HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-14; City Council; 22038; Denying El Corral Appeal, Upholding Planning Commission RP 14-221
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
follows:
EXHIBIT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-194
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO UPHOLD 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:
CASE NO.:
EL CORRAL
RP 14-22
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual, the Planning Commission did, on June 3, 2015, hold a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider an appeal of the City Planner's decision to a approve
Administrative Review Permit RP 14-22 EL CORRAL; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission vote resulted in a 4-0 vote (Scully,
Siekmann, Montgomery, and Segall voted yes) with Commissioner L'Heureux abstaining and
Black and Anderson absent; and
WHEREAS, the vote resulted in the denial of the appeal of the City Planner's
decision and the approval of Planning Commission Resolution 7106; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that there was not an error or
abuse of discretion on the part of the City Planner in the decision to approve Administrative
Review Permit RP 14-22, allowing a delicatessen at 3040 Carlsbad Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2015, the appellant Michael C. Hewitt, timely filed an
appeal with the city as provided pursuant to Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
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
---~-------------------··--·---------~~---------------· -··-----
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be hear, said City Council considered all factors
relating to the appeal.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT REOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct
2. That the appeal is of the Planning Commission's decision is denied and that
the findings contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7087 on file in the City Clerk's
office and incorporated herein by reference are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review"
shall apply:
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed
by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of
Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review
must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on
which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final
a request for the record is filed with a deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated
cost or preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is
extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either
personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written
request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk,
City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA, 92008.
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
-2-
SITE MAP
• N
NOT TO SCALE
El Corral
RP 14-22
EXHIBIT2
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
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7106
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:
CASE NO.:
EL CORRAL
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. 7
1
2
3
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:
4 Findings:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
PC RESO NO. 7106 -2-
The City of Carlsbad Planning Division EXHIBIT4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ltemNo.Q
P.C. AGENDA OF: June 3, 2015
Application complete date: January 20, 2015
Project Planner: Austin Silva
Project Engineer: Jason Geldert
SUBJECT: RP 14-22 -EL CORRAL -An appeal of 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 Local Facilities Management Zone
1. The City Planner has determined that this project belongs to a class of projects that
the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment, and is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15303.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7106 DENYING the appeal
and UPHOLDING the City Planner's decision to approve Administrative Review Permit RP 14-22 based on
the findings contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The subject .16 acre site is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Carlsbad Village
Drive and Oak Avenue. The project site is located in the Village Segment of the coastal zone and within
Land Use District 1 of the Village Review zone. Currently, a small commercial building is located on the
property that was most recently occupied by a pottery business. There is no vehicular access to the site
as the site is surrounded on three sides by the existing commercial and residential uses. There are no
off-street parking spaces on the site and no curb cut for vehicle access exists.
Table A below includes the General Plan designations, zoning and current land uses of the project site
and surrounding properties.
TABLE A
Location General Plan Designation Zoning Current Land Use
Site Village VR {District 1) Vacant building
North Village VR (District 1} Liquor store/Restaurant
South Residential High {RH) R-3 Multi-family residential
East Village VR (District 1) Retail/commercial service/office
West Village VR (District 9) Hotel/Restaurant
The applicant is proposing to make interior and exterior improvements to operate a delicatessen on the
site. Interior improvements include constructing an exhibition kitchen and service counter, new
restrooms, walk-in cooler and freezer, seating areas, and an elevator to the outdoor view deck. Exterior
improvements include the addition of an outdoor drink service counter, a game lawn, seating, a
landscape planter, movable fabrics shades, and a rooftop view deck with a snack bar/service counter
with outdoor seating.
In ' ' \..,J
RP 14-22-EL CORRAL
June 3, 2015
Page 2
The prospective tenant will operate under the name of "Park 101", which will be broken down into four
sections. The four different sections of Park 101 will operate as described below.
El Corral Deli & Dough: El Corral Deli and Dough will have an express window that can be accessed from
the sidewalk on Carlsbad Boulevard. The focus of the express window will be to provide customers with
house specialties. One of which will be hot fresh "paczki" or "poonch-kes/' which are similar to a donut.
The intent is to have these made fresh three times a day, and incorporate a red light visible from the
street that will indi~ate that the donuts are hot, fresh and ready. The other specialties for the window
will be made to order ice cream sandwiches with house baked cookies and a tri-tip dip sandwich. An
express breakfast will also be served through the window which will include a ready to eat tri tip
breakfast burrito, a ready to eat vegetarian burrito, fruit cups and fresh squeezed juices. The deli
portion will focus on retail sales of the packaged sandwiches and salads, pastries, craft sodas, craft beer
bottles, fresh squeezed juice and a coffee station.
Frazier Station Provisions: This section of Park 101 will serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner with a fast
casual counter service. The menu will consist of 60% ready to eat prepared barbeque assembly line
style, while 40% of the menu will be grilled to order. Customers will walk down the ordering line, with
the encased kitchen line to the right, and the customer will place an order with the register clerk at the
end of the line. All drinks, including soft drinks, water, beer or wine will be poured by a clerk, upon
ordering.
Garden Public: Garden Public is a community park inspired, multi-use area, where the focus will be
family, recreation, dining and beverage. It will include an indoor/outdoor beer and wine counter serving
craft beer and a local wines. A small menu of snacks including popcorn, pretzels, and pickles will be
available. The outdoor space will have lawn space for outdoor games such as corn-hole or shuffle board
and will be family friendly.
Tamarack Viewing Deck: The second floor view deck will be a place for customers to eat their food and
enjoy the views of the Village from the second floor.
The project history is summarized with the following events: The applicant submitted an application for
an Administrative Review Permit on December 22, 2014. After working with the applicant on three
reviews, staff felt the project could be supported and a Notice of Pending Decision to approve the
project was mailed on March 20, 2015 to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property.
Subsequently, a Notice of Final Action was mailed on March 31, 2015, indicating that the City Planner
had made a decision to approve the project and an appeal of the decision must be made within 10
calendar days of the date on the notice. The approval letter was issued to the applicant on April 7, 2015.
The Planning Division received an appeal on April 8, 2015, from Ron Presta, who owns the property to
the north, and the appeal was scheduled on a Planning Commission agenda.
Ill. APPEAL
As stated on page 198 of the Village Master Plan, an appeal of a decision made by the City Planner on
administrative permits may be made to the Planning Commission. All appeals must be made in writing
within ten (10) calendar days of the decision made by the City Planner. The decision of the Planning
Commission on appeals is final. Where the Village Master Plan and Design Manual I silent on an issue,
the requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code shall apply. Chapter 21.54.140 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code states that the burden of proof is on the appellant to establish by substantial evidence
that the grounds for the requested action exist. Grounds for appeal shall be limited to the following:
that there was an error or abuse of discretion on the part of the City Planner in that the decision was not
\ \
RP 14-22-EL CORRAL
June 3, 2015
Page 3
supported by the facts presented to the City Planner prior to the decision being appealed; or that there
was not a fair and impartial hearing. The appeal hearing before the Planning Commission is de novo;
however the Planning Commission shall consider only the evidence presented to the City Planner for
consideration in the determination or decision being appealed. The Planning Commission shall
determine all matters not specified in the appeal have been found by the City Planner and are
supported by substantial evidence. The planning commission may affirm, modify or reverse the decision
of the City Planner, and make such order supported by substantial evidence as deemed appropriate,
including remand to the City Planner with directions for further proceedings.
An appeal filed by the property owner to the north of the subject property cited several reasons for the
appeal. The decision to approve the El Corral project is being appealed because there was not a fair and
impartial hearing and the use should have been classified as a restaurant rather than a delicatessen. A
restaurant is defined in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual on page 79 as "an establishment at
which the primary business is the preparation, service and retail sale of meals comprising a varied
selection of foods and nonalcoholic beverages prepared, served and consumed on the premises. The
sale of any alcoholic beverages must be incidental to the primary restaurant business at all times that
the business is open. "Incidental alcoholic beverage sales" means that these sales are subordinated to a
minor position to the sale of meals. The intent is for any alcoholic beverage to be purchased with a
meal. No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the interior area of the restaurant shall be used,
designed, arranged or devoted to a use commonly associated with a bar or other establishment
primarily engaged in the on-premises sale of alcoholic beverages." Whereas on page 81 of the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual, "a delicatessen is defined as an establishment at which the primary
business provides for ready-to-eat food products (such as cooked meats or prepared salads) and canned
or bottled beverages which are purchased on the premises and typically consumed off-site. They may
provide made to order sandwiches and/or salads. Serving and eating utensils are typically disposable.
Food orders is not provided to any tables which might be located on the premises. No waiters or
waitresses are employed on the premises. A delicatessen is defined as "retail" for land use purposes."
The grounds for the appeal are further discussed below, along with staff's analysis.
1. "The El Corral project has no parking!": The appellant states that there is no on-site parking and
describes a situation in which motorists will be driving slowly by the site to look for parking
spaces causing traffic jams. They also indicate that the Average Daily Trips (ADT) is more than
doubling from 280 ADT to 593 ADT.
Because a delicatessen is classified as a retail use and the previous use of the property was
retail, no additional parking is required per the Village Master Plan (pg. 178}. No parking is
required for the outdoor seating if it is equal to or less than the amount of indoor seating per
the Village Master Plan (pg. 179}. Because, the amount of outdoor seating is less than the
amount of indoor seating, no additional parking is required for outdoor seating. Additionally,
parking requirements are not determined by the ADT count. Traffic impact fees assessed for the
delicatessen use will be based off of the ADT count.
2. "The El Corral project is a group of restaurants and bars that require onsite parking.": The
appellant cites the Village Master Plan and Design Manual's definitions for delicatessens and
restaurants and states that the project applicant has attempted to pass off the business as a
delicatessen so they would not have to provide additional parking. The appellant describes that
the business is more consistent with the restaurant definition because there will be preparation
of food on site, waiters and waitresses will be utilized, and the design plans reveal that the use is
a restaurant.
\1--
RP 14-22-EL CORRAL
June 3, 2015
Page 4
A letter to the applicant from the Community and Economic Development (CED) Director dated
October 27, 2014 (attached), expanded on the definition of a delicatessen.
1. Tables and seating have been allowed at delicatessens, both indoors and outdoors. This is
not prohibited by the Village Master Plan so long as they do not impede normal pedestrian
movements.
2. Limited grilling of freshly prepared food is permitted by the Master Plan standards. The
Village Master Plan provides that the grilled items may form a portion of the menu, and the
majority of the menu for a delicatessen must consist of ready-to-eat items.
3. The Master Plan provides that for a deli use, where the primary business is ready-to-eat
food products, there should be deli-type cases located convenient to customers; and
ordering counters and/or walk up windows located close to the entrance. The proposed
project includes all three ofthese.
4. While canned and/or bottle beverages should be available for either eat-in or take-out
customers, a fountain operation for soft drinks, or draft beer and wine, is allowed under the
deli definition in the Village Master Plan.
5. While the Master Plan deli definition states that "serving and eating utensils are typically
disposable", the Village Master Plan does not mandate the use of disposable utensils and
the applicant explained that it chooses to use non-disposable utensils for dine-in customers
for ecological sustainability.
The applicant has modeled its business operation in accordance with the definition of
delicatessen as defined in the Village Master Plan and with the letter that was provided by the
CEO director. The primary business provides ready-to-eat food products including a deli-type
case, and only a portion of the menu includes grilled items. While the amount of seating is not
typical of other delicatessens in the Village, indoor and outdoor seating has been allowed since
it does not impede normal pedestrian traffic. The use of expediters or food runners as
described in the business plan, will not be allowed by the approval since the definition of
delicatessens in the Village Master Plan does not allow waiters. Per the Village Master Pan the
type of utensils in not critical in determining whether a use is a restaurant or a delicatessen.
In an effort to ensure the proposed use is consistent with the delicatessen definition, the
following conditions were placed on the project in the approval letter dated April 7, 2015.
"12. Food and drink order service shall not be provided to any tables at any time. No waiters or
waitresses shall be employed on the premises.
13. The outdoor seating shall be equal to or less than the amount of indoor seating.
14. There shall be no bar stools or seating provided at the indoor and outdoor counters.
15. There shall be a variety of ready-to-eat food products available which may include made to
order sandwiches and/or salads."
3. "TheEl Corral Project Required a Full Public Hearing.": The appellant cites text from the letter to
the applicant from the CED Director stating "Based on the preliminary plans submitted, the
building valuation of the pr()posed improvements outside of the existing structure is less than
$60,000.00, which means that the proposed use would be reviewed as an Administrative Review
Permit." The appellant goes on to describe the improvements proposed and their approximate
costs, estimating that the improvements will cost more than $60,000.00. 12J
RP 14-22-EL CORRAL
June 3, 2015
Page 5
The information provided by the CEO Director is not accurate. Per the Village Master Plan (pg.
197), a Minor Review Permit and hearing before the Planning Commission would be required if
new construction or additions to the building footprint were proposed which have a building
permit valuation of more than $60,000. The valuation in not the construction cost, but the
value as determined by the International Code Council. Since the actual building footprint is not
being expanded, this requirement does not apply. Factors that require an Administrative
Review Permit include: "interior or exterior improvements which result in an intensity of use,"
and "changes in permitted land uses which result in site changes, increased ADT (Average Daily
Traffic), or result in compatibility issues/problems," (Village Master Plan, pg. 197), which is the
case here because the delicatessen use has a higher ADT than the previous use of pottery sales.
4. "No provision is made for refuse disposal.": The appellant contends that the trash and recycling
area is in a location that is inaccessible and will create a health hazard.
Refuse disposal is not a finding necessary for approving a delicatessen. However, the applicant
has obtained a "will serve" letter from Waste Management to have curbside trash and recycle
pick up three times per week, and a "will serve" letter from MSC Janitorial Service, Inc. to have
trash and recycle pick up an additional three days, or four days if needed. The business
operators will have the trash and recycling wheeled out to the curb, which is similar to food
service establishments without alley access in urban areas such as North Park, Little Italy and
downtown La Jolla.
5. "The El Corral Project Cannot Comply with California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
License Requirements Unless the El Corral Project is a Restaurant.": The appellant describes how
the applicant will be selling alcoholic beverages and is concerned with the intent to sell bottled
beer, also referred to as "road sodas."
It is not the intent for the applicant to sell"road sodas" to be consumed in the car. The "road
sodas" are bottled beers that would be for patrons to enjoy with their meal or consumed off
site. This would not be any different than any other grocery retail or liquor store that sells
bottled beer to be consumed off-site.
6. "The Appellant Was Forced to File This Appeal Without the Benefit of the City Planner's Final
Approval Letter." The appellant states that he reserves all rights to supplement the appeal upon
receipt of the City Planner's final approval letter.
The final approval letter was provided to the appellant on April 7, 2015, the day prior the appeal
being filed. There has been no supplement to the appeal filed.
In summary, staff has determined that the use should be classified as a delicatessen (retail) since the
business operation is consistent with definition of a delicatessen in the Village Master Plan (pg. 81).
Although there is no parking on-site, there are on-street parking spaces located along Lincoln Street and
Oak Avenue to the south of the project site, as well as Washington Street to the east. Additionally,
there is a public parking lot with 39 parking spaces that is located off Washington Street one block to the
east. The prospective business owners expect to draw customers from nearby hotels that are within
walking distance, as well as beach goers. Furthermore, bike racks will be installed to attract bicyclists
who travel along Carlsbad Boulevard. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use District 1 which
the Village Master Plan describes as a pedestrian shopping environment with mutually supportive uses
and providing a major activity focus for Carlsbad Village and the city as a whole.
RP 14-22-EL CORRAL
June 3, 2015
Page 6
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
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 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. The project is exempt from further environmental documentation pursuant to Section
15303 of the State CEQA guidelines. A Notice of Exemption will be filed by the City Planner upon final
project approval.
ATIACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7106
2. Location Map
3. Disclosure Form
4. Appeal Form and Attachments
5. Appeal Letter from Charles P. Brown
6. RP 14-22 Approval Letter
7. Letter to applicant from Glen Van Peski, dated October 27, 2014
8. "Will serve" letter from Waste Management dated, May 21, 2015
9. "Will serve" letter from MSC Janitorial Service, Inc., dated May 15, 2015
10. Reduced Exhibits
11. Exhibits "A"-"H" dated June 3, 2015
Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015
EXHIBIT 5
Page 6
designation for that property. The Commission will see a recommendation from staff to retain the RLM but
to change the zoning to R-1 to implement the General Plan. That action, if it ultimately is approved, would
retain the same development potential that the current designation allows.
Ms. Mobaldi proposed language to Bio-20 stating, "The agricultural activity on Parcel A shall not use
chemical pesticides or fertilizers."
Commissioner Segall asked if the wildlife agencies already addressed that issue with the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. Ms. Werneke stated staff did not receive any comments on that particular mitigation measure.
Mr. Neu added that many of the Commissions concerns are addressed in the water quality requirements.
A motion was made by Commissioner Siekmann to amend Bio-20 as stated by Ms. Mobaldi. The motion
passed 5-0.
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Motion by Commissioner L'Heureux and duly seconded by Commissioner Segall that
the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7102
recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program and Addendum; and adopt Planning Commission Resolution
No. 7103 recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02) and
Zone Change (ZC 14-01 ); adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7104
recommending approval of Hillside Development Permit (HOP 14-04), Special Use
Permit (SUP 14-03), and Minor Subdivision (MS 14-10); and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7105 recommending approval of Habitat Management
Plan Permit (HMP 14-02) based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein including the additional amendment to Bio-20 as stated by the
Assistant City Attorney.
5-0
Chairperson Scully, Commissioner L'Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery,
Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann
None
Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Black
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Scully closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1.
RECESS
Chairperson Scully called for a 5 minute recess at 7:45 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Scully called the meeting to order at 7:50p.m. with all Commissioners present, asked Mr. Neu
to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2.
2. RP 14-22 -EL CORRAL -An appeal of 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 Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
The City Planner has determined that this project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment, and is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15303.
Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Austin Silva would make the staff
presentation.
\lo
Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 Page 7
Commissioner L'Heureux recused himself from the dais and left the meeting due to a conflict of interest in
having previously worked for the applicant's representative.
Mr. Silva gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions.
Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Montgomery asked for clarification regarding the appellant's statement that because the
permit valuation was over $60,000 a public hearing should have been required; however staff has indicated
that because the building footprint is not increasing in size the project value does not exceed the value
requiring a public hearing. Mr. Silva stated that was correct. If the applicant expands the original footprint
or adds square footage, a minor review permit would be required which would require a hearing before the
Planning Commission.
Chairperson Scully asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the
appellant wished to make a presentation.
Mike Hewitt, 2082 Michaelson Drive Suite 200, Irvine, the attorney representing the appellant Ron and
Allison Presta, owners of the property for Cessy's and Royal Palms Liquor, stated that there is no curb cut
at the entrance to the El Corral project and there are no provisions for parking at the El Corral project. He
requested the Planning Commission look at the appeal filed by Mr. Presta and reverse the decision of the
city planner. He believes a public hearing should be held for this project and the critical distinction is
whether the proposed project is a delicatessen or a restaurant. If it is a delicatessen, it is considered to be
a provisional use. In looking at the impacts to the adjacent properties, one needs to look at the average
daily trips (ADT) associated with this project because that will impact the adjacent properties as well as the
intersection at Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard. Mr. Hewitt stated that the current ADT is
280 and will more than double to 593 based on the information provided by the project applicant, with no
additional parking anywhere. Mr. Hewitt read the definitions of a delicatessen and a restaurant as provided
in the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual. He stated that the proposed catering for onsite
events, an outdoor garden with outdoor seating and indoor/outdoor bar and wine counter, a community
style dining area, movie nights, fire pit seating, combined indoor and outdoor seating totaling 2,885 square
feet make this project a restaurant not a delicatessen. Mr. Hewitt added that the amount of seating
proposed with this project should require a type of variance, or because it is such a deviation from a
delicatessen, it should actually be called a restaurant. The size of the proposed kitchen is too large for the
use by a delicatessen. Mr. Hewitt further commented that the use of "expediters" to bring out the entire
order to the table is more of a use in line with a restaurant. By calling this use a delicatessen, the applicant
does not have to provide parking, and Mr. Hewitt stated that is a nice way to work around the code. Mr.
Hewitt requested that the Commission send this project back to the City Planner and set a hearing before
the Planning Commission.
Chairperson Scully asked if the permit applicant wished to make a presentation.
Bill Hofman, 3156 Lionshead Avenue, Suite 1, Carlsbad, representing the permit applicant Sterling
Development, stated that the appeal is based on a project description of the site that was submitted very
early in the process by a proposed tenant and was intended to give a very general, conceptual overview of
what was envisioned. Staff however had not completed the review of the project at that time. Mr. Hofman
stated that expediters will not be used and staff has conditioned the project as such. He further added that
the appellant should have looked at the approval documents for the project and not early documents from
a proposed tenant. Mr. Hofman stated that the during the review process, the applicant worked with staff
to ensure the project met the criteria for a delicatessen. The definition of a delicatessen is different in the
Village than anywhere else in the city because the goals of the Village are unique and intended to revitalize
the downtown area. Mr. Hofman read the necessary components of a deli as stated in the Carlsbad Village
Master Plan and Design Manual and directed the Commission's attention to the slide on the screen
indicating those specific components. Brian Church, architect for the project, 1650 Camino Del Mar, Del
Mar, also gave a brief presentation regarding the project's proposed design and architecture.
Chairperson Scully asked if Mr. Hewitt wished to rebut any of the comments made by the applicant's
representative.
\l
Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 Page 8
Mr. Hewitt commented that a farmer's market like the one near The Grove in Los Angeles, as stated by Mr.
Church, is a different land use entirely than a delicatessen. The Commission cannot compare uses and
zoning in Carlsbad with what is used in other cities. Mr. Hewitt added that the Commission needs to also
look at the traffic impacts that this project will bring. If the corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad
Boulevard is overdeveloped, traffic will be increased and parking problems will increase. Mr. Hewitt asked
the Commission to consider the facts, not the evidence, of what the applicant is asking for and what the
real outcome of the project will be. He again asked the Commission to reverse the decision of the City
Planner and to set this item for a full hearing in front of the City Council.
Ms. Mobaldi stated the Village Plan allows a city planner decision to be appealed to the Planning
Commission. It does not state that the Planning Commission decision on that appeal may be appealed to
the City Council as the Municipal Code does.
Chairperson Scully opened public testimony on Agenda Item 2.
Charles Brown, 2103 S. El Camino Real, Suite 206, Oceanside, an attorney representing the concerned
operators of Cessy's and Royal Palms Liquor, stated that the El Corral Project is an ill-conceived idea for
the location. He stated his biggest concern is where the customers are going to park as there currently is
no parking. He asked what the proposed number of occupancy seating is for the proposal as it is not
included in any of the plans. The negative impacts to the lack of parking will be to Cessy's, Royal Palms
Liquor and other places nearby. Mr. Brown further stated his concerns regarding the proposed area for
lawn bowling and a movie screen as those features invite people to stay longer periods of time.
Ashley Westman, from Urban Place Consulting Group, 2788 State Street, Carlsbad, who has worked with
the city in the efforts to revitalize the Village and downtown area. She stated she strongly supports this
project and believes it will be a huge benefit to the Village especially at such a prime location. Ms. Westman
added that as indicated in recent parking studies for the Village, most public parking areas in the Village
are underutilized.
Steve Gibson, also from Urban Place Consulting, 2788 State Street, Carlsbad, commented that part of the
challenge with the Village is getting people to look at it with different land use and transportation policies in
mind. The proposed project is exactly what they have been trying to attract in the Village. It is designed to
serve an urban, pedestrian and bicycle populations, and not designed to be predominantly automobile
serving. This project fits into the vision of the work presented by Dover Kohl and Associates. Mr. Gibson
stated that he strongly urges the Commission to support the project.
Steve Grady, the owner of Subzero located at 201 Oak Avenue, Carlsbad, stated he supports the project,
and he commented that he is not concerned with the parking.
Joshua Murch, 3203 Mustang Way, San Marcos, owner of Submarina in the Village Fa ire shopping center,
stated that he is concerned with yet another deli in the Village. It is too much of the same thing in such
close proximity.
Bob Youris, the previous owner of Royal Palms Liquor, stated his opposition to the project.
Chairperson Scully asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the
item. Seeing none, she closed public testimony on Agenda Item 2.
Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Mobaldi what the Commission can and cannot rule on in this particular
hearing. Ms. Mobaldi stated that with the standards for appeal, the appellant has the burden of proof, the
Commission is reviewing the decision of the city planner to see if he was in error or abused his discretion
in that the facts that he had presented to him before he made his decision did not support the decision.
The proposed project is located in Land Use District 1 and therefore it is a permitted use. If it is a provisional
use, the Commission can look at the impacts on the surrounding uses. Ms. Mobaldi stated that because it
is a permitted use, impacts are not a factor. The impacts and some of the other issues discussed apply to
a provisional use. A deli is a permitted use, but the Commission has to look at the criteria to answer the
question if it is a deli or a restaurant. Some of the criteria for a deli are mandatory, such as a majority of
the food has to be pre-prepared as opposed to being cooked on site. The Commission needs to decide if
16
Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 Page 9
the city planner's determination, with regard to those factors, was supported by the facts in the application.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, unlike the municipal code, does not
provide for an appeal to the City Council as it states the Planning Commission's decision is final. The
municipal code states that the decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days.
Commissioner Segall asked if the Commission is deciding whether this proposal is a restaurant or a deli.
Ms. Mobaldi stated the Planning Commission is deciding if the city planner was correct in determining the
use as a deli. By correct, Ms. Mobaldi stated it means that the decision was supported by substantial
evidence, or it was erroneous in that it was arbitrary and capricious with a lack of facts to support it.
Commissioner Segall asked if one of the recommendations could be that the project goes back before the
Commission for a full hearing on the issue. Ms. Mobaldi stated no. The Village Master Plan states that
because the footprint for this project is not increasing, it is considered an administrative permit which
requires a decision by the City Planner. Commissioner Segall asked if the Commission can change some
of the conditions for the project. Ms. Mobaldi stated yes.
Commissioner Montgomery asked Mr. Neu how he came to the conclusion that this can be a delicatessen.
Mr. Neu stated that there is not a size limit in terms of the size of the deli or the different components that
make up a deli or a restaurant. Staff did have some of the same concerns expressed by the Commission,
and as indicated by the conditions of approval, things that were in the definition that staff felt were absolute
were reinforced by the conditions. As Ms. Mobaldi pointed out, some of the items that are referred to in the
definition as typical or not mandatory, staff spent a considerable amount of time with the project proponent
working through the issues to make sure they were within the limits of what a deli is supposed to be. Mr.
Neu added that admittedly it is in on the large side with the seating, staff feels that with the amount of
pedestrian and bicycle traffic that utilizes that area, this site would be able to accommodate those
customers.
Commissioner Segall asked about the purchase and consumption of alcoholic beverages in a deli versus
a restaurant. Mr. Silva stated there are different types of ABC licenses, some for onsite consumption, some
for offsite consumption, and a site can have more than one ABC license. Mr. Silva added that the project
applicant would most likely apply for two types of licenses. Commissioner Segall asked if, in terms of a
delicatessen, a customer would be allowed to buy an alcoholic beverage without purchasing food. It seems
like the applicant wants to set it up where someone can purchase food with drinks and not have people
sitting there drinking for hours on end. Mr. Silva stated that was correct and that was a reason staff had
the applicant remove bar and counter seating from the plans.
Commissioner Segall asked about the business plan. Mr. Silva stated that was not a part of the staff report
and as Mr. Hofman indicated, it was part of the initial project concept, and with many project submittals and
the review process those business plans and descriptions change. Commissioner Segall further asked
about the seating capacity for the project. Mr. Silva stated that he did know what the seating capacity is for
the project and that the Fire Department or Building Division would determine this based on Fire and
Building Codes.
Ms. Mobaldi commented that the Village Master Plan and Design Manual does not specifically address one
way or the other, the issue of adding or modifying conditions of approval for an administrative permit. She
stated that the municipal code does allow the Commission to condition a project appropriately.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Segall stated he has been a proponent for revitalizing the village for many years. The city
wants to create an ambiance that encourages people to walk to places in the Village. There is a change of
mindset for projects in the Village. He stated he feels the city planner did not err or make an inappropriate
decision and he can support that decision. Commissioner Segall added that he would like to add a condition
to prohibit special events at the site.
Commissioner Montgomery does not feel the city planner was wrong in how this project was reviewed and
approved. He believes this is a site that is so unique with a heavy amount of traffic, not just vehicular but
pedestrian and cycling traffic, that the size of the deli is warranted.
Commissioner Siekmann stated the burden of proof that this is not a deli was on the appellant, and she
feels the appellant did not prove that this is a restaurant. If there are concerns regarding parking, one
Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 Page 10
needs to look at the code because the code states that changing from a retail use to a deli does not require
any additional parking. As far as the information provided at this meeting, it appears to her that this project
is a deli, even if it is a large deli. She stated she can support the city planner in the decision that was made
and feels this project will only help other businesses in the area.
Chairperson Scully stated she has been on the fence with this project. This project is what the people want
to see in the Village, and the city is trying to make everything more walkable in the village. She stated she
can support the city planner's decision.
Commissioner Segall made a motion to recommend that a condition by added to prohibit special events at
this location. The motion failed 1-3 with Chairperson Scully, Commissioners Montgomery and Siekmann
voting no.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann and duly seconded by Commissioner SegaiHhat
the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7106 denying
the appeal and upholding the City Planner's decision to approve Administrative
Review Permit RP 14-22 based on the findings contained therein.
VOTE: 4-0
AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and
Commissioner Siekmann
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black and Commissioner L'Heureux
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Scully closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2, and thanked staff for their presentations.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
None
CITY PLANNER COMMENTS
Mr. Neu commented that each Commissioner received handouts regarding the initiative process for the
Agua Hedionda 85/15 Plan. The information provided is available on the city's website.
Commissioner Siekmann inquired about the meetings and bus tours that the developer is providing. Ms.
Mobaldi stated that no more than 2 Commissioners can attend at a time on tours or at meetings.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of June 3, 2015 was adjourned at 9:30
p.m.
DON NEU
City Planner
Bridget Desmarais
Minutes Clerk
-...
ATTACHMENT 1 TO APPEAL
000002
Subject of the Appeal
The subject of this appeal is the Planning Commissions' denial of Mr.
Presta's appeal and upholding the City Planner's decision to APPROVE
Administrative Review Permit No. RP 14-22 and Coastal Development Permit No.
14-39, commonly known as the El Corral Pottery property ,Assessor Parcel No.:
203-175-02 and 203-175-02-00, street address 3040 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad,
California 92008 .
Mr. Presta also appeals the Planning Commissions' adoption of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7106.
000003
ATTACHMENT 2 TO APPEAL
000004
Reason(s) for the Appeal:
As a first, separate and independent ground for appeal, the Planning
Commission made an error or abused its discretion in approving Administrative
Review Permit No. RP 14-22 in that the decision was not factually supported.
As a second, separate and independent ground for appeal, the city planner
erred in approving, and the Planning Commission erred in affirming, the use of the
El Corral Project as a delicatessen, when in fact the El Corral Project should have
been classified as a restaurant, or a fast food restaurant, which requires additional
parking.
As a third, separate and independent ground for appeal, the Planning
Commission erred in denying Mr. Presta's appeal and in adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7106 in direct contradiction to the Carlsbad Village
Master Plan and Design Manual and the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
I. INTRODUCTION
The subject property is located at 3040 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad,
California 92008 and is commonly known as El Corral Pottery. Immediately
adjacent to El Corral Pottery is Cessy's and Royal Palms Spirits on the comer of
Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive.
The applicant developer, Sterling Development Corporation, made an
application to permit the use of El Corral Pottery as a delicatessen and submitted a
business plan to the City of Carlsbad. The project is known as the El Corral
Project.
The City Council must make the critical determination whether the proposed
El Corral Project is a restaurant or a delicatessen. If the City Council determines,
as it should, that the proposed El Corral Project is a restaurant, then parking is
required and the project cannot be approved as submitted, and consequently, the
Planning Commission Resolution No. 7106 must be repealed.
000005
Based on the facts set forth below, the City Council can only reach one
conclusion: the El Corral Project is a restaurant that requires additional parking.
II. THEEL CORRAL PROJECT IS A GROUP OF RESTAURANTS
AND BARS THAT REQUIRE ON SITE PARKING.
The Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual ("Village Manual")
defines delicatessen:
"A delicatessen is defined as an establishment at which the primary
business provides for ready-to-eat food products (such as cooked meats
or prepared salads) and canned or bottled beverages which are purchased
on the premises and typically consumed off-site. They may provide made
to order sandwiches and I or salads. Serving and eating utensils are typically
disposable. Food orders service is not provided to any tables which
might be located on the premises. No waiters or waitresses are employed
on the premises. A delicatessen is defined as "retail" for land use purposes"
(Village Manual page 81, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, emphasis added.)
Why did the El Corral Project developers attempt to pass off restaurants and
bars as a "delicatessen"? The answer is simple: the El Corral Project has no on-site
parking and a delicatessen at the El Corral Property would not require additional
parking.
TheEl Corral Project should be defined as a "restaurant" for land use
purposes as the Village Manual defines 'restaurant" in relevant part:
"An establishment at which the primary business is the preparation,
service and retail sale of meals comprising a varied selection of foods
and nonalcoholic beverages prepared, served and consumed on the
premises. The sale of any alcoholic beverages must be incidental to the
primary restaurant business at all times that the business is open." (Village
Manual, page 79, Exhibit 2 hereto.)
000006
Alternatively, the El Corral Project should be defined as "Fast Food
Restaurants (Large)" as defined in the Village Manual:
"A retail eating and drinking use designed to attract and accommodate high
customer volumes or turnovers and which provides ready to eat food for
consumption on or off the premises and meets the following criteria: ...
A gross floor area of 1,000 square feet or more, and more than 50 seats.
A limited menu of ready-to-eat food prepared in advance of customer orders,
or food which may be quickly prepared.
Food served in disposable wrappers or containers.
Food is ordered at a customer service counter.
Food is paid for prior to consumption." (Village Manual page 63, Exhibit 3
hereto, emphasis added.)
The Village Manual requires ample parking for Fast Food Restaurants:
"The site should be large enough to accommodate onsite parking away from
street frontages." (Village Manual, page 63, Exhibit 3 hereto.)
III. THEEL CORRAL PROJECT HAS NO PARKING!
TheEl Corral property has no on-site parking! There is not a single on-site
parking stall! Imagine the snarling traffic jams as visitors and residents drive
slowly by the El Corral Project on major coastal thoroughfares Carlsbad Village
Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard, looking for an entrance into the El Corral Project
and finding no entrance into the El Corral Project. What now? The visitors in their
cars slowly proceed trying to find an entrance to the rear of the El Corral Project
only to discover the El Corral Project has no vehicle entrance and no on-site
parking!
IV. THE AVERAGE DAILY TRIP COUNT MORE THAN DOUBLES!
Incredibly, the Design Plan submitted to the City of Carlsbad shows the Average
Daily Trip (ADT) volume more than doubling. The existing count is shown as 280
ADT and the proposed count is shown as 593 ADT. (Design Plans dated March 16,
2015 by Brian Church, sheet C 1.) ("Design Plans") The Design Plans were
000007
submitted to the City of Carlsbad by the developer are not attached hereto due to
size limitations.
There would be more than double the traffic volume without a single
parking space! Congestion doesn't begin to describe the traffic and parking
quagmire the El Corral Project will create.
V. THE EL CORRAL PROJECT HAS 2,885 SQUARE FEET OF
SEATING, 159 SEATS FOR OCCUPANTS, AND 2006 SQUARE
FEET OF KITCHEN, DELI, AND SNACK BAR AREA.
The Design Plans by Brian Church show seating square footage as: indoor
seating of 1, 461 square feet, outdoor seating as 1,424 square feet for total
seating of 2,885 square feet! (Design Plans, sheetA9)
Why so much seating area? Why 159 seats? The answer is simple: the
Design Plans call for 2006 square feet of kitchen, deli, and snack bar area.
(Design Plan, sheet A9.)
Why so much space dedicated to dining area and food preparation? Because
the El Corral Project is a restaurant, not a delicatessen.
VI. THEEL CORRAL PROJECT PREPARES FOOD ON SITE,
PROVIDES CATERING, SHOWS MOVIES AND HASA FIRE PIT.
Exhibit 4 hereto, labeled "Park 101 at the village" ("Developer's Brochure")
identifies three separate restaurants: (1) El Corral Deli and Dough; (2) Frazier
Station Provisions; and (3) Garden Public.
The Developer's Brochvre, in parts A, B, C, and D clearly describes how
foods are prepared on site, and as discussed below, the walk in refrigerators, walk
in freezers, enormous dining rooms, and kitchens readily distinguish the El Corral
Project as a "restaurant" for land use purposes.
Moreover, the Developer's Brochure states in relevant part:
000008
"Garden public is a community park inspired, multi use area, where our
focus will be on family, recreation, dining, and beverage." (Exhibit 4,
Developer's Brochure, page 4, emphasis added.)
The Developer's Brochure further solidifies the proper land use designation
as "restaurant":
" Catering. We plan on offering a full catering menu for private events,
wedding receptions, or on site events." (Exhibit 4, Developer's Brochure,
page 6, emphasis added.)
Delicatessens, do not offer on-site events as they do not have the parking to
accommodate large on site events. All the more reason the El Corral project should
have been designated "restaurant" for land use purposes.
Patrons and customers dine and drink at restaurants and as such, the land use
designation for the El Corral Project must be "restaurant". Principal Planner Chris
DeCerbo makes this clear in his January 20, 2015 correspondence to the
developers:
"A delicatessen is a food service use where patrons typically do not stay for
a long periods of time and order multiple alcoholic beverages." (Chris
DeCerbo January 20, 2015 correspondence, page 2, Exhibit 5 hereto.)
The Park 101 Concept Overview ("Developer's Concept" attached as
Exhibit 6 hereto.) further solidifies the El Corral Project as a group of restaurants
and bars:
"The kitchen and grill will be exhibition style, .... " and "Once you order,
you can choose from our community style seating areas: the park, inside
dining area, or view deck." (Exhibit 6 hereto, emphasis added.)
A colloquial saying sums up the El Corral Project: "If it quacks like a duck,
swims like a duck, walks like a duck and flies like a duck, it is a duck."
000009
The City Council should call a restaurant a restaurant and repeal Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7106.
VII. THE DEVELOPER'S BROCHURE PROVIDES FOR WAlTERS
AND WAITRESSES.
Section B of the Developer's Brochure (Exhibit 4 hereto) on page 3, admits
to table service, which is a "restaurant" land used designation requiring on-site
parking.
The Developer's Brochure on page 3 states in relevant part: " ... serving
breakfast, lunch and dinner,-service=fast casual .... "
To avoid sounding like a restaurant, The Developer's Brochure, on page 4,
cleverly tries to disguise waiters and waitresses: "Expediters will bring out entire
order to table, which will be indicated by table placard."
Based on the fact that El Corral Project restaurants will utilize servers
providing table service, the El Corral project should be designated a "restaurant"
for land use purposes.
VIII. THE EL CORRAL PROJECT CANNOT COMPLY WITH
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
CONTROL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS UNLESS THE EL
CORRAL PROJECT IS A RESTAURANT.
The El Corral Project bills itself as selling alcoholic beverages, going so far
as to sell alcoholic beverage "Road sodas". (Exhibit 4, Developers Brochure, page
3.)
While it is unlikely that the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control will ever grant a license to sell "Road sodas", a quick review of the ABC
licensing requirements shows that the El Corral Project would need a license type
000010
41 or 4 7 (Exhibit 7 hereto.) both of which license types require a "restaurant"
designation.
Will Sterling Development Corporation call the El Corral Project a
"delicatessen" for the City of Carlsbad to avoid providing parking and call the
project a "restaurant" for the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
to obtain a license?
IX. CONCLUSION.
Based on the facts that: (1) the El Corral Project has no on-site parking, the
Village Manual requires parking for a restaurant or fast food restaurant; (2) the El
Corral Project will prepare food on-site; (3) there will be dining and table service
on-site; ( 4) the Design Plans call for 2,885 square feet of seating; ( 5) the Design
Plans call for 2006 square feet of kitchen, deli and snack bar area,; (6) a full public
hearing was required for the El Corral Project; (7) and the ABC requires restaurant
use for issuance of license types 41 and 4 7, the proper land use designation for the
El Corral Project is "restaurant" or "Fast Food Restaurant".
Appellant respectfully requests that the City Council designate the El Corral
Project land use as "restaurant" or "Fast Food Restaurant", that a full public
hearing take place on the El Corral Project, and that the El Corral Project be
required to provide parking, or, alternatively, that the City Council deny
Administrative Review Permit No. RP-14-22 and Coastal Development Permit No.
14-39, and repeal Planning Commission Resolution No. 1706.
000011
Exhibit 1
000012
11. Furniture should be of uniform color and design and of substantial construction to withstand outdoor
usc. Umbrellas should be made <>f a wood or metal framework and covered with fabric. No vinyl
umbrellas shall be petmitted The City Planner shall develop guidelines for e.xamples of acceptable
sidewalk care furniture.
12. Trash receptacles should be pro'\"ided by the eating or drinking establishment and the area of the
sidewalk care should be kept free oflittcr.
13. A sidewalk table permit must be. approved by the City Planner prior to the use of sidewalk tables. A
fee to be set by the City Council shall be required for processing the subject permit This fee must be
paid before the permit will be processed.
14. The approved sidewalk table permit shall remain in effect for as long as sidewalk tables are permitted
within the Village Area and the permittee remains in compliance with the subject approved permit. No
new permit shall be required unless the applicant ceases to use the sick:walk tables for a period of si."{
months or longer; in this case, a new permit with appropriate fee would be required. The approveQ.
permit which remains in effect may be amended without additional fees as approved by the City Planner.
15. All the other necessary City and/or Agency permits must also be obtained prior to the use of sidewalk
tables. These pennits may include a business license and/ or a Village Review permit if required for the
primary eating/ drinking establishment
16. '!be State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABq shall regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages
within the Village. The applicant must obtain the appropriate permits and/ or approvals from ABC
prior to selling or serving alcoholic beverages to customers using the sidewalk tables.
17. The City Planner may approve temporary or permanent enclosures for the sidewalk cafe area as part of
the sidewalk table permit if the City Planner finds that the enclosure will not impede pedestrian traffic
and is desired for other safety or aesthetic reas<>ns.
18. Applicant/permittee must sign an Indemnification Statement holding the City of Carlsbad harmless
from any legal action resulting from sidewalk care opemtions and/or any approved enclosures for this
sidewalk.
19. The applicant must submit a Certificate of Insurance to the City of Carlsbad in an amount to be
established by the Risk Manager of the City of Carlsbad. The City of Carlsbad shall be listed as an
"additional insured" on the Certificate. The Certificate must remain in effect for as long as the tables
and chairs are placed within the public right-of-way (on the sidewalk).
20. In accordance with Chapters 21.35 and 21.58 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the sidewalk cafe pCrmit
may be revoked by the City Planner following due process procedures, if. 1) the conditions of the
approv-ed permit are not being met; 2) conditions at or around the sidewalk cafe change; and/ or 3) if
operation of the sidewalk care interferes with adequate or safe public use of the sidewalk.
FiDdisgs-In order for the sidewalk table use to ret"BZ1:e a Permit, it shaD be consistent with the fo/Jowingftnding.
1. TI1e applicant has complied with all of the criteria established relative to Sidewalk Cafes.
2. The use is not likely to result in health or safety problems nor is it likely to adversely impact adjacent
uses.
82 City of CarlsiNid Vll/agtlllllsttiT Plan II/III I1Hign .,,.,
000014
Exhibit 2
000015
Exhibit 3
000017
Fast Food Restaurants (La
Definition: A retail eating or eating and drinking u.re designed to attrad and aavmmodate bigb ~-·mwmer t'olumes or
lurnot'l!r.r and n'hich prot ides reacfycfo-eat food.for cvnsumption on or offthe premi.re.r and meets the following criteria:
• A grossfloor area qf 1,000 .rquare.foet or more, and more than SO .reat.r.
• A limited menu qf reacfy-to-eat.food prepared in admn1--e of cu.rtomer orden, orjood which mC!JI be quickly prepared
• Food J-em:d in dzjposable 11/rappers or tvnlainm:
• Food is ordered at a cuJifJmer sen ice wunter.
• Food zj·pazd for prior to mmumption.
Considerations
1. Although fast food restaurants in some urban locations arc pedestrian-oriented, most arc auto-oriented,
require substantial amounts of parking and generate considerable traffic by virtue of their rapid turn-
over and take-out food policies. These characteristics can be detrimental to retail continuity and
pedestrian safety.
2. Food for take-out service is generally packaged in throw away containers. These along with straws,
napkins and wrappers can create special trash problems at and for some distance from fast food
restaurants.
3. Most fast food chains desire to utilize their recognizable corporate building and signage styles. While
some have made special efforts in modifying their des~ms to fit special community circumstances, there
may be problems in integrating the facility into the desired Village design character.
4. Fast food restaurants often extensively utilize paper or painted window signs as part of their
promotional efforts. These can detract from the guality of the Village visual environment.
Location and Development Criteria
1. Fast food restaurants with on-site parking should not be located in areas where retail or visual continuity
are important nor in areas where \r-:hicular traffic related to their use will disrupt significant pedestrian
movement patterns.
2. The site should be large enough t0 accommodate on-site parking away from street frontages. ,
3. The developer/ franchisee should be willing to design specifically and uniquely for the Carlsbad Village
visual environment as well as agree to restrictions on temporary advertising signs.
Findings-In order jor thir u.re to receit'e a Village Rmew Permit, it .1hould be mn.ri1tent 12-ith the follmvingfindin._g.~:·
1. The use is not likely to create pedestrian and traffic hazards.
2. The use is consistent with and supportive of adjacent commercial uses.
3. Parking locations and visual treatments are consistent with Village goals.
4. The design of the facility and signage is compatible with desired Village character.
63 City of Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual
CC0018
Exhibit 4
000019
II
VERSION 2.7
WINTER 2014
Park 101
at the village
PRESENTED BY: DBLTIGHT INC.
SAN DIEGO, CA
000020
PLAN OVERVIEW
Practice:
Name of Campaign:
Property @ 3040
Carlsbad Blvd, Carlsbad,
CA92008
Campaign Manager:
Peter Cich, Tom Winn, &
Rob McShea
Sub!ect Matter Expert:
DBLtight Inc
HISTORICAL PREMISE
Park 101
According to the Carlsbad historical.society, Carlsbad started as a whistle stop on the new California
Southern Railroad. In the 1880s, John Frazier, a former ship's captain, dug a fresh-water well that came
to be used for thirsty locomotives. The stop became known as Frazier's Station. Frazier dug another
well that produced mineral water. The water was analyzed and found equal in mineral content to one
of Europe's most popular health spas, Karlsbad, Bohemia (now Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic). later,.
Carlsbad was renamed Carl for a time because of confusion with Carlsbad, New Mexico, on train
schedules and because of hysteria during World War I. Popular demand restored the former name.
To take advantage of the find, the Carlsbad Land and Mineral Water Company was formed by a
German-born merchant from the Midwest named Gerhard Schutte together with Samuel Church
Smith, D.D.Wadsworth and Henry Nelson. The naming of the town followed soon after, along with a
major marketing campaign to attract visitors. The area experienced a period of growth, with homes
and businesses sprouting up in the 1880s. Agricultural development
of citrus fruits, avocados and olives soon changed the landscape. By the end of 1887, land prices fell
throughout San Diego County. However, the community survived on the back of its fertile agricultural
lands.
Carlsbad's roots lay in its rich agricultural past. For the past century, Carlsbad was known for its
avocados, flower fields, and farming. A few years later El Corral pottery would become a perpetuator
of the flourishing flower and agricultural business, being a staple in the Carlsbad village community.
Winter2014 Executive Summary
000021
Park 101
OBJECTIVE
Why Park 101? Simply defined a park Is a large public green area in a town, used for recreation.
Our conceptual objective is to create a community gathering place for families, locals, active professionals,
and tourists, while paying homage to the rich agricultural history of the Village of Carlsbad, and maintaining
the community familiarity of El Corral.
PROBLEM
Carlsbad, The Village by the Sea, is currently lacking in a fresh concept that brings quality food, drink,
and the community together.
CALL TO ACTION
Conceptual Vision
Park 101
Park 101 is a neighborhood gathering place with access to a multi-concept community inspired venue
offPCH 101.
How it works:
Park 101 will be broken to down into four sections:
A. El Corral Deli & Dough
The concept behind El Corral will be two fold, focusing on two main functions: the express window and
the retail deli.
1. The Express Window
The focus of the express window will surround servicing our guests with two different house specialties.
Winter2014 Executive Summary
000022
Park 101
TARGET MARKET/ PRODUC"r DEMOGRAPHICS
Our product will be targeted towards, but limited to, 25 +year old adults, tourists, and families.
According to Carlsbad I citydata.com:
Population in 2012: 109,318 (100%.urban, 0% rural). Population change since 2000: +39.7%
Males: 54,284 ~
Females: 55,034 '$ ?%'
Median resident age:
California median age:
-.-, ·"""'""'"'"~ ........ ars ~""''"'"'' ..... ~ .,o: ., years
Zip codes: 92008, 92009, 92010, 92011, 92024, 92056, 92078, 92081.
Carlsbad Zip Code Map
Estimated median household income in 2012: $78,238 (it was $65,145 in 2000)
Carlsbad:$78,238
CA: $58,328
Estimated per capita income in 2012: $42,690
Carlsbad city income, earnings, and wages data
Estimated median house or condo value in 2012: $602,300 (it was $308,800 in 2000)
Carlsbad:$602,300
CA: $349,400
Mean prices in 2011: All housing units: $649,567; Detached houses: $741,945; Townhouses or other
attached units: $431,863; In 2-unit structures: $418,205; In 3-to-4-unit structures: $375,174; In 5-or-
more-unit structures: $682,540; Mobile homes: $210,427
As a group, we collectively have a vc.st constituency that we have collected over our collective SO years
in the San Diego restaurant and bar industry, which has greatly contributed to our success as well as
the venues that we have been affiliated with.
PULL THROUGH
The following are our points of emphasis, including our target markets for success.
Locals.
Our aim will be the active adults in Carlsbad, such as the biking, dog walking, jogging, beach going,
active lifestyle folks of the community. We plan to offer incentives for "green" customers, those whom
ride their bikes or walk to the venue
Tourism.
Winter2014 Executive Summary OOOa25
~22/CDP 14-39-El COR~l
. , January 20, 2015
Page2
Plan nine:
ISSUES OF CONCERN
1. Please remove the indoor and outdoor bar seating area (service counter) on the first floor. A bar
seating area is not consistent with delicatessen uses throughout the Village.
2. Please remove the bar (service counter) from the upstairs "Tamarack View Deck." Including a bar on J(
the second floor view deck encourages patrons to order additional alcoholic beverages and stay for
(
longer periods of time. A delicatessen is a food service use where patrons typically do not stay for a
long periods of time and ordw:multiple alcoholic beverages.
3·. Additional parking will be required ifthe outdoor seating is greater than the amount of indoor seating.
The parking requirement is one space per 100 square feet of net floor space for outdoor sE..lting area
which exceeds the amount of indc.or seating. The plans indicate that there is 1,462 square feet ~f
indoor seating area and a total of 3,966 square feet of patio area between the ground floor and the
"Tamarack View Deck:" Please clearly delineate the outdoor seating areas and indicate the size of
each area.
4. Please add a note on the plans stating that all signage for the future business will be approved under
a separate sign permit.
Engineering:
5. Delete the sidewalk dining improvements from' the site plan if it is not part of this permit application.
Submit a separate sidewalk cafe permit application for the said improvements within the public right-
of-way. The sidewalk cafe application must include details of the Improvements Including material,
color, size and height of rails or walls ·(must not exceed 36"), tables, umbrella, etc. The proposed
improvements must comply with the sidewalk cafe design requirements provided on pages 81 an d82
of the City of Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual (see attached).
6. Provide details including height, length, and width, material and color for the proposed awning at the
walk-up window, bicycle rack and enhanced walkway. It must comply with the requirements in the
City of Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual. A right-of-way permit applk ltion and
encroachment agreement will be required for all structures proposed within the public right-of-way.
7. Please indicate the size of the existing water meter. A larger water meter may be needed. Provide
water meter sizing calculations and indicate the proposed water meter size on the site plan.
8. Please show the connection of the proposed grease control device to the existing sewer lateral.
9. <:;learty show property lines and indicate lot line dimensions (distance and bearings) shown on the
preliminary site plan.
10. Please comply with all comments shown on the red-lined preliminary site plan.
OG0035
Exhibit 6
000036
Exhibit 7
000048
I.JCBISE
TYPE DESCRIPTION
51 CLUB-Authorizes the sale of beer," wine and distilled spirits. to members and guests only, for consumption
on the premises where sold. No off-sale priv·ileges. Food service is not required. Minors are allowed on
the premises.
52 VETERAN'S CLUB-Authorizes the Siile of beer, wine and distilled spirits, to members and guests only,
for conswnption on the premises where sold. Authorizes the sale of beer and wine, to members and guest
only, for consumption off the licensed premises. Food service is not required. Minors are allowed on the
premises.
57 SPECIAL·ON SALE GENE~L-Generally issued to certain organizations who cannot quality for club
licenses. Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits, to members and guests only, for
consumption on the premises where sold. Authorizes the sale of beer and wine, to members and guests
only, for conswnption off the licensed premises. Food service is not required. Minors are allowed on the
premises.
59 ON SALE BEER AND WINE-SEASONAL-Authorizes the same privileges as a Type 41. Issued for a
specific season. Inclusive dates of o~ration are listed on the license certificate.
60 ON SALE BEER-SEASONAL-Authorizes the sale of beer only for consumption on or off the premises
where sold. Issued for a specific season. Inclusive dates of operation are listed on the license certificate.
Wine or distilled spirits may not be on the eremises. Minors are allowed on the eremises.
61 ON SALE BEER-PUBLIC PREMISES -(Bar, Tavern) Authorizes the sale of beer only for
consumption on or off the licensed premises. Wine or distilled spirits may not be on the premises. Minors
are not allowed to enter and remain (war:ning signs r~uired}. Food service is not reguired.
67 BED AND BREAKFAST INN-Authorizes the sale of wine purchased from a licensed winegrower or
wine wholesaler only to registered guests of the establishment for consumption on the premises. No beer or
distilled spirits may be on the premises. Wine shall not be given away to guests, but the price of the wine
shall be included in the price of the overnight transient occupancy accommodation. Removal of wine from
the grounds is not permitted. Minors are allowed on the premises.
70 ON SALE GENERAL-RESTRICTIVE SERVICE-Authorizes the sale or furnishing of beer, wine and
distilled spirits for consumption on the premises to the establishment's overnight transient occupancy guests
or their invitees. This license IS normally issued to "suite-type" hotels and motels, which exercise the
license privileges for guests' "comelimentary" haee:t hour. Minors are allowed on the eremises.
75 ON SALE GENERAL-BREWPUB-(Restaurant) Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits
for consumption on a bona fide eating place plus a limited amount of brewing of beer. This license does not
authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises where sold. Minors are allowed
on the premises.
80 BED AND BREAKFAST INN-GENERAL-Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits
purchased from a I icensed wholesaler or winegrower only to registered guests of the establishment for
consumption on the premises. Alcoholic beverages shall not be given away to guests, but the price of the
alcoholic beverage shall be included in the price of the overnight transient occupancy accommodation.
. . . ----· Removal of alcoholic beverages from the grounds is not permitted. Minors are allowed on the premises .
86 INSTRUCTIONAL TASTING LICENSE-Issued to the holder of and premises of a Type 20 or Type 21
licensee, authorizes the tasting of alcoholic beverages as authorized to be sold from the off-sale premises, on
a limited basis. Requires physical separation from the off-sale premises while tasting is taking place and •
generally requires the participation of a specifically-authorized manufacturer or wholesaler I icensee.
ABC-616 (01-15) 000050
4. Licensees whose license allows minors on the: prcm1~s rnsy havt: a "house policy" rcstrictin2, minors from entering certain areas of the premises
or prohibiting minors in the premises during certain hours.
5. This handout contains only abbreviated information. C;cmtact your lot;ai AI3C office fo; rull infonnation before doing anything which may
jeopardize your license. Also available fi·om the AtlC: Ouick Summary Qf$elertcd ABC laws (fonn ABC-608); Alcoholic Beverage Control
Act (complete laws}; Rules & Regulations; anJ P-Q~ ( de~ribes privilege!: of ncn-retaill icenses).
ABC-616 (01-15) 000052
(arhbad
Villa~t>
Ruodation
City nf Carlsbad
Planning Commission
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Park 101
2788 State St., Carlsbad, CA 92008
carlsbad-village.com
EXHIBIT7
As a representam·e of Carlsbad Village businesses, residents. :md property owners. the Carlsbad
Village Association supports the approval of Administrative Re\1.~-w Permit No. RP-14~22 for the
proposed Pa . .rk 101 project
Park 101 \\:111 be a landmark project at a main entrance to the Village and \\111 bring together
amazing food uses, a fun atmosphere, and beautiful architectural design. Tbis project will greatly
impro,·e the Village's dining options and will pro'<-ide a unique offering easily accessible by foot
and by bike, especially from the 'lracation rentals along the beach.
w·e wholeheartedly support this project and encowage you to do the same.
Sincerely,
Cc: l\1embers of the Carlsbad Village /\.ssociation Board of Directors.
Austin Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Austin,
Cathy Trent •••••••••
Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:30 PM
Austin Silva
Proposed Deli Next to 3080 Lincoln
I am writing as an owner of a condo at 3080 Lincoln in Carlsbad. I was just made aware of a proposed addition of a deli
adjacent to my unit. I am opposed to the proposed development and do not want to see a deli built next to my
property. It is a residential area and should not have a restaurant built next to it. My daughter, Cathy Trent handles all
my financial and legal matters, so please correspond with her.
Thank You,
Beth Trent
Unit #6-3080 Lincoln Dr.
Cathy Trent-POA for Beth Trent
1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2015, to consider denying an appeal
and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to uphold 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 Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more
particularly 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, 1 00 feet to the
point of beginning
Whereas, on June 3, 2015 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 4-0 to deny an appeal
of 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 Local
Facilities Management Zone 1. The City Planner has determined that this project belongs to a
class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact
on the environment, and is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15303.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing.
Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after July 10, 2015. If you have any questions,
please contact Austin Silva in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4631 or
austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov.
If you challenge the Administrative Review Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: RP 14-22
CASE NAME: EL CORRAL APPEAL
PUBLISH: July 3, 2015
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITE MAP
• N
NOT TO SCALE
El Corral
RP 14-22
RESTAURANTS REQUIRE PARKING
~CARLSBAD
Community & Economic Development
January 20, 2015
Village Redevelopment Partners
B-85
162 South Rancho Santa Fe Road
Encinitas, CA 92024
SUBJECT: 1st REVIEW FOR RP 14-21/CDP 14-39-EL CORRAL
www.carlsbadca.gov
Thank. you for applyins for Land Use Permits In the City of carlsbad. The Planning DMslon has reviewed
your Administrative Review Permit. appliation no. RP 14-22, as to Its completeness for processint~.
Thl!! application Is complete, as submitted. Although the lnltlal processing of your application may have
already begun, the technical acceptance date is adtnowledged by the date of this communication. The
city may, In the course of processintl the application, request that you darify, amplify, corre«, or
otherwise supplement the ~sic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be
aware that various des.ll!n i:iSues may exist. These i:iSUes must be addre:iSed before this application can
be scheduled for a hearing. The Planning Division will begin processing your appliation as of the date of
this communication.
At this time, the city asks that you prollide three (3) complete sets of the development plans so that the
project can continue to be reviewed. The Oty will comofete the !'!View of your resubm!ttil! wfth!n 2S
~
In order to expedite the processint~ of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your Staff
Planner, Austin Silva, at (160) 602-4631, to discu:iS or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application
and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting department individually
as follows:
• Land Development Enginel!!ring Oivislon: Tl!!da Levy, Associate Engineer, at (160) 602-2733
Sincerely,
~Jt
CHRIS OeCERBO frt
Prlndpal Planner
CO,A$;fn
c HofOiiN'I P!~Mint & [ ............. s .... I. li.Si liorul>tad ~ ........ Cottob•d, CA t<ICIIO oon-.Cily-ner
Tecla t.w,, l'<oject tz.s~-r
~rls Deeerbo1 Prtncl~ ~liM~!~'
Michele Master501ft~ S!f'iof Mana~t An~tyu
Flloeopy ~ Planning00Di~fslon l) 0 0 0 3 3
~ 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559
VERSION 2.7
WINTER 2014
Park 101
at the village
PRESENTED BY: DBLTIGHT INC.
SAN DIEGO, CA
The Grand Deli
595 Grand Ave nue
Relm Bistro
2917 State Street
OLD PHOTO NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF DEVELOPMENT
Surrounding Development
Surrounding Development
21.35.140 -Compliance with other provisions of this code.
Projects developed pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the provisions
of the village master plan and design manual and all other applicable provisions
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including but not limited to those provisions of
Titles 18, 19 and 20. (Ord. No. CS-037, §I, 7-7-2009)
21.04.106 -Delicatessen.
"Delicatessen" means a type of restaurant, totaling less than one thousand
six hundred square feet in total floor area, selling ready-to-eat food and
canned or bottled beverages to the public. Food is pre-cooked or prepared at
another location and only heated or toasted on the site. No stoves or ovens for
the cooking or preparation of food nor tableware or dishwashing facilities
(other than a standard sink) are permitted. No waiters or waitresses are
employed on the premises.
(Ord. NS-791 §3, 2006)
DELICATESSEN CANNOT EXCEED A TOTAL OF 1600 sq. ft.
NO STATISTICAL SUPPORT
Excerpts from Dover Kohl's
11 Charrette Summary Report/}
• City planning consultant hired in 2014
• Will create new Village and Barrio Plan
• Public charrettes (community input meetings)
in September 2014
• Summary report can be found at
http:/ /www.ca rlsbadca .gov /services/ depts/pl
ann i ng/vi II age barrio/reports .asp
Excerpts from Dover Kohl’s
“Charrette Summary Report”
•City planning consultant hired in 2014
•Will create new Village and Barrio Plan
•Public charrettes (community input meetings)
in September 2014
•Summary report can be found at
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/pl
anning/villagebarrio/reports.asp
Responses to one word to describe Carlsbad Village TOMORROW
Washington Street Parking Lot Study
•Conducted September 2014
•39 public spaces
•Average weekday occupancy: 55%
•Average weekend occupancy: 79%
South State Street Parking Lot Study
•Conducted September 2014
•95 public spaces
•Average weekday occupancy: 51%
•Average weekend occupancy: 43%
Carlsbad Blvd./CVD Ped & Bike Counts
•Conducted August 2014
•Daily pedestrians: 11,000+
•Daily bicyclists: 1,500+
•The number of pedestrians at this intersection is
3x that of other Village locations not on Carlsbad
Blvd.
•The number of bicyclists at this intersection is 6x
that of other Village locations not on Carlsbad
Blvd.
El Corral
A Village-Inspired Delicatessen.
Sterling Development Projects in Village
Pizza PortStarbucks
Tower 37
Roosevelt Street
El Corral
A Village-Inspired Delicatessen.
Components Required/Allowed in a Deli
Required:
Tables and seating not to impede pedestrian circulation
Grilling allowed but majority of food to be ready-to-eat items
Deli food cases must be located convenient to customers and
ordering counters must be near entry
No Table Servers
Allowed:
A Fountain operation for drinks, beer and wine.
Utensils may be non-disposable.
Deli Requirements
Deli Counters Near Entrance
Clear and Unimpeded Pedestrian AccessLimited Grilling but Majority Ready-to-Eat Items
No Table Servers Allowed
Delicatessens in the Village
The Grand Deli
595 Grand Avenue
Relm Bistro
2917 State Street
Establishments in Other San Diego Areas
Parking Opportunities Near El Corral
Free Public Parking Private Pay Parking Lot
Free Street Parking
1
2
3
45
67
1 Tamarack Beach Resort -77 Rooms
2 Best Western Plus Beach View Lodge -41 Rooms
3 Surf Motel -28 Rooms
4 Carlsbad Inn Beach Resort -61 Rooms
5 Ocean Palms Beach Resort -52 Rooms
6 Ocean Views -7 Rooms
7 Beach Terrace Inn -45 Rooms
Major Bicycle Route –Carlsbad Blvd.
Close to Carlsbad Beaches
Floor Plan
Outdoor
Recreation/
Gathering
Space
20 Bike Stalls
Support Letters
•Carlsbad Village Association
•Board and Brew
•Carlsbad Inn Beach Resort
•Sarah Marquez, Owner of Town Square
•Pizza Port Brewery
•Subzero Ice Cream and Yogurt
•Mansour Group
Conclusion
Meets the requirements of a Delicatessen
Revitalizes a Strategic Location in Village
Envisioned by Village Master Plan
Appellant has NOT demonstrated proof that the
Planning Director abused his discretion in
approving this project
Therefore, we are recommending that this Appeal
be denied.
El Corral
RP 14-22
Location Map
OAK
A
VCARL
SBAD
B
L
LINCO
L
N
S
T
OCEAN S
T
CARL
S
B
A
D
VI
L
L
A
G
E
D
R
GRAN
D
A
V
PINE
A
VWASHING
TON
S
T ST
A
T
E
S
T
GARF
I
E
LD
S
T ST
A
T
E
S
T
A
L
L
E
Y
OAK
A
V
RP 14-22
Miles Pacific Residences
SITE MAP
E
L
C
AMINO
R
E
ALLA COSTA AV
A L G A R DCARLSBAD BL
OAK
A
VCAR
LSBAD
B
L
L
I
NCO
LN
S
T
CARL
S
B
A
D
VI
L
L
A
G
E
D
R WASH
ING
TO
N
S
T
RP 14-22
El Corral
0 12060Feet
Grounds for Appeal
(CMC Section 21.54.150)
•Burden of proof is on the appellant to establish,by substantial
evidence,that grounds for the Planning Commission decision
exists.
•City Council is limited to whether there was an error or abuse of
discretion on the part of the Planning Commission in that the
decision was not supported by the facts presented to the
Planning Commission prior to the decision being appealed.
•The appeal hearing is de novo; however the City Council shall
only consider the evidence presented to the Planning
Commission.
5
Grounds for Appeal Cont’d
(CMC Section 21.54.150)
Background
December 22, 2014: Administrative Review Permit
application submitted to convert a pottery store into a
delicatessen
April 7, 2015: Approval letter issued to allow for the
conversion of a pottery store into a delicatessen
April 8, 2015: Appeal filed by Ron Presta
June 3, 2015: Appeal to Planning Commission of City
Planner’s decision upheld by a 4-0 vote
June 15, 2015: Appeal filed by Ron Presta
Project Site
Project Rendering
Delicatessen Definition
(Village Master Plan Page 81)
“A delicatessen is defined as an establishment at which the
primary business provides for ready-to-eat food products
(such as cooked meats or prepared salads)and canned or
bottled beverages which are purchased on the premises and
typically consumed off-site.They may provide made to
order sandwiches and/or salads.Serving and eating utensils
are typically disposable.Food orders is not provided to any
tables which might be located on the premises.No waiters
or waitresses are employed on the premises.A delicatessen
is defined as “retail”for land use purposes.”
Appellant’s Justification for Appeal
•The site does not have any parking
•The proposed business is a group of restaurants
and bars that require onsite parking
•The size of the deli warrants a restaurant
•El Corral has catering,and employs food servers
•The project can’t comply with California
Department of Alcoholic Beverage License
requirements unless it’s a restaurant
Public Comment Received
•6 letters in support of the City Planner’s
decision
•1 e-mail in opposition of the City Planner’s
decision
Staff Response to Appeal
•“No Parking”–A deli is classified as a retail use in the
Village Master Plan.The previous use of the property was
also retail.No additional parking is required if the use
remains the same;parking is not based off Average Daily
Trips (ADT).
•“Should be classified as a restaurant”–The business
operation is modeled in accordance with the definition of
deli per the Village Master Plan and a letter from the CED
Director that helped clarify the definition and past
practices of delicatessens in the Village.
Staff Response to Appeal Cont’d
•“With the size of El Corral,it should be considered a
restaurant ”–The Village Master Plan and Design
Manual does not have any limitations on the size of
delicatessens.
•“El Corral has catering and employs servers”–The
appellant refers to the developers brochure in the appeal
form for these items.The business model has changed
since the project was initially submitted and the project
was conditioned to not have waiters and waitresses
employed at any time.
Staff Response to Appeal Cont’d
•“Can’t comply with CA Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control requirements unless it’s a
restaurant”–ABC licenses can be issued for
deli’s.“Road sodas”are not intended to be
consumed in the car.
Recommendation
That the City Council ADOPT City Council Resolution
No.2015-194 DENYING the appeal and UPHOLDING
the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the
City Planner’s decision to approve Administrative
Review Permit RP 14-22 based on the findings
contained therein.