[00:00:04] GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO THE AUGUST 5TH, 2026 MEETING OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES, CLERK, WOULD YOU TAKE THE ROLL, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. HERE. COMMISSIONER MERZ. HERE. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BURROWS. PRESENT. VICE CHAIR FOSTER. HERE. CHAIR MEENES. PRESENT. ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT. I WILL HAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE GIVEN BY COMMISSIONER BURROWS. READY? BEGIN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] OKAY, NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 1ST, 2026 MEETING. COMMISSIONERS, ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF JULY 1ST? OKAY, WITH THAT IN MIND, I WAS ABSENT ON JULY 1ST, SO I WILL ABSTAIN FROM APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. SEEING NONE, MAY I HAVE A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES? COMMISSIONER BURROWS MAKES THE MOTION. SECOND. COMMISSIONER MERZ MAKES THE SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. OKAY. WE HAVE FIVE MEMBERS THAT WERE PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MEENES ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE WAS NOT HERE, AND COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY WAS ABSENT AS WELL. ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. [PUBLIC COMMENT] THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT THIS EVENING. WE WILL REQUIRE A REQUEST-TO-SPEAK FORM FOR ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS. REQUEST FORMS MUST BE TURNED IN TO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING. ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES, UNLESS THE TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON. SPEAKERS MAY NOT GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANY OTHER SPEAKER. GROUP TIME WILL BE PERMITTED FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA. THE REPRESENTATIVE MUST IDENTIFY THE GROUP. AND AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS OF THAT GROUP MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE MEETING FOR THE PRESENTATION TO BE MADE. THOSE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP HAVE TEN MINUTES, UNLESS THE TIME IS CHANGED BY THE CHAIRPERSON. THE MINUTES CLERK WILL CALL THE NAMES OF THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN THE ORDER THE REQUEST TO SPEAK ARE RECEIVED. THE BROWN ACT ALLOWS ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY PROVIDING COMMENTS AS PROVIDED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE AGENDA. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED, UP TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. ALL OTHER NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD AT THE END OF THE MEETING. IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT, NO ACTION CAN OCCUR ON THOSE ITEMS. WHEN MAKING YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE TREAT OTHERS WITH COURTESY, CIVILITY, AND RESPECT. WE ASK THAT YOU REFRAIN FROM CLAPPING DURING THE MEETING AND STARTING WITH NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS WILL HELP MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE'S BUSINESS CAN BE CONDUCTED EFFECTIVELY AND THAT THIS CHAMBER IS A PLACE WHERE ALL POINTS OF VIEW ARE WELCOMED AND RESPECTED. MINISTER CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS? YES, CHAIR, WE HAVE ONE. WILL SARAH WRIGHT COME TO THE PODIUM? GOOD EVENING. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, AND WOULD YOU PROVIDE YOUR NAME? HI. MY NAME IS SARAH WRIGHT, AND I LIVE ON STATE STREET. I LIVE ON THE WEST SIDE OF STATE STREET, AND TONIGHT I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF PERSPECTIVE AS A WHEELCHAIR USER THAT'S TRYING TO REMAIN TO HAVE ACCESS ON STATE STREET. SLOWLY AND SURELY, MY ACCESS ON THE ROAD, ON THE SIDEWALK, HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM ME, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE COUNCIL IS AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING, PROBABLY BECAUSE THESE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED OVER TIME. I'VE LIVED ON STATE STREET FOR EIGHT YEARS. I'M IN MY FOREVER HOME. I'M NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE WHOLE WORLD. I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP ACCESS ON MY SIDE OF THE STREET. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT'S HAPPENING IS WITH WILDLAND THAT OPENED, I LIVE RIGHT ACROSS FROM WILDLAND, AND THERE'S NO PARKING FOR THEM, AND IT'S CREATED THIS CONSTANT U-TURN. WE'VE HAD PEOPLE KNOCK DOWN OUR POLES. THEY'RE RUNNING INTO OUR DRIVEWAYS. I'VE BEEN CONSTANTLY, CONSTANTLY ALMOST HIT, WHETHER I'M ON MY TRICYCLE OR IN MY WHEELCHAIR. [00:05:02] IT'S A LOT. BUT GOING DOWN THE STREET ON MY SIDE OF THE STREET, I TRY AND PASS THE ROAD, BUT THERE'S NO MORE PARKING FOR JUNE AND JOLIE BECAUSE THEIRS WAS GIVEN UP TO DURING COVID FOR OUTSIDE SEATING. SO THERE'S A LOT OF CARS THAT ARE DISHEVELED IN THAT AREA AS WELL. I MOVE FORWARD, AND I HAVE CACTUS THAT ARE JUMPING OUT OF THE SIDEWALK. I GO DOWN THE ROAD, AND THERE'S A BIG CURB CUTOUT THAT'S TOO EGREGIOUS AND STEEP AND WILL THROW ME OUT RIGHT AT THE THEATER INTO THE HANDEL'S ICE CREAM LINE WHERE THIS IS I'M NO LONGER ALLOWED TO USE THE SIDEWALK IF THERE'S ANY SORT OF LINE. I'VE EVEN HAD A GENTLEMAN THIS SUMMER WHEN I WAS TRYING TO COME BACK UP THE CURB CUT AT HANDEL'S. HIS KIDS WERE SITTING DOWN ON THE CURB EATING ICE CREAM, AND HE SAID, IF I DIDN'T PAY SO MUCH FOR THIS ICE CREAM, I WOULD HAVE THROWN THIS IN YOUR FACE JUST BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO USE THE SIDEWALK. AND THERE'S THE SHORELINE, SHOREHOUSE RESTAURANT HAS A HARD FENCE. THEY ONLY USE IT DURING THE MORNING. I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY NEED IT ALL DAY WHEN HANDEL'S NEEDS THAT SPACE AT NIGHT. HANDEL'S ICE CREAM, THEIR CHAIRS ARE MOVING AROUND. I'M ALMOST DOWN THE WHOLE BLOCK. AND THEN HANDEL'S DENIES ME SERVICE AT THEIR ADA WINDOW. I HAVE THE NAME OF THE GENTLEMAN WHO DID THAT. HE SAID THIS IS FOR PICKUP TAKEOUT ONLY. SO MY POINT IS THAT BETWEEN ALL THESE RESTAURANTS THAT ARE ON THE SIDEWALK FROM THE PEOPLE THAT ARE USING THE SIDEWALK, THEY NO LONGER WANT TO LET ME DOWN THE SIDEWALK, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO JALISCO WHO HAS OUTDOOR SEATING NOW WITH FLOWER POTS ON THE FRONT THAT WANT TO TAKE MY FACE OFF, AS WELL AS A C-BAR THAT FORCES ME ONLY TO HAVE A TREE WELL TO GO ACROSS. SO PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN YOU'RE APPROVING ANY TYPE OF ADDITION ON STATE STREET, ANY KIND OF ADDITION, BECAUSE SOMEONE LIKE ME, I'VE ALMOST COMPLETELY LOST MY ABILITY TO USE THE SIDE OF THE STREET THAT I LIVE ON. SO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU FOR COMING THIS EVENING. WE APPRECIATE IT. [1. 4407 PARK DR - CDP 2025-0016 / HMP 2025-0003 (DEV2025-0004)] WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. EVERYONE DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN. I'LL REVIEW THE PROCEDURE THAT THE COMMISSION WILL FOLLOW THIS EVENING. PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPEN. STAFF WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION. PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CLARIFY QUESTIONS ON THE STAFF PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANTS WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION AND RESPOND TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. THEY WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION. PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE OPENED. TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES ALLOTTED FOR EACH SPEAKER. AFTER THOSE WANTING TO SPEAK HAVE DONE SO, PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE CLOSED. THE APPLICANT AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO ISSUES AND QUESTIONS. THE COMMISSIONERS WILL DISCUSS THE ITEM AND THEN VOTE ON THAT. PUBLIC HEARING WILL THEN BE CLOSED. CERTAIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ARE FINAL BUT MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE BACK OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA. COMMISSIONER MERZ. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I'M SORRY FOR NOT BRINGING THIS UP EARLIER, BUT I WAS JUST THINKING IN TERMS OF THE AGENDA. AND, AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BRINGING THIS UP EARLIER. DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO MOVE NUMBER THREE UP SINCE IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE MINIMAL COMMENTS ON THAT AND THEN MOVE NUMBER TWO TO THE NUMBER THREE POSITION JUST GIVEN THE PERCEIVED NUMBER OF COMMENTS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HERE? AND, AGAIN, I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THAT UP SOONER, BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THAT MAKES SENSE FROM A FLOW STANDPOINT. NO, I THINK AT THIS POINT WE'LL KEEP THE AGENDA. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SORRY FOR NOT BRINGING THAT UP SOONER. OKAY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. FIRST, HAVE COMMISSIONERS HAVE THEIR EX PARTE CONVERSATIONS AT THIS TIME. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER, EX PARTE. I'M AWARE OF THE LOCATION. COMMISSIONER MERZ. I VISITED THE SITE PRIOR TO THE LAST MEETING, YEAH. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. BEEN BY THE SITE, LOOKED IT UP ON GOOGLE MAPS. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. COMMISSIONER BURROWS. I DROVE BY THE SITE. COMMISSIONER FOSTER. I DROVE BY THE SITE, AND I ALSO WALKED THE SITE AS WELL. MR. LURDY, WOULD YOU PROVIDE THE ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA? YES. HERE TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION IS SENIOR PLANNER VAN LUEN. THANK YOU, AND GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. TONIGHT'S FIRST ITEM IS THE 4407 PARK DRIVE PROJECT. IT'S A REQUEST FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT. THE PROJECT SITE AT 4407 PARK DRIVE IS OVER 36,000 SQUARE FEET, IS IN THE R1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE, LOCATED WITHIN THE MELLOW 2 SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. IT'S CURRENTLY A VACANT LOT WITH A NATURAL SLOPE ON THE WESTERN HALF [00:10:01] OF THE PROPERTY. THIS VACANT SITE HAS AN OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THE WESTERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY THAT CONTAINS NATURAL SLOPE AND DOES CONTAIN SOME COASTAL SAGE SCRUB. THIS NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT IS PROPOSED IS JUST OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, IS TWO STORIES, HAS THREE GARAGE PARKING SPACES, FIVE BEDROOMS, AND AN OFFICE, AND ENTRY COURTYARD PATIOS AND BALCONIES. HERE'S THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND A RENDERING PROVIDED BY THE ARCHITECT. AS STATED, THIS PROJECT DOES HAVE HABITAT LOCATED ON THE PROJECT, WHICH IS MOSTLY COVERED BY THE OPEN SPACE EASEMENT ON THE WESTERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY. SOME OF IT DOES CREEP A LITTLE BIT FURTHER THAN THE EASEMENT. SO WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT WAS A BIO REPORT TO SHOW THAT HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPLIANCE CAN BE REACHED. IT MAPPED OUT THE PRESENCE OF THE COASTAL SAGE SCRUB IN WHICH LOCATIONS, PROVIDED A HABITAT BUFFER FROM THAT SAGE SCRUB, WHICH IS ALSO COMPLIANT WITH OUR FIRE MODIFICATION ZONES FOR STRUCTURES THAT ARE NEXT TO NATURAL HABITAT, AND THE PROJECT HAS SHOWN THAT IT WILL AVOID IMPACTS TO THAT HABITAT. IN TERMS OF CEQA COMPLIANCE, STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. IT FINDS THAT THE PROJECT BELONGS TO A CLASS OF PROJECTS THAT ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OR THE PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS, AND THAT'S AN EXEMPTION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. IN TERMS OF CONSISTENCY, THE PROJECT STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CEQA EXEMPTION DETERMINATION, A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT. AND STAFF'S PRESENTATION IS CONCLUDED, BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. VAN LEEUWEN. APPRECIATE COMMISSIONERS CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? THE APPLICANT IS HERE, BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION. OKAY. MINIST'S CLERK, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME. MINIST'S CLERK, DO WE HAVE A SPEAKER FOR THIS ITEM? NO, CHAIR, WE DO NOT. SEEING NONE, I WILL NOW CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. WOULD STAFF LIKE TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT THIS TIME? NOT THIS TIME, THANKS. COMMISSIONERS, FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. THANK YOU. I HAD A QUESTION ON THE LANDSCAPING AND FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN. CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH HOW THAT WAS REVIEWED? IF ANY FIRE CHIEFS OR, YOU KNOW, FIRE DEPARTMENT STAFF HAVE REVIEWED AND APPROVED THAT PLAN, PRIVATE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, MAINTENANCE OF FIRE FUELS IS REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY IN THESE KIND OF SINGLE-USE AREAS. SO CAN YOU JUST WALK US THROUGH HOW THAT WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED? SURE. SO WITH MANY LOCATIONS THAT HAVE NATURAL HABITAT, THE PROJECT IS REVIEWED BY OUR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGER. THIS PROJECT ALSO IS REVIEWED BY OUR FIRE MARSHAL OR SOMEBODY FROM THEIR OFFICE. THIS PROJECT, THE FUEL MODIFICATION ZONES ARE ACTUALLY WRITTEN INTO OUR LANDSCAPE MANUAL. SO THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACT REVIEWER THAT WE HAVE WITH THE CITY ALSO REVIEWS THESE PLANS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THOSE. SO THERE'S REALLY THREE DIFFERENT AGENCIES LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THAT COMPLIANCE IS BEING REACHED. THERE'S ALSO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF OVERLAP BETWEEN THOSE FIRE MODIFICATION ZONES AND THE HABITAT BUFFER. SO BOTH OF THOSE ARE LOOKED AT VERY CLOSELY. THE RESOURCE MANAGER IS ALSO VERY FAMILIAR AND KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE FIRE MODIFICATION ZONES. I WILL ALSO ADD THAT WHILE THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE MODIFICATION ZONES HERE, THIS ISN'T WITHIN A HIGH FIRE HAZARD AREA WITH THE NEW MAPS THAT CAME OUT LAST YEAR. SO THERE ISN'T ANY ADDITIONAL FIRE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS, ONLY ONES BECAUSE IT'S NEXT TO NATURAL HABITAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. REGARDING THE QUESTION I HAVE, YOU BROUGHT UP OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND WHO MAINTAINS THOSE? SO, YEAH, THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT WAS ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME THAT THIS SUBDIVISION TOOK PLACE FOR, I THINK, THREE OR FOUR LOTS IN THIS SECTION. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SUBDIVISION HAPPENED WHEN COASTAL COMMISSION STILL HAD AUTHORITY OVER THIS AREA, AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A STANDING CONTRACT WITH SOME AGENCY [00:15:01] THROUGH THE COASTAL COMMISSION FOR MAINTENANCE OF THIS SPACE. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CONFIRMED? SO THE CITY DOESN'T MAINTAIN IT. WE'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE? I DO NOT BELIEVE WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS SPECIFIC OPEN SPACE. CORRECT. I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS IF WE'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE AND WE'RE NOT SURE COASTAL IS RESPONSIBLE, HOW DO WE MOVE AHEAD TO APPROVE THIS IF WE DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS CONTINUING TO BE MAINTAINED? IS THERE A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OR SOMEBODY THAT CAN ACTUALLY IDENTIFY? MR. LERNEY? WELL, WHILE KYLE IS LOOKING INTO IT, I MEAN, IT WOULD BE ATYPICAL OF THE CITY TO MAINTAIN AN OPEN SPACE OF THIS SIZE. TYPICALLY, THE EASEMENT ITSELF LANGUAGE GIVES THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE REQUIREMENTS. SO WE COULD ENFORCE THE OPEN SPACE EASEMENT IF THERE WAS EVER A QUESTION OF IT WAS BEING MANAGED CONSISTENT WITH THE EASEMENT AND THE PERMIT. BUT WE WOULD USUALLY IT'S AN HOA OR SOME OTHER PRIVATE ENTITY THAT DOES THE MANAGEMENT ITSELF. AND THERE'S A FEW NONPROFITS THAT DO MANAGE SMALLER OPEN SPACE BLOCKS BECAUSE THEY CAN AGGREGATE THEM AND MANAGE THEM THEMSELVES. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY? YEAH, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE PROJECT. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IF WE FENCE THESE AREAS OFF, UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S FIRE MAINTENANCE REQUIRED, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY INSPECTS, MAINTAINS? HOW DOES I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THESE STAY SAFE AND HOW THESE STAY MAINTAINED. WE ABSOLUTELY DO INSPECT THE FIRE MAINTENANCE AND THE SETBACKS. OKAY, THAT SOUNDS FINE. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THERE IS SOME TYPE OF PROGRAM BECAUSE ONCE IT'S DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE, THE RESPONSIBILITY FALLS TO I'M JUST NOT SURE WHO IT FALLS TO. SO AND I'D HATE TO HAVE A PROBLEM, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE FIRE MANAGEMENT IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF A LOT OF THAT. BUT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO CLARIFY THE COASTAL BECAUSE THEY DON'T REALLY MAINTAIN, RIGHT, COASTAL COMMISSION. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THE EXTENT OF THE CONTRACT THAT WAS CREATED AT THE TIME. CORRECT. MR. VAN LEEUWEN, I HAVE A QUESTION. IN REGARD TO THE LOT, THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT WITH THE HILL IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THE PROPERTY, GOING UP THE HILL TO THE HOMES ABOVE, WHAT'S THE DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY? COULD YOU GIVE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL IN REGARD TO RUNOFF FROM THE OPEN SPACE INTO THE LOT ITSELF? SURE. I THINK THAT ONE THING TO BE AWARE OF IS RIGHT ABOUT THE EDGE OF WHERE THAT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT IS SHOWN HERE IN GREEN. THERE ACTUALLY IS A DRAINAGE DITCH, A BROW DITCH OR OTHERWISE, THAT CONTROLS THE DRAINAGE THROUGH A NUMBER OF THESE LOTS SO THAT THE MAJORITY OF THAT SLOPE ACTUALLY IS COLLECTED BEFORE IT HITS THE FLAT AREA OF THE PROPERTY. AND THIS PROJECT WOULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY ENGINEERING STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY WATER RETENTION OR WATER FLOWS OFF-SITE ARE WITHIN ACCEPTABLE LEVELS, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY NO DIFFERENT OR LESS THAN WHAT IS THE CURRENT STAFF'S. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS TO STAFF? DISCUSS AMONG US OURSELVES? ANY DISCUSSION ON THE SIDE PARTICULAR ITEM? OKAY. MAY I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. YEAH, MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. AND MAY I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER BURROWS MAKES A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU. I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER ONE. [2. CARLSBAD VILLAGE SQUARE - CT 2023-0002/SDP 2023-0031/CDP 2023-0053 (DEV2023-0137) ] I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER TWO. FIRST, COMMISSIONERS, EX PARTE CONVERSATIONS. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. NOTHING TO REPORT. COMMISSIONER MERZ. I DROVE BY THE SITE. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND HAVE LOOKED IT UP ON GOOGLE MAPS. EXCELLENT. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BURROWS. I DROVE BY THE SITE. COMMISSIONER FOSTER. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. BEEN IN THE SITE MANY TIMES. I ALSO NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT MY WIFE SHARED [00:20:03] WITH ME A, SOMEONE POSTED TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FACEBOOK GROUP A WAKE-UP CARLSBAD POST REGARDING THIS SITE. AND I'VE REVIEWED THE POST AND I'VE REVIEWED SOME OF THE COMMENTS. I DIDN'T ENGAGE WITH ANY OF THEM. BUT JUST LETTING THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT I WAS AWARE OF THAT POST AND SAW IT. THANK YOU. I ALSO AM FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. I'VE WALKED THE SITE. AND MR. LURDY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? YES, HERE TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION IS DIRECTOR STRONG AND SENIOR PLANNER IZAGIRI. THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, I'M THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, MIKE STRONG. JUST TO REVIEW SOME OF THE PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT AS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, STAFF WILL FACILITATE THE PRESENTATION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL DIRECT ANY QUESTIONS TO STAFF. THERE WILL BE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. WE WILL OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY, CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS OR ADDITIONAL DELIBERATION. AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONCLUDE THEIR DISCUSSION AND VOTE. THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION WILL TOUCH ON THREE MAIN ELEMENTS. GIVEN THE NUMBER AND COMPLEXITIES OF RECENT STATE HOUSING LAWS, FIRST I'LL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF HOW THESE NEW LAWS AFFECT THE CITY'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS. LAUREN WILL THEN PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, ITS DESCRIPTION, AND THEN WE'LL CONCLUDE THE PRESENTATION WITH AN OVERVIEW OF THE MORE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES RAISED AND WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THE CITY'S STAFF RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS. NEW STATE HOUSING LAWS HAVE PASSED THAT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED HOW NEW HOUSING GETS APPROVED. THE STATE'S GOAL IN PASSING THESE LAWS IS TO ACCELERATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW HOUSING TO MEET THE DEMAND. SO, EVEN THOUGH CITIES HAVE TRADITIONALLY HAD CONTROL OVER HOW LAND IS USED, AND HERE IN CARLSBAD, THIS INCLUDES ESTABLISHING A CAP ON HOW MANY HOMES WOULD BE BUILT, TODAY WE FIND OURSELVES IN A MUCH DIFFERENT POSITION THAN WE HAVE IN THE PAST. HERE ARE FIVE SPECIFIC STATE HOUSING LAWS THAT WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT. THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT IS AN OLDER LAW, DATING BACK FROM THE EARLY 1980S, BUT MORE RECENT AMENDMENTS HAVE STRENGTHENED ITS ENFORCEABILITY. THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE LAW IS TO SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE NEW HOUSING BY CURBING LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY DENY HOUSING PROJECTS. SINCE 2018, THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE MULTIPLE AMENDMENTS TO SIGNIFICANTLY CURTAIL JURISDICTIONS' ABILITY TO APPLY DISCRETION TO HOUSING PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE AFFORDABLE UNITS. ONE OF THOSE CHANGES IN 2020 REQUIRES CITIES TO ONLY APPLY OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. THESE ARE STANDARDS THAT PROVIDE CLEAR, MEASURABLE, AND SPECIFIC DIRECTION FOR HOW TO APPLY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA. THESE SHOULD BE SO CLEAR THAT EVERYONE WILL INTERPRET THEM IN THE SAME WAY. SUCH STANDARDS INCLUDE BUILDING SETBACKS, BUILDING HEIGHT, AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, THINGS THAT ARE MEASURABLE. IN CONTRAST, ISSUES LIKE COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND BULK AND SCALE ARE OFTEN CONSIDERED SUBJECTIVE. UNDER NEW STATE LAW, SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS CANNOT BE USED TO DENY OR REDUCE THE 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 AND SAFETY. THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT PROVIDES CLEAR DECISION POINTS ON HOW A PROJECT IS TO BE REGULATED IN THE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW. FIRST, DOES THE PROJECT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT? SECOND, DOES THE PROJECT MEET ANY REQUIRED AFFORDABILITY CRITERIA? THIRD, IS THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIRED PLANS AND STANDARDS? FOURTH, DOES THE PROJECT NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT UPON HEALTH AND SAFETY THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED? IF THE PROJECT MEETS THOSE CRITERIA, THE PROJECT CANNOT BE DENIED WITHOUT POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. THE STATE LAW THAT GIVES LOCAL CITIES THE ABILITY TO DENY HOUSING PROJECTS, BUT THE FINDINGS ARE, BY DESIGN, EXTREMELY 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. AN ADVERSE IMPACT MEENES A SIGNIFICANT, QUANTIFIABLE, DIRECT, AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT BASED ON OBJECTIVE, WRITTEN PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY STANDARDS. THIS IS A VERY HIGH BAR TO OVERCOME. CITIES HAVE PREVIOUSLY TRIED TO APPLY THESE FINDINGS TO DENY DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS, ONLY TO BE REJECTED IN COURT. THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT OF [00:25:02] 2019, ALSO KNOWN AS SB 330, AMENDED THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND PLACED SIGNIFICANT RESTRICTIONS ON HOUSING APPLICATION PROCESSING. FOR EXAMPLE, IT GIVES APPLICANTS STRONGER VESTING RIGHTS. WHAT THIS MEENES IS A CITY CAN ONLY APPLY THOSE CODES AND FEES THAT WERE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION WAS FIRST FILED, EVEN IF THE DEVELOPER WAITS YEARS TO PULL THEIR BUILDING PERMITS. THE STATE LAW ALSO REQUIRES APPLICATIONS TO BE PROCESSED MORE QUICKLY OR TO BE DEEMED APPROVED AUTOMATICALLY. STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW IS ANOTHER STATE HOUSING LAW THAT HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS SINCE THE 1970S, BUT HAS BEEN AMENDED IN THE PAST 10 YEARS TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERED TO GIVE DEVELOPERS MORE AND MORE ALLOWANCES. UNDER DENSITY BONUS, DEVELOPERS CAN GET A DENSITY INCREASE AS MUCH AS 50% OVER THE CITY'S MAXIMUM DENSITY WHEN THEY ONLY RESTRICT 15% OF THE UNITS AS AFFORDABLE. PRIOR TO 2021, THE DENSITY BONUS MAXIMUM WAS CAPPED AT 35% AND WAS CHANGED TO 50% IN 2021. AB-1287, WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE IN 2024, ALLOWS AN ADDITIONAL 50% DENSITY BONUS FOR A TOTAL OF 100% DENSITY BONUS. THIS ADDITIONAL 50% DENSITY BONUS IS REFERRED TO AS THE DOUBLE DENSITY BONUS. AND IF A CITY'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FRUSTRATE THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO ACHIEVE THAT DENSITY THAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO UNDER DENSITY BONUS LAW, THE STATE LAW ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO WAIVE OR DEVIATE FROM THOSE STANDARDS, EVEN IF THEY ARE OBJECTIVE. AND THE CITY MUST GRANT THE DEVIATION UNLESS THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. AS YOU WILL SEE IN THIS ILLUSTRATION WITH THE DENSITY BONUS LAW, A DEVELOPER CAN EXCEED THE NUMBER OF UNITS ALLOWED UNDER A CITY ZONING IF A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS PROVIDED AND EXCEED OUR HEIGHT LIMITS AND UNDER STATE LAWS, THE CITY MUST APPROVE IT. THE STATE CONTINUES TO MAKE NEW CHANGES TO STATE LAWS, INCLUDING AB-2097, WHICH WAS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2023. THIS LAW PROHIBITS MOST CITIES AND PUBLIC AGENCIES FROM IMPOSING MINIMUM AUTOMOBILE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS LOCATED WITHIN A HALF MILE OF A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP. UNDER THE LAW, THE REGULAR AMOUNTS OF ADA PARKING AND EV PARKING IS STILL REQUIRED. A CITY CAN STILL IMPOSE AND ENFORCE PARKING MANDATES IN LIMITED CASES, PROVIDED IT CAN DEMONSTRATE A SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP. A CITY MAY IMPOSE OR ENFORCE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN A ONE-HALF MILE OF A PUBLIC TRANSIT IF THE PUBLIC AGENCY MAKES WRITTEN FINDINGS. BUT STATE LAW PREEMPTS THIS WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS DEDICATED TO A 20% MINIMUM OF THE 20% OF THE UNITS AS LOW INCOME, THE DEVELOPMENT CONTAINS FEWER THAN 20 UNITS, OR THE DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS BASED ON PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. IN SUMMARY, AB-2097 CAN OVERRIDE LOCAL ZONING RULES FOR PARKING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE REQUIRE PARKING, BUT IT CAN BE LAYERED WITH OTHER LAWS LIKE DENSITY BONUS. SO EVEN IF A CITY'S DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE WOULD HAVE MANDATED PARKING, AB-2097 BLOCKS THAT REQUIREMENT. THE STATE ALSO CONTINUES TO MAKE FURTHER NEW CHANGES TO STATE HOUSING LAWS. TWO MAJOR ONES WERE PASSED IN 2025. THEY INCLUDED ADDITIONS FOR NEW HOUSING EXEMPTION FOR PROJECTS UNDER 20 ACRES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING, AT LEAST 15 UNITS PER ACRE, AND MEET CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS. THE BILLS ALSO ADDED A NEW PROCESS REFERRED TO AS NEAR-MISS FOR PROJECTS TO QUALIFY FOR AN EXEMPTION EXCEPT FOR ONE REASON, AND ADD NEW TIME FRAMES AND NEW STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS FOR A VARIETY OF USES. THE CITY MAINTAINS A POSITION BETTER THAN MANY OTHER CITIES BECAUSE WE HAVE A CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT AND MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR ANNUAL HOUSING ALLOCATION. BUT MAINTAINING ITS GOOD STANDING IS AN ONGOING EFFORT. UNDER EXISTING LAW, HCD HAS THE ABILITY TO REVIEW HOUSING ELEMENTS AND CAN DECERTIFY THEM IF THEY FIND THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ITS HOUSING ELEMENT LAW OR TAKES ANY ACTION CONTRARY TO THOSE LAWS, INCLUDING BILLING TO ACT ON A PROJECT. IF WE WERE TO LOSE OUR HOUSING ELEMENT STATUS, DEVELOPERS COULD SUBMIT AN APPLICATION AS A BUILDER'S REMEDY, REGARDLESS OF A GENERAL PLAN OR ZONING, AS LONG AS IT HAS 20% AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY PRESS REPORTS REGARDING THE SO-CALLED BUILDER'S REMEDY. THESE REPORTS STATE THAT IF A CITY HAS A NON-COMPLYING HOUSING ELEMENT, THE CITY MUST APPROVE A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, EVEN ONE THAT BYPASSES LOCAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN AND THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN HAVE ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY AND ELSEWHERE IN THE VILLAGE DATING BACK FOR MANY YEARS. IN FACT, THE ZONING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES AND MANY LIKE IT IN THE DOWNTOWN HAVE ALLOWED 35 DWELLINGS PER ACRE DATING BACK TO 2007. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY HIGH-LEVEL DISCUSSION ON SOME OF THE VERY COMPLEX STATE LAWS AND AS THOSE CONTINUE TO CHANGE. HOWEVER, SHOULD MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LIKE [00:30:02] TO LEARN MORE, THE CITY OFFERS A LIBRARY OF INFORMATIONAL BULLETINS THAT COVER THESE COMPLEX REQUIREMENTS. THE EASIEST WAY TO ACCESS THIS LIBRARY IS TO ENTER CARLSBAD INFORMATIONAL BULLETINS IN THE GOOGLE WEB BROWSER AND THE FIRST RESULT WILL TAKE YOU TO THE SITE. THESE INFORMATIONAL BULLETINS HELP EXPLAIN HOW THE STATE LAW HAS CREATED LAWS THAT LIMIT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO DENY, REDUCE THE DENSITY OF, OR MAKE INFEASIBLE HOUSING PROJECTS. BEFORE INTRODUCING THIS PROJECT, IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE TIMELINE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AGAINST THE RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW. THE PROCESS ON THIS DEVELOPMENT SITE BEGAN IN 2016 WHEN THE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO BUILD FIVE-UNIT MIXED-USE PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED. THAT PROJECT WAS DENIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN 2018. AND AS SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL CHANGES IN THE STATE LAW THAT WERE COVERED PREVIOUSLY IN THIS PRESENTATION, INCLUDING THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT, AB 2097, VARIOUS CHANGES UNDER DENSITY BONUS LAW, THE MOST RECENT IN 2023, AND THEN THE NEW APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED IN 2023, DEMONSTRATING THAT THE RULES OF REVIEWING AND CONSIDERING LAND USE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THAT WAS IN PLACE IN 2018. AT THIS POINT, I'LL TURN THE PRESENTATION OVER TO LAUREN TO WALK THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. THANK YOU, MR. STRONG. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THE PROJECT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM BUILDING ON A 0.12-ACRE LOT AT 430 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE. THE SITE IS BORDERED BY CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE TO THE SOUTH, STATE STREET TO THE EAST, AND THE STATE STREET ALLEY TO THE WEST. SURROUNDING LAND USES INCLUDE A MIXTURE OF COMMERCIAL USES, INCLUDING A TWO-STORY MULTI-TENANT RETAIL BUILDING TO THE NORTH, A ONE-STORY RETAIL AND RESTAURANT BUILDING ACROSS STATE STREET TO THE EAST, AND A ONE-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ACROSS CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE TO THE SOUTH. THE SITE IS PART OF THE VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT OF THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN AND IS DEVELOPED WITH TWO EXISTING RESTAURANTS, CRACKHEADS AND CHOICE JUICERY. FOUR EXISTING SHIPPING CONTAINERS AND ASSOCIATED DINING AREAS ARE LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND ON A SECOND-STORY DECK SERVING THE TWO RESTAURANTS. THE SITE ALSO CONTAINS A DETACHED RESTROOM AND TRASH ENCLOSURE. AS MR. STRONG MENTIONED, THE PROPERTY OWNER SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR A SIMILAR PROJECT IN 2016. THE 2016 PROJECT WAS A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 25,600-SQUARE-FOOT, FOUR-STORY CONDOMINIUM MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH APPROXIMATELY 4,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL, 02,400 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE, AND FIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE PROPOSED MIXED-USE BUILDING CONTAINED UNDERGROUND PARKING WITH 13 PARKING SPACES. THE PROJECT WAS ULTIMATELY DENIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN APRIL 2018 DUE TO PROJECT INCOMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE COUNCIL FOUND THAT THE BUILDING WAS INCONSISTENT DUE TO MASS AND SCALE AND DID NOT MAINTAIN THE SMALL-SCALE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT. IN 2023, THE CURRENT APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE MAP, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WAS SUBMITTED FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 19,000-SQUARE-FOOT MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH ONE COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOOR UNIT, FIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND NINE PARKING SPACES. AS PART OF THAT REQUEST, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A STANDARDS MODIFICATION PURSUANT TO VILLAGE BOROUGH AND MASTER PLAN SECTION 2.6.7 AND SOUGHT RELIEF FROM CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. STAFF REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND DETERMINED THAT THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A STANDARDS MODIFICATION COULD NOT BE MADE, NOR COULD STAFF SUPPORT THE OTHER REQUESTED EXCEPTIONS. IN MARCH 2025, THE APPLICANT REVISED THE APPLICATION TO INCLUDE A DENSITY BONUS. THE REVISED APPLICATION MAINTAINED THE SAME BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT THE FLOOR PLANS WERE MODIFIED TO INCLUDE TWO ADDITIONAL UNITS FOR A TOTAL OF SEVEN UNITS. THE PROPOSED MIXED-USE BUILDING BEFORE YOU TODAY IS FOUR STORIES AND 45 FEET TALL WITH 50-FOOT ROOF PROTRUSIONS. THE PROJECT PROPOSES ONE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL RETAIL TENANT SPACE COMPRISING OF 2,978 SQUARE FEET, SEVEN RESIDENTIAL COLUMN MILLION UNITS ON FLOORS TWO THROUGH FOUR, AND NINE PARKING SPACES. THE PROJECT FEATURES FOUR ONE-BEDROOM UNITS, TWO TWO-BEDROOM UNITS, AND ONE THREE-BEDROOM UNIT. AS THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN, CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL WOULD BE REQUIRED. HERE'S A RENDERING OF THE BUILDING'S SOUTH-FACING ELEVATION FROM CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE. ACCESS WILL BE PROVIDED FROM THE STATE STREET ALLEYWAY, WHICH IS PICTURED TO THE LEFT OF THE PARKING GARAGES. THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN IS CHARACTERIZED AS CALIFORNIA CONTEMPORARY, PURSUANT TO THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. THE PRIMARY BUILDING MATERIALS INCLUDE SAND, FLOAT FINISH SECCO, STONE VENEER, [00:35:01] PORCELAIN TILES WITH THE WOOD SIDING APPEARANCE, AND CONCRETE MASONRY BLOCK ON THE GROUND FLOOR ON THE NORTH ELEVATION AND OVER THE PARKING AND AROUND THE TRASH AREA ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING'S STATE STREET ALLEY AND CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE FRONTAGES. A SIGNIFICANT EXTENT OF VOSS IS PROPOSED ON THE GROUND FLOOR FOR THE COMMERCIAL UNIT. THESE MATERIALS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, WHICH CALLS FOR FULL-LENGTH CEILING-TO-FLOOR GLASS, CAST CONCRETE, SECCO, AND WOOD. HERE IS THE PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN. FIRST FLOOR PLAN. THERE WILL BE ONE COMMERCIAL TENANT SPACE ON THE GROUND FLOOR. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INDIVIDUAL ONE-STALL GARAGES WITH PARKING LIFTS, WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR TWO VEHICLES PER LIFT AND ONE AT-GRADE ADA SPACE. THE PARKING GARAGES WILL TAKE DIRECT ACCESS FROM THE STATE STREET ALLEY. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A 523-SQUARE-FOOT PLAZA AT THE CORNER OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND STATE STREET, WHICH WILL LEAD INTO THE COMMERCIAL UNIT. THE MAIN ACCESS TO THE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY WILL BE FROM CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE, WITH A SECONDARY ACCESS FROM THE PARKING AREA AT THE ALLEY. AN ADDITIONAL STAIRWAY ACCESS FROM STATE STREET WILL LEAD UP TO THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT OF THE MASTER PLAN ALLOWS FOR A DENSITY UP TO 35 BILLION UNITS PER ACRE. THE 0.172-ACRE LOT WOULD THEREFORE BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT 6.02 UNITS. WITHOUT A DENSITY BONUS, THE DENSITY WOULD BE ROUNDED DOWN TO 6 UNITS. HOWEVER, UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, THE BASE DENSITY IS ROUNDED UP TO 7 UNITS. THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AT THE BASE DENSITY OF 7 UNITS. ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NOT REQUESTING ADDITIONAL DENSITY OVER THE SITE'S BASE DENSITY, THEY ARE REQUESTING TO UTILIZE THE BENEFITS UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, WHICH INCLUDES ROUNDING THEIR DENSITY UP. THIS RESULTS IN A DENSITY OF 40.7 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. TO ALLOW FOR THIS ONE EXTRA UNIT ON SITE, STATE LAW REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO DESIGNATE AT LEAST 10% OF THE BASE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, OR ONE DWELLING UNIT IN THIS CASE, AS AFFORDABLE TO LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PURSUANT TO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS ALSO REQUIRED PER THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE. THIS TABLE HIGHLIGHTS THE RESPECTIVE REQUIREMENTS. TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE, A MINIMUM OF 15% OF THE BASE UNITS ARE REQUIRED TO BE AFFORDABLE FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. FOR THIS PROJECT, 15% OF THE BASE DENSITY EQUATES TO 1.05 UNITS, WHICH IS ROUNDED DOWN TO ONE UNIT. SINCE THE STATE AND THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENTS ARE ADDITIVE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE. THE PROJECT APPLICANT WILL DESIGNATE A TOTAL OF ONE UNIT AS LOW-INCOME, WHICH WILL SATISFY BOTH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS OF STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW AND THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE. AS PART OF THE DENSITY BONUS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FIVE WAIVERS. THE WAIVERS ARE REQUESTED AS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULD PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND HAS DETERMINED THEY DO NOT RESULT IN AN ADVERSE IMPACT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUESTED TO BE WAIVED INCLUDE FRONT AND STREET-SIDE SETBACKS, AMOUNT OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL USE ALONG THE BUILDING FRONTAGE, COMMERCIAL PARKING, MINIMUM INTERIOR DIMENSIONS OF ONE-CAR GARAGES, AND UPPER FLOOR SETBACKS. I WILL GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE WAIVERS IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES. SO FOR THE FIRST WAIVER, THEY ARE REQUESTING TO WAIVE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN SECTION 2.7.1A, WHICH REQUIRES A ZERO TO FIVE-FOOT MAXIMUM SETBACK ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE ON BOTH CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND STATE STREET. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 10-FOOT SETBACK AT THE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY ON CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND A FIVE-AND-A-HALF-FOOT SETBACK ON STATE STREET AT THE RESIDENTIAL STAIR ENTRY. SECTION 2.7.1A OF THE MASTER PLAN REQUIRES A GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL RETAIL TO SPAN, REQUIRES GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL RETAIL TO SPAN 80% OF THE BUILDING FRONTAGE. THE PROJECT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER FOR THE STANDARD FOR THE BUILDING FRONTAGE ON CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE. THE GROUND FLOOR RETAIL USE ON CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE SPANS APPROXIMATELY 29 FEET, 2 INCHES, OF THE TOTAL 95-AND-A-HALF FEET STREET-FACING FRONTAGE, WHICH EQUATES TO 51% OF THE BUILDING FRONTAGE. ALTHOUGH THE PROJECT DOES NOT MEET THIS REQUIREMENT ON CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE, IT DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENT ALONG STATE STREET, WHERE THE GROUND [00:40:02] FLOOR COMMERCIAL RETAIL USE SPANS 86% OF THE STREET-FACING FRONTAGE. THIS STANDARD IS INTENDED TO MAXIMIZE COMMERCIAL STORE FRONTAGE ALONG THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO WAIVE THIS STANDARD ALONG CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NECESSARY RESIDENTIAL UNIT AMENITIES, SUCH AS THE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY, THE TRASH AND RECYCLING AREA, AND UTILITIES. THE NEXT WAIVER IS OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 21-45080. THIS REQUIRES A MINIMUM INTERIOR CAR DIMENSION OF 12 FEET WIDE BY 20 FEET LONG. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE-CAR GARAGES WITH A MINIMUM DIMENSION OF 9-AND-A-HALF FEET WIDE BY 20 FEET LONG. SINCE THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE TRANSIT STATION, THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 2097, AB 2097, WHICH PROHIBITS CITIES FROM REQUIRING MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. INSTEAD, DEVELOPERS PROVIDE PARKING BASED ON PREFERENCE AND MARKET DEMAND. AB 2097 STATES OF THE CITY CAN ONLY REQUIRE THE PROJECT PROVIDE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE AND ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED USE. BOTH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW AND THE VILLAGE AND BORROW MASTER PLAN REQUIRE ONE PARKING SPACE FOR ONE-BEDROOM UNITS, AS WELL AS 1.5 PARKING SPACES FOR TWO- AND THREE-BEDROOM UNITS, WHICH RESULTS IN A TOTAL REQUIREMENT OF NINE PARKING SPACES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE NINE SPACES MEETING THE STANDARD FOR THE RESIDENTIAL. FOR COMMERCIAL PARKING, THE VILLAGE AND BORROW MASTER PLAN REQUIRES ONE PARKING SPACE PER 170 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT AND ONE PARKING SPACE PER 415 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL. HOWEVER, SO THIS WOULD REQUIRE 14 PARKING SPACES FOR THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO WAIVE THE COMMERCIAL PARKING UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. SINCE THE SITE IS SUBJECT TO AB 2097 AND THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE COMMERCIAL PARKING, THE APPLICANT IS ESSENTIALLY WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE ONE ADA SPACE, SEVEN EV SPACES, AND ONE ADA EV SPACE. THE FINAL WAIVER IS REQUESTED TO ELIMINATE VILLAGE AND BORROW MASTER PLAN ODS SECTION 7.2.C, WHICH REQUIRES AN UPPER FLOOR STEP BACK FOR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED-USE BUILDINGS FACING A SIDE STREET, BETWEEN AN ALLEY, AND A PRIMARY STREET. ALTHOUGH THE WEST BUILDING ELEVATION FEATURES UPPER-LEVEL DECKS AND VARIATIONS IN BUILDING FA ADE, THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD AND THUS IS REQUESTING TO ELIMINATE IT. THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO COUNCIL POLICY 84, WHICH ESTABLISHES THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC OUTREACH. THE PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED IN AUGUST 2023, 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 2024. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY, A TWO-FOOT-TALL BY THREE-FOOT-WIDE YELLOW SIGN NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE PROJECT SITE, AND AN EARLY PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROJECT APPLICATION WAS SENT IN NOVEMBER 2023. THE NOTICES WERE MAILED TO TENANTS IN A 100-FOOT RADIUS AND PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 600-FOOT RADIUS. THE PROJECT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEETING UNDER THE PREVIOUS POLICY. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT STILL CHOSE TO HOLD A STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEETING ON JANUARY 25, 2024. 62 INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDED THE MEETING AND SIGNED IN. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT SOME MEMBERS DID NOT SIGN IN AND THE ACTUAL ATTENDANCE IS ESTIMATED TO BE HIGHER. FOLLOWING THE REVISED APPLICATION TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL UNITS, IN MAY 2025, THE APPLICANT PLACED AN UPDATED SIGN WITH THE REVISED SCOPE OF WORK ON THE PROPERTY AND SENT OUT NEW NOTICES OF THE PROJECT APPLICATION TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 600 FEET AND TENANTS WITHIN 100 FEET. IN TOTAL, 119 PROPERTY OWNERS AND 11 TENANTS WERE NOTIFIED THROUGH THE NOTICE OF PROJECT APPLICATION PROCESS. 23 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH HAVE BEEN POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSIONERS IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING. THE ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH REPORT AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT 11 IN THE STAFF REPORT. PUBLIC COMMENTS EXPRESS CONCERN WITH PARKING, BUILDING HEIGHT AND SCALE, THE PROJECT REAPPLICATION AFTER THE 2018 DENIAL, GROUNDWATER, AND THE PREVIOUS USE OF THE SITE AS A GAS STATION. I WILL GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE CONCERNS IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES. AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, THE PROJECT IS MEETING THE [00:45:01] RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT BUT IS REQUESTING TO ELIMINATE ALL COMMERCIAL PARKING. THE PROJECT SITE IS WITHIN ONE-HALF-MILE RADIUS OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE STATION AND THUS IS SUBJECT TO AB 2097. BY WAIVING THE COMMERCIAL PARKING, THE APPLICANT IS EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATING THE COMMERCIAL ADA PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENT. STAFF INITIALLY RAISED CONCERNS THAT THIS WAIVER COULD RESULT IN THE LOSS OF CRITICAL ADA INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USE. TO ADDRESS STAFF'S CONCERNS, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A TECHNICAL MEMO PREPARED BY MIZZUTA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING WHICH WAS PROVIDED AS EXHIBIT 4 OF THE STAFF REPORT. THE MEMO ANALYZED HOW THE ADA PARKING DEMAND FOR THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT WILL BE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN THE EXISTING PUBLIC PARKING SUPPLY IN THE SURROUNDING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. SPECIFICALLY, THE REPORT IDENTIFIES FOUR ADA PARKING SPACES LOCATED ON THE SURROUNDING BLOCK BASE AND THE NEARBY INTERSECTION AND WITHIN 110 TO 250 FEET OF THE PRIMARY COMMERCIAL ENTRANCE. THE MEMO INCLUDES A MAP OF THE ON-SITE ADA PARKING SPACES IN RELATION TO THE PROJECT SITE DEMONSTRATING HOW EXISTING ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN ROUTES DIRECTLY CONNECT THESE PUBLIC ADA SPACES TO THE PROJECT'S COMMERCIAL ENTRANCE. COMMENTS RECEIVED ALSO EXPRESS CONCERN WITH BUILDING HEIGHT AND SCALE. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE VC DISTRICT IS FOUR STORIES AND 45 FEET TO THE TOP OF THE ROOF WITH ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS ALLOWED UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 55 FEET. THE PROJECT IS ALSO FOUR STORIES AND 45 FEET WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS AT 50 FEET AND THEREFORE COMPLIES WITH THESE STANDARDS. MANY COMMENTS EXPRESS CONCERN WITH THE APPLICATION BEING CONSIDERED AFTER A SIMILAR PROJECT WAS DENIED ON THE SITE IN 2018 PURSUANT TO CMC SECTION 2154-130 THAT ANY APPLICATION THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO A PREVIOUSLY DENIED PROPOSAL FACES A MANDATORY ONE-YEAR WAITING PERIOD BEFORE REAPPLICATION. BECAUSE A FULL 12 MONTHS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE PRIOR DENIAL, THE STATUTORY RESTRICTION IS LIFTED AND THEY ARE FULLY ELIGIBLE TO SUBMIT THEIR APPLICATION. AS MR. STRONG HIGHLIGHTED EARLIER, SINCE THE 2018 DENIAL UPDATES TO STATE HOUSING LAW SUCH AS THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT MEENES THE CURRENT APPLICATION IS NOW EVALUATED STRICTLY AGAINST OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND LIMITS DENIAL TO SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS. THE PROJECT SITE FORMERLY CONTAINED A GAS STATION WITH THREE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE SITE IS NOT LISTED ON THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL'S CORTESE LIST, WHICH IS A LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RELEASE SITES. THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDED A LIMITED PHASE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED FOR THE PROJECT SITE IN FEBRUARY OF 2000. THE PHASE 2 ESA CONFIRMED THAT THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS WERE REMOVED FROM THE SITE IN APRIL 1998 ALONG WITH CONTAMINATED SOIL. THE PHASE 2 ESA CONCLUDED THAT ONLY VERY LOW LEVELS OF CONTAMINANTS WERE FOUND IN THE GROUNDWATER AND THAT VERY LOW TO NON-DETECTABLE LEVELS OF CONTAMINANTS WERE FOUND IN ON-SITE SOIL. IT WAS NOT BELIEVED THAT THE SITE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT AS TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REMEDIATION AS THE MAJORITY OF THE CONTAMINANTS WERE REMOVED. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A LETTER FROM THE SAME ENGINEER WHO PREPARED THE ORIGINAL PHASE 2 ESA DATED MARCH 20, 2024, CONFIRMING THEY CONDUCTED AN ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT SITE AND CURRENT APPLICATION. THE LETTER REVISED THE PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION TO INCLUDE A SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING PLAN TARGETING AREAS WITHIN THE PROPOSED BUILDING WHERE OCCUPIED SPACE DIRECTLY OVERLIE SOIL TO BE PERFORMED AFTER REMOVAL OF THE CURRENT STRUCTURES ON-SITE. THE REVISED RECOMMENDATION ALSO INCLUDES A SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN WITH CONTINGENCIES FOR ENCOUNTERS WITH SOIL IMPACTED BY PAST ON-SITE AUTOMOTIVE HISTORY. THE PROJECT IS CONDITIONED TO COMPLETE SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING AND PROVIDE A SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT. THIS ALIGNS WITH THE CEQA EXEMPTION STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, WHICH IS THE NEW STATUTORY CEQA EXEMPTION UNDER AB-130, WHICH I'LL DESCRIBE FURTHER LATER IN THE PRESENTATION. AB-130 ALLOWS THE CITY TO CONDITION THE PERMIT TO PROVIDE A PHASE I ESA AND REQUIRES THAT AND REQUIRE THAT IF A RELEASE OF A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE IS FOUND TO EXIST ON-SITE, THE RELEASE SHALL BE REMOVED OR ANY EFFECT OF THE RELEASE SHALL BE MITIGATED TO LEVELS REQUIRED BY CURRENT FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTORY AND REGULATORY STANDARDS BEFORE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. THESE CONDITIONS PLACED ON THE RESOLUTION WILL ENSURE THE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES REQUIREMENTS PER AB-130 ARE MET. ONE OF THE CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED TODAY WAS FROM THE EQUITABLE LAND USE ALLIANCE, WHICH PROVIDED A LETTER LISTING [00:50:01] CONCERNS WITH SOIL CONTAMINATION AND REQUESTING AN UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE SOIL ANALYSIS PRIOR TO A RECOMMENDATION OR DECISION ON THE APPLICATION. THE LETTER REFERENCES THE 2000 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TINK CLEANUP REPORT ON THE STATE WATER RESOURCE CONTROL BOARD WEBSITE, WHICH STATES NOTIFIED THE LEAD CLEANUP OVERSIGHT AGENCY PRIOR TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND OR CHANGE IN LAND USE. CONDITION 31 OF THIS RESOLUTION WILL ENSURE THAT THE PROPER TESTING BE DONE AND THAT IF ANY CONTAMINANTS ARE FOUND, THEY WILL BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE. HOWEVER, IN LIGHT OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED, STAFF PROPOSES THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMEND CONDITION 31 TO INCLUDE NOTIFICATION TO THE LEAD AGENCY. THE NEW CONDITION WILL READ AS FOLLOW. PRIOR TO GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY THE LEAD REGULATORY AGENCY, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL, STATE WATER RESOURCE CONTROL BOARD, OR OTHER SUBSEQUENTLY IDENTIFIED LEAD AGENCY OF THE WORK PLAN FOR SOIL VAPOR TESTING AND TAKE ALL ACTION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE LEAD REGULATORY AGENCY. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT AN IMPROVED WORK PLAN, SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING PLAN, AND SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN FROM A QUALIFIED REGISTERED SOIL ENGINEER TARGETING AREAS WITHIN THE PROPOSED BUILDING WHERE OCCUPIED SPACE WILL DIRECTLY OVERLIE SOIL. THE PLAN SHALL, SHOULD INCLUDE FIVE SAMPLE POINTS AT A DEPTH OF FIVE FEET. THE SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN SHALL INCLUDE CONTINGENCIES FOR ENCOUNTERS WITH SOIL IMPACTED BY PAST ON-SITE AUTOMOTIVE HISTORY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE REGISTERED SOIL ENGINEER. THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THE SOIL VAPORING SAMPLING PLAN SHOULD BE CONDUCTED AFTER REMOVAL OF ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES AND BUILDING FOOTINGS AND PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT ALONG WITH THE PROJECT'S GEOTECHNICAL STUDY, WHICH IS ON FILE WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND HAS CONFIRMED THAT WHILE A HIGH GROUND WATER TABLE IS NOT PRESENT, PERCH WATER CONDITIONS MAY EXIST. THEY NOTED THAT ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE WATER STUDIES WILL BE REQUIRED DURING THE FINAL ENGINEERING PHASE. FURTHERMORE, SHOULD HIGH GROUNDWATER BE ENCOUNTERED, STANDARD ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES CAN EFFECTIVELY MITIGATE THESE CONDITIONS TO ENSURE SAFE AND SUCCESSFUL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. TO FURTHER STREAMLINE HOUSING PROJECTS AND INCREASE THE HOUSING STOCK IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ASSEMBLY BILL 130 WAS SIGNED INTO LAW ON JUNE 30TH OF LAST YEAR. THE BILL EFFECTIVELY IMMEDIATELY CREATED A NEW STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND HAS VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS. ESSENTIALLY, IF THE PROJECT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE EXCEPTIONS DON'T APPLY, THE PROJECT IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT, MEANING THE EXEMPTION IS ABSOLUTE AND THE PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OR CEQA. THE PROPOSED HOUSING PROJECT IS THE SECOND PROJECT HERE AT THE CITY TO UTILIZE THIS EXEMPTION. LISTED ON THIS SLIDE ARE THE QUALIFYING CRITERIA FOR A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PURSUANT TO AB 130, ALL OF WHICH ARE PROJECT SATISFIED. FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT, AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS RESIDENTIAL. THE DENSITY NEEDS TO EXCEED 15 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE SITE NEEDS TO BE LESS THAN 20 ACRES AND SURROUNDED BY URBAN USES. THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLANS OR THE ORDINANCE VILLAGE AND BURIAL MASTER PLAN AND THE STRUCTURES PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED ARE NOT LISTED ON A NATIONAL, STATE, OR LOCAL HISTORICAL REGISTER. IN ADDITION TO MEETING THE DEFINITION OF A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, THE AB 130 PROCESS REQUIRES CONSULTATION WITH THE NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES. THE CITY SENT OUT NOTICES TO ALL CULTURALLY AFFILIATED TRIBES AND RECEIVED REQUESTS FOR CONSULTATION FROM TWO TRIBES, RINCON AND PAULA. EACH TRIBE REQUESTED MONITORING FOR THE PROJECT. A THIRD TRIBE, VA HOUSE, DID NOT REQUEST TO CONSULT BUT REQUESTED CONDITIONS BE PLACED ON THE PROJECT TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO NOTIFY THEM OF ANY INADVERTENT DISCOVERIES. THE RESOLUTION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT INCLUDES MONITORING AND NOTIFICATION CONDITIONS. THE PROJECT WAS ANALYZED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ALL REQUIRED STATE LAW, CITY CODE, POLICIES, AND STANDARDS WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE STATE LAW ALLOWS A PROJECT TO CHOOSE. THE STAFF REPORT AND RESOLUTIONS BEFORE YOU TODAY CONTAIN ALL THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE RESOLUTION CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT ONE WITH THE AMENDED CONDITION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SEQUEST EXEMPTION DETERMINATION, TENTATIVE TRACK MAP, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. THIS CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION AND WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. JUST NOTE THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED [00:55:01] STAFF, A NUMBER OF EMAILS FROM THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING FROM THE EQUITABLE LAND USE ALLIANCE, AS LAUREN HAD INDICATED EARLIER. COMMISSIONERS, CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF. COMMISSIONER FOSTER. THANK YOU FOR THE VERY DETAILED PRESENTATION. JUST TO CONFIRM, SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT, WE'RE NOT A DECISION-MAKING BODY IN THIS PERMIT PROCESS. WE'RE A RECOMMENDATION BODY. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND JUST FOR MY OWN CLARIFICATION AND THAT OF THE PUBLIC, SO WHEN AN APPLICANT SUBMITS WAIVER REQUESTS, WHICH CAN BE, I GUESS, UNLIMITED, THE ONLY WAY WE CAN, OR THE ONLY WAY THE CITY CAN SAY NO TO ANY OF THOSE REQUESTS IS THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. DALTON CAN OPINE IN FURTHER IF WE WANT TO PULL UP THE SPECIFIC REGULATION, BUT IT HAS TO BE A SIGNIFICANT HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT BASED ON AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD. CITY ATTORNEY? OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. THERE HAS TO BE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT AS DEFINED UNDER SUBDIVISION D2 OF SECTION 65589.5 UPON HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND THERE MUST BE NO FEASIBLE METHOD TO SATISFACTORILY MITIGATE OR AVOID THE SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE ADA PARKING. SO THERE IS NO ADA COMMERCIAL PARKING WITH THIS DESIGN, AND THEY'RE STATING THAT THEY WANT TO USE THE FOUR ADA SPOTS ON STATE STREET RIGHT OUT FRONT. THEY'RE REQUESTING TO WAIVE ALL OF THE PARKING, WHICH, IF NO PARKING IS REQUIRED, WELL, THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES PARKING BASED OFF OF THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT. SO IF YOU HAD 14 SPACES REQUIRED, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE ONE ADA PARKING SPACE. SO THEY'RE REQUESTING TO WAIVE ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL PARKING, WHICH EFFECTIVELY WOULD ELIMINATE AND WAIVE THE ADA SPACE. IN TERMS OF THE PARKING ON STATE STREET, THEY'RE MORE SO SHOWING THAT THERE IS AVAILABLE ADA IN THE VICINITY THAT COULD SERVE THE COMMERCIAL USE. I KNOW IN PREVIOUS PROJECTS WE'VE HAD REQUESTS TO WAIVE ADA PARKING SPACES, AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANY TYPE OF ADA IN THE AREA AND WE FELT THAT IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE. THIS ONE, THEY DID PROVIDE A MEMO THAT SHOWS THAT THERE ARE SOME IN THE AREA AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES DIRECTLY FROM THE SPACES TO THEIR COMMERCIAL UNIT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ADA SPACES ALONG STATE STREET OR ARE THOSE FOUR SPACES THE ONLY SPACES? ARE THERE ANY SPACES TO THE SOUTH, BY EXAMPLE, ON THE SOUTH BLOCK OF STATE STREET? I'M NOT SURE I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO IT FURTHER. THEY JUST LOOKED AT THE CLOSEST ONES AVAILABLE JUST IN WALKING DISTANCE AND WITH AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE, BUT I DON'T KNOW JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. MR. LURDY? WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. THE OVERALL ON-STREET PARKING IS MANAGED BY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WHO MANAGES THEM AND PROVIDES THE STRIPING AND REGULATIONS. I THINK THE QUESTION THAT WE HAD FOR THEM WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED WAIVING THE SPACES IS IT A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT AND DOES IT CONFLICT WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT REQUIREMENTS? THE OTHER PROJECT THAT WAS CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL LAST WEEK WE HAD A SIMILAR CONVERSATION WITH AND ASKED THEM AND ULTIMATELY THAT PROJECT PROVIDED TWO ADA SPACES FOR THEIR COMMERCIAL SPACES. THEY HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE COMMERCIAL IN THAT PROJECT. ON THE EVALUATION ON THIS PROJECT AND BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THEY SUBMITTED TO US, WE DID NOT THINK THAT THERE WAS AN OBJECTIVE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARD AND GROUNDS FOR US TO DENY THE WAIVER ITSELF. SO THE DETERMINATION MADE BY THE CITY IS THAT THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY COMMERCIAL ADA PARKING SPACES AND THE FOUR SPACES ON THE STREET ARE SUFFICIENT. IS THAT CORRECT? THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'RE INCLUDING IS YES, THAT IS SUFFICIENT. OKAY. THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR RIGHT NOW. FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BURROWS. AS A FOLLOW-UP TO THAT, A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. IS ADA SOMETHING THAT CAN BE WAIVED IN DENSITY BONUS LAW? A WAIVER CAN'T BE USED TO WAIVE A FEDERAL LAW OR REGULATION. I BELIEVE THE ISSUE HERE IS THE COMMERCIAL SPACES ARE NOT A REQUIREMENT UNDER ADA LAW. IT'S A REQUIREMENT [01:00:01] UNDER THE CITY'S LAW. SO IF SPACES ARE PROVIDED, THEN THE ADA IS TRIGGERED TO PROVIDE A SPACE PER, TO SET ASIDE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SPACES PER THE AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACES THAT ARE PROVIDED. SO THE WAIVER IS NOT SEEKING TO WAIVE ADA LAW. IT'S SEEKING TO WAIVE THE CITY'S REQUIREMENT FOR THE COMMERCIAL SPACES, WHICH WOULD THEN TRIGGER THE ADA. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. SO THE APPLICANT, WHILE THEY MIGHT NOT BE PROVIDING PARKING, HAS STATED THAT THEY WOULD PROVIDE WAYFINDING AND SIGNS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY REQUIRES OR THAT THEY OFFERED? I'LL TAKE A RESPONSE. SO TO BUILD OFF OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S REPRESENTATIVE RESPONSE, THE ADA PARKING REQUIREMENT STEMS FROM THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL PARKING PROVIDED ON THE SITE. WHEN CITY STAFF RECEIVED THE APPLICATION AND WAS REVIEWING THE WAIVERS, WE TOOK AN INITIAL POSITION THAT THE WAIVER OF ALL THE COMMERCIAL PARKING, INCLUDING THE ADA SPACES THAT ARE DERIVED FROM THE COMMERCIAL PARKING PROVIDED, WAS A DE FACTO ELIMINATION OF THE ADA SPACES. AND SO WE RAISED A POTENTIAL LIFE SAFETY ISSUE. THEY PROVIDED A MEMORANDUM TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS ADEQUATE AND SUFFICIENT ADA PARKING ON STATE STREET WITHIN A REASONABLE LOCATION TO PROVIDE SAFE AND MANEUVERABLE ACCESS TO ALL OF THE STORE FRONTS ON STATE STREET. THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DOES NOT HAVE AN ADOPTED STANDARD FOR ADA, NUMBER OF ADA SPACES PER PUBLIC PARKING PROVISIONS, BUT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHICH PROVIDES THE ENFORCEMENT OF ADA REQUIREMENTS DOES REQUIRE WHEN PUBLIC PROVISIONS ARE PROVIDED THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE ACCESS TO ALL THOSE THAT MAY BE MOBILITY IMPAIRED. THERE IS AN ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT STANDARDS COMMISSION BOARD THAT REGULATES OR PROVIDES GUIDANCE TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES ON THE ADA ACCESS AND THEY PREPARED A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES IN 2013. THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN 2023. AND SO IF THERE IS ANY FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS, THERE IS A STANDARD NOW IN PLACE FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS TO IMPLEMENT. THOSE STANDARDS ARE ONE SPACE PER EVERY 25 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES. SO THIS SECTION OF STATE STREET HAS 25 PARKING SPACES. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL POTENTIALLY FOUR IF VIGILUCCI'S DIDN'T HAVE THEIR CURB CAFE PARKING. SO THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION OF THE NUMBER OF ADA SPACES ON STATE STREET ON THE WEST SIDE COMPLIES WITH THIS INDUSTRY STANDARD EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. SO EVEN IF THE CITY WAS TO ADOPT SOMETHING SIMILAR, THIS WOULD SATISFY THAT REQUIREMENT. SO THE MEMORANDUM THAT WAS PROVIDED DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE ARE PUBLIC PARKING PROVISIONS AVAILABLE, THERE ARE ADA PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE, AND THEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE IS A SAFE PATH OF TRAVEL TO THE BUILDING. SO THE CITY, EVEN THOUGH WE RAISED INITIALLY THAT THERE COULD BE A DE FACTO LIFE SAFETY ISSUE WITH COMPLETELY WAIVING COMMERCIAL PARKING, THEY'RE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS NOT A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE THERE IS ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKING AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC WITHIN A REASONABLE RANGE. TYPICALLY WITH THE STANDARDS, THE ADA ACCESS IS THE MOST IMMEDIATE SAFE PATH OF TRAVEL. AND SO LOOKING AT MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS OR LOOKING AT ADJACENT INTERSECTIONS EITHER TO THE SOUTH OR TO THE NORTH KIND OF GOES BEYOND THE REALM OF WHAT THE ADA'S PURPOSE WAS. THERE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE CLOSEST AVAILABLE OR FEASIBLE LOCATION TO THE STOREFRONT. SO THE MEMORANDUM ESSENTIALLY PROVIDED THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE. AND UNDER SOME OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT LAWS OR HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND OTHER RECENT LAWS, THE LAWS ARE INTERPRETED TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN TERMS OF APPROVING PROJECTS RATHER THAN TRYING TO HAVE THE BURDEN PUSHED ON THE APPLICANTS, THE BURDEN ON THE CITY TO SHOW THAT THERE'S A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE EVIDENCE AND THE FACTS OF THE MATTER SHOW THAT THERE ISN'T ONE. IS THE APPLICANT PROVIDING A PRESENTATION? WE WILL FIND OUT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. THE ACCESSIBILITY IS A BIG CONCERN AND IF THE DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING TO USE PUBLIC [01:05:03] RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCESSIBILITY PARKING SPACES HOW IS THAT GOING TO IMPROVE THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE THE CITY IS HOLDING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT ACCESSIBILITY AND HAS THERE BEEN A STUDY THAT ACTUALLY DEFINES THAT PATH OF TRAVEL? HAS A STATE REPRESENTATIVE CERTIFIED ACCESS SPECIALIST FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEEN ENGAGED TO ALSO REVIEW THIS AND IF A CERTIFIED ACCESS SPECIALIST THROUGH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HASN'T BEEN ENGAGED, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONDITION TO MAKE SURE THAT BECAUSE WE'RE RELYING ON PARKING SPACES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOESN'T REVIEW ACCESS PLANS, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DOES, AND THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS IN CHARGE OF THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, SO MY CONCERN IS MAYBE WE'RE MISSING A PIECE, MAYBE WE NEED TO ENGAGE A CERTIFIED ACCESS SPECIALIST, A CASP, WHICH IS WHAT THEY CALL THEM, THROUGH THE DIVISION OF STATE ARCHITECT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS ROUTE IS ACCESSIBLE TO THAT BUILDING, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT'S NOT QUITE WHAT IS CLEAR. ANYWAY, IT'S A SUGGESTION, BUT I THINK IT COULD BE IN CONDITION IF WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. COMMISSIONER MERZ? SORRY, JUST REALLY QUICKLY ON THAT. THEY ACTUALLY DID PROVIDE A LETTER FROM A CASP SPECIALIST, AND THAT IS INCLUDED AS PART OF AN ATTACHMENT TO THEIR TRAFFIC MEMO, SO YOU'LL SEE IT IN THERE AS IT'S, YEAH, ONE OF THE ATTACHMENTS RIGHT AFTER THE END OF THE LETTER, THERE'S A LETTER FROM A CASP SPECIALIST IN THERE. THERE IS AN ONGOING OBLIGATION FOR THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT ITS PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE MEETS ADA COMPLIANCE STANDARDS, SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SURVIVES AND GOES BEYOND THIS IMMEDIATE PROJECT FOR AT LEAST THAT SEGMENT OF STATE STREET. CHAPTER 11 OF PART 2 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE IS THE ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS FOR THE BUILDING CODE, AND THAT APPLIES TO NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND AS PART OF THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, THE PLAN CHECK PROCESS, THERE IS A CASP CERTIFIED SPECIALIST THAT WILL LOOK AT THE ACCESSIBILITY ON THE PROJECT SITE ITSELF, AND THE GOAL IS TO PROVIDE SAFE ROUTES TO THE PUBLIC SPACE. ANYTHING BEYOND THAT, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER LAFFER, YOU SPOKE TO THIS, THE OBLIGATION IS ON THE CITY TO CONTINUOUSLY PROVIDE THAT, SO IT IS AN ONGOING OBLIGATION, AND WE DO HAVE REGULAR MONITORING OF ADA COMPLIANCE OF THE CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE TO AVOID LITIGATION PRIMARILY. THANK YOU, MR. STRONG. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME? COMMISSIONER FOSTER. WHAT'S THE CITY REQUIREMENTS OR THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER STATE LAW OR WHATNOT IN REGARDS TO THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THREE PROPOSED PARKING SPACES AND ONE ADA SPACE, IS THAT CORRECT? AND SO WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS THERE IN REGARDS TO ADA, IF ANY AT ALL? FOR A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE, IT WOULD BE ONE ADA SPACE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. THANK YOU. ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? THE APPLICANT IS HERE. HE DOESN'T HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT HE'S AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, YOU HAD ASKED IF THE APPLICANT WAS GOING TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. WE NOW KNOW HE'S AVAILABLE. OR THEY'RE HERE. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I DO HAVE A QUESTION, YES. AGAIN, JUST KIND OF BACK TO THE QUESTION ON THE MEMO, NOT SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE SPACE, BUT YOU'RE STATING KIND OF IN THE CONCLUDING SENTENCE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE CLEAR DOCUMENTATION, WAYFINDING, AND TENANT COMMUNICATION. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THE APPLICANTS COULD SPEAK ON BEHALF OF NOT PROVIDING SPACING, BUT PROVIDING THE SIGNAGE AND WHATNOT TOWARDS SPACES THAT YOU'RE NOT PROVIDING. PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME, PLEASE. MOELLER WITH KM ARCHITECTS. SO WE'VE STUDIED THIS SITUATION [01:10:02] AT GREAT LENGTHS, OBVIOUSLY, AND WE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE UNITS ARE INTENDED TO BE APARTMENT RENTALS, AND SO THEY WILL BE A RENTAL SITUATION WHERE THEY WILL HAVE TO SIGN A LEASE AND THEY'LL BE GIVEN PAPERWORK TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR LEASE, AND PART OF THAT PAPERWORK WILL BE WAYFINDING INFORMATION THAT WILL BE HANDED TO THEM. THEY'LL ALSO HAVE INFORMATION ON HOW TO USE THE PARKING. THE PARKING SPACES WILL BE DEDICATED TO EACH UNIT, AND SO THEY'LL BE GIVEN INFORMATION AND A TUTORIAL HOW TO NAVIGATE THEIR NEW HOME AND NEW LOCATION AND SITE SURROUNDINGS. SO IN THE MEMO ON THE AFFORDABLE UNITS AND THE AFFORDABLE SPACES, NONE OF THE WAYFINDING THAT YOU INCLUDE IN THIS MEMO IS FOR THAT. IT'S FOR THE TENANTS AND THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. IT'S FOR THE TENANTS, BUT THERE WILL ALSO BE SIGNS POSTED THROUGHOUT THE COMMERCIAL SPACE THAT INDICATE WHICH DIRECTION THE HANDICAP PARKING IS LOCATED. THEY'LL CREATE SOME SIGNAGE THAT IS PERTINENT TO PARKING SITUATIONS. WE DON'T HAVE A TEMPLATE FOR THAT YET, BUT THAT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. DURING CONSTRUCTION, WILL THERE BE ANY PAUSE TO THE SPACE? WILL ANY OF THE CITY'S SPACES BE TAKEN UP? NO. WE'LL FIGURE OUT A WAY TO CREATE SPACE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ON SITE. IT'S A SMALL SITE, AND SO OBVIOUSLY THERE WILL BE TIMES WHEN MATERIALS WILL NEED TO BE MOVED ONTO THE SITE, AND SO THAT WILL HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT WITH THE CITY, AND THERE WILL BE HAUL ROUTES PLANNED, AND IT WILL BE COORDINATED APPROPRIATELY THROUGH CITY REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT. HOW ARE YOU? GOOD. GOOD. A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS. SO PAGE 10 TALKS ABOUT THE APPLICANT PROPOSING TO SATISFY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS BY PROVIDING 15% OF THE BASE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, BUT THE DEVELOPER IS NOT REQUESTING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, HOW DOES THIS ENSURE THE APARTMENT UNITS WILL KEEP OR MAINTAIN LOW INCOME TENANTS? THERE WILL BE DEED RESTRICTED, AND THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT WILL CONTROL WHO, WELL, I GUESS THEY WILL HELP THE PROPERTY OWNER DETERMINE WHO CAN AND CAN'T RENT THE LOW INCOME UNIT. AND I DON'T KNOW, I THINK I SAW MANDY MILLS EARLIER, SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT MORE IN DEPTH. GREAT. AND I BELIEVE IT'S DEED RESTRICTED FOR 55 YEARS. PERFECT. THANK YOU. AND JUST FOR MY OWN EDIFICATION, DID YOU DO THE INITIAL PROPOSAL IN, WHAT, 2016? IS THAT WHAT IT WAS? I WORKED FOR THE FIRM THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPOSAL, SO I WAS PART OF IT. OKAY. AND YOU JUMPED FROM FIVE UNITS, A MUCH LARGER PROJECT, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT WAS LIKE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BIGGER, RIGHT? BUT IT WAS LESS UNITS, AND THEN YOU PROPOSED, WHEN DID THE SEVEN UNITS COME INTO PLAY? SO WE DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE SOME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WE COULD NOT PHYSICALLY COMPLY WITH. OKAY. AND THOSE WERE THE WAIVERS? THOSE WERE THE WAIVERS. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE 80% COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE ON TWO STREETS. YOU KNOW, WE'RE SURROUNDED WITH THREE STREETS IN THIS SITUATION, SO THERE WAS JUST PHYSICALLY NO WAY TO DO IT, AND THAT'S WHEN WE KIND OF WENT THE ROUTE OF THE DENSITY BONUS. AND WE DIDN'T INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. WE DIDN'T INCREASE THE SHAPE OF THE BUILDING. WE SIMPLY MADE THE UNITS A BIT SMALLER. OKAY. AND SO WE WERE TRYING TO BE COGNIZANT OF THE MASSING AND LOOK OF THE BUILDING WHEN DOING THAT. OKAY. YEAH, WELL, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, GOOD. AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAY, WE ARE ALWAYS INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE THAT WE CAN ACCOMMODATE AFFORDABLE UNITS WHEN POSSIBLE. SO I APPLAUD YOUR EFFORT IN TRYING TO DO THAT. I DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE CORNER CONDITION THAT YOU CARVED OUT ON THE CORNER OF STATE STREET AND CROSSBAD VILLAGE, BECAUSE I'M WONDERING WHY TAKING AWAY THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, 500 SQUARE FEET, WAS BENEFICIAL TO THE VISIBILITY OF THAT CORNER. IT'S A VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT. ON THE CORNER, THOUGH? ON THAT CORNER, ALL CORNERS ON THAT INTERSECTION, IF DEVELOPMENTS OCCUR AT ANY POINT IN TIME, HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM 500 SQUARE FOOT OPEN COURT. SO IT WAS SOMETHING WE COULDN'T GET OUT OF, AND WE CHOSE NOT TO WAIVE IT, OBVIOUSLY. WE FELT IT WAS SOMETHING NICE TO TRY TO KEEP IT AS OPEN AS POSSIBLE. YEAH, THE CORNER WANTS TO BE VISIBLE, [01:15:02] BUT THAT CAN ALSO BE ACHIEVED WITH CHAMFERING THE CORNERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT'S THE ONLY THING I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, BUT I ALSO SAW THAT YOU HAD BIKE PARKING AND PLANTERS THERE, WHICH SORT OF, I THOUGHT THERE WERE ALREADY BIKE PARKING AREAS ON STATE STREET, SO IS IT A REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE MORE? YES, IT IS. IT'S A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE ON-SITE. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BICYCLE PARKING DON'T COUNT TOWARDS THE REQUIREMENT, AND WE WERE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH AS MANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS AS POSSIBLE AND AS MINIMAL WAIVERS AS POSSIBLE. GREAT. AND, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO PLAY ARCHITECT-TO-ARCHITECT HERE. DID THE MATERIALS FROM THE STAFF REPORT CHANGE? NO. OKAY. SO IN THE STAFF REPORT ON PAGE FIVE, YOU TALK ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA CONTEMPORARY WITH THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, WHICH I UNDERSTAND. BUT THEN IT TALKS ABOUT STONE VENEER, PORCELAIN TILES, AND CONCRETE MASONRY BLOCK. AND THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN TALKS ABOUT CAST CONCRETE AND WOOD, OR MAYBE EVEN ALTERNATIVE WOOD, BUT NOT NECESSARILY PORCELAIN THAT FAKES ITSELF THAT LOOKS LIKE WOOD. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WERE TRYING TO EVOKE THE SALK INSTITUTE VERSUS SOME OTHER TYPE OF STRUCTURE. SO WHY THE CHOICE OF MATERIALS IF YOU WERE TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS? YEAH, I THINK THE PORCELAIN TILE IS INTENDED TO LOOK LIKE WOOD, AND MAYBE IT ULTIMATELY BECOMES A COMPOSITE WOOD MATERIAL. OKAY. WE DON'T WANT TO GO WITH NATURAL WOOD. IT DETERIORATES. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO ULTIMATELY, I THINK IT COULD POTENTIALLY, MOST LIKELY BECOME A COMPOSITE WOOD MATERIAL. OKAY. AND AS FAR AS THE CONCRETE BLOCK GOES, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS BREEZE BLOCK. SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IN MY OPINION, IS MORE OF A CONTEMPORARY LOOK AT THE TRASH ENCLOSURE AND THOSE UTILITY AREAS. AND SO WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE MORE OF A UNIQUE LOOK FOR THE BUILDING, NOT JUST YOUR STANDARD GRAY MASONRY BLOCK. UNDERSTOOD. THE STONE VENEER IS PROBABLY THE ONE THAT IS LEAST IN KEEPING WITH THE CONTEMPORARY INTENT OF THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN, BUT I WANTED TO ASK FURTHER CLARIFICATION AND IF YOU CAN RETHINK THAT PORCELAIN AND STONE VENEER, THAT MIGHT BE REALLY HELPFUL, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S OBVIOUSLY SET IN STONE. THANKS. COMMISSIONER MERZ. THANKS. I'M JUST CURIOUS, HOW DID YOU DETERMINE, LIKE, IT'S JUST ABOUT 2,900 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL GROUND FLOOR. WHAT DRIVES OR HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE TO ALLOCATE TO RETAIL ON THE PROJECT? THE GOAL WAS TO TRY TO PROVIDE AS MUCH RETAIL AS POSSIBLE. OBVIOUSLY, RETAIL IS WELL RECEIVED IN THAT CORNER AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, AND SO OUR GOAL WAS MINIMIZE THE LOBBY SPACES, MINIMIZE, I MEAN, PARKING IS IMPORTANT, OBVIOUSLY, BUT WE'RE STUCK WITH WHAT WE HAVE ALONG THE ALLEY, AND SO TRYING TO CREATE A CONFIGURATION THAT DIDN'T TAKE UP RETAIL SPACE WITH ALL OF THE OTHER ELEMENTS WAS IMPORTANT, AND WE PUSHED THE RETAIL AS FAR AS WE POSSIBLY COULD WITH SPACE. WE HAVE OUR 500 SQUARE FOOT CARVED OUT OF THE CORNER, AND SO MASSAGING ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS INTO ONE PLACE TO ACHIEVE THE MOST POSSIBLE RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS THE GOAL. AND SO IT'S BASED ON YOUR DECISION BASED ON DEMAND THAT YOU SAW FOR RETAIL? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT SAID DIVISIBLE, BY THE NUMBER OF DOORS, THAT'S DIVISIBLE SPACE? YES, IT COULD BE. WE DON'T HAVE TENANTS IDENTIFIED YET, BUT WE SET IT UP SO THAT THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE MULTIPLE TENANTS OR SINGLE TENANT IF SOMEONE WORTHY ENOUGH CAME ALONG. SURE, AND THEN I'M JUST CURIOUS, BASED ON YOUR RESEARCH, WHAT DO YOU SEE AS PROBABLY THE LIKELY RETAIL USES IN THERE? I HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THAT. WE'RE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY RESTAURANT, POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING NOT TO BRING MORE OF THE SAME, SOMETHING UNIQUE THERE, OBVIOUSLY, BUT FOOD OR CAFE TYPE USE, I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE NOW. OKAY, SO. GOOD, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY. ANYTHING FURTHER FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. MILLER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER FOSTER. THANK YOU. SO, I GOT A QUESTION. THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO, BUT, SO, WAIVER NUMBER TWO, ABOUT 49% OF THE FRONTAGE ON CARLSBAD VILLAGE TRIBE IS JUST STONE VENEER, NOT GLASS, CORRECT? [01:20:02] WELL, IT'S STONE VENEER, IT'S CINDER BLOCK, IT'S A MIXTURE OF COLD STONE MATERIALS, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AT THE TRASH ENCLOSURE AREA, IN THE FIRE RISER ROOM? CORRECT, LIKE, CORRECT, YES, SO IF YOU LOOK AT IT, THERE YOU GO, SO 51% IS GLASS, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. SO 49% IS JUST BLOCK, JUST STONE. STONE, SO, LAUREN, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO PULL UP THE RENDERING? SORRY TO INTERRUPT. RIGHT, SO YOU'RE WALKING DOWN CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE, AND THEN 51% OF ITS CLASS, RETAIL, YOU KNOW, WELCOMING, AND THEN THE 49%, THE OTHER HALF OF IT, IT'S JUST, THAT'S THAT. SO THE QUESTION IS, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE FLOOR PLAN LAYOUT, AND THIS IS SOMETHING, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, AND I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, SO I ASK YOU FOR YOUR EXPERTISE, SO WHY COULDN'T YOU GUYS PUT THE MECHANICAL, THE ELEVATOR, THE STAIRWELL, AND EVERYTHING, WHY COULDN'T YOU MOVE IT TO THE NORTH SIDE, AND THEN EXPAND THE GLASS LINE ON THE SOUTH SIDE, SO THEN YOU'D HAVE A MORE WELCOMING SOUTH SIDE CURB APPEAL FOR THE PUBLIC, AND FOR THE OBVIOUSLY THE OCCUPANT, THE RETAIL TENANT, WHICH IS MOST LIKELY GOING TO BE A RESTAURANT. WHY COULDN'T YOU GUYS JUST MOVE EVERYTHING TO THE NORTH? THE FIRE RISER ROOM IS LOCATED THERE TO BE IN CLOSER PROXIMITY TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION VALVE, AND SO WE WANTED TO TRY TO BLOCK ALL OF THE UTILITIES INTO ONE SPOT, AND SO THAT MADE SENSE TO HAVE THE TRASH AND THOSE ELEMENTS THERE ON THE ALLEY ALSO. PART OF THE ACCESS IS ALSO AT THE HANDICAP PARKING STALL, THE GATES THAT OPEN INTO THAT HANDICAP PARKING STALL. IF WE PUT THE ENCLOSURE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS FROM INSIDE OF THE PARKING GARAGE AREA TO THE TRASH ENCLOSURE. THE STRIPING HAS TO BE ON THE PASSENGER SIDE, AND SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE OTHER DRIVING FACTORS FOR THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION. AND THEN THE PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD SEVEN RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND THERE'S FOUR PARKING SPACES? WELL, THOSE FOUR ARE ACTUALLY EIGHT, SO THE WAY THAT THEY GO DOWN AND UP, AND SO THERE'S ALWAYS AN OPEN SPOT AVAILABLE, AND THE WAY THE TECHNOLOGY WORKS IS THE OCCUPANTS WILL UNDERSTAND, THEY'LL BE GIVEN A SPACE, A BAY, SO THERE'S FOUR BAYS, EACH UNIT WILL HAVE A PARKING SPACE OR MULTIPLE PARKING SPACES DEPENDING ON THE UNIT, AND THEY'LL BE GIVEN A BAY, AND THEY'LL ALWAYS HAVE THE ABILITY TO DRIVE INTO THAT BAY. THERE'LL BE ONE CAR THAT'S EITHER DOWN OR UP, AND THEN THE BAY AT THE STREET LEVEL WILL ALWAYS BE OPEN FOR PARKING, UNLESS BOTH BAYS ARE FULL, AND THAT OCCUPANT WILL KNOW THAT THEY, I MEAN, THAT'S THEIR SPACE, AND SO THEY'LL COORDINATE WHO IS, IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE PEOPLE WITH CARS LIVING THERE, THEY'LL HAVE TO COORDINATE THAT ACCORDINGLY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION, THIS IS MORE OF A BUSINESS QUESTION, BUT HOW IS IT DETERMINED, SO THERE'S ONE ADA SPACE, AND THERE'S SEVEN UNITS, AND IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE'S MORE THAN ONE ADA PERSON IN THE BUILDING RENTING, HOW IS IT DETERMINED WHO GETS THAT ADA SPACE? YEAH, THAT'S A TRICKY QUESTION. I DON'T THINK I'M QUALIFIED TO ANSWER THAT, WE'RE JUST FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUILDING CODE. RIGHT, THAT'S A FAIR RESPONSE, I DIDN'T THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY ANSWER THAT ONE, BUT I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT IT, THANKS. ANYTHING FURTHER FOR MR. MUELLER? THANK YOU, SIR. YOU GOOD? I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK IF I COULD COMMENT ON THE PARKING DISCUSSION EARLIER, JUST BRIEFLY. GO AHEAD. SO THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL ADA PARKING SPACES ACROSS CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE IN THE COMMON PARKING LOT ACROSS FROM 3060 STATE STREET. I KNOW IT'S FARTHER AWAY, BUT THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL ADA PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE, THEY'RE NOT IN NEAR AS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SITE, BUT JUST TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, ALSO I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THE CURRENT BUSINESS THAT'S THERE HAS NO PARKING ON SITE AND NO ADA PARKING, AND WITH OUR CURRENT CONFIGURATION, THE NEW BUILDING WILL OCCUPY A LESSER SPACE THAN THEY CURRENTLY ARE, SO HYPOTHETICALLY THERE WILL BE LESS OF A PARKING DEMAND FROM A COMMERCIAL STANDPOINT, POTENTIALLY. JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAD. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE. I'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MINUTES CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? YES, CHAIR, WE HAVE SIX SPEAKERS, AND I HAVE TWO RESIDENTS WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION FOR THE ITEM BUT DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK. KEN RUFF AND DEBBIE FOLEY. [01:25:01] PLEASE DO. AS THE FIRST SPEAKER, GO AHEAD. KIM CHATFIELD, CAN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM? AS THE SPEAKER COMES TO THE PODIUM, EACH SPEAKER HAS THREE MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS. TO HELP SPEAKERS STAY WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT, THE MINUTES CLERK WILL ACTIVATE THE LIGHTED TIMER. A GREEN LIGHT MEENES SPEAK, YELLOW MEENES YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS REMAINING, AND THE BLINKING RED LIGHT MEENES YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. SO FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME, PLEASE. KIM CHATFIELD. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ASK FOR SMARTER AND MORE CREATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE FACED WITH, HOWEVER, IN THE VILLAGE, WE ARE, I'VE SPOKEN TO MANY RESIDENTS THAT WANT TO KEEP THE QUAINT ATMOSPHERE, THE VILLAGE CHARACTERISTIC THAT'S SLOWLY ERODING. WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF NEW BUILDINGS COMING UP WHERE SMART AND FINAL WAS, CARL'S JR. IN BACK OF THEM, THE UNION BANK BUILDING, IT LOOKS LIKE APARTMENT CORRIDOR, FOUR OR FIVE STORY WITH SOME VARIANCES. AND I'M WONDERING WHY WE CAN'T GO FURTHER EAST TO OTHER TRANSIT CENTERS, FOR EXAMPLE, CARL'S BAD MALL, WHICH HAS A LARGE UNUSED PARKING SCAPE WITH A TRANSIT CENTER RIGHT THERE. WHY WE CAN'T BE SMARTER WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT AND NOT RUIN THE CHARACTERISTIC WHICH A LOT OF VISITORS COME HERE TO VISIT FOR LEGOLAND. THEY GET BUSED TO THE VILLAGE FROM LEGOLAND HOTELS AND THEY WANT TO ENJOY THE SMALL TOWN ATMOSPHERE, NOT GO TO APARTMENT ALLEY. YOU COME OFF ON CARL'S BAD VILLAGE, YOU HAVE A BIG STORAGE LOOKING BUILDING. ALSO, THIS BUILDING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS A MODERN AESTHETIC. NOW, ON 800 GRAND AVENUE, WE HAVE MORE THE PITCHED ROOF. IT'S A FOUR OR FIVE STORY BUILDING. IT LOOKS MORE LIKE A BEACH COTTAGE. IF WE COULD CHANGE SOME OF THE AESTHETICS. AND ALSO, YOU TALKED ABOUT SAFETY. AND THERE IS AN IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY. IF THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF BUILDINGS, UNITS COMING WHERE SMART AND FINAL, CARS JUNIOR, UNION BANK, BUT NONE OF THE ROADS, INGRESS, EGRESS, ARE BEING WIDENED, HOW IS IT NOT A PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN? HOW ARE FIRE TRUCKS, SAFETY AMBULANCES, ABLE TO GET IN AND OUT WITH THOUSANDS MORE RESIDENTS ON THAT ONE LITTLE ROAD, LESS THAN A MILE LONG ON CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE? SO, I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER ALL OF THAT AND ALSO ASK COMMISSIONERS AND I KNOW CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AREN'T HERE, BUT THERE IS A LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO LISTEN TO COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND SERVE AS OUR REPRESENTATIVE, NOT THE DEVELOPER'S REPRESENTATIVE. SO, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK FOR THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LORI ROBBINS. NEXT SPEAKER. AGAIN, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. YOUR NAME PLEASE. LORI ROBBINS. CAN YOU HEAR ME? THERE YOU GO. A LITTLE BETTER. CAN YOU HEAR ME? MUCH BETTER. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I AM SPEAKING TONIGHT JUST AS A RESIDENT OF CARLSBAD. I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS PROPOSAL SO FAR. HOWEVER, COMMISSION SHOULD REQUIRE SOLUTIONS FOR LIKELY SOIL CONTAMINATION AND SOIL STABILITY RISKS BEFORE APPROVAL BY COUNCIL. THE CITY COUNCIL RELIES ON YOUR TECHNICAL OVERSIGHT. THE APPLICANT SHOULD COMPLETE STUDIES ON THREE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS BEFORE THIS PROJECT MOVES FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL. FIRST, SOIL CONTAMINATION. THERE NEEDS TO BE A CURRENT STUDY. GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THIS SITE AS A GAS STATION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE PREPARED TO MITIGATE ANY GAS, OIL, OR SOVEREIGNS BEFORE DEVELOPMENT. SECOND, HIGH WATER TABLE [01:30:01] ISSUES. THIS SITE HAS A HISTORY OF HIGH WATER TABLE. THIS IS WELL DOCUMENTED IN REPORTS FROM THE NCTD, WHEN THEY EVALUATED THE FEASIBILITY OF TRENCHING THE TRACKS. THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPING ON A HIGH WATER TABLE. THE RISKS INCLUDE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE, FLOODING, AND RUNOFF ISSUES. THIRD, A HIGH WATER TABLE COMBINED WITH THE SOIL CONDITIONS THAT ARE KNOWN TO EXIST IN THE VILLAGE IS AN EARTHQUAKE RISK. IT INCREASES THE POSSIBILITY OF LIQUEFYING DURING AN EARTHQUAKE. WE NEED TO KNOW THE EXACT EARTHQUAKE SAFETY ISSUES NOW, NOT AFTER EXCAVATION BEGINS. SOME OF THESE FINDINGS MIGHT WARRANT EXPENSIVE SOLUTIONS THAT HONESTLY THE DEVELOPER SHOULD ACCOUNT FOR IN THEIR BUDGET SO WE DON'T GET A HOLE IN THE GROUND AND THE PROJECT STOPS. CITY COUNCIL RELIES ON YOUR OVERSIGHT. THESE STUDIES SHOULD BE DONE BEFORE COUNCIL APPROVAL TO ENSURE A SAFE AND SUCCESSFUL PROJECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. CHRIS WRIGHT, REPRESENTING EQUITABLE LAND USE ALLIANCE, NON-PROFIT CARLSBAD. SINCE I ONLY GET THREE MINUTES, I WILL BE HANDING OFF THIS PRESENTATION TO JAN F. SINCLAIR. SHOULD I NOT FINISH, PLEASE LEAVE THE SLIDES UP. AS A RETIRED SCIENTIST, I AM ASKING THE COMMISSION TO OPPOSE THIS PROJECT. IT IS DIFFICULT TO DENY A PROJECT, GIVEN STATE LAWS. HOWEVER, WE ARE TRYING TO PROVE A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, IS THE ONLY LEGAL WAY TO OPPOSE IT. WE ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ASK FOR A COMPREHENSIVE SOIL REPORT, INCLUDING SOIL VAPOR TESTING, WHICH NEEDS TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC PRIOR TO THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE COASTAL ZONE AND 200 FEET FROM THE LAWSON RAIL BOUNDARIES. OUR RESEARCH ON THIS PROJECT DATES BACK 70 YEARS, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS FIRST DEVELOPED IN THE EARLY 1920S. HERE I PROVIDE THE SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP DATED NOVEMBER 1925, SHOWING THE FIRST GAS STATION ON THIS PROPERTY. AT THAT TIME, STATE STREET WAS NAMED FIRST STREET. THIS PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN OF THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT TAKEN IN THE EARLY 1920S FROM FIRST STREET, FACING WEST ONTO ELM, SHOWING A GAS STATION AT THAT SITE. THANKS TO OUR FRIENDS AT THE CARLSBAD HISTORICAL SOCIETY, THEY PROVIDED A PROPERTY HISTORY FROM 1921 TO 1983, WHICH SHOWS THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT THEY WERE ALL RELATED TO THE AUTOMOBILE BUSINESS, SUCH AS PROVIDING REPAIR, GASOLINE AND OIL, TRANSMISSION SERVICE, ETC. THE LAST AUTOMOBILE BUSINESS TO OCCUPY THIS SPACE WAS JOE'S TRANSMISSION, WHICH CLOSED IN THE FALL OF 1983, AND THE PHOTO WAS TAKEN FROM CARLSBAD MAGAZINE. FOR 62 YEARS, THIS PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO NO ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, AS THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WAS ESTABLISHED AFTER THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS OF JOE'S TRANSMISSION. KEEP IN MIND THAT THE LEADED GASOLINE WAS BANNED VIA STATE LAW ON JANUARY 1, 1992. THERE WERE NO REGULATIONS TO MONITOR FUEL STORAGE OR TO OFFICIALLY CLEAN UP SPILLS. CONTAMINANTS JUST LEACHED INTO THE GROUND. WE HAVE RECORDS FROM VARIOUS PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT THE UNDERGROUND OIL AND GAS TANKS WERE REMOVED IN 1998, AND THE STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD BEGAN CLEANUP IN 1998 AND FINISHED IN MARCH 2000. THE REPORT STATES THAT NO CLEANUP ACTIONS HAVE BEEN REPORTED. AND, QUOTE, TO NOTIFY THE LEAD CLEANUP OVERSIGHT AGENCY PRIOR TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO CHANGE LINE USE. AND THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR INCLUDING THAT. [01:35:01] IN FEBRUARY 2000, A LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT WAS DONE, WHICH REVEALED HIGH LEVELS OF TOTAL RECOVERABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS AND TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS IN SEVERAL SOIL BORINGS FROM THAT STUDY. WE ARE UNSURE AS TO WHICH HYDROCARBONS WERE ANALYZED OR IF AN ANALYSIS OF LEAD WAS INCLUDED IN THAT STUDY. I'M SORRY, BUT THE THREE MINUTES ARE UP. PLEASE HOLD YOUR APPLAUSE. JAN NEFF-SINCLAIR. I'M CONTINUING. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES AND YOUR NAME AGAIN? JAN NEFF-SINCLAIR. THANK YOU. I'VE LIVED IN CARLSBAD SINCE 1989. AND I'M FINISHING UP CHRIS'S PRESENTATION. SO, GIVEN THAT THE INITIAL SOIL ANALYSIS WAS 26 YEARS AGO, AND WE KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN GREAT ADVANCES IN SCIENTIFIC DETECTION PROCEDURES, AND GIVEN THAT, ACCORDING TO ONE OF OUR CITY ENGINEERS, THAT THE SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT IS TYPICALLY PERFORMED AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL, WE ARE ASKING THAT AN ANALYSIS BE DONE PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING SO THE PUBLIC CAN SEE IF THE SITE IS INDEED CONTAMINATED WITH TOXIC CHEMICALS. AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF THE PROJECT COULD BE DENIED BASED ON A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ROSE. ROZ. ROWE. ROWE. ROWE. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES AND YOUR NAME, PLEASE. YES. ROZ ROWE. AND GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M A RESIDENT FOR 10 YEARS IN THE VILLAGE. THE REASON THAT I CAME TO THE VILLAGE WAS BASICALLY BECAUSE OF THE QUAINT STATE STREET SHOPPING AREA, THE ABILITY FOR ME TO NOT HAVE TO GET IN A CAR AND DO MY SHOPPING AND LIVE IN A VERY PLEASANT PLACE. I HAD BASICALLY GIVEN UP ON ATTENDING CITY MEETINGS, AND I SAID I WOULDN'T COME AGAIN TONIGHT. THIS COULD BE MY FINALE. BUT IN REGARDS TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE VILLAGE, I'VE GIVEN UP. I WAS IN ATTENDANCE TWO YEARS AGO WHEN THERE WAS CLOSE TO 100 PEOPLE ON THE CORNER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW. AND I THINK THE SAME ARCHITECT WAS THERE AT THAT TIME. IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE VILLAGE WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THIS PROJECT. APPARENTLY, THEY DIDN'T LISTEN TO US, AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED AT ALL THE ATTENDANCE OF THE MEETINGS I'VE BEEN TO. THE LAST MEETING I CAME TO WAS DISCUSSING THE PROJECT BY THE TRAIN STATION, WHICH IS VERY CLOSE TO ME. AND WHEN THEY ASKED THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS IF ANY OF THEM HAD BEEN TO THE LOCATION WHERE THE 250-PLUS APARTMENTS WERE GOING TO BE BUILT, TWO SAID THEY'D SEEN IT ON A GPS MAP, A GOOGLE MAP. THEY HAD NOT EVEN BEEN OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO TONIGHT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO INVITE YOU ALL TO GO TO THIS LOCATION ON WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON AT 5 P.M. WHEN THE FARMER'S MARKET IS VERY BUSY, WHERE IT'S VIBRANT, WHERE THE SUN'S COMING IN. YOU'RE GOING TO PUT A FOUR-STORY BUILDING THERE. THAT'S GOING TO BLOCK ENVIRONMENTAL, THE SUN FROM THAT PARTICULAR AREA. AND TRULY, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE WHOLE COMMUNITY OF STATE STREET. THERE'S NOT ONE BUILDING ON THAT STREET THAT'S OVER TWO STORIES HIGH. THERE'S LITTLE OR NO RESIDENTIAL ON THAT STREET. SO MY BIG QUESTION IN MY MIND IS, AS A PROPERTY OWNER, WHY SHOULD I STAY HERE WHEN DEVELOPERS COULD COME ANY TIME, OWNERS NOW ON STATE STREET? IF YOU APPROVE THIS PROJECT, WHAT'S GOING TO HOLD THEM BACK FROM BUYING VIGALUCCI'S BUILDING OR BUYING, YOU KNOW, ANY BUILDING ON THAT STREET AND BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING? SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND, THAT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THERE'S NO MORE SPEAKERS. NO MORE SPEAKERS? NO MORE SPEAKERS. OKAY. I WILL THEN NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY COMMENTS MADE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MILLER. WOULD STAFF LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS AT ALL IN REGARD TO COMMENTS MADE BY PUBLIC TESTIMONY? NO, BUT I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. OKAY. [01:40:02] VERY FINE. COMMISSIONERS. QUESTIONS OF STAFF? WE HAVE DISCUSSION. AND QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER FOSTER. I GOT A FEW QUESTIONS. HAS CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND DID THEY IDENTIFY ANY SAFETY CONCERNS WITH THE PROJECT? THEY HAVE REVIEWED THE PROJECT. THEY DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY SAFETY CONCERNS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MISS WRIGHT GAVE A PRETTY GOOD PRESENTATION. ANN, SHE BROUGHT UP A POINT OF THE OLD PHASE TWO STUDY, WHICH IS OVER 26 YEARS OLD. CAN YOU GO IN DEPTH HERE, FOR MY KNOWLEDGE AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PUBLIC, WHY IS THE CITY NOT REQUIRING A NEW PHASE TWO STUDY, GIVEN THE CURRENT STUDY IS OVER 26 YEARS OLD? AND THEN ALSO, IF YOU COULD EXPAND ON THAT, WHY IS THE CITY NOT REQUIRING ANY SORT OF SOIL VAPOR TESTING OR ANY SORT OF ACTUAL LAB TEST OR ANY TESTING WHATSOEVER OF THE SOIL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMIT? SO, THE PROJECT, AS I MENTIONED IN THE PRESENTATION, WE'RE RECOMMENDING A CEQA EXEMPTION, THE AB 130, WHICH IS THE NEW STATUTORY EXEMPTION. SO, THE PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE 21080.66, WHICH IS WHERE AB 130 IS LOCATED, ACTUALLY SPEAKS SPECIFICALLY TO THE PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT. SO, IT ALLOWS US TO REQUIRE A PHASE ONE, AND IT ALSO ALLOWS US TO REQUIRE THAT HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, IF FOUND ON THE SITE, ARE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE. SO, THE CONDITIONS THAT WE PLACED ON THE PROJECT RESOLUTION WITH THE AMENDMENT COVERS THIS. SO, THEY'VE ALREADY PROVIDED A PHASE TWO. IT IS FROM 2000. THEY PROVIDED THE UPDATE LETTER, WHICH HIS REVISED RECOMMENDATION WERE FOR ADDITIONAL SOIL VAPOR TESTING. THAT'S BEST TO BE DONE ONCE ALL THE STRUCTURES ARE REMOVED FROM THE SITE, JUST BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE THE SITE AS LONG AS THEY CAN FOR NOW. THAT WOULD JUST CAUSE MORE DISTURBANCE, AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH AB 130. SO, IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT IT FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE, AND UNDER CEQA, THEY'RE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS. SO, THERE'S REALLY NOT ANYTHING ADDITIONAL THAT THEY NEED TO DO NOW. THE EXEMPTION IS KIND OF, OR THE CONDITION IS KIND OF GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND BY REQUIRING THIS EXTRA TESTING. SO, TO CONTINUE THAT, SO, IN THE EVENT THE CITY WERE TO SAY, HEY, WE WANT YOU TO DO PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PERMITS, THE CITY WOULD ACTUALLY BE OUTSIDE THE LAW. THEY COULDN'T ACTUALLY REQUIRE THAT ON THE APPLICANT. IS THAT CORRECT? MR. STRONG. THANK YOU. THERE REALLY ISN'T A NEXUS IN THIS CASE TO REQUIRE THAT CONDITION, AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY. THE 1998 DECOMMISSIONING OF THE GAS STATION IS REGULATED BY VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, AND THAT IS THE AGENCY THAT PROVIDED OR RECEIVED THAT PHASE TWO REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED. THAT PHASE TWO REPORT WAS APPROVED AND CERTIFIED BY THAT STATE AGENCY. THE CONCLUSIONS OF THAT REPORT SHOWED THAT THERE WERE SIX BORINGS, TESTINGS DONE AT A DEPTH OF 16 FEET. THERE WERE ELEVATED LEVELS OF CONTAMINANTS, BUT DID NOT ELEVATE TO A LEVEL THAT REQUIRED REMEDIATION AT THAT TIME. SO, THAT IS WHY THE CASE IS CURRENTLY CLOSED ON THAT ENVIRO, OR ON THAT CORTESE LIST SITE. THE CORTESE LIST OF HAZARDOUS SITES IS SOMETHING THAT IS REGULATED BY THE CALIFORNIA EPA, AND THEY MAINTAIN A DATABASE THAT INCLUDES REFERRALS AND INPUT FROM OTHER STATE AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, BUT ALSO THE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL. AT THE TIME OF ITS ENACTMENT IN 1985, IT WAS INTENDED TO HAVE A SPECIFIC LIST THAT WAS MAINTAINED BY THE EPA, BUT OVER TIME AND SERIES OF ENACTMENTS IN 1991, CHANGED IT SO THAT THE REPORTING AGENCIES WOULD MAINTAIN THAT LIST. SO, CURRENTLY, IF YOU WERE TO GO TO ANY OF THE DATABASES THAT ARE MAINTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL OR THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, THEY MAINTAIN THESE DATABASES. ONE IS THE ENVIRO SCORE, AND LET'S SEE IF I HAVE ACTUALLY [01:45:01] THE INFORMATION. THE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL HAS THE DATABASE THAT INCLUDES ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES SUBJECT TO CORRECTIVE ACTION, ALL LAND DESIGNATED AS HAZARDOUS WASTE PROPERTY, ALL INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL PURSUANT TO STATE LAW AND THE HEALTH SAFETY CODE ON HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSALS OF LAND, AND ALL OTHER SITES LISTED AS ABANDONED SITE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, AND ALL OTHER SITES LISTED AS ABANDONED SITE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. THE OTHER AGENCY THAT WAS REFERENCED IS THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD. THEY INCLUDE ALL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS, SO THESE ARE USTS THAT ARE AFFILIATED WITH GAS STATIONS, IN WHICH AN AUTHORIZED RELEASE REPORT IS FILED, IN WHICH CASE THIS WAS AT ONE POINT IN 1998. ALL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES, WHICH REQUIRE MITIGATION OF HAZARD, AND ALL CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS ISSUED AFTER 1986. SO THIS DATABASE OF KNOWN ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS IS MAINTAINED BY THESE OVERSIGHT REGULATORY AGENCIES, AND THEY INDICATE IT'S STANDING. AND SO IN THIS CASE, THE CASE IS CLOSED. THERE IS NO FURTHER MITIGATION REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THAT 2000 REPORT. AND SO FOR THE PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE PROJECT'S APPLICABILITY TO ANY FURTHER REMEDIATION OR TO IMPOSE ANY FURTHER CONDITIONS WOULD BE TO DEFER TO THAT CORTESE LIST OF SITES TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A LISTED SITE OF KNOWN CONTAMINANTS. SO SINCE IT'S NOT ON THAT SITE, THE CITY LACKED THE ABILITY TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS TO REQUIRE PHASE 2 OR EVEN PHASE 3 REMEDIATION. THE PROPOSED CONDITION THAT IS SUGGESTED TO BE AMENDED IN THE RESOLUTION IS SOMETHING THAT IS ENABLED THROUGH THE AUTHORITY OF AB 130, AND SO THAT IS PRETTY MUCH THE EXTENT THAT STAFF FEELS COMFORTABLE IN RECOMMENDING SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, HOUSING ELEMENT LAW, THE FAIR TREATMENT OF DISCRIMINATION OF LAND USE PRACTICES, OR AFFIRMABILITY FOR THE FAIR HOUSING THAT WOULD BE REGULATED BY HCV. SO THIS DOES ALLOW THE CITY TO COORDINATE, AND IT'S BEING SHOWN ON THE OVERHEAD PROJECTOR, WITH THE LEAD STATE AGENCY. IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD OR THE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC ASSESSMENT CONTROL TO NOTIFY THEM AND PROVIDE A SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER. AND IN THE EVENT THAT OVERSIGHT AGENCY WANTS TO INTERVENE AND SUGGEST A PHASE 2 OR PHASE 3 REMEDIATION, THAT THAT IS IN PLACE TO ALLOW THAT OVERSIGHT AGENCY THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO. SO THIS ALLOWS THE CITY TO NOT INVADE ANY AREA THAT WOULD IMPOSE A CONDITION THAT GOES BEYOND WHAT IS WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF HOUSING ELEMENT LAW AND THE VARIOUS LAWS THAT I HAD REFERENCED EARLIER, BUT STILL ALLOWS THE OVERSIGHT AGENCIES SOME PROXY TO INTERPOSE IF SO WARRANTED. SO THIS IS PROBABLY WHAT WOULD REPRESENT PROBABLY THE LARGEST EXTENT IN WHICH THE CITY WOULD BE, OR CITY STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. THANK YOU. FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT? OKAY, DISCUSSION AMONG COMMISSIONERS, WHO WOULD LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. THANK YOU. FIRST, BEFORE I JUST GO INTO THE SPECIFIC CASE I'D LIKE TO ARGUE TODAY, PLEASE CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE. YOUR VOICES MATTER, AND THEY REALLY DO IMPACT HOW THIS COMMISSION VOTES. I KNOW FOLKS ARE DETERRED IN THIS POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT, BUT THE MORE YOU TESTIFY, THE MORE YOU GET ON THAT MIC, THE MORE YOU EMAIL, THE MORE IT INFLUENCES HOW WE THINK UP HERE. SO PLEASE DON'T BE DETERRED. I KNOW IT MIGHT FEEL LIKE IT. SECOND, I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A JUSTIFICATION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. I DO WANT TO ANCHOR INTO THE ADA COMPLIANCE SPOT, AND I RECOMMEND THE COMMISSION FOLLOW ME JUST FOR A SECOND HERE. IN THE LETTER, AND MR. STRONG BROUGHT THIS UP, THAT BY DE FACTO, THE ADA SPACE IS NOT NECESSARILY VIOLATING ANY LAWS, BUT I THINK THAT KEY WORD BRINGS UP THE FACT THAT IT WOULD BE DE JURE. BY NOT IMPLEMENTING THE SPACE FOR THE COMMERCIAL PARKING, WHILE ON ITS FACE VALUE MIGHT NOT BE CREATING ANY DISCRIMINATION FOR THOSE THAT HAVE ACCESS AND FUNCTIONAL NEEDS OR DISABILITIES, IT WOULD CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT IN THE LOCAL DOWNTOWN AREA WHERE WE'RE SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES NOT TO CREATE AN ADA SPOT. SO, AGAIN, THE DE FACTO MINDSET, WHILE, AGAIN, ON ITS FACE VALUE MIGHT STAND, I WOULD CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, VOTING AGAINST THIS FOR THE FACT THAT IT MIGHT CREATE DE JURE DESEGREGATION [01:50:01] FOR FOLKS THAT ARE TRYING TO SHOP DOWNTOWN. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THINK OF THAT. HAPPY TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH HOW I GOT THERE. FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER MERZ. YEAH, THANK YOU. AND I APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC'S COMMENT. I'VE BEEN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION SINCE MY EIGHTH YEAR ON IT, AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I FEEL LIKE WE DO TREAT THE PUBLIC VERY WELL, AND WE DO LISTEN. I KNOW ONE CONCERN WAS THAT THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY'RE LISTENING TO IT. SOMETIMES WE OFTEN COME WITH STATEMENTS THAT ARE DECISIONS THAT PEOPLE DON'T LIKE, BUT I DO FEEL THAT WE DO TREAT THE PUBLIC WELL, AND WE DO LISTEN. AND I ACTUALLY DO GO TO THE SITES. AND, IN FACT, I WAS ACTUALLY DROVE BY THE SITE TODAY AT ABOUT 4.30 P.M. WHEN THE FARMER'S MARKET WAS GOING ON TODAY. SO THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO ADDRESS ON YOUR COMMENTS IS, AND I APPRECIATE YOU LEAVING THE CONDITION 31 UP ON THE BOARD. IN LOOKING AT PAGE 7, THE PHASE 2 NOTED THAT THERE WERE VERY LOW LEVELS OF CONTAMINATION WERE FOUND IN GROUNDWATER, AND VERY LOW TO NON-DETECTABLE LEVELS OF CONTAMINANTS WERE FOUND IN ON-SITE SOILS. AND THEN WHEN WE LOOK AT AMENDED CONDITION 31, I THOUGHT THAT THE WAY THAT I EVEN MARKED IN MY CONDITION 31 IN MY PACKET BEFORE COMING HERE TODAY, AND I THOUGHT IT COVERED QUITE WELL. AND THIS EVEN TAKES IT A STEP FURTHER. YOU KNOW, JUST AS THIS WEEK WE'VE DEALT WITH SOIL VAPOR TESTS ON A DIFFERENT SITE IN A DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITY WITH THIS EXACT TYPE OF ISSUES. AND I THINK IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL, I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT THE PREVIOUS WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE, AND THAT AMENDED I THOUGHT THE ORIGINAL CONDITION 31 WAS FINE. AMENDED CONDITION NUMBER 31 HANDLES IT VERY, VERY WELL. AND JUST BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE OF DEALING WITH THESE THINGS, JUST IN THE LAST WEEK ON A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION, I FEEL THIS ADEQUATELY COVERS ANY ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ON THE SITE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I ALSO COMMEND STAFF FOR, YOU KNOW, AMENDING THE CONDITION 31. AND I THINK IT'S MUCH MORE CLEAR NOW AS TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ENSURE CONTAMINANTS ARE ADDRESSED AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I THINK ALSO, I THINK THAT AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT MANY TIMES, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, STATE LEGISLATION HAS CHANGED SO MUCH. BECAUSE I CAN RECALL BACK, YOU KNOW, WHEN IN 2018, WHEN THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN WAS PUT TOGETHER. AND, YOU KNOW, STATE STREET, CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE, ET CETERA, THAT CORE OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA WAS SO IMPORTANT TO ENSURE THAT TIME WAS SPENT ON THE MASTER PLAN. AND ENSURING THAT, YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, COLORS OF BUILDINGS, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO PARKING, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO BUILDING HEIGHT, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. I HAVE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK COMMENTS MADE BY THE PUBLIC IS TOTALLY APPRECIATED. NOT ONLY IS THE PUBLIC IN CARLSBAD FRUSTRATED, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE COMMISSIONERS, AND I'M SURE CITY COUNCIL AS WELL, IS FRUSTRATED WITH THE IMPOSITION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN REGARD TO THE HOUSING AND THE IMPACT IT'S HAVING ON OUR VILLAGE. AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HAD, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS BUILDING, FORTUNATELY, IS FOUR STORIES. AND THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE MASTER PLAN IS THE FOUR STORIES. YOU KNOW, THE TOP FLOOR IS SET BACK A LITTLE BIT. THAT WAS ALSO IN THE MASTER PLAN. SO I THINK THE DEVELOPERS KIND OF ADDRESSING THAT A LITTLE BIT AS TO, AND THE REASON WHY IT WAS SET BACK WAS THE VISUAL PART OF THE PEOPLE WALKING DOWN STATE STREET, NOT SEEING A VERY HUGE, TALL BUILDING SITTING THERE. AND THAT WAS PART OF THE MASTER PLAN AS WELL. SO I THINK THE DEVELOPERS DOING A GOOD JOB IN THAT REGARD. BUT YET WHAT WE ARE SEEING THERE, AND IT GETS BACK TO THE COUNCIL'S DECISION BACK, YOU KNOW, TWO, THREE, FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT MASKS AND WHY THE PROJECT WAS DENIED. AND HERE WE ARE TODAY BECAUSE OF STATE LEGISLATION. IT'S BACK AT US AGAIN, AND WE'RE FACED WITH HAVING TO, YOU KNOW, DEAL WITH MAKING A DECISION ON THE USE OF THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY. AND I THINK IT'S FRUSTRATING ON EVERYBODY'S BEHALF, BUT I THOUGHT I'D MAKE THAT COMMENT AS WELL. BUT FORTUNATELY, AT LEAST FROM THE CONTAMINANT STANDPOINT, I THINK WE'VE GOT THAT COVERED TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANK YOU. JUST TO GO BACK TO STAFF [01:55:04] BRIEFLY AND THE CONCERN WITH THE EXISTING SITE SOILS, THE GRADING ON PAGE FOUR OF THE STAFF REPORT TALKS ABOUT 1,250 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT, ALL OF WHICH WILL BE EXPORTED OFF-SITE, AND APPROXIMATELY 600 CUBIC YARDS OF REMEDIAL GRADING WILL OCCUR TO STABILIZE THE SEVEN-FOOT CUT AND SHORING NEEDED FOR THE PROPOSED CAR LIFT SYSTEM. IN THE GRADING QUESTION, WITH THAT AMOUNT OF CUT AND FILL, IS THAT A SMALL AMOUNT OF CUT AND FILL? DOES THAT REQUIRE A REGULAR GRADING PERMIT, OR DOES THAT REQUIRE A MINOR GRADING PERMIT? AND WHAT IMPACT DOES THAT HAVE ON MAYBE MITIGATING SOME OF THE CONCERN WITH THE SOILS? MR. GELTNER. YOUR SPEC. MIKE, THERE WE GO. AM I GOOD? OKAY. JASON GILDARD, ENGINEERING MANAGER, CITY OF CARLSBAD. THAT AMOUNT OF GRADING IS, THE AMOUNT OF SOIL EXPORT IS NOT A WHOLE LOT. IT COULD BE TYPICAL FOR A PROJECT LIKE THAT. AS FAR AS, WHAT WAS THE OTHER PART OF THE QUESTION? DOES IT START TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE CONCERN WITH THE CONTAMINATION OF THE SOIL? THAT, I DON'T KNOW. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DETERMINED, IF THERE'S ANY MITIGATION IS NEEDED. MR. STRONG. AND WHAT KIND OF PUBLIC REVIEW DOES THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT HAVE? IS IT PART OF OUR STAFF REPORT? CAN THE PUBLIC VIEW THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT? THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT IS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, TYPICALLY. OKAY. SO SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A SPECIAL REQUEST TO LOOK AT THOSE. WE JUST, WE DON'T POST THEM OR ANYTHING PUBLICLY. OKAY. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE PUBLIC CONCERN AND THE PUBLIC QUESTION IS THE BIG, OBVIOUSLY NOTABLE AND IMPORTANT. AND, I MEAN, JUST AMENDING CONDITION 31 IS STARTING TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY. SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO JUST UNDERSTAND IS, IS THERE A WAY THAT MAYBE MORE OF THE DOCUMENTATION THAT HAS BEEN DONE MAYBE COULD BE SHARED? BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S A PUBLIC REQUEST. WELL, I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. SO ONE IS A REPORT. IT'S A SOILS REPORT, BUT IT'S A FOUNDATION, SOILS FOUNDATION REPORT. SO IT'S JUST PHYSICALLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO, FOR THE FOUNDATION. SO TO SUPPORT THE FOUNDATION. SO THAT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT CHEMICALS IN THE, IN THE SOIL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S A SOILS REPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. THERE'S ALSO, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOILS TESTING FOR CHEMICALS, THAT'S A DIFFERENT, IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT PROCESS. THAT, I, THAT WOULD HAVE TO, I THINK I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO MR. STRONG A LITTLE BIT ON THAT. BUT, BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE REPORT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S PUBLICLY, IF THAT WOULD BE POSTED PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. WELL, AND THE QUESTION, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAY, THIS STATEMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT SAYS THAT ALL THE AREAS CUT WILL BE EXPORTED OFF-SITE. SO DOES THAT MEAN, AND THERE WILL BE REMEDIAL GRADING ON-SITE. SO THAT MEENES THAT THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT COMING OFF AND THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF NEW, HOPEFULLY CLEAN SOIL COMING IN. RIGHT. SO, SO I AM RELATING, I KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WHERE IT'S, YOU KNOW, BUT THE DIRT IS THE DIRT, RIGHT? SO REMEDIAL GRADING, REMEDIAL GRADING MEENES IT'S JUST THE SOIL THAT IS PROCESSED ON-SITE. SO THEY WOULD RECOMPACT SOILS THAT ARE ALREADY ON-SITE. SO THERE'S SOME THAT'S GOING TO LEAVE THE SITE AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO RECONDITION THE SOIL THAT'S LEFT ON-SITE TO, TO PREPARE FOR SUPPORT OF THE FOUNDATION. AND SO WHEN YOU SAY RECONDITION, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THEY WOULD GRADE IT, COMPACT IT TO, TYPICALLY IT'S A 90% COMPACTION, RELATIVE COMPACTION. OKAY. SO YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T DO ANY KIND OF TESTING FOR LEAD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT WHEN THEY'RE, THAT'S HAPPENING? THAT PART, THAT PHASE, NO. WOULD THIS CONDITION TEST THAT? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CONDITION 31? MM-HMM. THAT'S SOMETHING SEPARATE THAN, YES, IT WILL, THAT WILL, THEY WILL TEST FOR WHATEVER THAT CONDITION IS, BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF THE- THE GRADING PERMIT. THE SOIL, YEAH, THE GRADING PERMIT. YEAH, UNDERSTOOD. BUT IT WOULD BE TESTED AT SOME POINT IN THE GRADING, IN THE PROCESS OF GRADING, POTENTIALLY, OR BEFORE? IT WOULD BE TESTED BEFORE THE GRADING PERMIT WOULD BE ISSUED. OKAY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY WANT TO, YOU'D HAVE TO REMOVE [02:00:01] THE CURRENT BUILDINGS AND FOUNDATIONS IN THERE AND THEN BE ABLE TO GO IN AND TEST. SO IT WOULD BE, THERE WOULD BE A DEMO PERMIT, BUT NOT A GRADING PERMIT ISSUED. NO EXCAVATION WOULD OCCUR. IT WOULD JUST BE SCRAPING THE SITE OF WHAT'S THERE NOW, TESTING THE SOIL SO THERE WOULDN'T BE A HOLE IN THE GROUND OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND THEN AFTER THAT, THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD BE DETERMINED WHAT TO DO AT THAT POINT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. SO AS WRITTEN IN THE PROPOSED CONDITION, THAT THE SOIL SAMPLING AND SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN WOULD BE COMPLETED BEFORE ANY DEMOLITION OF ANY PROJECTS OR STRUCTURES ON THE SITE. SO THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE CITY PRIOR TO TAKING ANY ACTION ON ANY GRADING PLAN OR ANY BUILDING PERMIT. AND THAT IS A PUBLIC RECORD DOCUMENT, ANYTHING THAT THE CITY HAS IN ITS POSSESSION IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. THAT'S HELPFUL, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MERZ. AND ALSO TO ADD TO THAT, TOO, THE ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS PHASE TWO WAS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT WAS IN THE REPORT THAT WAS PUT OUT TODAY, OR THE COMMENT THAT WAS IN THERE TODAY. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. COMMISSIONER, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK THE CITY FOR SOME GREAT WORK HERE. IT'S A LOT OF DETAIL, AND YOU REALLY PUT TOGETHER A GREAT PRESENTATION, AND YOU COVER A LOT OF BASES. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE PUBLIC FOR YOUR COMMENTS. WE TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY. SOMETIMES OUR HANDS ARE TIED, BUT WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT EVERYBODY TODAY WHO HAS SPOKEN HAS HAD. I DON'T SEE ANY SIGNIFICANT QUANTIFIABLE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THIS PROJECT. WE NEED HOUSING. I GO BACK TO A PRESENTATION THAT WAS MADE THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE THAT THERE'S LIKE SOME NUMBER OF 100,000 JOBS CREATED OVER IN CARLSBAD, AND WE'VE CREATED ONLY LIKE 5,000 UNITS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS, BUT WE'RE UNDERUTILIZING OUR HOUSING, AND THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT NEED IT AND NEED IT BADLY. I'M SATISFIED THAT ALL THE MAJOR ISSUES HAVE BEEN CITED. THE SOIL MANAGEMENT, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT A LOT. PARKING, EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICANT DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO PROVIDE ANY PARKING, THEY DO. ALL THE OTHER WAIVERS, THE PRIOR EVALUATION OF ALL THE PROJECTS, OF THIS PROJECT RATHER, THEY'RE NO LONGER RELEVANT BECAUSE OF ALL THE CHANGES IN CALIFORNIA LAW. AND WE HAD A GREAT PRESENTATION ON THAT BY MR. STRONG THAT THERE ARE SO MANY LAWS THAT NOW REALLY TIE OUR HANDS AS TO WHAT YOU CAN DO AS FAR AS HOUSING. I'M A LITTLE BIT DISAPPOINTED THAT OUR HANDS ARE TIED SO MUCH BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT WE LOSE OUR ABILITY AS A CITY TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE OUR HERITAGE PREVAIL AND TO MAKE THE CITY THE WAY WE WANT TO, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. YOU KNOW, LASTLY, THE DEVELOPER HAS RIGHTS HERE TOO. THEY OWN THE PROPERTY. THEY HAVE TAKEN THE FINANCIAL RISK OF OWNING THE PROPERTY, AND THEY ARE ALSO TAKEN THE FINANCIAL RISK OF DEVELOPING IT. AND LASTLY, I THINK WE LOSE SIGHT SOMETIMES THAT IT IS A POSITIVE FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD THAT DEVELOPERS ARE WILLING TO INVEST IN THE COMMUNITY, AND WE HAVE A COMMUNITY THAT IS SO VIBRANT AND SO POSITIVE THAT THEY SEE IT AND SAY THIS IS A GOOD RETURN ON OUR INVESTMENT. SO FOR THAT REASON, I SUPPORT THE PROJECT. COMMISSIONER BURROWS. TO BUILD A WHAT'S BEEN SAID, I APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY AND RECEIVED FROM EQUITABLE LAND USE ALLIANCE, SARAH WRIGHT, KIM CHATFIELD, LORI ROBBINS, CHRIS WRIGHT, JAN SINCLAIR, ROZ ROWIE, AND ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT WE RECEIVED THAT'S NOW IN THE AGENDA PACKET. TO EVERYONE LISTENING NOW, I WOULD REFERENCE THE CITY COUNCIL COMMENTARY IN THEIR LAST MEETING AS WELL AS THE CITY MANAGER'S EMAIL LAST WEEK TALKING ABOUT HOW THE CITY OF CARLSBAD CAN ADDRESS STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW AT THE STATEWIDE LEVEL. HOWEVER, STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW IS WHAT IT IS, LIKE WE'VE DISCUSSED IN OUR PRIOR MEETINGS. I'M CONCERNED WITH PARKING AND THE OTHER IMPACTS IN THE VILLAGE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS PROJECT, AS PROPOSED, COMPLIES WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. I THINK I WANT TO ADD HERE, TOO, WHICH I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT, ONE OF THE OTHER CONDITIONS OR WAIVERS IS THE PARKING. AND AS YOU KNOW, PARKING IN THE VILLAGE IS VERY, VERY TIGHT AND VERY, VERY, IT'S AN ISSUE THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS THE CITY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. AND IT CONTINUES TO INCREASE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF AVAILABILITY OF PARKING. AND ONE THING THAT I KNOW THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ADDRESSED, [02:05:01] WHICH I WANTED TO BRING UP AGAIN, IS A PARKING STUDY. AND THEY ARE CONDUCTING, TO MY RECOLLECTION, A PARKING STUDY IS NOW UNDERWAY. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. STRONG? CORRECT. COULD YOU GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON PARAMETERS ON THAT PARKING STUDY AT ALL AT THIS POINT? SURE. SO THE CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGED THE ONGOING ISSUES WITH PARKING IN OUR DOWNTOWN, BOTH FROM A PARKING MANAGEMENT STANDPOINT, BUT IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THESE RECENT STATE LAWS THAT HAVE UNDERCUT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE ON-SITE PARKING SPACES IN ADDITION TO THE OFF-SITE PARKING SPACES. AND WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS PROJECTS THAT DO UNDERSIZE THEIR PARKING PROVISIONS INVARIABLY AFFECT THE PUBLIC SPACE, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE PARK ON-SITE ARE NOW PARKING IN PUBLIC AREAS. SO THE CITY COUNCIL DID COMMISSION A PARKING STUDY. SO THE PARKING STUDY, IT IS UNDERWAY. OUR NEXT ROUND OF PARKING COUNT DATA, I THINK, WILL BE COLLECTED IN AUGUST, AND IT WILL BE DONE QUARTERLY. SO WE'LL BE ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH IT AT THE END OF THE SUMMER. AND THE FINAL REPORT WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN SPRING, AND LOOKING FOR A SERIES OF RECOMMENDATIONS, BOTH REGULATORY AND NON-REGULATORY, TO ADDRESS PARKING ISSUES AS THEY EXIST TODAY OR THOSE THAT MIGHT BE ANTICIPATED IN THE FUTURE AS THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. YEAH, I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE TWO FINAL COMMENTS. I'M VERY PRO-HOUSING. IN FACT, I'M SOMEBODY WHO RENTS AND IS ACTIVELY LOOKING TO INVEST LONG-TERM IN A HOUSE HERE IN CARLSBAD. AND THE PEOPLE WHO NEED HOUSING UNITS, THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE, WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE EXPENSIVE LUXURY CONDOS THAT ARE GOING TO BE PUT UP HERE. SO I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING TO THE SUPPLY, WE'RE ADDING TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY. AND THE SECOND THING I'LL SAY IS WE KEEP GOING BACK TO STATE LAW, WHICH OVER THE PAST YEAR, IN BEING ON THE COMMISSION, IT HAS BEEN A MATTER OF STATE LAW. ADA IS A FEDERAL LAW. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO THINK ABOUT TAKING THE LEAP AND CONSIDERING WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF HAVING A STATE LAW, USURP FEDERAL LAW, AND WHERE WILL THAT END. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A DECISION I THINK WE COULD MAKE VERSUS ALL THE OTHER DECISIONS WHERE WE WERE JUST SIMPLY LOOKING AT A LOCAL OR STATE ORDINANCE OR, YOU KNOW, BUILDING CODE. ADA IS A FEDERAL LAW. SO JUST ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION TO TAKE THAT STEP AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, MAKE A DECISION THAT MIGHT APPEAR LIKE ALL THE PAST DECISIONS WE'VE MADE BUT IS RELATIVELY DIFFERENT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. SO I'M SORRY TO KEEP GOING BACK TO STAFF, BUT SEEKING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, THERE'S A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, RIGHT? AND IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE? WHAT ELSE? A TENTATIVE TRACK MAP AS WELL. A TENTATIVE TRACK MAP. SO BASED ON THE HOUSING LAWS, COULD THIS PROJECT BE APPROVED MINISTERIALLY? WE DID NOT COVER IT IN THE INTRODUCTION TO THIS PRESENTATION THIS EVENING. THERE WAS ENOUGH EXPOSITION ON STATE LAW, BUT THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS THAT PROJECTS BE APPROVED BY RIGHT, MEANING THAT IT REDUCES THE DISCRETION OF THE DECISION MAKER, AND THE STATUTE CLEARLY REQUIRES PROJECTS TO NOT BE, I THINK YOU MENTIONED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THAT HOUSING PROJECTS NOT BE APPROVED THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AND SO THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT HAS BEEN CODIFIED TO GO AS FAR AS TO SAY THAT CONDITIONING A PROJECT IN A MANNER THAT MAKES IT INFEASIBLE OR CHANGES ITS FEASIBILITY CAN BE CONSTRUED IN THE SAME MANNER AS AN OUTRIGHT REJECTION AND POTENTIALLY VIOLATE THOSE SAME LAWS. SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S A VERY, VERY SPECIFIC INTEREST IN ONLY IMPOSING CONDITIONS THAT THE CITY HAS A LEGAL BASIS TO ENFORCE. SO, YES, THERE ARE SOME ALLOWANCES FOR MINISTERIAL APPROVALS, WHICH LIMITS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW TO JUST AS A DESIGN REVIEW BODY, THEREBY REMOVING ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE INTENSITY OF LAND USE. BUT THIS IS NOT THAT TYPE OF PROJECT. IT DID NOT EVOKE THAT AREA OF STATE LAW. WHY IS IT NOT MINISTERIAL? IT DID NOT MEET THE PARAMETERS OF A MINISTERIAL PROJECT. THE PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE MINISTERIAL THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE ON REZONE SITES. THOSE SITES ARE MINISTERIAL IF THEY PROVIDE 20% OF THE TOTAL HOUSING UNITS. SOME PROJECTS ARE ELECTING TO [02:10:02] NOT PURSUE THAT PATH AND INSTEAD PROVIDE THE BASE INCLUSIONARY OR DENSITY BONUS RATE RATHER THAN THE HIGHER 20% OF ALL UNITS. BUT THAT WOULD BE A TYPE OF PROJECT THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED MINISTERIALLY, EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD BE DONE THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING. THE FOCUS OF THE CONVERSATION AND DELIBERATION WOULD BE ON THE MERITS OF ITS DESIGN AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, BUT NOT ABOUT LAND USE. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD NOT BE ASKED TO MAKE THE FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE LAND USE DECISION ASPECT OF THE PLANNING. SO WHETHER THIS PROJECT WAS FIVE UNITS OR SEVEN UNITS, IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME AND HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. IT COULDN'T BE APPROVED MINISTERIALLY. UNDER THE LAWS THAT THE APPLICATION IS PROVIDING, THERE ARE SOME OTHER AREAS OF LAW THAT THIS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO. IF YOU REUSE A HOUSING ELEMENT SITE, SO THIS MIGHT BE MORE OF A PERSPECTIVE ISSUE IN FUTURE HOUSING ELEMENT CYCLES, THAT ALSO QUALIFIES FOR A MINISTERIAL PROCESS. BUT THIS IS NOT THAT CASE. SO WHETHER IT'S FIVE UNITS OR SEVEN UNITS, IT WOULD STILL BE A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS, EVEN THOUGH THE DISCRETION IS VERY LIMITED UNDER THE CONFINES OF THE STATE HOUSING ELEMENT LAWS. RIGHT. SO ULTIMATELY, THIS IS THE BEST PUBLIC PROCESS WE HAVE FOR HOUSING LAW IN OUR CURRENT CONDITION WITH THE STATE REQUIREMENTS. WE WOULDN'T GET, THEY WOULD GET FIVE, BECAUSE THEY'RE INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEY WOULD GET FIVE MEETINGS, PUBLIC MEETINGS, TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR CASE TO CONTINUE THIS PROCESS, RIGHT? BUT RIGHT NOW, WE ONLY HAVE THIS PARTICULAR MEETING AND THE COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS. CORRECT. AND ANY COMMUNITY MEETINGS ARE ALSO INCLUDED TOWARDS THAT FIVE MEETING LIMIT UNDER THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT? AND SO THE POLICY 84 MEETING WOULD ALSO COUNT TOWARDS THAT. SO THIS ESSENTIALLY COMPRISES THE SECOND MEETING OUT OF THE FIVE MEETING LIMIT. OKAY. BUT IF IT WAS MINISTERIAL, OR HYPOTHETICALLY, IF THIS PROJECT WAS MINISTERIAL, IT WOULDN'T COME TO A PUBLIC MEETING. IS THAT WHAT TYPICALLY MINISTERIAL, IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF MINISTERIAL, OR IS THAT NOT CORRECT? YOUR UNDERSTANDING ON FACE VALUE IS CORRECT. HOWEVER, THE CITY HAS TAKEN AN INTERPRETATION THAT A PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL REQUIRED, AND ITS FOCUS IS ON THE DESIGN REVIEW. SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT SINCE WOULDN'T BE DELIBERATING AS A DECISION-MAKING BODY ON ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT, IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO A DESIGN REVIEW FUNCTION. AND SO LOOKING AT ITS CONSISTENCY WITH THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS RATHER THAN LAND USE OR OTHER MATTERS OUTSIDE OF THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. AND WITH THE RAPID NATURE OF THE CHANGES IN SACRAMENTO THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING ABOUT HOUSING LAW, IF THIS PROJECT WERE DISAPPROVED, THEY COULD COME BACK WITH A COMPLETELY BIGGER PROJECT, POTENTIALLY, RIGHT, TO BE ABLE TO NOT AND HAVE EVEN LESS REVIEWS, POTENTIALLY. IS THAT HYPOTHETICALLY TRUE? I THINK THE PROJECT IS PURSUING A 40% DENSITY BONUS ON THE SITE. MR. LURDY. THE PROJECT ITSELF IS ROUNDING UP TO SEVEN UNITS, SO IT'S ONLY USING A SLIGHT DENSITY BONUS FOR THE UNIT NUMBER. HOWEVER, THERE ARE PROJECTS, AS THE CITY COUNCIL HEARD LAST WEEK, THAT CAN ESSENTIALLY DOUBLE THAT DENSITY. IT IS A TIGHT LOT, SO WE HAVE TO SEE HOW SOME SORT OF OTHER DESIGN WORKS. YEAH, AND THAT'S REALLY, I GUESS, WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS THIS MAY NOT BE THE IDEAL. IT'S A TOUGH ONE. THIS MAY NOT BE THE IDEAL. BUT I THINK THAT IN THE EVOLUTION OF THIS PROJECT, THE ACTUAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT HAS REDUCED IN SIZE. WE HAVE GAINED AN AFFORDABLE UNIT, WHICH I THINK IS A REAL BENEFIT TO OUR COMMUNITY. AND I THINK THAT SOME OF THE, EVEN THE REDUCTION OF SOME OF THE SETBACKS IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE BUILDING, THE ROOF AND THE FOURTH FLOOR ARE ACTUALLY SET BACK FROM STATE STREET TO HOPEFULLY NOT CAST SUCH A LARGE SHADOW ON WHAT OBVIOUSLY IS A VERY BIG PUBLIC CONCERN WHEN WE GO FROM 30 FEET TO 45 FEET PLUS. SO I THINK THAT WE ARE IN A CHALLENGING SITUATION. WE'RE REALLY HAPPY WITH THE PUBLIC INPUT HERE. BUT WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS DEVELOPER HAS, I WISH WE [02:15:03] COULD GET A MERCANTILE FEEL FOR THAT BUILDING AND NOT THE SOCK INSTITUTE. BUT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT THOSE THINGS ALSO IN THE PROCESS CHANGE. SO AS THIS PROJECT CONTINUES TO DEVELOP, I THINK WE'RE GETTING SOMETHING THAT IS SYMPATHETIC, ALBEIT NOT MAYBE WHAT EVERYONE WANTS. BUT I DO SEE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD FAITH IN THIS PROCESS RIGHT NOW. AND I ALSO SEE, AS THESE HOUSING LAWS CONTINUE TO RAMP UP OVER THE YEARS, WE MAY NOT GET A BETTER SHOT OF GETTING THIS AS RIGHT AS MAYBE THIS ONE COULD BE. SO I WILL BE APPROVING THIS PROJECT. YEAH, I THINK COMMISSIONER LAFFITTE'S COMMENT IS WELL TAKEN. AND I THINK THAT, AS I SAID EARLIER, THAT THE DEVELOPER, YOU KNOW, WITH THE FOUR STORIES, WITH THE SETBACKS ON THE FOURTH FLOOR, TRYING TO COMPLY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO THE VILLAGE BARRIO MASTER PLAN, ET CETERA, I THINK THAT IS REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT TO SAY ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE VERSUS WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN SOME OF THE OTHER SITES IN THE CITY SO FAR. I THINK THEY'VE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE LOCATION AND TO BE AS SENSITIVE AS POSSIBLE TO THE MASTER PLAN AS THEY COULD, BUT YET STILL TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE DENSITY BONUS. THE PARKING ISSUE, I SAID EARLIER, PRETTY DISAPPOINTING, BUT I THINK THE CITY IS AT LEAST TAKING SOME ACTION IN REGARD TO THE PARKING PLAN. HOPEFULLY SOMETHING WILL COME TO FORWARD WITH THAT AND WILL ASSIST WITH MITIGATING SOME OF THE PARKING ISSUES WE HAVE IN THE VILLAGE BECAUSE STATE DENSITY BONUS, YOU KNOW, TAKING NOT REQUIRING ADA PARKING, NOT REQUIRING GUEST PARKING, FOR EXAMPLE. THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT HAS NO GUEST PARKING AT ALL. YOU KNOW, AND THE PARKING FOR MANY OF THESE PROJECTS NOW HAVE NO REQUIREMENTS WHATSOEVER BECAUSE OF THE HALF MILE TO THE TRANSIT CENTER. SO, ANYWAYS, HOPEFULLY THAT PARKING PLAN WILL ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE ISSUES AND WILL KIND OF, I GUESS, MITIGATE A LITTLE BIT OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE CITIZENS HAVE. AND I TRULY APPRECIATE EVERYONE THAT HAS BEEN HERE THIS EVENING TO BE ABLE TO COME OUT AND BE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF, AND WE APPRECIATE THAT. COMMISSIONER MERZ. THANK YOU. AND, YEAH, I DO ALSO VERY MUCH APPRECIATE ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND WE DO LISTEN TO THEM CAREFULLY. AND, YEAH, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS HERE, TOO. I GUESS IT RELATES TO THE ONE REGARDING THE ADA PARKING PLACE. I WOULD NOT BE COMFORTABLE TRYING TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE, AS IT'S WRITTEN, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF RESEARCH AND WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE ON THAT, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL ARCHING REVIEW OF WHAT'S AROUND THAT AREA. SO, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THAT. I ALSO PARTICULARLY APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER HUBER'S COMMENTS ON IT, TOO. I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY WELL SPOKEN. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HUBER, CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? NO. OKAY. NO, WE STILL HAVE SOME MORE COMMENTS. WE STILL HAVE SOME MORE COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER FOSTER. THANKS. I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF, WHOEVER WANTS TO TAKE THE QUESTION. SO, COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, I DON'T KNOW WHY I BLANK ON YOUR NAME SOMETIMES. I DON'T KNOW WHY. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD BROUGHT UP THE ADA AND FEDERAL LAW. TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING THIS PROJECT AND EVERYTHING, LIKE, DOES THIS PROJECT AT ALL VIOLATE ANY ADA FEDERAL LAW AND THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE AN ADA SPOT IN THE COMMERCIAL PART OF THE PROJECT? OKAY. BASED ON WHAT THIS PROJECT IS, AND I BELIEVE IT'S ALREADY BEEN STATED THROUGHOUT THE PRESENTATION, ALTHOUGH IT'S BEEN SOMEWHAT OF A LONG AND VERY DETAILED PRESENTATION, THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE SPOTS IS BASED ON THE CITY'S CODE. THEY'RE ASKING FOR A WAIVER OF PROVIDING COMMERCIAL SPOTS BASED ON STATE DENSITY BONUS. SO, SINCE THERE ARE NO COMMERCIAL SPOTS BEING PROVIDED, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO PROVIDE AN ADA SPOT. SO, IF COMMERCIAL SPOTS ARE PROVIDED, THEN THERE HAS TO BE AN ALLOCATION OF ADA SPOTS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS AVAILABLE. [02:20:01] DOES THAT ADDRESS AND KIND OF CAPTURE THE SITUATION? THAT'S CLEAR TO ME. DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A FURTHER COMMENT, OR WAS THAT GOOD? NO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION AND THE QUESTION THAT YOU'RE BEING ASKED. YEAH, NO, IT'S VERY CLEAR. SO, YEAH, IF YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL SPOTS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ADA SPOT. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE COMMERCIAL SPOTS, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE AN ADA SPOT, CORRECT? THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. YEAH, OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND THEN, SINCE THE ONLY REASON I ASK THIS QUESTION IS BECAUSE SB DENSITY BONUS LAW IS BEING APPLIED HERE, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE ANY CASE LAW WHERE ANY CITY IN CALIFORNIA HAS CHALLENGED DENSITY BONUS LAW IN ONE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IT'S FAIR IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER BECAUSE IT'S A KNOWLEDGE QUESTION. AS I SIT HERE, NO CASES COME TO MIND. AND THERE'S A LOT OF CASES THAT DISCUSS DENSITY BONUS LAW AND VARIOUS ASPECTS OF IT. I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME, BUT I CAN'T RECALL. I DON'T REMEMBER CASE NAMES OR THE SPECIFICS, AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK OUT OF TURN. THAT'S FINE. I MEAN, I ASKED YOU OFF THE CUFF. YOU'D BE A WIZARD IF YOU KNEW THAT ANSWER. SO, GO AHEAD. MR. LARDY. VICE CHAIR AND CHAIR. I'LL JUST SAY THAT SEVERAL OF US WENT TO THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE THIS PAST YEAR, AND ONE OF THE RESOUNDING THEMES WAS THE CHALLENGES WITH DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS AND THE HIGH BAR AND STANDARD. THE OVERALL VIBE, WITHOUT CITING SPECIFIC CASES, WAS THAT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY PUSHED BACK ON ARE RELATED TO FIRE PROTECTION REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. AND SO, IN THIS CASE, AS WE EVALUATED IT, AND AS WE SAID, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED AND HAD NO COMMENTS RELATED TO DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT. APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY. I JUST HAVE A CLOSING. FIRST OFF, I WANT TO THANK THE PUBLIC. I THINK WE GOT OVER 60 LETTERS, AND THEN THERE ARE SEVEN SPEAKERS TONIGHT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED MANY TIMES THIS EVENING, LIKE, THE COMMISSIONS, WE READ THE LETTERS, WE READ THE EMAILS, WE HEAR YOU WHEN YOU SPEAK. APPRECIATE THE 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION YOU PROVIDED. THAT WAS A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE YOU PRESENTED IT, SO I APPRECIATE THAT. SO, THE GRAVITY AROUND THIS PROJECT IS NOT LOST BY, AT LEAST ME, AND I BELIEVE OTHERS ON THE COMMISSION. YOU KNOW, I GO DOWN TO THAT FARMER'S MARKET, LIKE, I'VE BEEN TO THAT, YOU KNOW, CHOICE AND ALL THAT STUFF MANY TIMES. AND SO, LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THIS IS NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE WANTS A RUBBER STAMP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. HAVING SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LIKE, IN MY OPINION, DOES NOT CARE ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL. I MEAN, THESE LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED HANDCUFF, HANDCUFF COMMISSIONS, HANDCUFF THE ABILITY FOR LOCALS TO MAKE DECISIONS. YOU KNOW, SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S JUST, IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S A GREAT TIME TO BE A DEVELOPER IN CALIFORNIA. IT'S A BAD TIME TO BE A LOCAL. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT'S, IT'S, THAT'S JUST THE WAY I LOOK AT IT. HAVING SAID ALL THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE CITY OF CARLSBAD STAFF HAS DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB. I MEAN, IT'S A VERY CHALLENGING, DIFFICULT PROJECT. THEY'VE, THEY'VE DONE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH AND WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT AND ANSWERING ALL OUR QUESTIONS AND, AND BRIEFING EVERYONE ON STATE LAWS AND WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. YOU KNOW, THE PROBLEM WITH DENYING A PROJECT, IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, IS, IS JUST KIND OF GOING BACK TO THAT CASE LAW QUESTION. THE, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF, OF THE LAW, IT, THE BAR IS SET SO HIGH. YOU HAVE TO DENY IT BASED ON ADVERSE IMPACT OF PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. AND IF YOU MAKE THAT DENIAL, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE CONCRETE PROOF BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO GET SUED. SO THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO, THEY'RE GOING TO, THEY'RE GOING TO SUE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. AND THEN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IS GOING TO HAVE TO DEFEND ITSELF IN LITIGATION AND WIN. AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THIS PROJECT THAT IS CONCRETE PROOF THAT IN THE EVENT THE CITY WERE TO BE SUED, THE CITY WOULD WIN THAT LITIGATION. AND SO THAT'S MY CONCERN WHEN IT COMES TO DENYING ANY PROJECT IS I DON'T WANT TO PUT THE CITY IN ANY SORT OF POSITION WHERE THE CITY IS GOING TO GET SUED. AND THEN OUR TAX PAYING DOLLAR IS GOING TO GO PAY FOR THAT LAWSUIT. AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO LOSE ANYWAY. SO, SO IT'S JUST, IT'S TOUGH. SO HAVING SAID THAT, I, I, I, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? MAY I HAVE THE, I THINK, I THINK THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE, ONE SECOND. I THINK THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE EXPRESSED THEMSELVES VERY WELL IN REGARD TO THE POSITION THAT [02:25:01] WE'RE IN. I APPRECIATE YOUR STATEMENTS THAT YOU MADE, MR. FOSTER. COMMISSIONER, I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, MR. STRONG. THANK YOU, CHAIR. JUST AS A REMINDER, THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION BY CITY STAFF TO AMEND CONDITION 31. SO IF THERE IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO MODIFY STAFF'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION AND INCLUDE THE AMENDED LANGUAGE. NOW I CAN SCRATCH THAT OFF MY LITTLE NOTE HERE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ARE WE READY TO VOTE? MAY I HAVE A MOTION? I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION UNTIL YOU THREW THIS ONE. NO. OH, I GUESS THAT'S PART OF IT. SO I GUESS I SAID, MAKE A MOTION TO, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF. HELP ME OUT HERE, MR. STRONG. WITH? WITH THE AMENDED LANGUAGE. WITH THE AMENDED LANGUAGE. CONDITION 31. CONDITION 31. THANK YOU. OKAY. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MERZ. PLEASE VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR COMING THIS EVENING. WE TRULY APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION. WE APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS MADE. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. THANK YOU. WE WILL GET BACK INTO SESSION. BY THE WAY, I THINK I CLOSED [3. BELTRAN RESIDENCE - CDP 2025-0032 (DEV2025-0046)] THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FIRST, ON ITEM NUMBER TWO. IF NOT, I JUST DID. WE WILL NOW GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE. FIRST, COMMISSIONER'S EX-PARTE CONVERSATIONS. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. WHERE ARE THE SITES? COMMISSIONER MERZ. I DROVE BY THE SITE. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. NOTHING. COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. COMMISSIONER BURROWS. DROVE BY THE SITE. COMMISSIONER FOSTER. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. AND I ALSO DROVE BY THE SITE AND WALKED IT. THANK YOU. MR. LAFFERTY, PLEASE INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER THREE. YES, I WILL BE GIVING THE PRESENTATION FOR THIS ITEM BECAUSE SENIOR PLANNER GOFF WAS UNABLE TO MAKE IT TONIGHT. THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS BEING PROPOSED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND GRAY COURT WAY. THIS 8,722-SQUARE-FOOT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY'S COASTAL ZONE, BUT NOT IN THIS AREA WHERE THIS DECISION CAN BE APPEALED TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION. IT IS A VACANT LOT BORDERED BY EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. THE PROPERTY HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN MAINTAINED AS AN EXTENSION OF THE YARD FOR THE ADJACENT SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE. IT IS GIVEN A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE OF FOUR UNITS PER ACRE AND IS ZONED ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OR R1. THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, WHICH, IF APPROVED, WILL ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,315-SQUARE-FOOT, TWO-STORY, FOUR-BEDROOM, FOUR-AND-A-HALF-BATH, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND AN ATTACHED 553-SQUARE-FOOT, TWO-CAR GARAGE ORIENTED TOWARDS MAGNOLIA, AS SHOWN ON THIS SAW SLIDE. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES AN ATTACHED 796-SQUARE-FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ORIENTED TOWARDS GRAY COURT WAY ALONG THE SIDE STREET YARD. THAT WILL BE PROCESSED SEPARATELY WITH A SEPARATE MINOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT'S NOT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. THE PROPOSED BUILDING DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH ALL ZONING STANDARDS RELATED TO THE SITE, SUCH AS BUILDING SETBACKS, LOT COVERAGE, AND OFF-STREET PARKING. HERE IS A COLOR ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AS VIEWED FROM MAGNOLIA AVENUE. THE BUILDING MATERIALS INCLUDE SMOOTH STUCCO, VERTICAL BOARD, AND BATTEN SIDING WITH A COMPOSITE SHINGLE PITCHED ROOF. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF IS PROPOSED OVER SELECT WINDOW EYEBROWS. THERE'S ACCENTS OF WOOD TRELLISES, BEAMS, ONLOOKERS, AND BRACKETS. THE WINDOWS ARE DESIGNED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH CRAFTSMAN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, AND THE ROOF IS COVERED WITH A COMPOSITE ROOFING SHINGLE OF CHARCOAL GRADIENT COLOR. THE ROOF HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS 28 FEET, 9 INCHES AT ITS HIGHEST POINT. THIS IS THE OTHER ELEVATION SHOWING HOW THE NEW HOME WILL LOOK FROM GRAY COURT WAY, AND THE PROPOSED ADU ITSELF IS ORIENTED TOWARDS THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE SLIDE. IN ADDITION TO THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE CEQA EXEMPTION DETERMINATION. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND FIND THAT THE PROJECT BELONGS TO A CLASS OF PROJECTS THAT ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES. THE DRAFT NOTICE OF EXEMPTION WAS INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT 5 TO THE STAFF REPORT AND LISTS OUT THE REASONS THAT NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS IN CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2 AND [02:30:02] CHAPTER 19.4 OF THE CARL BUSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE HAVE BEEN TRIGGERED. THE DRAFT NOTICE OF EXEMPTION WAS POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE ON MAY 12, 2026, AND AN EMAIL WAS SENT TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES THAT HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THIS PROJECT OR HAVE SIGNED UP TO RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL NOTICES. THAT HAS CONTINUED TO BE POSTED SINCE MAY, AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS. IN CONCLUSION, WE HAVE EVALUATED THIS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND ALL APPLICABLE CODES, POLICIES, AND STANDARDS, INCLUDING CEQA. THE STAFF REPORT AND RESOLUTION THAT IS BEFORE THE COMMISSION CONTAIN ALL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. AS SUCH, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT 1, APPROVING A CEQA EXEMPTION DETERMINATION AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE BELTRAN RESIDENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT. WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. LURDY. CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER FOSTER. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. DID YOU SAY SELECT WINDOW EYEBROWS? YES. YOU DID. WHAT IS THAT? SO MOVING BACK TO... SO I DO NOT HAVE THE MOUSE TO CONTROL, BUT THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY OVER SOME OF THE WINDOWS, THERE ARE SMALLER ROOFS THAT ARE INCLUDED AND ATTACHED OVER IT. THE OVERALL ROOF ITSELF IS THAT CHARCOAL SLATE. SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT IN THE UPPER RIGHT WINDOW. AND THAT'S THE ARCHITECTURAL NAME IS SELECT WINDOW EYEBROWS? YES, THAT IS WHAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME. BY MR. GOLF. OKAY, THANK YOU. FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER MERZ. YEAH, COULD YOU PULL UP THAT SECOND ELEVATION SLIDE RIGHT THERE? YEAH, I LIKE THAT. SO THIS IS A QUESTION. BETWEEN THE ADU AND THE HOUSE THERE, I THINK THE ANSWER IS A YES ON IT. BUT IF THEY WANTED TO PUT A FENCE OR SOME VISUAL PROTRUSION THAT'S GOING PERPENDICULAR TO THE STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE LIVING ROOM OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE IS PARALLEL TO THE, YOU KNOW, THE FRONT OF THE ADU, IF THEY WANTED TO CREATE LIKE A LITTLE, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE WALL OR FENCE PORTRAYED STRAIGHT OUT FOR PRIVACY PURPOSES, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING THAT WOULD STOP THEM FROM DOING THAT, RIGHT? THERE ARE LIMITATIONS TO THE SIZE OF A FENCE IN A FRONT YARD SETBACK, BUT THERE COULD BE PROTRUSIONS RELATED TO THAT. I MEAN, IT IS A CORNER LOT, SO WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS BECAUSE THERE ARE SEPARATE REGULATIONS FOR HOW CORNER LOT FENCES WORK. OKAY. FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? NO PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT. I'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MINUTES CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK? YES, CHAIR, WE HAVE ONE. OKAY. DEBBIE FOLEY. PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. I'VE BEEN WAITING SO LONG, MY LEGS ARE STILL HERE. GET UP HERE. WE'RE JUST HAPPY TO HAVE YOU. I'M GLAD EVERYONE LEFT. I FEEL VERY, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME HERE, AND I FEEL VERY NERVOUS. YOU HAVE, YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE. THREE MINUTES, AND YOU MAY START. OKAY. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION, AND I DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS HERE, BUT I HAVE LIVED ON GREAT COURT WAY FOR 40 YEARS, ALONG WITH SIX OTHER PEOPLE THAT STILL LIVE THERE, AND I SWEAR ONCE A MONTH WE HAVE A PLUMBER OUT THERE. I MEAN, OUR PIPES ARE SO BAD. OUR SEWER PIPES ARE SO BAD. AND I WANT TO KNOW, OR I'M JUST ASKING, WHICH WAY THE SEWER PIPES ARE GOING TO GO. BECAUSE IF THEY'RE ON GREAT COURT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, AND WE BASICALLY HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD PLUMBER THAT WE ALL USE. AND I'M NOT KIDDING. THEY'RE JUST, WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT, YOU KNOW, THE OPENING IS LIKE THIS. IS THAT RIGHT, ROB? IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST FOUR AND A HALF BATHS AND AN ADU AND EVERYTHING. WE'RE JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED. I THINK WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS MR. GOLDNER IS AVAILABLE AFTER YOU FINISH. HE'S HERE IN THE FRONT ROW. YOU CAN CHAT WITH HIM. HE'S WITH THE CITY, AND YOU CAN ASK HIM THAT QUESTION. THE INDIVIDUAL WITH HIS HAND. ANYTHING FURTHER? PRESENTATION. NO. WELL, YOU MENTIONED THE ADU WOULD BE TALKED ABOUT LATER. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. MR. LURDY. WHEN THE SPEAKER CONCLUDES, ANY OTHER COMMENTS, I CAN SPEAK TO THE ADU, AND I CAN SPEAK TO THE CONDITION ON UTILITIES. THANK YOU. OKAY, BECAUSE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ON THE NOTICE THAT WE GOT IN THE, YOU KNOW, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ANYTHING FURTHER? [02:35:02] I DON'T THINK SO. WELL, THANK YOU FOR COMING TO SPEAK WITH US. MR. LURDY, DID YOU WANT TO? SURE, THANK YOU. FIRST, I'LL TALK ABOUT ADUS AND HOW WE PROCESS THEM IN THE COASTAL ZONE. SO ADUS ARE PRETTY DICTATED BY STATE LAW ON THE TIMELINES RELATED TO THEM, AS WELL AS WHAT THE LEVEL OF DISCRETION THAT YOU CAN HAVE FOR THEM. ADUS IN THE COASTAL ZONE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, BUT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ADU ITSELF. AND SO FOR WHAT WE DO WITH A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME SUCH AS THIS WITH AN ADU IS WE PROCESS TWO PERMITS SIMULTANEOUSLY. SO WE HAVE THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME COME TO COMMISSION AND FOLLOW THE REGULAR PROCESS. WHERE WE HAVE AN ADU THAT FOLLOWS THE PROCESS, THERE IS STILL SOME NOTICING, BUT IT'S NOT AN APPEALABLE PROCESS BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE MINISTERIAL, AND THERE'S NO CEQA EXEMPTION FOUND WITH IT. WE PROCESS IT THROUGH THAT, AND IF THE CDP FOR THE MAIN HOUSE IS APPROVED, THEN WE APPROVE THE CDP FOR THE ADU ITSELF BECAUSE THEY'RE, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE DESIGN, DIRECTLY DEPENDENT UPON EACH OTHER. WITH RESPECT TO THE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, THERE IS A CONDITION, NUMBER 25, THAT THE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES NEED TO BE BUILT ON THE PLANS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DISTRICT ENGINEER AND CITY ENGINEER. SO IN OUR CASE, THAT IS THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT AND THE CITY SEWER DEPARTMENT THAT REVIEW AND APPROVE THOSE PLANS, AS WELL AS LINE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING, AS REPRESENTED BY JASON KELDERT. SO WE CAN CERTAINLY FOLLOW UP WITH THE INDIVIDUAL AND SHOW MORE DETAIL ON THOSE PLANS, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CHECK AND INSPECT WITH ADDING CAPACITY, ADDING UNITS TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE. GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. LARDY. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? NO, CHAIR, THERE'S NOT. I WILL NOW CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? DISCUSSION AMONG COMMISSIONERS? I WILL SAY, FIRST OF ALL, ONE ARCHITECTURALLY. I THINK YOU HIT IT OUT OF THE PARK. I THINK THE DEVELOPER, I MEAN, THE APPLICANT DID A GREAT JOB. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE IN ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DESIGN AND WHAT THE LOT CURRENTLY HAS, JUST A LOT OF WEEDS AND VEGETABLES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, IT'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. COMMISSIONER MERZ? YEAH, I THINK IT'S A GREAT-LOOKING PROJECT. I DEFINITELY SUPPORT IT. WE ALSO HAVE AN ADU ON OUR PROPERTY. I THINK I LIKE THE FACT THAT THE ADU FACES ONE SIDE AND THE FRONT DOOR FACES THE OTHER. IT'S REALLY NICE. THE ONLY THING I WOULD JUST KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, MAYBE A HEDGE OR A FENCE THAT FITS, YOU KNOW, ALONG THERE, CREATES A VISUAL BARRIER. IT WOULD BE NICE, DEPENDING ON WHO YOU RENT IT OUT TO. I KNOW IT'S A NICE THING. BUT I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE PROJECT. I THINK IT'S VERY WELL DONE. FURTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS? MAY I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER BURROWS? MOTION TO APPROVE PROJECT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. MAY I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER BURROWS MAKES THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER, CAN I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MAKES THE SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. UNAMNEST. I WILL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING. CONGRATULATIONS. [COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTARY AND REQUESTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS] COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTARIES OR REQUESTS TO CONSIDER MATTERS FROM EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING FOR US. HISTORICAL SOCIETY OR SOMETHING. WELL, I'M JUST COMING BACK WITH THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLANS, POTENTIALLY MAKING THE STATE STREET AREA HISTORIC DISTRICT. GREAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WILL COME TO FRUITION, BUT MR. STRONG MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT HISTORIC PRESERVATION. DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING, MR. STRONG? NO. GOOD. ANY OTHER REPORTS BY COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. HOW ABOUT MR. LAFFERTY? ANYTHING AT ALL THAT YOU WISH TO ADD OR COMMENTS OR REPORTS? THE CITY COUNCIL LAST WEEK REVIEWED, CONSIDERED, AND ULTIMATELY APPROVED THE CVD RINCON PROJECT. THAT IS THE PROJECT AT THE CURRENT VACANT UNION BANK SITE. THAT WAS ANOTHER LONG PRESENTATION. SO A LOT OF OVERLAP, BUT IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SEVERAL THINGS AGAIN OR HEAR MORE ON IT, WE HAVE THAT PRESENTATION. WE WERE ESSENTIALLY THE ONLY AGENDA ITEM OF THAT EVENING. THERE WAS SOME OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND PRESENTATIONS. WE ARE LOOKING AT LIKELY CANCELING THE MEETING, THE NEXT MEETING, THE SECOND MEETING IN AUGUST, AND WE ARE STILL WORKING ON THE SEPTEMBER CALENDAR, BUT WE DO HAVE SEVERAL PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING IN THE SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER TIMEFRAME. WE'LL TRY TO CONSOLIDATE THAT AS MUCH AS [02:40:01] POSSIBLE, BUT THANK YOU. YEAH, I DO WANT TO THANK STAFF THIS EVENING TO BE ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER THE, I CALL IT A PREAMBLE, BUT TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN REGARD TO DENSITY BONUS AND BE ABLE TO CONDENSE THAT AND MAKE THAT PRESENTATION. I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT BE A PART OF THE CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSIONERS, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT BACKGROUND, AND STAFF, YOU DID A GREAT JOB IN PUTTING THAT TOGETHER FOR US, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. CITY ATTORNEY. NOTHING FOR ME, THANK YOU. EXCELLENT. AT THIS TIME, IT IS, HOLD ON, WHERE ARE WE AT? 7.47. I WILL CLOSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND NOW IT IS ADJOURNED. 7.47 P.M. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.