Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-03; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: June 3, 2015 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Scully called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Siekmann led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Scully, Commissioners L’Heureux, Montgomery, Segall and Siekmann Absent: Commissioners Anderson and Black STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner Austin Silva, Associate Planner Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Scully asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting of May 20, 2015. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner L’Heureux and duly seconded by Commissioner Segall to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 6, 2015. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Black ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Scully asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 Page 2 1. GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION – Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; and a request for a recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit and Minor Subdivision to allow for the implementation of habitat mitigation associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach “A” on two parcels (APN 209-060-71, 72) totaling 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres) located north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, within Local Facilities Management Zone 15. The City Planner has determined that through the implementation of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, the proposed project avoids the effects or mitigates the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Associate Planner Shannon Werneke would make the staff presentation. Ms. Werneke gave a detailed presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Siekmann asked about the letters of concern commenting that the project is piecemealing. Ms. Werneke stated staff did respond in writing to various letters as was indicated in the staff presentation. Staff does not consider this project to be piece-mealing. Ms. Werneke explained that Parcel D will have to be reviewed on its own merits if and when a development application is submitted. A parcel map was required for this project to create the mitigation site, Parcel C, which is recommended by the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and the General Plan. Commissioner Siekmann inquired as to why was the choice made to do a mitigated negative declaration (MND) instead of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ms. Werneke stated that all of the impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level, and there are no significant impacts associated with the project. Commissioner Siekmann asked what will happen if a residential project is proposed on Parcel D right next to this highly sensitive area. Ms. Werneke stated Parcel D is located in a standards area pursuant to the HMP and it is proposed to remain in the standards area as part of this project. When a development application is submitted to develop Parcel D it will have to be reviewed for compliance with the HMP and the adjacency standards. Commissioner Siekmann further asked if the wildlife agencies will be involved at that time. Ms. Werneke stated yes. Commissioner Siekmann asked what the difference is in reviewing the impacts if Parcel D is developed as residential. Ms. Werneke stated that as part of an EIR, staff would be able to consider alternatives which is not part of the MND process. As she previously indicated, Ms. Werneke mentioned that there are no development plans for Parcel D at this time so there is nothing for staff to analyze. Commissioner Siekmann asked what a “BTR” is. Ms. Werneke stated it is a Biological Technical Report and it was not attached to the staff report due to how large the document is; however, it is available electronically should anyone need to see it. Commissioner Montgomery asked staff to address the floodplain on Parcel D. Ms. Werneke stated there is no grading proposed on Parcel D. The floodplain line is being shifted to the north because of the grading that will be done on Parcel C. The capacity of the floodway is being improved such that the floodplain line will be shifted. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the subdivision of the site is being done so that there will not be any possible future biological impacts on Parcel D. Ms. Werneke commented that there is very little biological value left on Parcel D. Commissioner Montgomery asked if this project satisfies all the needs for College Boulevard to be developed. Ms. Werneke stated this project implements the biological mitigation resources for that improvement project. Commissioner Siekmann inquired about the garden on Parcel A and the possible use of pesticides. Ms. Werneke stated there is nothing in the mitigation measures that would prohibit the use of pesticides on Parcel A. Commissioner Siekmann asked if that is something the Commission can add. Ms. Werneke stated yes. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 Page 3 Commissioner Segall asked about the plantings of new trees. Ms. Werneke deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Segall asked if someone will be going into the creek to plant the new trees. Ms. Werneke stated no one will be going in to the creek; the trees will be planted beside the creek. Commissioner L’Heureux asked for clarification as to what has been approved to the west of the creek as it goes beyond Parcel C. Ms. Werneke stated that to the west is the Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course. There is also a single family parcel a little further to the west. Ms. Werneke further stated there is no mitigation to the west as it is the golf course. Commissioner Siekmann asked about the owner of the property because a code reminder in Resolution No. 7104 refers to condemnation. Ms. Werneke deferred to the applicant in regard to the ownership and further stated that the code reminder is a standard code reminder and there is no condemnation proposed as part of this project. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Mike Howes, Howes, Weiler, and Associates, 2888 Loker Ave East, Suite 217, Carlsbad, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Greg Mason, biologist for the project, from Alden Environmental, 3245 University Avenue, San Diego, spoke regarding the biological aspects of the project. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Segall asked how the new foliage will be watered. Mr. Mason stated that a temporary irrigation system will be installed above ground that will have ground sensors and timers. The system will be removed within 5 years. Commissioner Segall asked if the system will use recycled water. Mr. Mason stated that if that option is available, it will be used. Commissioner Siekmann asked Mr. Mason what “ECNS” stands for as noted in his response letter to Benteq. Mr. Mason stated it is Equestrian Center North and South. Commissioner Siekmann asked about the location of the basin. Mr. Mason stated Parcel B will have a smaller, water quality treatment basin; the larger College Boulevard Reach A project will also have a larger basin which is referred to as Basin BJ. Commissioner Siekmann asked about the ownership of the property. Mr. Howes stated the owner is Bent West LLC. Steve Powell, representing Bent West, LLC, project applicant, stated the owner is WP Golf and Equestrian LLC which is a West Partners held entity and is a separately held legal entity. WP Golf and Equestrian LLC owns both the north and south portions of the property and has agreed to donate the property for this purpose as part of the process of getting College Boulevard built. Commissioner Siekmann asked if notices had been provided to the horse owners. Mr. Powell stated yes. Commissioner L’Heureux asked who the members of the Bent West LLC are. Mr. Powell stated the LLC has two members: West Partners, LLC, who is the managing member of Bent West. Mr. Dennis O’Brien makes all decisions with regard to West Partners LLC. The other member is a company owned by David Bentley, who is a minority member of the LLC. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any other questions of the applicant or of staff. Seeing none, Chairperson Scully opened public testimony on Agenda Item 1. Bill Arnold, 3432 Don Ortega Dr., Carlsbad, representing Rancho Carlsbad, spoke in favor of the project stating that there will be quite a few benefits to the Rancho Carlsbad Owners Association, such as the issue of the floodplain, the construction of College Boulevard, and the construction of Basin BJ. David Bentley, 7449 Magellan Street, Carlsbad, stated that he feels the impacts are far excessive with this project and that the MND is inadequate. He stated he represents the owners of the Lubliner property which is next door to this project. The legal access to the Lubliner property is through this property. Commissioner Siekmann asked why Mr. Bentley is against the project. Mr. Bentley stated impacts, both environmentally and financially, are far excessive than what is needed. Commissioner Siekmann asked for suggestions for what should be done instead. Mr. Bentley commented there are a variety of things, and Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 Page 4 that the experts can come up with alternatives. One idea would be to isolate a ½ acre of wetland mitigation on this property or enhance this property. Warren Kato, PO Box 537, Tustin, speaking on behalf of the Kato Family Trust and Kato Family LP, stated he objects to the plan and reiterated that the effect of the proposed impacts on the LFMP and the shifting of costs from this project to the other land owners in the area. Warren Lyall, 15524 Highway 76, Pauma Valley, owner of property known as Rancho Milagro, supports the project and see it as a benefit overall to the area to increase the wetland area. Michelle Staples, attorney at Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus and Peckenpaugh, 2030 Main Street Suite 1200, Irvine, representing the owners of Mandana KalCo, stated they hold the same objections as Mr. Bentley and Warren Kato. She stated that the project is a waste of public funds and will create developable property. 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 1. Mr. Neu addressed the Commission on the issue of the financing options. He stated that the Commission is not considering the issues of the financing for College Boulevard as that is something the Council considers. The Commission however is aware of the financing requirement of the Zone 15 property owners as it relates to College Boulevard. In terms of whether or not this is the appropriate time to be considering these given their difficulties in reaching agreement, applications for this project were submitted that have permit streamlining act deadlines. Staff believes they have completed adequate environmental review, and the Commission is not being asked to make decisions related to the financing as that is a separate process the Council will consider. When staff responds to questions, staff will be happy to address some of the other issues particularly those relating to the General Plan and the alternative with the 40% reduced density. They are separate issues that, at the end of the day, need to be resolved if approved developments in Zone 15 are to be constructed. Staff as well as the applicant has spent a considerable amount of time trying to work through some of these issues so that there is adequate mitigation for the road project, and that option is then open as an alternative to mitigate impacts of the road construction should the financing be worked out. Steve Powell stated that Mr. O’Brien, and Bent West LLC, is continuing to look at all the options and alternatives for the financing, including reimbursement opportunities; however, it is a complicated process. Cynthia Aldred, 2481 Congress Street, San Diego, attorney for the applicant, reiterated that CEQA states that if there is a project that has been designed to avoid any potential significant impacts, and there is no substantial evidence in front of the Commission that there are significant impacts with this project, then the MND is the correct document to use. There is no piecemealing with this project as there is the College Boulevard project and that project was analyzed in 2002 as has been pointed out in both the staff report and staff presentation. There was an EIR completed for that project and has been referred to frequently in the MND for this project. Because there is not a development project proposed on Parcel D, there is no way to weigh potential impacts because it would all be speculative since there is no project to analyze. Mr. Mason stated that this project has a calculated mitigation requirement of 2.4 acres. That number satisfies the requirement for the city through CEQA, the Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The applicant is pursuing permits through those three agencies. These agencies have a No Net Loss standard, and the mitigation ratio for this project is 3:1, which means a project has to give 3 times as much as is impacted but at least one of those has to be created habitat so that there is no net loss. Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager, stated the access easement Mr. Bentley referred to is a private easement in that it is an agreement between the property owners. It is not for public use; it is for private access. The city does not address private easements in projects such as this one. Commissioner L’Heureux asked for further clarification. Mr. Geldert deferred to the project applicant’s engineer. Ray Martin, Hunsaker and Associates, 9707 Waples, San Diego, directed the Commission’s attention to a PowerPoint slide and provided more information regarding the access easement. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 Page 5 Commissioner Segall asked if the discussion was moot because it is an agreement between two separate parties. Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi stated that was correct. Ms. Werneke stated that as far as Parcel D is concerned there is always the potential for development on a property. The code allows at least 25% of the parcel to be developed even if it were to be developed in the floodplain. However, at this time, there is no proposal for development on Parcel D and therefore CEQA analysis was not done. Commissioner Segall asked if an EIR will be completed if a proposal is submitted for development on Parcel D in the future. Ms. Werneke stated that until a proposal is submitted, staff cannot make any determinations as to the type of environmental review that will be required. Commissioner Siekmann asked about the pesticides. Mr. Powell stated the existing garden currently does not use pesticides. The parcel will be open space and deemed to be agriculture, and it will meet any city standards or criteria for agricultural use. Mr. Powell stated he has no problem with adding a condition to prohibit pesticide use on Parcel A. Commissioner Segall asked about the MND and the cumulative effects. Ms. Werneke stated that from an air quality and greenhouse gas standpoint, the applicant’s professionals did do a cumulative analysis. For the rest of the environmental review, staff did not look at it from a cumulative standpoint. Commissioner Segall asked if the cumulative effects need to be analyzed based on CEQA. Ms. Werneke deferred to Ms. Mobaldi who stated you have to look at the direct and the indirect impacts of a project, and if they are less than significant, than an environmental review in an EIR is not required. There is an initial determination that needs to be made using a checklist of the various types of potential environmental impacts. If a project has those impacts, staff determines whether or not those impacts can be mitigated below a level of significance. If that is the case, it would be applicable to cumulative as well as direct impacts and an EIR does not need to be completed. Commissioner L’Heureux asked Mr. Neu about the timing of the project and the improvements to College Boulevard. Mr. Neu stated the timing is up to the applicant. This mitigation project is a necessary component to the construction of College Boulevard. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated this is a complicated issue but he can support the project. He commented that he is not thrilled to lose equestrian uses in the city. Commissioner Montgomery stated he can support the project. His only concern is in regard to the financing in that the project is creating a developable parcel that will have a value while others in the area will be burdened with cost impacts. Commissioner Siekmann proposed an amendment to Bio-20 in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to refer to a biologist to ensure anything used on the land will not impact the hardline area. Mr. Neu stated there was similar condition included with the municipal golf course. She further stated she had great concerns about the potential for development of Parcel D and it being so close to the hardline area but it will be a vast improvement over what currently exists. She stated she can support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that Zone 15 is a difficult area of the city. There are a multitude of land owners that are in different stages of development and yet under the city’s growth management plan, they all have to come together and agree on financing, roads, and infrastructure. He stated that he is satisfied with the MND and believes it is adequate in this case. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he can support the project and can support adding a condition to Bio-20 regarding pesticide use on Parcel A. Chairperson Scully stated she can support the project and she can support an added condition to Bio-20. She added that she is concerned with the potential for development on Parcel D. Mr. Neu commented that Parcel D is currently zoned Limited Control and the parcel needs to be re-zoned in order to implement the General Plan, which is Residential Low Medium (RLM). The General Plan Update evaluated the lot at R-15 which would be a higher density. Staff is in the process of finalizing recommendations to the Planning Commission so that the Commission can ultimately recommend the Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2015 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: 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 (HDP 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. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: 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 7:50 p.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. 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. 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 Faire 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 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 Segall 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. 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~/L DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk