK YOU MAYOR. AT THIS TIME, THE PUBLIC COMMENT SUBMISSION PERIOD FOR ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS CLOSED.

CHRIS WRIGHT.

THANK YOU COUNCIL. THIS IS THE LOCATION AND PROJECT.

AND THE RENDERING FOR THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE VILLAGE TRAIN STATION AND THEREFORE QUALIFIES FOR AB 2097.

THE CITY ESTABLISHES PARKING POLICIES BASED ON THE EQUAL TREATMENT OF BOTH AFFORDABLE AND MARKET RATE PROJECTS, AND CANNOT IMPOSE A MINIMUM ON SITE PARKING STANDARDS ON PROJECTS THAT QUALIFY.

HOWEVER, THE CITY STILL CONTROLS ITS OWN STREETS AND OFF SITE PARKING.

WE BELIEVE THAT BY ESTABLISHING A POLICY WHERE THE PARKING STANDARD WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL NEW PROJECTS, RESIDENTS WOULD BE BOUND BY THE DECISION MADE BY THE DEVELOPER UPON APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT.

AB 2097 AS WE DISAGREE WITH STAFF AND STATE LAW SUPPORTS THIS.

WE ASK THAT COUNCIL TO CHECK WITH EXPERTS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS LAW PLEASE.

BY APPLYING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS WITH REGARD TO ON SITE PARKING, NOT CONTROLLING THE NUMBER OF SPACES FOR PROJECT, BUT TO PROVIDE POLICY FOR ITS OWN STREET PARKING, THE DEVELOPER STILL HAS A CHOICE OF THE NUMBER OF ON SITE PARKING SPOTS FOR THEIR PROJECT IF THEY DO NOT PROVIDE CITY MINIMUM ON SITE PARKING.

THAT THE CITY POLICY APPLIED TO EQUALLY TO ALL RESIDENTS THAT THEY WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY OFF SITE STREET PARKING PERMITS, SHOULD IN THE FUTURE, THE CITY IMPLEMENT ONE FOR.

THIS IS. THIS IS THE PART FOR THE 840 CVD PROJECT THE DEVELOPER CHOSE TO ELIMINATE 60 ON SITE PARKING SPOTS FROM THE REQUIRED VILLAGE MASTER PLAN OF 110. THEIR CHOICE. THIS PROJECT PROMISES 23 PARKING LIFTS AS WE DISCUSSED, FOR THOSE RESIDENTS WHO WISH TO PAY FOR THEM, THEY ARE NOT PROVIDED. WHY NOT KEEP THE PARKING LIFTS AND ASSIGN ONE OF THE 27 REMAINING PARKING SPOTS TO THE TRUCK DRIVERS THAT MAY NOT WANT A SPOT? THAT'S WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

ACCORDING TO STATE LAW, VEHICLE CODE 22507 CITIES HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CREATE LOCAL PARKING RULES.

WE ARE ASKING THE CITY TO ESTABLISH A POLICY TO BE APPROVED DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT IF A DEVELOPER CHOOSES TO PROVIDE LESS ONSITE PARKING THAN CITY STANDARDS, THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO INFORM FUTURE RESIDENTS BEFORE PURCHASE OR RENT THAT THEY WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR AN OFF SITE CITY PARKING PERMIT IF THE CITY ESTABLISHES ONE IN THE FUTURE. WE ARE ASKING THE COUNCIL TO ASK THE DEVELOPER IF THEY WOULD VOLUNTARILY ACCEPT THIS CONDITION OF APPROVAL.

THE TRAFFIC. THE TRAFFIC REPORT, THE TRAFFIC REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE IN A YEAR.

AT WHICH TIME THE COUNCIL MAY DECIDE TO IMPLEMENT A RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM.

BUT WE ASK THAT YOU DECIDE NOW TO IMPLEMENT A POLICY TO DETER WHAT PROMISES TO BE A HUGE PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE FOR OUR BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS WHO LIVE AND WORK IN THE VILLAGE. ELUA IS OPPOSED TO ANY PROJECT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARD.

LORI ROBBINS.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. I'M HERE TONIGHT REPRESENTING MYSELF.

MY COMMENTS ARE FROM A CARLSBAD CITIZEN'S POINT OF VIEW.

I HAVE WORKED AS A PROFESSIONAL IN ARCHITECTURE FOR OVER 15 YEARS.

COLOR IN ARCHITECTURE IS POWERFUL AND SHOULD HIGHLIGHT AND ENHANCE ARCHITECTURAL FORMS. COLOR SHOULD WORK WITH THE BUILDING TO CREATE RHYTHM, REPETITION, DEPTH, AND ACCENTS.

OUR HISTORIC VILLAGE HAS A PALETTE OF SUBDUED, TRADITIONAL COLORS BLENDED WITH QUALITY CRAFTSMANSHIP.

THE RENDERING THAT IS SHOWN ON THE CITY WEBSITE HAS A LARGE AREA OF BRIGHT YELLOW.

IT DOESN'T COMPLEMENT THE ARCHITECTURE. IT OVERWHELMS IT.

WE ALREADY HAVE A BUILDING THAT IS LARGELY BRIGHT BLUE ON GRAND AVENUE.

[01:10:01]

IF WE GO DOWN THIS PATH, WE WILL END UP WITH ANOTHER STRUCTURE, WHICH WILL FURTHER STRIP AWAY THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

RESIDENTS AND TOURISTS LOVE CARLSBAD VILLAGE BECAUSE OUR STREETS ARE WALKABLE, AUTHENTIC, AND COMFORTABLE. I ASK COUNCIL TONIGHT TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPER TO REEVALUATE THEIR PALETTE TO RESPECT THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT. THANK YOU.

JIM SCANLON.

I'M JIM SCANLON. I'M A LOCAL FROM CARLSBAD. FOR A LONG TIME, I RUN MY OFFICES OUT OF 29, 21 AND 23 HARDING.

I'M ADJACENT TO THIS PROJECT THAT'S GOING IN MY MAIN MR. SCANLON. THANK YOU. I WAS ASKED FOR THE MICROPHONE.

USUALLY MY VOICE IS LOUD ENOUGH. ANYWAY. MOVING ON.

MY MAJOR CONCERN IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE GRIDLOCK IN THAT AREA OF CARLSBAD.

MY OFFICES ARE RIGHT ACROSS THE ALLEYWAY. THE ALLEYWAY HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE PRIMARY ENTRY AND EXIT TO THIS BUILDING, AND IT'S ALSO CURRENTLY PRIMARY TO MY BUILDING AND THREE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THAT AREA.

IT'S NOT JUST THE 50 UNITS. AND IT'S NOT JUST I MEAN, IT ONLY GETS EXACERBATED BY THESE MECHANICAL LIFTS.

PLEASE, I IMPLORE THE CITY COUNCIL, PLEASE DO AN INVESTIGATION ON THIS, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO CREATE MORE GRIDLOCK BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT ONE CAR COMING IN, AND THEY'VE GOT TO GO UPSTAIRS TO GET SOMEBODY DOWNSTAIRS TO MOVE THE CAR DOWN.

LOOK AT THESE MECHANICAL LIFTS. A THEY'RE DANGEROUS.

B THEY'RE EASY TO INSTALL, BUT C IT TAKES TIME TO HAVE ONE GO UP AND GO DOWN.

AND IT WAS REALLY KIND OF I'M FROM THIS TOWN.

IT'S CHEAP TO PRESENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO US AND SAY JUST BECAUSE IT OFFERS ANOTHER 23 SPACES, IT DOESN'T. IT CREATES THE GRIDLOCK. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE CARLSBAD VILLAGE BOULEVARD JAMMED UP ALL THE WAY DOWN TO JEFFERSON AND ACROSS GRAND AVENUE.

THIS IS A MISTAKE. FOR WHATEVER REASON I CAN GET ACROSS.

PLEASE LOOK INTO THE MECHANICAL LIFTS. THEY'RE ALL OVER CARLSBAD.

THEY'RE ALL OVER LAGUNA. BUT THEY MAKE SENSE IN SOME AREAS, THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO MAKE SENSE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT BY RINCON.

AND PLEASE DON'T RUSH THIS. THIS IS THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE.

WE'RE NOT MANHATTAN BEACH. WE DON'T WANT TO BE.

WE LIKE WHO WE ARE. WE'RE PUSHING. YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOSING THE MEXICAN VALUES IN THIS TOWN.

WE'RE PUSHING OUR WAY INTO THE BARRIO. WE'RE LOSING OUR VILLAGE.

I LIVE, I DON'T LIVE THERE, I DO MY OFFICE WORK THERE, BUT I'M AN OWNER, AND I DON'T LIKE THE DIRECTION THAT THIS IS GOING.

YOU CAN'T THROW THAT MANY UNITS UP WITH 50 PARKING SPACES, PLUS ANOTHER 23 FOR THIS MECHANICAL LIFT.

PLEASE LOOK INTO THE MECHANICAL LIFTS. DON'T LET THIS PASS WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE MECHANICAL LIFTS.

AND JUST DO EVERYBODY A FAVOR. I'VE GOT A LOT OF OTHER THINGS I'D LIKE TO MENTION, BUT I THINK THAT COVERS IT.

LOOK AT THAT. UNDER 22 SECONDS. MR. SCANLON, WILL YOU PLEASE TALK TO JEFF MURPHY EFFET ABOUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

AND HE IS THE ONE WHO JUST STOOD UP OVER THERE.

I'M GOING TO STAY AROUND HERE UNTIL WE'RE DONE WITH THIS, AND THEN I'LL MEET YOU OUTSIDE. THIS CONCLUDES OUR IN PERSON SPEAKERS.

DEPUTY CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR ANY VIRTUAL SPEAKERS.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME OR LAST FOUR DIGITS OF YOUR PHONE NUMBER, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX TO UNMUTE.

YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS.

YOU'LL BE MUTED ONCE YOUR THREE MINUTES HAVE CONCLUDED. THE FIRST SPEAKER IS STEVE LINKE.

PLEASE UNMUTE. HELLO, COUNCIL. REGARDING PARKING, THIS PROJECT HAS REFUSED TO VOLUNTARILY PROHIBIT ITS USERS FROM USING OFFSITE PARKING, AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE OTHER PROJECTS IN THE CURRENT REVIEW PIPELINE AND LIKELY MANY, MANY MORE ON THE WAY, PARTICULARLY IN THE VILLAGE AREA WITH REDUCED PARKING.

WE STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH STAFF'S GUESS THAT OUR PROPOSED NEW REDUCED PARKING POLICY MAY VIOLATE STATE LAW.

FOR ALL THE REASONS I STATED EARLIER, PLEASE JUST DIRECT THEM TO SEND THE INFORMATION TO HCD FOR REVIEW IF YOU REALLY THINK THAT'S NECESSARY.

AND REGARDING SAFETY, THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW CRITERIA THAT'S STILL YOU'RE STILL ALLOWED TO REVIEW A PROJECT FOR.

EVACUATION CAPACITY AND EMERGENCY ACCESS DURING EVACUATIONS ARE CRITICAL AREAS RELATED TO SAFETY, BUT THE STREET CAPACITY CLAIMED IN CARLSBAD'S GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT IS EXAGGERATED, EXAGGERATED TO AN ASTONISHING LEVEL. IT ASSUMES EVERY TRAFFIC LANE IN CARLSBAD CAN CARRY 1800 VEHICLES PER LANE PER HOUR.

[01:15:05]

THAT'S FREEWAY LEVELS WITH NO INTERSECTIONS. THIS FRAUDULENT NUMBER WAS DISCREDITED BY ME AND MULTIPLE TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS HIRED BY THE CITY OVER A DECADE AGO. THAT CAPACITY LEVEL IS 3 TO 4 TIMES HIGHER THAN WHAT THE LANES AND CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND TAMARACK AVENUE CAN ACCOMMODATE.

YES, THE CITY APPARENTLY GOT SIGN OFF FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES ON THE SAFETY, BUT THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF THIS EXAGGERATED CAPACITY, SO DON'T PUT RESIDENTS AT RISK.

ACCURATELY ASSESS THE CAPACITY OF THE EVACUATION STREET NETWORK.

REVISE THE PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT. IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THIS PROJECT, BUT AS MORE AND MORE PROJECTS ENTER THE PIPELINE, WE REALLY NEED TO ADDRESS THIS SAFETY ISSUE. THANK YOU.

THAT CONCLUDES ALL SPEAKERS ON ITEM SEVEN. THANK YOU.

CLOSING PUBLIC TESTIMONY TO STAFF OR APPLICANT HAVE ANY RESPONSES.

MR. FRANKEL SAYS NO. STAFF? WE DO NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION. ANYBODY WANT TO HAVE ANY ANY COMMENTS? MISS BURKHOLDER? OH, SURE. OKAY. THIS IS COMMENTS.

MISS ACOSTA. THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION THAT CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT, AND IT WAS ABOUT THE COLOR PALETTE. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.

WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. WAS THERE ANYTHING IN OUR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT REFERENCED THE COLOR PALETTE AND THE COLORS THAT THE BUILDINGS COULD BE PAINTED? AND IS THIS OUTSIDE OF THAT? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

THIS PROJECT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.

IT'S AN SB 330 PROJECT, AND THE SB 330 PRE-APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS BEING ADOPTED IN THE COASTAL ZONE. SO WE ARE NOT ABLE TO APPLY THOSE STANDARDS TO THIS PROJECT.

SO WE DO HAVE THOSE STANDARDS FOR THINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AFTER AFTER THE DATE THAT WE PASSED THOSE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.

SO THERE IS A COLOR PALETTE FOR THAT, BUT THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO THAT.

THERE ARE GENERAL COLOR PALETTES TO THAT. SO YES, WE THAT IS EFFECTIVE AND ANY NEW PROJECTS BEING SUBMITTED IN THE VILLAGE.

THERE'S OUR SPECIFIC ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS. BUT AS SENIOR PLANNER SAID, THEY'RE NOT APPLYING TO THIS PROJECT.

GREAT. I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR WITH THE PUBLIC THAT WE CANNOT MAKE THAT CHANGE.

WE'RE NOT REQUIRED. WE CANNOT REQUIRE THEM TO MAKE A COLOR CHANGE.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. SHIN? YEAH, I THINK THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE KIND OF HAMSTRUNG WITH THIS BECAUSE OF STATE LAWS. AND I THINK I, I FEEL THE PAIN OF WHAT SOME OF THE THOSE THAT CAME UP AND PUBLICLY SPOKE ABOUT PROJECTS LIKE THIS, I, I KIND OF SCRATCHED MY HEAD AND WONDER WITH MORE DENSITY ALONG THE COASTLINE, KIND OF USING THE LOW SAND RAIL AS THAT JUSTIFICATION.

SHOW ME WHERE IN THIS STATE THAT MORE DENSITY HAS CAUSED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

IT JUST DOESN'T. IT BAFFLES ME, BUT IT'S ALSO A SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE INLAND CITIES WHEN YOU SAY IT SHOULD ALL GO THERE.

SO THIS IS THE REGIONALLY, THIS IS KIND OF THE TENSION THAT TAKES PLACE.

LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN SANDAG, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH RHNA NUMBERS AND WHERE THINGS ARE GETTING ALLOCATED.

BUT WHEN YOU JUST LOOK FAR UP AND YOU GO ON THE MACRO, YOU REALLY HAVE TO GO, HOW DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? HOW DO YOU USE THE LOW SAND RAIL SYSTEM WHERE YOU'RE ALSO HUGGING ALONG THE COASTAL SIDE? THAT IS BEING ERODED. AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION IS SAYING YOU CAN'T HARDEN THAT AREA, BUT WE'RE GOING TO STACK THE MOST AMOUNT OF UNAFFORDABLE HOMES IN THIS AREA. THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE LEVEL OF TOURISM THAT SHOWS UP, IT'S NOT JUST THE FACT THAT WE'RE GOING TO LIMIT OURSELVES WITH VEHICLES. IT'S THE FACT THAT TOURISTS SHOW UP WITH VEHICLES, AND THEN WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PARK IN IN THE PUBLIC STREETS.

SO I FEEL THE PAIN FOR ALL OF THIS. THIS IS, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE SOME OF OUR MY COLLEAGUES TO THE RIGHT ARE GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING, WHICH WE ARE KIND OF HAMSTRUNG WITH THE STATE LAWS, THE ARGUMENTS THAT YOU WANT TO SAY IT'S WE ADVOCATE WHERE WE CAN, BUT IT IS REALLY UP TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO SEE THESE CHANGES, TO ALSO VOICE IT OUTSIDE OF THIS PLACE.

IT SHOULD BE TAKEN UP TO YOUR YOUR STATE LAWMAKERS AS WELL.

THAT'S ALL. MISS ACOSTA, THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR YOUR WORK IN PUTTING THIS TOGETHER AND TO THE COMMUNITY FOR SPEAKING UP AND SHARING THEIR CONCERNS. AND I KNOW THAT THAT THE DEVELOPER INCLUDED THAT INFORMATION AND MADE SOME CONCESSIONS OVERALL IN THE BIG PICTURE. WE DO HAVE A HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS IN THE STATE, AND STATE LAWMAKERS ARE ATTEMPTING TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE BY IMPOSING BLANKET LAWS ACROSS THE ENTIRE STATE AND BASICALLY SAYING THAT WE CANNOT REFUSE,

[01:20:08]

WE CANNOT REFUSE PROJECTS, AND IN FACT, GIVING ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPERS TO ADD MORE UNITS AND GO HIGHER.

OBVIOUSLY, AS COASTAL CITIES IN CALIFORNIA, WE HAVE ISSUES WITH SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

THE DENSITY, WE MAY NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THAT KIND OF DENSITY AND THE HEIGHT.

YOU KNOW, WE WERE NOT BUILT TO HAVE THAT KIND OF HEIGHT.

WE HAD A HOUSING CAP IN OUR ORIGINAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT ANYMORE BECAUSE THE STATE TOOK THAT AWAY.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE STATE HAS A GOAL OF OF SOLVING THE HOUSING CRISIS BY ALLOWING FOR MORE BUILDING.

BUT PART OF THE REASON I'M SO INVOLVED WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IS I THINK THAT WE AS LOCAL COMMUNITIES NEED TO PRESERVE OUR LOCAL CONTROL AND BE ABLE TO SAY NO AND NEGOTIATE BETTER WITH SOME OF OUR DEVELOPERS ON SOME THINGS.

NOT THAT WE'RE SAYING 100%. NO, BUT LET'S NEGOTIATE.

LET'S TALK. AND RIGHT NOW WE ARE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT IN A LOT OF WAYS.

SO WITH THIS PROJECT, I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THIS, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF STATE LAW AND IT IS NOT ONE THAT WE CAN REFUSE. THAT SAID, I DO APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER IS TRYING TO ASSIST US ON THE FLY WITH SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOTS BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S SUCH A BIG PROBLEM FOR US.

BUT THERE'S NOT A WAY THAT WE CAN STOP THIS. THE, THE WAY THAT WE STOP THIS IS BY CHANGING THE LAWS IN SACRAMENTO AT THE STATE LEVEL. AND THAT WILL REQUIRE A LOT OF WORK FROM ALL THE CITIES OF CALIFORNIA TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO RESTORE LOCAL CONTROL.

SO WE'RE WORKING ON THAT AND I'M WORKING ON THAT, BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE OUR STAFF, OUR TEAM, AND OUR COMMUNITY TRYING TO PARTNER TOGETHER TO TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.

THANK YOU, MISS BHAT-PATEL. YES. THANK YOU. FIRST OFF, THANK YOU TO OUR STAFF AND THANK YOU TO ALL THOSE THAT HAVE CORRESPONDED WITH US, WHETHER YOU WROTE IN OR YOU SHOWED UP TODAY. APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT YOU'VE TAKEN TO BE HERE AND CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE.

AND I HAVE TO SAY, IT ALWAYS ALLOWS US TO MAKE BETTER DECISIONS WHEN YOU ALL ARE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS.

SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. I WANT TO, YOU KNOW, REALLY TALK ABOUT THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK HERE BECAUSE I DO THINK IT MATTERS.

THE PROJECT IS ENTITLED UNDER THE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

WE HEARD THAT TODAY ALONG WITH SB 330 AND AB 2097, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT MET THAT AFFORDABILITY THRESHOLD WITH EIGHT DEED RESTRICTED UNITS. STATE LAW REQUIRES US TO GRANT THOSE WAIVERS THEY'VE REQUESTED UNLESS WE CAN POINT TO A SPECIFIC.

AND YOU HEARD IT RIGHT, THE EVIDENCE BASED PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY IMPACT THAT CAN'T BE ADDRESSED ANY OTHER WAY.

SO THAT'S A REALLY YOU KNOW, I WAS SITTING THERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, OKAY, WHAT CAN BE DONE.

AND THAT'S THE REAL NARROW LEGAL STANDARD. AND IT'S WHY YOU KNOW, TONIGHT'S VOTE ISN'T REALLY A REFERENDUM ON WHETHER WE LIKE THE PROJECT SIZE.

I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS COME UP QUITE A BIT.

AND I JUST WANTED TO REEMPHASIZE THAT. I THINK ONE THING THAT I ALSO WANTED TO EMPHASIZE IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS A LOCAL BUILDER, AND THEY ARE USING THE TOOLS THAT THE STATE CREATED, AND ANY APPLICANT IN THEIR POSITION WOULD END UP UTILIZING THEM.

SO, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THE LETTER THAT CAME FROM YOU BECAUSE I THINK IT ASKS SOME GOOD QUESTIONS.

NOT THEY'RE, THEY'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW, WHAT CAN WE ASK FOR VERSUS JUST DENYING THE PROJECT.

AND I KNOW SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED DURING OUR PRESENTATION TODAY.

I DO WANT TO ASK A QUESTION OF OUR CITY MANAGER, AND YOU CAN LET ME KNOW HOW WHAT YOU THINK IS BEST.

AND IT'S MAYBE IT'S MORE OF A COMMENT AND THEN YOU CAN LET ME KNOW HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.

BUT I KNOW WE CAN'T REQUIRE PARKING CONDITIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THE YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE RECEIVE FROM EQUITABLE LAND USE ALLIANCE FOR THIS PROJECT.

BUT IT IS AN IDEA THAT I THINK WOULD BE INTERESTING TO LOOK AT FURTHER.

SO I KNOW WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT, YOU KNOW, A HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH I KNOW WE'VE BEEN HEARING HCD, AS THE ACRONYM, HAS BROAD AUTHORITY OVER HOW CITIES REGULATE HOUSING PROJECTS.

SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU COULD IF THERE IS A WAY FOR US TO SHARE THE PARKING PROPOSAL TO HCD THAT ELUA HAD PRESENTED AND ASKED WHETHER THE CITY COULD REQUIRE A SIMILAR CONDITION FOR FUTURE HOUSING PROJECTS, AND THEN REPORT BACK ON WHAT HCD'S RESPONSE WOULD BE.

I'M HAPPY TO SEND A LETTER TO HCD AND SHARING A PROPOSAL RELATED TO PARKING AND TO GET SOME FEEDBACK IF YOU'D LIKE.

OUR STAFF HAS LOOKED AT THIS. BUT IF, IF THAT'S COUNCIL'S WILL TO, FOR ME TO HAVE HCD REVIEWED AS WELL, I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO DO THAT. WE COULD DO THAT AS FORM, AS A MOTION AS PART OF THIS.

[01:25:03]

OR I COULD JUST YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT THAT I'M. I WILL MOVE FORWARD AND DO THAT. SO IT'S WHATEVER THE COUNCIL'S PLEASURE IS. IF YOU.

I'LL LOOK AT THE CITY ATTORNEY. IF YOU'D LIKE A FORMAL MOTION.

I'M HAPPY TO MAKE THAT ONE. AGAIN, I THINK THAT THE CITY MANAGER WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEEK THAT GUIDANCE WITHOUT COUNCIL DIRECTION.

OKAY. AND IF HE'S COMMITTING TO DOING IT, HE CAN DO IT.

IT IS ON THE RECORD. THANK YOU, MR. PATNOE. WELL, I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE. WE HAVE A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND IT JUST MAKES SO MUCH SENSE.

AND THE RESIDENTS VOTED ON IT. IT SAYS WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD MORE AND FASTER THAN WHAT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE CAN HANDLE.

AND IT'S SO FRUSTRATING TO HAVE STATE LAWMAKERS IN SACRAMENTO SAY, TOO BAD WE DON'T CARE.

YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS. WE DECIDED YEARS AGO THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE OF PROPERTY, 25 UNITS WAS THE APPROPRIATE, APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF UNITS TO HAVE THEIR STATE CAME IN AND SAID, NO, WE'RE DOING SUCH A GOOD JOB OF RUNNING THE STATE.

WE WANT TO RUN YOUR CITY ALSO, AND WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW DEVELOPERS WITH, IF THEY DO CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS, WE'RE GOING TO LET THEM TO DOUBLE THE DENSITY ON SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES.

I THINK IT'S DISGUSTING. I THINK IT'S COWARDICE OF THE STATE TO DO THAT AND THEN TO TELL US WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT AND WE HAVE TO VOTE YES.

AND IF WE DON'T VOTE YES, THERE'S CONSEQUENCES GO NO FURTHER THAN HUNTINGTON BEACH, WHO HAD THE GUTS TO PUSH BACK.

AND THE STATE'S MAKING A HUGE EXAMPLE OF THEM, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY'RE HAVING TO SPEND TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST THE STATE AND LOSING AT EVERY SINGLE TURN. IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING TO THIS COUNCIL.

THE ENTIRE COUNCIL DOESN'T WANT TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO BY THE STATE.

WE WANT TO MAKE THE DECISIONS WE THINK ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY.

AND WE'RE TOLD, TOO BAD. AND IF YOU WANT TO LOOK UP SOME OF THE MOST RIDICULOUS CLAIMS THAT THE STATE IS GOING TO MAKE.

IF WE DON'T FOLLOW THIS LOOK UP BUILDER'S REMEDY.

IT'S THE MOST RIDICULOUS THING SAYING WE'RE GOING TO.

WE'RE GOING TO. IF YOU DON'T SAY YES, WE'RE GOING TO DECERTIFY YOUR HOUSING ELEMENT.

AND IN SOME CASES, DEVELOPERS CAN THEN FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES ON EVERYTHING.

IT'S JUST GOTTEN WORSE AND WORSE. AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL THINKS THAT WHAT THE STATE'S DOING IS A GOOD IDEA.

I'M NOT TAKING THIS OUT ON THE DEVELOPER, BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER IS JUST FOLLOWING THE LAWS THAT THE STATE HAS HANDED TO HIM, BUT I AM GOING TO ASK HIM TO DO EVERYTHING HE CAN IN HIS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY AND TO BE THE BEST NEIGHBOR POSSIBLE.

I KNOW THERE'S NOT A LOT OF CHANGES YOU CAN DO.

THERE'S NO ROOM FOR YOU TO PUT MORE PARKING OR MORE ENTRANCES AND EXITS, BUT MAYBE THERE'S LITTLE THINGS LIKE THE COLORS COULD ALWAYS CHANGE LATER AND THINGS LIKE THAT, JUST TO BE A BETTER NEIGHBOR.

IT KILLS ME TO HAVE TO SAY YES TO THESE PROJECTS, BUT THE STATE HAS MANDATED THAT WE SAY YES TO THEM.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL STOP THERE. MISS BURKHOLDER, THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUE FOR TAKING AB 2097 FURTHER INQUIRY OFF OF MY LIST. IT WAS LITERALLY THE FIRST THING ON MY COMMENTS, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION. SOME DISCUSSION FROM YOU TONIGHT WAS RELATIVE TO EXCLUDING TENANTS TO ON STREET PARKING, SHOULD WE HAVE A PARKING PROGRAM IN THE FUTURE? AND I BELIEVE THIS MIGHT BE FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY BECAUSE I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE THAT'S NOT A DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE.

I WANTED TO CHECK WITH YOU. YOU MAY BE RIGHT ABOUT THAT, COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BEFORE WE EVEN GO DOWN THAT PATH, YOU NEED TO CLEAR IS IT A VIOLATION OF AB 2097? RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHAT HCD CAN TELL US. AND THEN WE CAN VET IT FURTHER IF COUNCIL WANTS TO PURSUE IT.

OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING QUESTIONS WHICH ARE DEFINITELY ON MY LIST PRIOR TO YOUR PRESENTATION STAFF. SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

WHILE THE COLOR PALETTE IS LESS THAN DESIRABLE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LOCATION ARE WELCOMED.

AND I THINK RINCON GOT SOME THINGS RIGHT, LIKE THE FOR SALE DEED RESTRICTED UNITS, WHICH ARE NEEDED FOR SURE.

HOWEVER, IT SOUNDS LIKE THOSE 23 SPACES WILL BE BASED ON A TENANT REQUEST AT AN ADDITIONAL COST.

AND WHILE YOUR CITY, WHILE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH THE CITY FOR FUTURE PARKING SPACES IS NICE, IT'S NOT ENOUGH. WHILE AB 2097 RESTRICTS THE CITY ON PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THE ONLY REAL THING THAT RESTRICTS OR PREVENTS THE

[01:30:01]

APPLICANT FROM PROVIDING ADEQUATE PARKING IS COST.

PARKING IN THE VILLAGE, OR LACK THEREOF, IS THE COMMON COMPLAINT OF RESIDENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AND IT'S DEFINITELY MUCH MORE CONCENTRATED IN THE VILLAGE.

SO I THINK LET THIS BE A LESSON TO ALL OF THOSE WHO DON'T LIKE THIS, TO TALK TO YOUR STATE LAWMAKERS, FOR THE REASONS THAT WERE MENTIONED TONIGHT RELATIVE TO PARKING ESTHETICS.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE PROJECT, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE STATE LAWS THAT RESTRICT US FROM DENYING PROJECTS IN THE CITY.

I WAS NOT ELECTED TO REPRESENT SACRAMENTO. I WAS ELECTED TO REPRESENT THE VILLAGE AND THE BARRIO.

AND THIS IS NOT A PROJECT THAT FOLKS WANT. SO THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MOTION? YES. WITH ALL OF OUR COMMENTS NOTED, ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE. WELL, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION MUCH EASIER BECAUSE IT'S VERY LONG HERE WITH THE AMENDMENTS.

YEAH. CORRECT. YES. WITH THE AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU.

YEAH. IF YOU'D LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER, A PROPOSED MOTION COULD BE TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION IN EXHIBIT ONE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE PARKING CONDITION AS PROPOSED BY STAFF AND AGREED TO BY THE PROJECT APPLICANT. SO MOVED.

SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES 4 TO 1. NOTING MS. BURKHOLDER'S COMMENTS. THAT BRINGS US TO THE CONCLUSION OF OUR AGENDA.

MR. SHIN, ANY CLOSING REMARKS? HAVE A GOOD MONTH OFF, EVERYBODY.

[COUNCIL COMMENTARY AND REQUESTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS]

APPRECIATE YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MS. BURKHOLDER. WELL, WE WERE AT ALWAYS HUNGRY FOR THE RIBBON CUTTING THERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN THERE OR NOT, BUT IT'S AT 451 WHERE FAHRENHEIT BOOKS USED TO BE, AND IT'S A LOVELY LITTLE DROP AND GRAB, DROP IN AND GRAB A GROCERY.

GREAT LOCATION IF YOU'RE HEADING TO THE BEACH AND JUST NEED A SNACK OR SOMETHING, OR IF YOU'RE PLANNING SOMETHING VERY FANCY AT HOME, THEY MIGHT HAVE WHAT YOU NEED THERE TOO. MR. SHIN AND I WILL BE DOING THE VETERANS PARK AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING AT 5 P.M.

TOMORROW EVENING AND TGIF CONCERT SERIES STILL GOING ON AT CALAVERA THIS WEEK.

I'LL BE THERE NEXT WEEK TO INTRODUCE THE BAND.

HAVE A GREAT MONTH OF AUGUST AND WE'LL SEE YOU WHEN WE GET BACK, MISS ACOSTA.

THANK YOU. WE HAD OUR WATER AUTHORITY BOARD MEETING.

MR. SHIN WAS ABLE TO ATTEND HIS FIRST MEETING LAST THURSDAY.

WE WENT OVER OUR AQUEDUCT AND OUR COLORADO RIVER PLAN.

WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN AT THE WATER AUTHORITY TO KEEP RATES LOW, AND WE ARE GETTING FINALLY SOME TRACTION WITH THAT.

SO THAT HAS BEEN REALLY POSITIVE. I ALSO ATTENDED THE ROTARY'S FOOD AND FOOD YEAH.

FOOD FESTIVAL. IT WAS KIND OF A BIT OF A TASTE OF LOCAL RESTAURANTS IN CARLSBAD THE OTHER DAY.

AND THERE WERE SEVERAL COLLEAGUES. I KNOW WE NOTICED IT AT THE LAST MEETING.

SEVERAL COLLEAGUES UP HERE WERE THERE TOO. SO THAT WAS REALLY POSITIVE.

WATER MEETINGS CONTINUE, AND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES MEETINGS CONTINUE IN AUGUST EVEN THOUGH COUNCIL IS OFF.

SO I HOPE SOME PEOPLE GET TO HAVE A NICE BREAK.

I WILL CONTINUE WORKING HERE AND I WILL POST THINGS ON MY SOCIAL MEDIA SO PEOPLE CAN SEE WHAT I'M DOING.

THANK YOU, MISS BHAT-PATEL. YES. THANK YOU. I HAVE CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING THIS WEEK.

AND THEN YES, I ALSO HAVE WHETHER IT'S CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE OR CAL CITIES OR A FEW OTHER MEETINGS HERE AND THERE, I'LL ALSO BE WORKING THROUGHOUT THE NEXT MONTH.

BUT OTHERWISE I'M SAD I MISSED THE EVENT ON SATURDAY.

I WAS ON FOR WATCHING MY KIDDOS, AND SINCE IT WAS A 21 PLUS EVENT, I COULDN'T ATTEND, BUT IT SOUNDED AND LOOKED LIKE AN AMAZING EVENT.

CITY MANAGER. I JUST WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO CONGRATULATE LAURA ROCHA, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER,

[CITY MANAGER COMMENTS]

ON HER RETIREMENT. SHE'S BEEN A HUGE ASSET TO THIS ORGANIZATION AND TO ME PERSONALLY IN THE LAST SIX AND A HALF YEARS.

SO CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU. I DO ALSO WANT TO THANK TOM MALLORY FROM OUR COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.

HE'S SITTING HERE IN THE BACK. HE IS A SILENT HERO TO ALL OF US HERE IN THE ORGANIZATION.

HE TOO IS RETIRING NEXT MONTH. THIS IS HIS LAST COUNCIL MEETING AS WELL.

AND TOM IS ONE WHO REVIEWS ALMOST EVERY EVERY SINGLE STAFF REPORT THAT COMES THROUGH.

WE PUT HIS DECADES OF SERVICE AS A FORMER UNION TRIBUNE WRITER TO TO TASK BY HELPING US CONVERT COMPLICATED CONTENT AND ENGINEER, SPEAK INTO NORMAL PERSON SPEAK.

AND, TOM, I'M INCREDIBLY GRATEFUL FOR YOUR HELP AND SERVICE.

[01:35:03]

THANK YOU. CITY ATTORNEY. NOTHING. THANK YOU.

CITY CLERK. ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR ANY, SORRY. ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR

[ANNOUNCEMENTS]

WHERE YOU MIGHT FIND MORE THAN TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS? WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12TH AT 3:00 WILL BE THE CORVETTE GUINNESS WORLD RECORD EVENT.

THAT'S GOING TO BE AT THE SHOPPES AT CARLSBAD, 2525 EL CAMINO REAL IN CARLSBAD.

LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT THAT. I MET THIS MAN WHO'S 94 YEARS OLD, AND HE'S GOING TO BE PUT INTO THE GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS AS THE OLDEST LIVING ORIGINAL PURCHASER OF A 57 CORVETTE, AND HE LIVES RIGHT HERE IN CARLSBAD.

AND THAT MEANS HE BOUGHT IT. WHAT, NOBODY TOLD ME THERE'D BE MATH, BUT I THINK THAT MEANS, LIKE, 70 YEARS AGO. AND HE'S STILL THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF IT.

AND THEN ON SUNDAY, AUGUST 16TH AT 9:00 AM IS THE RODEO.

AND THAT'S AN EVENT FROM REPUBLIC SERVICES THAT'S GOING TO BE REPUBLIC SERVICES WITH THEIR TRASH TRUCKS DOING A DRIVING RODEO.

THAT'LL BE INTERESTING. THAT'S GOING TO BE AT THE SHOPPES AT CARLSBAD, 2525 EL CAMINO REAL IN CARLSBAD.

AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WEREN'T HERE AT 3:00, WE HAVE TWO NEW HONOREES WHO ARE JOINING THE ELITE CLUB OF VOLUNTEERS AND CITIZENS OF THE YEAR IN CARLSBAD.

AND CONGRATULATIONS TO ROSEMARY ESHELMAN AND TO KAREN PEARSON.

THEY WERE BOTH SELECTED AND HONORED TODAY AS CITIZENS OF THE YEAR.

WE'RE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Jul 28, 2026 City Council Meeting

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item