The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-11-15; Planning Commission; ; PCD 2017-0001 (DEV2017-0120) – DURKIN CAC LOT 24 LLC APPEALThe City of Carlsbad Planning Division A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. Application complete date: N/A P.C. AGENDA OF:November 15, 2017 Project Planner: Greg Fisher Project Engineer: N/A SUBJECT: PCD 2017-0001 (DEV2017-0120) – DURKIN CAC LOT 24 LLC APPEAL – Request to grant an appeal of the City Planner’s denial of a change of use based on a determination that an auto body and repair shop use proposed to be located at 5817 Dryden Place within Local Facilities Management Zone 5 is not a more conforming use than the existing use, and is not permitted in the Carlsbad Airport Centre Specific Plan (SP 181(H)). I.RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission APPROVE Planning Commission Resolution No. 7274, DENYING the appeal of Durkin CAC Lot 24 LLC, denying the requested change of use, and determining that an auto body and repair shop is not a more conforming use than the existing use and is prohibited in the Carlsbad Airport Centre Specific Plan (SP 181(H)) based on the findings contained therein. II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Durkin CAC Lot 24 LLC (applicant and appellant) is the owner of property located on the north side of Dryden Place, west of Palomar Oaks Way, at 5817 Dryden Place (Lot 24) within the Carlsbad Airport Centre (CAC) Specific Plan Area 1. The owner is seeking approval of a change in use on CAC Lot 24 to an auto body and repair shop per Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.48.070(e) (Nonconforming nonresidential uses). The property was permitted and developed for an office/industrial use with an allowed occupancy limit of 100 persons. The use became a nonconforming use with the 2010 adoption of an amended Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), which placed the property in Safety Zone 1 of the Runway Protection Zone. On March 7, 2017, the applicant’s legal representative (Freeland, McKinley & McKinley, Attorneys at Law) formally requested a change in use on Lot 24 and met with staff to discuss the request on March 21, 2017. The applicant’s representative provided supplemental material in the form of a letter to the City Planner and Assistant City Attorney on March 30, 2017. The City Planner denied the change in use in a letter dated May 30, 2017. The City Planner’s determination was that the requested change in use is not more conforming than the existing use, nor is it allowed under the CAC Specific Plan. On June 7, 2017, Durkin CAC Lot 24 LLC appealed the City Planner’s decision to the Planning Commission in the manner prescribed by CMC Section 21.54.140. The purpose of this action is to consider the appeal of the City Planner’s denial of the requested change in use based on a determination that an “auto body and repair shop” is not a more conforming use than the existing office/industrial use. The proposed use is a General Commercial use and is prohibited within Area 1 of the CAC Specific Plan. The proposed use is also nonconforming under the ALUCP. The Planning Commission Determination (PCD) is a vehicle to forward to the Planning Commission those matters which are independent of planning applications and projects. 1 PCD 2017-0001 (DEV2017-0120) – DURKIN CAC LOT 24 LLC APPEAL November 15, 2017 Page 2 III. ANALYSIS The proposed request is subject to the following regulations: Planned Industrial (P-M) Zone Applicability The CAC Specific Plan implements the Planned Industrial (P-M) zoning of the site, but is more stringent than the P-M zone. The P-M zone provisions only apply to subjects that are not specifically addressed in the Specific Plan. In this case, the proposed use (auto repair) is specifically addressed in the CAC Specific Plan, so the uses listed in the Planned Industrial (P-M) zone do not apply. Carlsbad Airport Centre Specific Plan (SP 181(H)) Durkin CAC Lot 24 LLC is requesting approval of a change in use per CMC Section 21.48.070(e). Under this section the City Planner may approve a change in a nonconforming nonresidential use to a use that is permitted in the zone in which the subject property is located, or to a use that is more conforming. As noted previously, the applicable zone is the Planned Industrial (P-M) zone, but the CAC Specific Plan takes precedence over the Planned Industrial (P-M) zone. The CAC Specific Plan’s purpose and intent to create an industrial complex is implemented in part through the Specific Plan’s list of permitted uses. This particular site is subject to the permitted uses in Area 1 of the Specific Plan which allows office/industrial uses in general. Area 1 does not list auto body and repair shop as an allowed use; to the contrary, the Specific Plan specifically excludes automobile and truck repair within the permitted uses for Area 1 as shown below: Service industries or those industries providing a service as opposed to the manufacture of a specific product, such as the repair and maintenance of appliances or component parts, tooling, printers, testing shops, small machine shops, shops engaged in the repair, maintenance and servicing of such items, excluding automobile and truck repair, and excluding equipment rental yards. Because the Specific Plan specifically excludes automobile repair, the use is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan and the City Planner was unable to support the proposed use. An excerpt of the Specific Plan identifying the permitted uses in Area 1 is attached. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) As previously discussed, the existing use became a nonconforming use with the 2010 adoption of an amended ALUCP, which placed the property in Safety Zone 1 of the Runway Protection Zone. For the purpose of ALUCP, the fundamental measure of risk exposure for people on the ground in the event of an aircraft accident is the number of people per acre concentrated in areas most susceptible to aircraft accidents. This measure is the chief determinant of whether particular types of nonresidential development are designated as “incompatible,” “conditionally compatible,” or “compatible.” The maximum acceptable intensity of proposed development within Safety Zone 1 is 0 (zero) people per acre. Accordingly, the current office/industrial use with an allowed occupancy of 100 persons is a legal nonconforming use and “incompatible” as the ALUCP now prohibits people and buildings in the Runway Protection Zone. Furthermore, the proposed auto body and repair shop use is also “incompatible” and nonconforming in Safety Zone 1. PCD 2017-0001 (DEV2017-0120) – DURKIN CAC LOT 24 LLC APPEAL November 15, 2017 Page 3 Appeal of City Planner’s Determination Durkin CAC Lot 24 LLC feels that the City Planner’s determination was in error for the following reasons that are further detailed in the attached appeal form. The appellant’s positions are summarized below, along with a staff response: A. The City Planner made a material error of fact in assuming that the existing actual occupancy of the 30,000 square foot office/industrial building was only 1 to 2 people, whereas the existing building was designed to and accommodates at least 80 people. Staff’s position is that a reduction of allowable occupancy is not the only way to analyze nonconformity. The current use of the property is generally allowed in Area 1 of the Specific Plan. However, it is nonconforming in its particular location under the ALUCP. The proposed auto body and repair shop is specifically excluded under the Specific Plan. A change to auto body and repair would make the property nonconforming in both plans. Furthermore, the ALUCP points out that an auto repair shop is classified in high hazard group H-4 under the Building Code. This classification is given to buildings and structures containing materials that are health hazards, such as corrosives, highly toxic materials and toxic materials. Conversely, the existing office/industrial use is designated as B/F- I/S-1 (Business/Factory Industrial/Storage) under the Building Code per the ALUCP and is not a high hazard use. Although the Fire Safety Risk Analysis indicates that life safety risk would be reduced with the change in use, the fact remains that the proposed use is incompatible and nonconforming under the ALUCP. B. The City Planner made an erroneous legal conclusion that the current use is conforming under the Specific Plan, but nonconforming under the ALUCP. The Specific Plan is obsolete to the extent it conflicts with the ALUCP as incorporated in the General Plan, and therefore any consistency with an obsolete Specific Plan is irrelevant. Staff’s position is that the City Planner’s reference to the existing use as a “conforming” use was in general terms, as a use that is allowed in Area 1 of the Specific Plan. Auto body and repair is not a conforming use because it is expressly excluded in the Specific Plan. Moreover, to the extent that the Specific Plan has been superseded by the ALUCP with regard to uses for this particular site within Area 1 as argued by the appellant, the Specific Plan has also been superseded by the ALUCP with respect to uses that are incompatible and nonconforming in Safety Zone 1 of the Runway Protection Zone. Auto body and repair is not a compatible or conforming use in Safety Zone 1. Furthermore, as the appellant also notes, the General Plan has incorporated the ALUCP. To the extent that a use is nonconforming with the ALUCP, the use is inherently inconsistent with General Plan Policy 2-P.37, McClellan-Palomar Airport, which states that new uses located in the Airport Influence Area must be compatible or conditionally compatible with ALUCP land use compatibility policies with respect to safety and other criteria. In this particular case, Policy 2-P.37 supersedes the City Planner’s authority in CMC Section 21.48.070(e). Based on the above analysis, staff’s position is that a change in use from office/industrial to an auto body and repair shop cannot be approved. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. PCD 2017-0001 (DEV2017-0120) – DURKIN CAC LOT 24 LLC APPEAL November 15, 2017 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7274 2. Location Map 3. Disclosure Statement 4. Specific Plan 181 Land Use Plan map exhibit 5. Excerpt of Carlsbad Airport Centre Specific Plan, Section III, Permitted Uses 6. March 7, 2017, letter from Freeland McKinley & McKinley 7. March 30, 2017, letter from Freeland McKinley & McKinley 8. May 30, 2017, letter from Planning Division to Freeland McKinley & McKinley 9. June 7, 2017, Attachment “1” appeal justification form Freeland McKinley & McKinley 10. June 7, 2017, letter from Freeland McKinley & McKinley 11. Fire Safety Risk Analysis Summary prepared by Wildfire Information Consulting PALOMARAIRPORT PALOMAR AIR P O R T R D CC AA MM IINNOO VVIIDDAARROOBBLLEE CC OO LL LL EE GG EE BBLLDDRRYYDDEE NN PP LL PP AA LL OO MM AA RR OO AA KK SS WWYYPCD 2017-0001 Durkin CAC Lot 24 LLC Appeal SITE MAP JPALOMARAIRPORTRD E L CAMREALLA COST A AV C ARLSBA DBLC A R LSB A DVILLAGEDR ELCAMINOREAL MELR O SED RAVIARAPY RA NCHO S A NTAFERDCOLL EGEBLSITE ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3