HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 11-05; CUP Code Amendments; General Plan Amendment (GPA) (5)GPA 11-05/ZCA 09-03/LCPA 09-02 – CUP CODE AMENDMENTS
April 17, 2013
PAGE 2
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Background
In 2006, the Planning Commission recommended approval and the City Council subsequently approved a city-initiated Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to revise the procedures and regulations governing conditionally-permitted uses (ZCA 04-09/LCPA
04-15). A number of amendments were made to the Zoning Ordinance to simplify and
streamline the development review process for Conditional Use Permits. One of the major
changes that resulted from this amendment was the creation of a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP), an administrative permit for less controversial conditional uses whereby the City Planner would have the authority to approve the conditional use rather than the Planning
Commission (i.e., Conditional Use Permit) at a public hearing. This change from the public
hearing process to an administrative process was proposed for a select and limited list of uses.
While the creation of the MCUP process has been largely successful in reducing the cost and processing time for applicants, due to the limited extent of the types of uses which currently qualify to be processed through a Minor Conditional Use Permit very few requests (i.e., wireless
communication facilities), have been processed at the administrative level.
As a result of the Business Forum hosted by the City Council in the spring of 2009, staff engaged in a public outreach program to elicit and clarify input from the development community about potential improvements to the city’s development review process. In July of 2009, a
Development Review Process Working Group was established to research ways in which the
city’s development review process (DRP) could be improved. The Working Group comprised a
cross section of the development community, including representatives from the Building Industry Association (BIA), Chamber of Commerce, architects, builders, engineers, and planners.
A number of initiatives were established and subgroups were subsequently created to address
each of the initiatives. The Working Group presented a Summary Recommendations Report to the City Council in November, 2009. The City Council endorsed the results of the Report and directed staff to proceed with the work necessary to implement the specific recommendations.
One of the initiatives established through this Working Group is entitled “Decision-Making
Levels.” The intent of this initiative is as follows: “To streamline the discretionary permit approval process by reassigning
approval authority to the lowest appropriate decision-making authority…”
A number of city-initiated code amendments have been recently approved to implement the
above-referenced initiative as well as several other initiatives. The scope of the subject amendment specifically relates to Conditional Use Permits and is described in greater detail
below.
Project Description
The Community and Economic Development Department has processed a number of conditional
use permits at the Planning Commission level for churches, recreational uses such as pools or
GPA 11-05/ZCA 09-03/LCPA 09-02 – CUP CODE AMENDMENTS
April 17, 2013
PAGE 3
gyms, and educational facilities such as dance or martial arts schools. With exception to churches, the conditional use permit requests have been predominantly located in nonresidential
zones and have generated very little to no controversy due to the location in business parks,
industrial buildings, etc., and the compatibility with respect to the peak time in which the
facilities are being utilized (i.e. at night or on the weekends when offices are typically closed). Due to the non-controversial nature of these types of requests in the nonresidential zones, as well
as recommendations from the city’s DRP Working Group, the city has initiated a CUP code
amendment to amend the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and the Local Coastal Program. For a
specific description of each proposed amendment and its associated analysis, please see Attachments 4-8 of the staff report. The changes can be broadly summarized as follows:
A. Reassignment of Decision-Making Authority In Nonresidential Zones
Amendments in this category entail reassigning the approval authority (i.e. City Council to Planning Commission, Planning Commission to City Planner) to the lowest appropriate decision-making authority for a number of conditionally-permitted uses in the nonresidential zones. The
proposal to reassign the levels of review for conditional use permits aims to reduce the cost and
time for applicants and private property owners to obtain land use entitlements, thus facilitating
economic development within the business sector of the community. For a detailed list of the types of uses which have been included or excluded in the scope of the CUP decision-making authority revisions, please see Attachment 4.
B. Amendments to the Planned Industrial (P-M) Zone
In addition to the above-referenced code amendment to reassign the approval authority for certain conditional uses in nonresidential zones such as the P-M zone, the scope of the subject
CUP code amendment also includes the following text amendments to the P-M zone:
1. Revise CMC Section 21.34.010, “Intent and Purpose,” of the P-M (Planned Industrial) zone to allow for greater flexibility in the types of uses that could locate in the P-M zone;
2. Based on the guidance received from City Council at a workshop on December 18, 2012, an
additional use category in the P-M (Planned Industrial) zone land use matrix is proposed to
allow a limited amount of accessory retail space to be permitted by a Minor Conditional Use
Permit, which is subject to approval by the City Planner. Specifically, the following is proposed:
Retail, accessory use, including tasting/sampling rooms, showrooms,
miscellaneous retail, up to 20% of the gross floor area of the building or suite (as
applicable) or 2,000 square feet, whichever is less.
To qualify as an accessory retail use, the use shall be accessory to the primary use and wholly contained within the structure(s). In addition, all products for retail sale are required to be
produced, distributed, and/or warehoused on the premises.
3. Add “Educational facilities-other” to the P-M land use matrix to allow for educational
services such as trade, cosmetology, pet grooming, music, dance, martial arts, gymnastics,
subject to the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit.
GPA 11-05/ZCA 09-03/LCPA 09-02 – CUP CODE AMENDMENTS
April 17, 2013
PAGE 4
For a detailed list of uses which will be affected by the proposed Zone Code Amendment, please see Attachments 4, 5 and 7.
C. Amendments to the Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone (CVSOZ)
Amendments proposed to the Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone include updating references regarding the decision-making authority, where applicable, and modifying the
references to the P-M zone to coincide with the amendments proposed to CMC Section
21.34.010, Intent and Purpose of the P-M zone (please see discussion in Section B.1 above). In
addition to other minor “clean-up” amendments to Chapter 21.208, the separation requirements between hotels and motels are proposed to be deleted.
D. Clarity and Code Usability
Amendments proposed under this category are intended to clarify portions of the code relating to conditional use permits that are unclear and to generally make the Zoning Ordinance more readable and internally consistent.
E. Typographical and Other Minor Errors
Amendments in this category include the correction of inadvertent omissions (i.e., “clean-up” amendments) in the nonresidential zones that resulted from the prior CUP amendment in 2006.
This includes the addition of uses in the Limited Control (L-C) zone which were inadvertently
omitted as well as the elimination of conditional uses in various nonresidential zones which are
incompatible with the intent of the zoning designation.
F. Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan
An amendment to Industrial Policy C.9 of the General Plan Land Use Element is proposed to
remove reference to the requirement for conditional uses to be “clearly” oriented to support industrial developments. In addition, an amendment to Community Facilities Goal A and Objective B(1) of the General Plan Land Use Element is proposed to allow for public and private
schools to be located in the Community Facilities zones. These amendments will provide
consistency between the General Plan and the CUP-related amendments proposed to the Zoning
Ordinance. In addition, the proposed amendment will allow for greater flexibility in the types of conditional uses allowed in the nonresidential zones, while still providing staff with the discretion to review the compatibility of the use through a conditional use permit. This action is
not subject to review by the California Coastal Commission as it is not part of the Local Coastal
Program.
IV. ANALYSIS
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards, and policies:
A. General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program; and
B. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)
GPA 11-05/ZCA 09-03/LCPA 09-02 – CUP CODE AMENDMENTS
April 17, 2013
PAGE 5
A. General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program Consistency
With the overarching goal of enhancing the business climate without compromising other city
goals, the proposed amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal
Program will provide the necessary tools to allow businesses to establish or expand in a less costly and timelier manner. As the proposed amendments primarily focus on reassigning the levels of review for Conditional Use Permits and increasing the flexibility for uses in the
nonresidential zones, no substantive changes to development standards, processes, policies or
programs are proposed.
An integral component of any Zoning Ordinance amendment is a requirement to find that the proposed amendments are internally consistent with the procedures and standards of the
remaining portion of the existing Zoning Ordinance that is not proposed for amendment as well
as consistency with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. Staff has analyzed the
proposed amendments and finds that the amendments are internally consistent with the other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance not being amended and, with the inclusion of the minor revisions to the General Plan policies, the proposed amendments do not create any conflicts with
the provisions of the General Plan or Local Coastal Program.
B. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan As the proposed amendments are applicable citywide, the project is subject to the provisions of
the McClellan Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). However, since no
physical development is proposed in association with the project, the Airport Land Use
Commission determined that the project was consistent with the ALUCP and issued a Consistency Determination letter on June 14, 2012.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3), which exempts projects “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The
changes proposed by this project are primarily procedural in nature, are not substantial, and will
not significantly affect the existing development standards in the Zoning Ordinance; therefore,
the project will not result in a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Notice of Exemption will accordingly be filed by the City Planner.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6960 (GPA)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6961 (ZCA) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6962 (LCPA)
4. CUP decision-making authority summary tables
5. Analysis table for proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments
6. Analysis table for General Plan text amendments
7. Strike-out/underline version of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments 8. Strike-out/underline version of the proposed General Plan text amendments