HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 7106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
CITY PLANNER’S DECISION TO APPROVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A DELICATESSEN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 3040 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF
THE VILLAGE REVIEW ZONE AND WITHIN THE VILLAGE SEGMENT OF THE
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: EL CORRAL
CASE NO.: RP 14-22
WHEREAS, Village Redevelopment Partners, “Developer/Owners” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as:
All that portion of Tract 98 of Carlsbad Lands, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no.
11661, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
March 1, 1915, described as follows:
Commencing at the southwesterly corner of said tract; thence
northwesterly along the westerly line of said tract 98, a distance of 70
feet; thence north 55°27’ east a distance of 100 feet; thence
southeasterly on a line parallel with the westerly line of said tract a
distance of 70 feet to a point in the southerly line of said tract; thence
southwesterly along said southerly line of said tract, 100 feet to the
point of beginning
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for an Administrative Review
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” – “H” dated June 3, 2015, on file in the Planning Division, RP 14-22 – EL
CORRAL, as provided by Chapter 21.42 and/or 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on June 3, 2015, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to
the Administrative Review Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7106
PC RESO NO. 7106 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES the
appeal and UPHOLDS the city planner’s decision to approve RP 14-22 – EL CORRAL, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The City Planner has determined that the project is consistent with the policies, goals and action
programs set forth within the Carlsbad General Plan in that the delicatessen provides a visitor
serving use that complements the existing commercial and residential uses in the pedestrian-
oriented downtown Village.
2. The proposed use meets the definition of a delicatessen in that ready-to-eat food products such
as sandwiches, salads, and burritos will be available and food and drink service is not provided
to any of the tables that will be located on-site. In an effort to be consistent with current
sustainability practices, disposable utensils and plates will not be used for dine-in customers.
3. The City Planner has determined that the project is consistent with Chapter 21.35 (Village Review
Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and all applicable development standards and land use
policies set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual in that a delicatessen is
defined as “retail” for land use purposes. The subject property provides no off-street parking
spaces. However, space may be converted from one approved use to another approved use
without additional parking provided both uses have the same parking requirements according
to the parking requirements set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The
previous use of the property was retail, which has the same parking requirement as a
delicatessen. Therefore no additional parking is required for a delicatessen on the subject
property.
4. That the City Planner has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303, Class 3, of the State CEQA
Guidelines as the project involves the conversion of an existing small structures from one use to
another where only minor modifications are made to the structures and will not have any adverse
significant impacts on the environment.
5. The City Planner has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this
approval letter, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts
caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is
in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .