Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-20; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: March 20, 2013 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Siekmann called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Scully led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioners Black, L’Heureux, Montgomery, Scully and Segall Absent: Commissioner Schumacher STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist Jason Goff, Associate Planner Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner Austin Silva, Assistant Planner Chris Garcia, Junior Planner Glen Van Peski, Engineering Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from March 6, 2013. Commissioner L’Heureux complimented the Minutes Clerk regarding the two sets of minutes for the recent meetings pertaining to Quarry Creek. He commented that the minutes captured the essence of the Commission’s concerns and discussions considering the length of those meetings. Commissioner Segall asked about Mike Hogan’s comments reflected on Page 7 and if economic feasibility plays a role in a Planning Commission making a finding and a decision on a project. He asked if the Council wants this Commission to consider projects with economic feasibility attached. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, commented that she believes Mr. Hogan was stating that economic feasibility in and of itself is not an environmental impact per se; however, it can be relevant in a discussion of alternatives and which alternatives are feasible. Ms. Mobaldi stated that the Commission is making a recommendation for certification of an EIR and so if that issue is relevant as to whether or not the certification is appropriate, then the Commission can make a determination on economic feasibility. Ms. Mobaldi stated, in certain situations where one of the project objectives is economic feasibility, that plays into which alternatives satisfy the project objectives, and the Commission would need to consider economic feasibility. It is then incumbent on the applicant to put evidence into the record to demonstrate whether or not a project is economically feasible. Ms. Mobaldi further added that with the Quarry Creek project, economic feasibility was included as a project objective by the applicant and that is why the issue became relevant for that project. Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 Page 2 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes as amended from the Regular Meeting of March 6, 2013. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Schumacher ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Siekmann asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item. 1. SDP 05-15x2 – RANCHO LA COSTA BUILDING – Request for a three (3) year retroactive extension of a Site Development Plan (SDP) to develop an 8,074 square foot two-story commercial retail and office building on a vacant 0.58 acre parcel located at the south corner of the La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection in the P-C Zone, Neighborhood SE-15 of the La Costa Master Plan, and Local Facilities Management Zone 11. Mr. Neu stated Agenda Item 1 would normally be heard in a public hearing context; however, the project appears to be minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends approval. He recommended that the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission proceed with a vote as a consent item. Staff would be available to respond to questions if the Commission or someone from the public wished to pull Agenda Item 1. Chairperson Siekmann asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda Item 1. Seeing one member of the audience who wished to speak on the item, Chairperson Siekmann asked staff to give the staff presentation. Chairperson Siekmann opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Mr. Goff gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of Staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Harkishan Parek, managing partner of the property, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Siekmann opened public testimony. Eduard Moehlecke, representing the entity of the adjacent property, stated that while they are not opposed to the development but are very concerned with the potential damages to their property based on the information they have been presented. He stated they are concerned with the compaction of the slope and how the vibration will be monitored, removal of the soil from the slope and how it will impact the tenants and the property as well as the staging of the equipment during construction. Mr. Moehlecke asked about the exact location of drains and pipes for the site. He inquired if the project site is required to Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 Page 3 have an anchor tenant; if so, he would like to know who it is. He further commented that they want to be on good terms because of the shared slope. Mr. Moehlecke also asked for verification of the exact distance of the proposed buildings to their buildings and who will be responsible if damages occur to their property. Chairperson Siekmann asked if the applicant wished to respond to the issues raised by the speaker. Dennis Bradstreet, representing the applicant, stated some of the concerns have been answered by Staff regarding the easements. He stated he will keep the adjacent property owner as informed as possible and hopes to have as little impact on the adjacent property as possible. Mr. Bradstreet commented that everything that is on the property drains onto the property. He stated that the applicant is responsible for what happens on their property but they do plan to make as little impact to the adjacent property as possible. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the applicant has any issues in providing construction documents to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Bradstreet stated no and commented that most of the documents have already been provided to them. Ms. Mobaldi reminded the Commission that in some cases they may be approving a use but never a specific tenant which is not within their authority. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she closed public testimony on the item. Chairperson Siekmann asked if Staff wished to respond to any questions raised during public testimony. Mr. Goff stated that the issues have already been raised numerous times. Staff has responded on numerous occasions and has responded formally in writing to the adjacent property owner and his representative. Mr. Goff commented that all of the plans have been provided to the adjacent property owner and they are well aware of the easements. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated he can support the extension. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he too can support the item. Commissioner Scully commented she can approve the extension for this project. Commissioner Montgomery also stated he can support the extension. Commissioner Black commented he can also support the extension. Chairperson Siekmann stated she can also support the extension. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6948 approving a three (3) year retroactive extension (through November 7, 2015) of Site Development Plan 05-15, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 Page 4 Chairperson Siekmann closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 2. CUP 12-15 – GUNTHER’S RETAIL 2 – Request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert up to 1,359 square feet of warehouse and office area to a retail use for the storage, sale, and transfer of firearms within the Planned Industrial zone on property located at 2717 Loker Avenue West, Suite B, in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Shannon Werneke would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Siekmann recused herself from the dais due to a conflict of interest regarding the item. Vice Chairperson Black opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. Ms. Werneke gave a brief presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Segall asked if there are any other exceptions to the specific plan or zoning within the industrial park or airport area other than what was identified by Staff. Ms. Werneke stated not to her knowledge but deferred to Mr. Neu. Mr. Neu stated there have not been any other exceptions. Commissioner Montgomery asked if Staff is assuming that people who work in the industrial park will not be patrons of a business such as this. Ms. Werneke stated that the intent in reviewing the group of uses is that they serve the daily needs of the industrial tenants, and Staff does not feel this proposed use is clearly oriented to support the needs of the industrial tenant. It is Staff’s determination that the project is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Planned Industrial (P-M) zone. Commissioner Segall asked if the ordinance details the types of uses. Ms. Werneke stated that within the Specific Plan itself there are 4 sites identified for a mix of retail establishments. The Staples shopping center has a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and attached to the CUP is a list of permitted and prohibited uses. The sale of firearms was not considered on the list of appropriate uses within the CUP for the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan defers to the P-M zone for retail uses. The P-M zone indicates that an applicant would need a CUP for retail uses. Commissioner Segall asked if this applicant could then open a retail space in the Staples shopping center. Ms. Werneke stated the proposed project could not go across the street as the sale of firearms is not listed as one of the permitted uses. Vice Chairperson Black inquired about the proposed membership of the store. Ms. Werneke deferred to the applicant. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Lisa Gunther gave a detailed presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Scully asked if any member of the public can apply for a membership. Ms. Gunther stated yes. Commissioner Montgomery asked Ms. Gunther to clarify the main use of the site. Ms. Gunther responded that the existing business is online. She stated she does have a business license for firearms but it is not for retail. Because the word “retail” is not on the license, she cannot open any accounts with any vendors to do online sales. She stated she needs a CUP to allow for the retail part of the business, and she would be open for walk-in business and sales. Commissioner Montgomery asked if there will be any assembly of products on site. Ms. Gunther stated scopes or other accessories could be added to existing pieces. Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 Page 5 Vice Chairperson Black inquired as to the types of violations within the P-M Zone that Ms. Gunther spoke of during her presentation. She stated there is another gift type of business with a showroom, and furniture type stores and showrooms. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Commissioner Black opened public testimony. Jeff Gosslin commented that he has the largest building in the complex and stated his concern is parking. There are no assigned parking spaces in their complex. Mr. Gosslin asked if there might be a shooting range in the future. He commented that he is not totally against the project; however, he does not want his building to be impacted in a negative light. Vice Chairperson Black asked if the applicant wished to respond. Ms. Gunther stated that in regards to parking, 2717 Loker Avenue was allocated 30 parking spaces. Based on the information she was provided by the property owner, she has figured her business would need 28 parking spaces which falls below the requirement. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony on the item and asked staff to respond to the issues raised during public testimony. Ms. Werneke stated the project does meet the parking standards. In regard to the memo distributed to the Planning Commission, Ms. Werneke stated those are proposed changes to uses in the P-M zone that Staff is currently considering and the proposed amendments will be before for the Planning Commission for their consideration in about one month. Ultimately, the City is looking to create a little more flexibility in the P-M zone to address the economic downturn. However, at this time, Staff still cannot recommend approval of this project because it cannot meet the findings as they currently exist in the General Plan. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Commissioner Segall asked Staff to respond to the issue raised by the applicant indicating there are some existing businesses in the P-M zone which are prohibited uses. Ms. Werneke stated that the retail uses Ms. Gunther spoke of do not have permits and as such are operating illegally. The city’s code enforcement division is more reactive and based on complaints from the public. The proposed code amendment mentioned in the memo should address this issue as the proposal is to allow for up to 20% of accessory retail to be allowed with a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Segall asked if the Commission should review this project with the proposed amendment in mind and look at findings relative to what this applicant is proposing currently. Ms. Werneke stated the City has a current industrial general plan policy, and a current Planned Industrial zone purpose and intent which cannot be ignored. The proposed amendments would need to go through the approval process through Planning Commission, City Council and Coastal Commission which could take upwards of two years until it is final. Until such time as those proposed amendments are final, the City has policies in which this project needs to be analyzed against. Mr. Neu commented that Ms. Gunther pointed out some uses that seem like they violate the current zoning and there could in fact be some, however it is very typical that businesses with a showroom will apply for business licenses that allow certain facilities or portions of the business for wholesale purposes. There has been more than one industrial use where it is a design center, for example, for a homebuilder, where the general public does not access the showroom except by appointment. There have been creative mechanisms that some business owners have used to get uses in, and that may appear, on the surface to be retail in nature but have restrictive hours and other characteristics to make it not a retail use. Vice Chairperson Black asked Mr. Neu if the Commission will see this project again in the near future. Mr. Neu stated that as Ms. Werneke mentioned, Staff will be bringing forward to the Commission a proposal for amendments to the General Plan and Zoning. The proposed amendments include changes as directed by City Council in which they were not comfortable considering some of the retail as a permitted use. The Council wanted at least a minor Conditional Use Permit in order to have some review Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 Page 6 and control over the characteristics and how it could impact neighboring land uses. Mr. Neu further commented that the Council did express concern over having smaller retail uses within the industrial parks as a permitted use. Mr. Neu reminded the Commission that those proposed changes have not been approved. Vice Chairperson Black asked if this same project could come back before the Commission for approval if those code changes were to be approved. Mr. Neu stated yes but there would be a few differences if the code amendments are approved as proposed. He stated that this project would then be considered a Minor Conditional Use Permit and would not be acted on by the Commission. Instead the project would be approved administratively at a Staff level. As has been previously mentioned, a major issue is timing as the proposed code amendments effect portions of the municipal code which the Coastal Commission has to act on and that could take up to two years. Commissioner Segall asked about the memo the Commission received. Mr. Neu stated Ms. Gunther’s purpose in providing the memo to the Commission was to show that the Council is considering moving in the direction of allowing additional retail uses in the Planning Industrial zone. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated that he does not see how this use fits in with the existing uses, and he can support Staff’s recommendation for denial. He commented that he is concerned if there are other uses in the industrial zone that are operating against code, and it is a done is such a way that the City is looking the other way and allowing it. However that does not make him feel that he wants to approve the project just because other people are doing something that is wrong. Commissioner Segall stated he is looking to approve the denial. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that the fact that other businesses are violating the law cannot be the basis for the Commission to approve further violations. It does not give justification for approving the project. By staff’s analysis, the Commission cannot make the findings. Until the proposed future changes occur regarding Conditional Use Permits, the Commission is bound by existing rules and regulations; therefore he would have to support Staff’s recommendation for denial. Commissioner Scully stated that while she sympathizes with the applicant for the economics of their business, she agrees with her fellow Commissioners in terms of that even though there may be violations within the area, two wrongs do not make a right. She stated she agrees that Staff has made sufficient findings that the project is not conducive to the P-M zone, and she will follow Staff’s recommendation to deny the project. Commissioner Montgomery stated he appreciates the comments of his fellow Commissioners; however he disagrees and can take a broader view on the issue. City staff is phenomenal in providing information to the Commission but it is the Commission that makes the determinations that findings are appropriate. He stated he likes the idea that this project can provide services to the Carlsbad Police Department. Commissioner Montgomery believes he can make the findings required for the project. Knowing that the master association has endorsed the business, Commissioner Montgomery further stated he can make the findings to support the project. Vice Chairperson Black stated he would feel bad if the Commission made a decision tonight that impacted the business, however, the Commission has to look at the existing laws and regulations in order to approve the project. He stated he has to accept Staff’s recommendation to deny the project. Commissioner Segall suggested that instead of denying the project, perhaps the Commission could table the item to a future date. Ms. Mobaldi stated that even assuming the Commission recommends approval of the proposed code amendments next month, and it is approved by the City Council, the code would not be amended until the Coastal Commission approves it. Even though this particular location is not in the coastal zone, the law will not change with regard to the applicant’s business in time for it to be helpful. Ms. Mobaldi commented that the City Council has a little more leeway in terms of interpreting their policies than perhaps what the Commission is comfortable with. She stated that the best course would be to let the project go on to Council. Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 Page 7 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6949 denying Conditional Use Permit CUP 12-15 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 4-1-1 AYES: Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: Commissioner Montgomery ABSENT: Commissioner Schumacher ABSTAIN: Chairperson Siekmann Vice Chairperson Black closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. Chairperson Siekmann returned to the dais and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 3. CUP 12-14 – PROLIFIC ATHLETES – Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Prolific Athletes to operate a specialty fitness gym in an existing vacant 15,164 square foot warehouse building on property located at 2077 Las Palmas Drive in the P-M zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated Assistant Planner Austin Silva would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Siekmann opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 3. Mr. Silva gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner L’Heureux asked why this project is not considered a retail use. Mr. Silva stated that this project is not selling any goods or products, rather they are providing a service to anyone that wants athletic training. Mr. Neu commented that in the P-M zone, there is a use entry which states “athletic clubs, gymnasiums, health clubs and physical conditioning businesses.” The general plan policies allow or address what is referred to as recreation facilities. In terms of the compatibility of the zone with the general plan, that is the connection that has been made. Commissioner Segall asked how a project of this nature can fit into the P-M Zone and stated he cannot see a nexus between the proposed use and the allowed use for the P-M zone. Mr. Neu stated the applicant can address the proposed use. He commented that there are a number of gyms in the industrial parks and the zoning is pretty straightforward in that they are a conditional use subject to the Planning Commission making the findings. He further commented that he understands the Commission’s difficulty with the industrial park populations because some of the other gyms that have been approved are much more of a general public facility where this proposed use is more of a specialized use. Staff feels that it can be viewed that industrial park employees and tenants could utilize the business for training for a full-time athletic career or to improve performance in an athletic activity. Commissioner Montgomery stated he has the same questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Dan Alexander, with Prolific Athletes, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 Page 8 Commissioner Scully asked if the applicant’s current location is on Avenida Encinas. Mr. Alexander stated they are no longer using that facility. Commissioner Scully asked if they performed rehabilitation at that location. Mr. Alexander stated no but they refer the athletes to different therapists and massage therapists. Commissioner Scully asked if they will be performing rehabilitation out of this new site. Mr. Alexander stated they do plan on eventually offering that service. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, Chairperson Siekmann opened and closed public testimony on the item. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated he was having a difficult time with this project as he feels there are more inconsistencies than not in the P-M zone. Mr. Neu clarified that, with the approval of projects such as K-1 Speed in the industrial park, things do seem inconsistent as mentioned by Commissioner Segall. At the time, Staff felt that the K-1 Speed project was not consistent with the zoning or the industrial use. The point the applicant made for that project was that it was a karting track, and the applicant described it has having a corporate team-building component. There were special conditions placed on the CUP that are reviewed annually and the applicant provides a log indicating which companies have used the facility. While that may be true, it is a very small fraction of what that site is used for. Mr. Neu stated that while he does not disagree that that use makes it look as though the City has been inconsistent, he pointed out that Staff felt that project was not consistent in the first place; however the Commission made the ultimate decision. With the athletic clubs, and there are multiple facilities in the industrial parks, staff viewed this facility as more of a specialized use and felt that while the clientele for the facility ranges from kids to adults and with the use being clearly called for in the table with a Conditional Use, that the project met the requirements. It is also distinguished from the previous item tonight in that this project is not a retail use but more of a service use that the zone provides for. Mr. Neu further stated that one of the things Staff does recognize is that there are some difficulties with what some of the general plan policies say in relation to the uses and the zone. He stated that is something Staff is trying to correct with the future code amendments the Commission will see next month. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he can approve Staff’s recommendation primarily because this has slightly more of a nexus to the P-M Zone. This is one of the listed uses in the allowed uses table. He stated he can approve the project; however when the Commission reviews the upcoming amendments, he hopes there is more language regarding the nexus issue and it be more incumbent on the applicant to demonstrate that clearly. Commissioner Scully stated she does like the concept that is proposed and the schedule provided by the applicant gives the Commission some background information on the parking. She feels the project is compatible with the P-M zone, and she feels the Commission has been very consistent with similar projects that have been previously approved. Commissioner Scully stated she can support the project. Commissioner Montgomery stated he can support the project. Commissioner Black stated he can approve the project. Chairperson Siekmann stated she can absolutely support the project. Commissioner Segall asked if there needs to be a nexus that the proposed use is for the people in the industrial park if this is an allowed permitted use. Mr. Neu stated that is what is suggested in the proposed finding, that the project serves both the industrial park as well as nearby residential communities. Commissioner Segall stated he can support the project; however he feels the issue still needs to be clarified with the proposed amendments. Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 Page 9 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution no. 6945 approving CUP 12-14 for a period of 10 years, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Siekmann closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 3 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 4. CUP 04-28(A)/CDP 04-39(A) – POINSETTIA VILLAGE PAD 4 – Request for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment to allow the conversion of 1,000 square feet of retail space to food service in an existing 3,000 square foot building and to allow the addition of a 700 square foot outdoor dining patio, located within the Poinsettia Village shopping center, on the east side of Avenida Encinas between Poinsettia Lane and Loganberry Drive in the Mello I Segment of the Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 9. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 4 and stated Junior Planner Chris Garcia would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Siekmann opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 4. Mr. Garcia gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of Staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Don Armstrong, 11318 Crystal Oaks Way, San Diego, representing the owner of the property, stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Scully asked if there is a tenant secured for the site. Mr. Armstrong stated it is St. Tropez. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Siekmann opened and closed public testimony. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated he supports the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he too can support the project. Commissioner Scully stated she can also support the project. Commissioner Montgomery stated he can support the project. Commissioner Black stated he can support the project. Chairperson Siekmann stated she can support the project. Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2013 Page 10 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6946 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit Amendment CUP 04-28(A), and adopt Planning · Commission Resolution No. 6947 approving Coastal Development Permit Amendment CDP 04-39(A), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L'Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Siekmann closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 4 and thanked Staff for their presentations. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS Ms. Mobaldi commented that the court has ruled in the City's favor on all counts in the lawsuit regarding Dos Gelinas filed by the Friends of Aviara. Ms. Mobaldi also commented that the Commissioners will be contacted regarding upcoming ethics training. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of March 20, 2013, was adjourned at 8:06p.m. (l.~ DONNEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk