Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-07; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes September 7, 2016 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: September 7, 2016 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBER CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner L’Heureux led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioners, Goyarts, L’Heureux, Montgomery and Segall Absent: Commissioners Black and Siekmann STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney Farah Nisan, Senior Office Specialist Pam Drew, Associate Planner Teri Delcamp, Senior Planner Chris Garcia, Associate Planner Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager Brett Wood, Kimley-Horn & Associates APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting of July 13, 2016. Commissioner Goyarts stated that he submitted a few additions to the minutes to Mr. Neu. Chairperson Anderson referred to page 10, third paragraph and stated that the Planning department added the 55-foot architectural height limit, and not the Planning Commission. Commissioner Segall stated that he would like his comments emailed to Mr. Neu to be attached to the minutes and not the project file as correspondence. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner L’Heureux and duly seconded by Commissioner Montgomery to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 13, 2016 as amended. VOTE: 4-0-3 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Goyarts, Commissioner L’Heureux and Commissioner Montgomery NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Black, Commissioner Siekmann ABSTAIN: Commissioner Segall CORRECTED Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2016 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Chairperson Anderson asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak to an item not on the agenda. Brian Connor, 4815 Windjammer Way, stated his concerns with large commercial vehicles parking in the community and the corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). He added that the city should consider what needs to be done when the Homeowner’s Associations (HOA’s) do not enforce rules regarding street parking that may be potential for blight in the city. Chairperson Anderson asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak to an item not on the agenda. Seeing none she asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Anderson asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. 1. SS 16-01 – VILLAGE, BARRIO AND BEACH AREA PARKING STUDY – Presentation and public comment opportunity on the Village, Barrio and Beach Area Parking Study. The Village, Barrio and Beach Area are generally located west of Interstate 5 between Tamarack Avenue and Buena Vista Lagoon, west to the ocean. Parts of the study area are in the Coastal Zone. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Associate Planner Pam Drew and Brett Wood would make the staff presentation. Ms. Drew and Mr. Wood gave a brief presentation and stated they would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Montgomery asked why the surveys were only conducted in May and June and not in July and August. Mr. Wood stated that the project began in April so that they could get ahead of the peak summer season and when it came to selecting June, July or August, or a combination of all three, they had to weigh the budget available versus the ability to do the online survey and the data collection and spend the money wisely. He stated that June was chosen as close to the Fourth of July weekend without being on the Fourth of July weekend as a good candidate for summer season. Ms. Drew added that there were some time constraints to try and get the study done as quickly as possible due to the Village and Barrio Master Plan put on hold until the parking study is completed. Commissioner Montgomery asked if 2 days in May and 2 days in June is an adequate sample size for the parking onsite survey to truly get a snapshot of what is happening. Mr. Wood stated that a selection was made based on what could be captured starting in May and going forward in corresponding with staff, California Coastal Commission and SANDAG, the best representative days to collect data to capture a weekday and a weekend and conduct one in peak season, and another in an off peak season. He added that the Fourth of July weekend was initially discussed in collecting data however, it was decided that trying to capture something with a little less peak, but still within peak season. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he was under the impression that the parking study was going to be conducted from May until August or early September. He stated that he would like to feel comfortable that the sample size is adequate so that the Planning Commission could make decisions today and for the future. Commissioner Montgomery also stated that he would like to see the price of the parking in lieu fee be reviewed and if the current price is adequate, or if it should be double or tripled. He added that he is curious that the parking in lieu fee may be of a small enough dollar amount that it is chosen, not to just promote shared parking, however costing less for a developer. Mr. Wood replied stating that that is being evaluated and whether or not the parking in lieu fee collected is supportive of what the city’s investment and infrastructure needs are going to be going forward, as well as weighing it against the ability to promote the shared parking system without being too low. Commissioner Montgomery stated his concern with the sustainability of the parking in lieu fees if the city will have to build something. Commissioner Segall asked if there are behavioral issues relative to parking in the city based on the evidence that he has seen in the past and with some of the results of the survey that people feel that if they CORRECTED Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2016 Page 3 cannot park right in front of the store, than it is perceived as a parking problem. Mr. Wood stated that from the data that has been collected, there is the perception that if someone is walking a couple of blocks, parking could become difficult. He stated that the progression of a parking system, as it gets more congested, tends to lead people to make the decision that they will park in a parking structure and walk a little further, whereas if the parking system is accessible enough and people can find parking within a couple of blocks, they do begin to expect it. Mr. Wood stated that it is not so much a behavioral problem as it is the ability to find it easily now and that will become worse as it becomes less easy to find parking in the near future as more demand continues to come into the community. Commissioner Segall asked if the city should build around areas where people are expected to walk versus not having that now and walking through the desolate areas between a parking structure and their destination in one’s commute. Mr. Wood stated that the Village and Barrio Master Plan is addressing walkability and what the future of the community would look like. He stated that parking recommendations will be made to support a walkable and a vibrant community. Mr. Wood commented that things like shared parking and centralized parking facilities that may be supported by the parking in lieu fee will likely support a more viable community resulting in more parking available to support them therefore small fragmented parking lots are not needed to bring in more activity during different times of the day. Commissioner Segall asked how the parking study would address reconciling the issue of putting in buildings and density in the Barrio and not having enough adequate space that quests would park or if more than one person driving per household be forced to park on the street. Mr. Wood replied stating that a modeling program projecting what the future of parking would look like is considered, looking into what the parking standards are for those types of units in the Barrio, what the standards should be based on what is happening today, and what is asked for the developers to build as part of the programmatic elements of their development. Commissioner Segall asked how the longer term implications are factored in and understood in the parking study on developments that do not exist today however, have been recently approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wood stated that the elements of the Village and Barrio Master Plan and the committed developments as known in the books along with what the ordinance is suggesting will be evaluated. Commissioner L’Heureux asked how many actual parking spaces are available and if there is a methodology or a way to determine the exact amount of spaces. Mr. Wood stated that a team has evaluated the actual number of spaces and a numerical inventory shows where all of the parking spaces are located, who owns them, how they are being utilized, whether they are public or private, if there are any restrictions on them and if they have any prices associated. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he would be more comfortable with planning for realistic numbers in the code that state the amount of vehicles per household rather than a theoretical average that is not reality. Mr. Wood stated that the existing data will be used to calculate the actual use today and also go to peer cities for further evaluation. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that the implementation of technology to help people find parking will be helpful. Mr. Wood stated that the implementation of technology strategy is considered to help with the navigation and the management of parking. Ms. Drew added that the transportation department have considered the installation of sensors in parking spots in city parking lots so that a smart phone application could indicate where available parking is. Chairperson Anderson stated that she is concerned with the parking in lieu fees that may not be realistic to collect a small amount of money that is not enough to build a parking structure and other neighborhoods that have paid into the parking in lieu fee. She asked what the transit lot signage is really indicating. Ms. Drew stated that the city has a verbal agreement with North County Transit District (NCTD) to allow for the general public to utilize the lots however, it is primarily for the commuters. Chairperson Anderson stated that she is concerned with the general public not utilizing the largest public parking lot in the study due to a commuter only sign. She added that the sign could state parking is allowed after certain hours, or something that is more user friendly. Chairperson Anderson stated that she would love to see employees parking at the north end of the NCTD commuter lot implemented. She asked if there are effective ways to enforce residents parking vehicles in a garage. Ms. Drew stated that the city cannot enforce residents to park vehicles in their garage. Mr. Kemp stated that an ordinance cannot be passed that controls whether residents are allowed to park in the street or not, unless parking is banned for everyone. Mr. Neu added that a common requirement for projects with a Homeowners Association (HOA) is a provision in the CC&R’s requiring that the garages be available for parking. He stated that he is not aware of an effective way to enforce it unless there is some sort of residential parking program. Chairperson Anderson asked if parking meters help enforce time limits and employees not parking in front of commercial establishments. Mr. Wood stated that there are three tools to use when managing parking in or off street facilities by price, time regulation and enforcement. Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2016 Page 4 Commissioner Segall commented that the current parking in lieu fee is $11 thousand per space, and if there are no parking issues as it appears to be adequate parking, he added that he would hate to propose an in lieu fee that would be so prohibitive that it would stifle growth. Mr. Wood stated that it is being evaluated and added that a parking in lieu fee should be balanced well with both sides being supportive of the city growing. Commissioner Segall asked if the occupancy of the train station parking is known and if it is underutilized. Mr. Wood stated yes, the parking lots are not fully utilized. Commissioner Goyarts stated that it would be interesting for many of the Commissioners to see results. Commissioner Montgomery stated that Commissioner Segall’s comment regarding the parking in lieu fee is a snapshot of today. He feels that he does not want to make a decision for today rather than the future to see it going in the right direction. Commissioner Montgomery commented that he would like to feel comfortable with the future projections of growth that is based in some form of reality, it cannot be nebulous and should be tied to real growth with real development within the Barrio, the Village and beach areas. Mr. Wood stated that he agrees with Commissioner Montgomery. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any other questions for staff. Seeing none, she asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak. Jan Johnson, 2501 State Street, stated his concerns with realistic density projections, parking, railroad trenching. Roy Sanchez, 3482 Roosevelt Street, stated his concerns with public parking available on the streets. Gary Nessim, 2987 Highland Drive, stated his concerns with private parking, trenching of the railroad that will free up parking spaces for residents and future planning for parking garages. Linda Thomas, 300 Carlsbad Village Drive, stated her concerns with parking spaces available to business owners and other tenants and added that there are not enough handicap parking spaces for customers, tourists and visitors. Lisa Snyder, 300 Carlsbad Village Drive, manager at Village Faire Shopping, stated her concerns with parking spaces dedicated to employees and customers who visit the Village Faire Shopping area, added that she would like to see development parking around their businesses and concluded that she believes 214 spaces should be adequate for 41 tenants. Teri Chalfant, Lola’s Deli, 3292 Roosevelt Street, stated that she would like to see more connectivity between the family businesses across the street from the deli, possibly converting the property to a walkable and a pedestrian friendly environment. Ms. Chalfant stated that she does not think that it is a good idea to allow traffic on Chestnut as a result of railroad trenching. She concluded that she is not in favor as it would bring in more parking issues and change the atmosphere of that area. Sherry Alvarado, 3341 Tyler Street, stated that she would like to see pedestrian crossings on Chestnut, recommends signs indicating a 3 hour parking limit, possibly adding EV charging stations, thanked staff and the Commission on their efforts. Chairperson Anderson asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak. Seeing none, she closed the public testimony and asked for staff to respond to the issues raised during public testimony. Ms. Drew stated that the trenching of the railroad tracks is a separate project from the parking study as city staff work with SANDAG and NCTD. She stated that the outdoor eating areas that take up some parking spaces on State Street have been a part of a pilot project for sidewalk cafés. Commissioner L’Heureux asked how many spaces have been removed from the sidewalk café pilot program. Mr. Neu stated 16 will be removed if all approved curb cafes are constructed. Ms. Drew stated that she will follow up with the NCTD regarding the proposal of apartment developments using their parking lots for the parking model. Commissioner L’Heureux suggests to analyze any leased parking spaces that the city counts as public parking in case they go away and what the impact may be. Ms. Drew stated that the private parking lot located at the Village Fair was consistently showing up as red Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2016 Page 5 indicating issues in the parking study and will be analyzed for long term and short term parking options. Mr. Wood stated that the comments were interesting and the parking spaces were consistently showing up 90% utilized all throughout all of the time periods analyzed within the parking study. He concluded that a host of management strategies are being evaluated with the intentions of impacting the Village Fair and other locations like it. RECESS Chairperson Anderson called for a 14-minute recess at 7:53 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Anderson called the meeting to order at 8:07 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Chairperson Anderson asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. 2. CDP 16-07 – OTA RESIDENCE – Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow for the demolition of an existing single-family residence and detached garage and the construction of a 4,250 square foot single-family residence within the Mello II Segment of the City’s Coastal Zone located at 4090 Garfield Street within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The project site is within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. The City Planner has determined that the 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 it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15303(a), construction of a single-family residence, of the state CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Chris Garcia would make the staff presentation. Mr. Garcia gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation. Craig Friehauf, Friehauf Architect, 341 South Cedros Avenue, Solana Beach, stated that he is representing the applicant and would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak. Hugh Wilson, 220 Olive Avenue, stated his concerns with access to his property from the main property line, safety for his dogs as well as safety of the construction workers. Mr. Garcia stated that the property lines have been professionally surveyed and confirmed by the city engineer. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were monuments present. Mr. Friehauf stated that the purpose of a record of survey because there is not accurate monuments so a record of the survey is filed at the County of San Diego Recorder’s office per the state requirement for the survey therefore it is accurate. He stated that the monuments were set when the survey was done. Chairperson Anderson asked if Mr. Friehauf would like to address the neighbor’s concerns with the wall and the construction. Mr. Friehauf stated that there is a planter against the old fence so there is no guarantee that it would survive. He stated that the homeowner may want the fence on their side of the property line however, the issue will evolve between the neighbors. Chairperson Anderson asked if there will be a construction fence to protect the dogs. Mr. Friehauf replied stating yes. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any further questions for the applicant. Seeing none, she closed the public testimony and opened Commission discussion. Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2016 Page 6 DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery stated that he can support the project and that it is nicely designed. He stated that he likes the architecture, the landscaping and the improvements being made. Commissioner Goyarts stated that he could also support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he could approve the project. Commissioner Segall stated that he could support the project. Chairperson Anderson stated that she could support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7191 approving Coastal Development Permit CDP 16-07 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Goyarts, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Black and Commissioner Siekmann ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Anderson closed the public hearing on Item 2, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 3. 3. CT 15-09/PUD 15-18 – QUARRY CREEK – PA R-4 (EAST) – A request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development Permit for 150, two-story, airspace condominiums designed as duplexes and triplexes within Planning Area R-4 of the Quarry Creek Master Plan, located on the north side of Marron Road and the south side of Adobe Springs Road, in Local Facilities Management Zone 25. The City Planner has determined that the project is within the scope of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 11-02 that was prepared the Quarry Creek Master Plan and the EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated Associate Planner Shannon Werneke would make the staff presentation. Ms. Werneke gave a brief presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation. Jack Robson, Cornerstone Communities, thanked staff and stated that he is available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Goyarts asked about the timing of the construction of the units and the move in. Mr. Robson stated that the Agave duplex project is currently under construction. Mr. Robson stated that the models will be built during phase 1 and plan on getting the triplex Blue Sage product built as soon as they are able to pull building permits and rolling into phasing for construction, and the Acacia right behind. Commissioner Goyarts asked for the number of total units. Mr. Robson stated that there are 102 buildings for the triplex Blue Sage and the Acacia has 48 homes for a total of 150. Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2016 Page 7 Commissioner Montgomery asked what Mr. Robson’s views are when the duplex versus the triplex units are being marketed. Mr. Robson stated that the triplexes are valued at low to mid 500’s, the Agave units are for first time buyers, the duplex and the triplex units are priced from mid to high 500’s. Chairperson Anderson stated her concern with the top of the projection to the back end of the fireplace as it may collect dirt when sloped at an angle or if the surface is flat. She asked if other treatments in place of stucco would be possible. Jaime Stark, Stark Architecture and Planning, stated that the sloping surface would have a self-healing rubberized membrane that goes underneath the plaster and if the plaster cracks, there would not be water penetration if installed correctly. Chairperson Anderson inquired about the surface area becoming unsightly as dirt gathers on it. Mr. Stark stated that the homeowner would have to clean the surface. Chairperson Anderson asked about the height. Mr. Stark replied 8 and a half feet tall. Chairperson Anderson stated that stucco tends to be like glue when exposed to dirt that settles and wondered if it would be more expensive to use roof materials on the small projections. Mr. Robson stated that he would be willing to use the roof tile materials. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak. Julie Hamilton, 3553 Simsbury Court, provided a handout to the Commission and stated her concerns with the fencing around the development that would block the resident’s view. Nashallako Goodrick, 3555, Simsbury Court, stated her concerns with the fencing around the development. Mr. Robson stated that the fence was part of the original agreement as required and added that he would be more than happy to work with the neighboring Homeowner’s Association (HOA) and the president of the board. Ms. Werneke stated that there is no requirement within the Master Plan that requires the fence. Mr. Robson agrees with the homeowners and stated that Cornerstone Communities is willing to work with the concerned residents to remove the second fence. Mr. Kemp stated that there was a necessity in obtaining an easement from the HOA that would benefit the HOA from the developer in return for that easement as a private agreement. Commissioner Goyarts asked if the applicant would be okay with not putting a fence in front of the two properties on Simsbury Court. Mr. Robson stated as long as it is not a liability issue. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak. Seeing none, she closed the public testimony and opened Commission discussion. DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery stated that he is pleased with the product and can approve the project. Commissioner Goyarts stated that he can also support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he can support the project. Commissioner Segall stated that he can support the project. Chairperson Anderson stated that he can also support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7195 approving a Tentative Tract Map (CT 15-09) and Planned Development Permit (PUD 15-18) based on the findings and subject to the conditions therein. Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2016 Page 8 VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Goyarts, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Black, Commissioner Siekmann ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Anderson closed the public hearing on Item 3, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 4. 4. SDP 96-14(I)/CDP 96-16(H) – LEGOLAND EMPLOYEE PARKING STRUCTURE – Request for approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment to allow for the construction of a two- and three-story parking structure for Legoland employees within a portion of the Legoland California Resort employee parking lot located southeast of the existing hotel near the entrance to Legoland from The Crossings Drive in Planning Area 4 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan on property located at 1 Legoland Drive within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 13. The City Planner has determined that the project is within the scope of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 94-01 that was prepared for the Carlsbad Ranch/LEGOLAND Specific Plan Amendment (SP 207(A)) and the EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA. The project is not within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 4 and stated Senior Planner Teri Delcamp would make the staff presentation. Ms. Delcamp gave a brief presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any other questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation. Peter Ronchetti, 1 Legoland Drive, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Chairperson Anderson asked if the site of a big parking structure would lead people into parking in the employee parking structure. Mr. Ronchetti replied stating that it would be clearly signed indicating only staff parking is permitted and there will also be easy escape routes for people who accidently go into the parking structure to park in the guest parking lots. Commissioner Segall asked if there will be a shuttle service available. Mr. Ronchetti stated no, the outermost areas of the parking lots are walkable for guests. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak. Seeing none, she closed the public testimony and opened Commission discussion. DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery stated that he can approve the project. Commissioner Goyarts stated that he can also support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he can support the project. Commissioner Segall stated that he can also support the project. Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2016 Page 9 Chairperson Anderson stated that she can support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7194 approving Site Development Plan Amendment (SDP) 96-14(I) and Coastal Development Permit Amendment (CDP) 96-16(H), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Goyarts, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Black, Commissioner Siekmann ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Anderson closed the public hearing on Item 4, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 5. 5. SDP 15-26/CDP 15-50 – LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20 – Request for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the approval of a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to allow for the construction of a three-story, 250 room hotel and associated restaurant, gift shop, and swimming pool within a portion of the Legoland California Resort parking lot located to the west of the existing hotel and main entrance to Legoland in Planning Area 4 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan on property located at 1 Legoland Drive within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 13. The City Planner has determined that through the implementation of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 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 may have a significant effect on the environment. The project is not within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 5 and stated Senior Planner Teri Delcamp would make the staff presentation. Ms. Delcamp gave a brief presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Chairperson Anderson asked for more information regarding the Transportation Demand Management Strategies. Ms. Delcamp stated that Transportation Demand Management Strategies are types of implementation measures and strategies that can help reduce vehicle miles traveled and also stated that Legoland has existing Transportation Demand Management Strategies that will be extended to the proposed hotel. Ms. Delcamp stated that the strategies are detailed in the project’s Greenhouse Gas Analysis and mentioned examples such as providing showers and meals for employees, preferred types of parking to help reduce vehicle trips that employees are taking to other areas in the city, close to bus services, and bicycle parking spaces near the parking lot to encourage other modes of transportation to employees and other visitors. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if additional traffic will be generated on Cannon Road as a result of the addition to the Hotel. Ms. Delcamp stated that the transportation impact analysis for the hotel indicates 2,000 average daily trips and that the vast majority of trips associated with the hotel are people who are already gong to Legoland to visit. Ms. Delcamp stated that the traffic impact would be less than a significant level. Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2016 Page 10 Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any other questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant would like to respond. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if there will be a theme associated with the new hotel. Mr. Ronchetti stated that the exterior of the hotel will be medieval castle themed and the interior will be sub themed with princesses, princes, dragons, and jesters. Commissioner Segall asked if any future growth would necessitate bringing on a second hotel property. Mr. Ronchetti stated that there are current plans within the 5 year plan in the park which include taking dormant areas of the park and recycling within the land to create more efficient and valuable space. Chairperson Anderson inquired about the number of guests staying at the Sheraton Hotel. Mr. Ronchetti stated Legoland is overwhelmed during the busy peak of summer seasons and guests who visit Legoland may stay at the Sheraton Hotel. Chairperson Anderson asked if construction would occur during the summer. Mr. Ronchetti stated yes, construction would have to occur in the summer for the hotel and not for the parking structure. He stated that he anticipates the hotel beginning construction in January and it will be due to open in the spring of 2018. Chairperson Anderson stated that she is concerned with the artificial turf in the courtyard area being in between high walls and the heat it might generate. Mr. Ronchetti stated that the area is relatively shaded. Richard Reep, Architect, stated that the improvements of the artificial turf product is incredible, a lot more life-like and cooler. Commissioner Segall asked if there was a fountain area in the northeast quadrant. Mr. Reep stated that there will be a special Lego feature. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak. Seeing none, she closed the public testimony and opened Commission discussion. DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery stated that he can support the project. Commissioner Goyarts stated he can also support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he can support the project. Commissioner Segall stated he can also support the project. Chairperson Anderson stated she can support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7192 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7193 recommending approval of Site Development Plan (SDP) 15-26 and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 15-50, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Goyarts, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Black, Commissioner Siekmann ABSTAIN: None CORRECTED