HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 00-09; Various Code Changes; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA)The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. @
Application complete date: N/A
Project Planner: Scott Donne11 1 Project Engineer: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: August 20,2003
SUBJECT: ZCA 00-02LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES - Request for a
recommendation of adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a Zone
Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment for a variety of
changes to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. Also presented as a receive and file
item only are related, minor changes to other titles of the Municipal Code besides
the Zoning Ordinance that the City Council will review and consider for approval.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5449, 5450 and
545 1 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration and RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of ZCA 00-02 and LCPA 00-09 based upon the findings contained therein and
RECEIVE AND FILE the proposed ordinance amending titles of the Municipal Code other
than the Zoning Ordinance.
11. INTRODUCTION
The Planning Department, in conjunction with the City Attorney, proposes a significant number
of revisions to the text of the Zoning Ordinance, or Title 21 of the Municipal Code. While the
proposal affects dozens of Code sections, it is not a comprehensive overhaul; instead, the project
focuses on specific aspects of the Zoning Ordinance, such as review requirements for
subdivisions with panhandle lots, the appeal process for most land use applications, and titles of
various city officials involved in land use review. Many of the project changes are also minor
and “housecleaning” in nature.
Furthermore, some of the planned Zoning Ordinance revisions are also amendments proposed to
other Municipal Code titles. For example, staff has proposed revisions to Title 19, which
establishes environmental protection procedures, to ensure consistency with proposed Zoning
Ordinance changes to the appeal process. Additionally, changes to the titles of various city
officials are proposed throughout the Municipal Code. Since city ordinances and state planning
law (Government Code Section 65 103) limit the Planning Commission’s review to zoning and
land use matters, changes proposed to Municipal Code titles other than the Zoning Ordinance are
provided as a receive and file attachment to this report.
Because the City’s Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the City’s Local Coastal
Program (LCP), staff has also prepared an LCP Amendment to ensure consistency between the
proposed amended Zoning Ordinance and the LCP. The proposed changes to Municipal Code
titles besides the Zoning Ordinance are not a part of the LCP Amendment.
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
. 1 _r
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Zone Code Amendment consists of text changes only that would apply citywide.
Accordingly, the project proposes no development and it does not affect any particular property
or section of the City. In addition, though the project does not propose a complete Code
revision, proposed changes would still improve the Zoning Ordinance:
A. Consistency, both internally and with other titles of the Municipal Code;
B. Usability, by standardizing and clarifying some procedures; and,
C. Relevancy, through updates that incorporate current terms and procedures.
A list of the recommended changes follows:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
Revise standards for the noticing of continued public hearings;
Revise the review requirements for subdivisions with panhandle lots;
Amend procedures for incomplete application;
Revise and standardize the appeal process for most types of land use decisions;
Revise variance findings to be consistent with the California Government Code;
Change provisions affecting the review of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments;
Repeal density provisions that are inconsistent with the General Plan;
Update Chapter 21.05 to reflect currently adopted zones;
Replace outdated titles, such as “land use planning manager,” with current titles, such as
“planning director”;
Add a definition for “wireless communication facilities” and incorporate by reference a
City Council policy on the same; and,
Miscellaneous, minor changes.
Staffs analysis of each proposed change follows.
IV. ANALYSIS
Two attachments to this staff repott show all proposed Zoning Ordinance changes. One
attachment is a strikeout, bold version of the proposed ordinance, showing all existing, affected
text, and all proposed edits. A second attachment, part of the recommending resolution
approving Zone Code Amendment ZCA 00-02, is the “clean” version of the proposed ordinance
that references the section numbers affected and shows only how the sections would appear after
completing all recommended deletions and additions, except title changes. The sections found in
both attachments are listed in the same order as found in the Zoning Ordinance.
As in the attached strike-out and bold version, throughout this analysis section, proposed
deletions to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are shown as s&4ee&s and proposed additions are
shown in bold.
A. Revise standards for the noticing of continued hearings
Background
Zoning Ordinance Section 21.54.100 states that when a decision-making body such as the
Planning Commission holds a public hearing, it may continue the public hearing without
renoticing surrounding property owners only if the date, time and place to which the matter will
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
be continued is publicly announced at that initial hearing. While implied for all public hearings,
the Zoning Ordinance explicitly requires renoticing for public hearing items continued to a date
uncertain only if the items are located in the Coastal Zone,
The City adopted the text for this section in 1956 as part of Ordinance 9060, one of Carlsbad’s
first zoning ordinances. In 1996, the City amended the section to include the Coastal Zone
not icing requirement.
Proposal
Staff recommends revising Section 21.54.100 so it clearly requires the renoticing of all public
hearing items continued to a date uncertain, not just those in the Coastal Zone. Below are staffs
recommended revisions, which also broaden the renoticing requirement to include any public
hearing item, rather than just development permits.
“21.54.100 Hearing continuance with& public notice.
If, for any reason, testimony on any case set for public hearing cannot be
completed on the date set for such hearing, the person presiding at such public
hearing may, before adjournment or recess thereof, publicly announce the time
and place to, and at which, said hearing will be continued, and no further notice is
required. However, , if a decision on a matter set for
public hearing * is continued by the decision-making body
announced at the hearing to be
a time certain, the city shall provide notice of the further hearings for
action on the proposed developmentj in the same manner and within the same
time limits as established in Sections 21.54.060 and 21.54.061.”
..
to a time which is not mitiher (2)
B. Revise review requirements for subdivisions with panhandle lots
Background
As their name implies, panhandle lots, also known as flag lots, have a long, narrow throat that
connects to a developable area. Three separate Zoning Ordinance sections provide review
standards for subdivisions with panhandle lots. In the first two sections, Sections 21 .OS.OSO(b)
and 21.09.120(2), found in the R-A and R-E zone standards, respectively, require City Council
approval of major subdivisions (5 or more lots) with panhandle lots and Planning Commission
approval of minor subdivisions with panhandle lots. The City adopted these provisions in the
late 1970s. The third section regulating panhandle lots is Section 21.10.080(b), part of the
standards for the R-1 zone. However, this section’s review requirements are slightly different
from the other two. In 1981, the City amended this section to allow the “land use planning
manager,” (the term “Planning Director” is used today), rather than the Planning Commission, to
approve minor subdivisions (4 or fewer lots) with panhandle lots. Apparently, the City felt
minor subdivisions with panhandle lots could be approved administratively because they were
routine approvals. It is unclear why the amendment did not also extend to panhandle
subdivisions in the R-A and R-E zones.
Review requirements for subdivisions with panhandle lots are unique. As stated in Title 20
(“Subdivisions”) of the Municipal Code, all other subdivisions require city engineer approval if
they contain fewer than five lots (see Section 20.24.090 (4)); planning commission approval if
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 4
they contain between five and fifty lots (see Section 20.12.080(2)(A)); and city council approval
if they contain more than fifty lots (see Sec.ion 20.12.080(2)(B)).
Proposal
Proposed amendments would change each of the three Zoning Ordinance sections regulating
review of subdivisions with panhandle lots to require a review process identical to the existing
review process for all other subdivisions. Accordingly, staff has proposed to revise Sections
21.08.080(b) and 21.09.120(2) as follows:
“The official or decision-making body with the authority to otherwise
approve the subdivision Q
approve panhandle or flag-shaped lots where the lot width and yards shall be
measured in accord with this section if the following circumstances are found to
exist :”
. .. . .. .. . .. 2 may
Shown below are the planned revisions to the slightly different wording of Section 21.10.080(b).
“The official or decision-making body with the authority to otherwise
approve the subdivision 1 3 may approve panhandle or flag-shaped
lots where the lot width and yards shall be measured in accord with this section if
the following circumstances are found to exist:”
. .. . ..
Additionally, in Sections 21.08.080(d)(10) and 21.10.08O(d)(lO) of the R-A and R-1 zones,
respectively, the following amendments are proposed. Note that the second section differs fiom
the first in that it references the “land use planning manager,” instead of the “planning
commission.”
“21 .08.08O(d)( 10) Any other condition the official or decision-making
may determine to be necessary to properly develop such
body with the authority to otherwise approve the subdivision
property.”
..
“21.10.080(d)( 10) Any other condition the official or decision-making
body with the authority to otherwise approve the subdivision a+mmd-w
may determine to be necessary to properly develop
such property.”
Staffs analysis of panhandle review requirements also determined the appropriateness of other
related changes as follows.
1. Sections 21.08.080(d)(l) and 21.10.080(d)(l) of the R-A and R-1 zones, respectively,
indicate that either the planning commission or land use planning manager may approve
certain modifications to panhandle lot site plans. Staffs proposed changes to Section
21.08.080(d)(l) are as follows (note that the changes to the R-1 zone section are
essentially the same, except that it cites the “land use planning manager” rather than
“planning commission”):
..
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Pane 5
“2l.OS.O8O(d)(l) The area of the buildable portion of the lot shall be a
minimum ten thousand square feet or the minimum required by the zone
whichever is greater. In zone districts permitting less than ten thousand square-
foot lots, the buildable portion of the lot may be less than ten thousand square feet
provided the official or decision-making body with the authority to otherwise
approve the subdivision finds from evidence submitted on
a site plan that all requirements of this section will be met; however, in no case
shall the buildable portion of the lot be less than eight thousand square feet in
area. If a site plan for a subdivision with panhandle lots, with a buildable portion
of less than ten thousand square feet, is approved, development within such
subdivision shall conform to the plan as approved.
..
Besides the recommended wording to allow subdivisions with panhandle lots to be reviewed
as are all other subdivisions, staff has also proposed to delete the last portion of the section
regarding approval or denial of modifications. This deletion is recommended for reasons of
flexibility and simplicity. If this section, for example, tied the approval of a modification to
either the appropriate official or decision-making body, it might require City Council
approval of small changes proposed to the parking areas of flag lots in an approved 60-lot
subdivision. In reality, these changes may only warrant staff review and approval. Staff
believes that the City’s review procedures and the conditions placed on tentative maps are
sufficient to address the review and processing of planned modifications.
2.
3.
In the R-A and R-1 zones, Sections 21.08.080(d)(2) and 21.10.080(d)(10) require the
width of the buildable portion of a panhandle lot to be the same as the width required for
interior lots in the zone district. Since both zones require a general minimum lot width
but not a specific interior lot width, staff recommends deleting the word “interior.”
Finally, in the R-E zone, Section 21.09.120(2)(F) requires the design of parking and
access on a panhandle lot to be to the satisfaction of the land use planning manager. In
the R-A zone (see Section 21.08.080(d)(7)) and R-1 zone (see Section 21.10.080(d)(7)),
the other two zoning districts that contain panhandle lot provisions, the city engineer,
rather than the land use planning manager, is the approving oficial. Staff believes the
city engineer is the proper reviewing authority, and therefore recommend the following
changes to the section:
“Each lot shall have at least three nontandem parking spaces, with an
approach not less than twenty-four feet in length, with proper turnaround space to
permit complete turnaround for forward access to the street. This parking and
access arrangement shall be designed to the satisfaction of the city engineer W ,,
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 6
C. Amend incomplete application procedures
Background
Zoning Ordinance Section 21.54.010 establishes the basic requirements for the filing and review
of land use applications. Included are the processing procedures for applications the City
determines incomplete. An incomplete application or proposal is one that fails to provide all the
required filing information. From the date the Planning Director determines an application
incomplete, the Section states the applicant has six months to resubmit the application or else it
will be deemed withdrawn. Additionally, the Section also provides that the applicant may file an
appeal of an incompleteness determination with the Planning Commission within 20 days of the
date of the incompleteness determination. Upon the proper filing of an appeal, the Commission
must act on it within 60 days.
While contained in the current Zoning Ordinance, the processing requirements for incomplete
applications, as stated above, are invalid. Section 21.54.010(e) states the requirements became
ineffective on January 2, 1991, unless extended by ordinance. To date, no such extension has
taken place.
Proposal
The primary change to amend the incomplete application procedures is simply to repeal all of
subsection (e), thereby eliminating any sunset clause and reinstating the requirement that
applications inactive for more than six months will be deemed withdrawn. Other recommended
changes to the Section are proposed to ensure the City’s process for an applicant to appeal a
Planning Director’s determination of incompleteness is (1) consistent with state planning law and
(2) part of this Zone Code Amendment’s efforts to standardize the appeal process throughout the
Zoning Ordinance. Regarding the former, state law (Government Code Section 65943) mandates
the hearing of an appeal of an incompleteness determination before the Planning Commission
and City Council within 60 days of its filing with the Planning Commission. The present Zoning
Ordinance, in Section 21.54.010(c), requires only the Planning Commission to act within 60
days. Regarding the latter, among the changes proposed as part of the appeal process
standardization is the decrease in the appeal filing period from 20 to 10 days. The next item
below provides more details on the proposed changes to the appeal procedures found throughout
the Zoning Ordinance.
D. Revise and standardize the appeal process for most types of land use decisions
Background
The most significant component of this Zone Code Amendment is the proposed changes to
appeal procedures. Amendments are proposed to every Zoning Ordinance section (there are
more than 30) regarding appeals, except in two cases: the appeal provisions found in Chapter
21.41, the Sign Ordinance, and Chapter 21.43, the Adult Entertainment Ordinance. Staff has not
proposed to revise these chapters because their appeal provisions must be expressly tailored to
address First Amendment issues related to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Furthermore, the City’s update of the Sign Ordinance in 2001 included the necessary appeal
provisions, and the redrafting of Adult Entertainment Ordinance is currently underway.
rc-
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Pane 7
Although the City has amended many Zoning Ordinance appeal standards at least twice in the
past ten years, it has not done so in a comprehensive fashion. The lack of a complete revision
helps to underscore the problem of inconsistency between the various appeal provisions, many of
which the City adopted at different times and to address different needs. For example, Section
2 1.201.120 A. of the Coastal Development Permit Procedures Chapter, specifies the following
about appeals to the Planning Commission:
“The decision of the planning commission is final and effective ten
calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such
ten-day period the applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal
with the city clerk. An individual member of the city council can be an interested
person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the
appeal and the manner in which the decision of the planning commission is in
error. The decision of the planning commission shall be affirmed by the city
council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the
decision of the planning commission is in error, inconsistent with state law, the
general plan, LCP, or any applicable specific plan, master plan, zoning ordinance
or policy of the city. Upon the filing of an appeal, the city clerk shall set the
matter for public heahg. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the
date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing,
the city council shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the city
council is final.”
Described in Section 2 1.10.080(e) is a different, simpler appeal process for planning director
decisions on subdivisions with panhandle lots in the R-1 zone.
“Any decision of the land use planning manager shall promptly be
reported to the planning commission and city council and is final unless appealed
within ten days to the planning commission. The decision of the, planning
commission is final unless appealed within teo days to the city council. The
decision of the council is final.”
In Section 21.54.140(b), another appeal process is established for all planning director decisions
or determinations for which an appeal process is not already established.
“Whenever the planning director is authorized, pursuant to this title, to
make a decision or determination, such decision or determination is final unless
the determination or decision is appealed by an interested person to the planning
commission. An individual member of the city council can be an interested
person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the
appeal and the manner in which the decision of the planning director is in error.
The burden of proof is on the appellant to establish by substantial evidence that
the reason(s) for the appeal exist. The hearing before the planning commission is
de novo, but the planning commission shall determine all matters not specified in
the appeal have been found by the planning director and are supported by
substantial evidence. If the planning commission finds one or more grounds set
forth in the notice of appeal supported by substantial evidence, it may,
nevertheless, affirm, modify, or reverse the action of the planning commission,
.-
A
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 8
(sic) and make such order supported by substantial evidence as it deems
appropriate, including remand to the planning director with directions for further
proceedings. The appeal shall be filed in writing with the secretary of the planning
commission within ten calendar days after the date of the planning director’s
decision. The planning director’s decision or determination shall be made in
writing. The date of the decision shall be the date the writing containing the
decision or determination is mailed or otherwise delivered to the person or
persons affected by the decision or determination. The planning commission
action on an appeal shall be final. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall
be established by resolution of the city council.”
Proposal
Staff recommends the following comprehensive changes to the appeal procedures of the Zoning
Ordinance. As discussed above, proposed changes do not apply to the Sign Ordinance and Adult
Entertainment Ordinance.
1.
2.
3.
To ensure consistency, consolidate all Zoning Ordinance appeal procedures into two
sections. Staff proposes modifying Section 21 S4.140, partly quoted above, to contain
the procedure for the appeal of Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment
Director decisions to, as appropriate, the Planning Commission or Design Review Board.
Staff also recommends adding a second, new section (Section 21.54.150) to contain the
same procedure, but for the appeal of Planning Commission or Design Review Board
decisions to, as appropriate, the City Council or Housing and Redevelopment
Commission.
Amend all zoning ordinance sections currently containing appeal procedures so they refer
the reader to one of the two sections mentioned above with wording similar to the
following:
“The effective date of the planning commission’s decision and
method for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section
21.54.140 of this Code.’’
Establish in the two recommended sections a standardized, consistent process to address
all aspects of filing an appeal. To this end, staff does not propose to change the ten-day
appeal-filing period that most Zoning Ordinance appeal sections presently allow.
However, staff does recommend reformatting and modifying existing Section 21.54.140
so it provides appeal requirements in a clear, comprehensive manner. (The new
recommended Section 21.54.150 will be identical to Section 21.54.140, except that it will
address Planning Commission and Design Review Board appeals.) Some of the changes
proposed include:
a.
b.
C.
Adding that appeal procedures also apply to decisions made pursuant to the
Environmental Protection Procedures Ordinance, which is Title 19 of the Municipal
Code. Staff has also proposed related amendments to Title 19.
Establishing how and when a decision becomes final and effective.
Clarifying that a properly filed appeal stays the effect of the director’s decision until
the Planning Commission or Design Review Board acts on the decision.
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 9
d. Removing the requirement that the appellant demonstrate the manner in which the
director’s decision was in error. With the existing requirement that the appellant
demonstrate substantial evidence exists to support the appeal, there is no reason to
further require proof of an erroneous decision.
e. Requiring that the appeal be noticed and heard in the same manner as was required of
the original decision.
f. Establishing that the appeal hearing will occur as soon as practicable. This will
replace some existing timeframes that require the hearing of appeals within 20 or 30
days of the appeal filing. While still emphasizing that staff needs to schedule appeal
hearings in an expeditious manner, it also allows for accommodation of full meeting
agendas, holidays, and scheduling needs. (Please note that to remain consistent with
state law, staff will not change the 60-day deadline for hearing of an appeal on an
incompleteness determination, as discussed in item C.)
g. Establishing that reversal of a Planning Commission (or Design Review Board)
decision on appeal by the City Council (or Housing and Redevelopment Commission)
will require three affirmative votes. This requirement is consistent with a recent
amendment to state law as found in Government Code Section 36936.
For the Planning Commission’s information only, staff has attached proposed changes to Chapter
19.04 (“Environmental Protection Procedures”) of Municipal Code Title 19. For appeal
procedures, sections of this chapter reference the Zoning Ordinance. Staffs proposed revisions
to Title 19 are necessary to ensure consistency with the recommended Zoning Ordinance appeal
changes described previously.
E. Revise variance findings to be consistent with the California Government Code
Background
Local governments may approve a variance to allow deviations from development standards,
such as setbacks, lot sizes, and building height. However, a city may grant a variance only if it
can make specific findings that unique circumstances exist to justify deviating from standards.
The Zoning Ordinance contains the following three sections that list the necessary findings to
grant a variance:
1. Section 21.35.130, in the Village Redevelopment Zone chapter, contains the findings for
the Housing and Redevelopment Director, Design Review Board, and Housing and
Redevelopment Commission to grant variance.
2. Section 21 ~0.030, Variances-Conditional Use Permits chapter, contains the variance
findings for Planning Commission and City Council.
3. Section 21.5 1.010, Administrative Variances chapter, lists the findings for the limited
number of variances the planning director can grant.
Sections 21.50.030 and 21.51.010 list the variance findings the City adopted in 1956 as part of
Ordinance 9060, one of its first zoning ordinances. To ensure protection of its coastal resources,
the City, in 1996, added a finding requiring consistency with coastal zone requirements to
Section 2 1.50.030 only. Variance findings in Section 21.35.130 of the Village Redevelopment
Zone, adopted in 1995, are slightly different from the findings contained in the other two
sections.
..
ZCA 00-02LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 10
State law (Government Code Section 65906) specifies the findings under which Carlsbad and
other general law cities may consider variance proposals. The three findings, each of which must be made to grant a variance, are:
1. Variances fiom the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only when,
because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning
ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification; and,
2. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the
adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in
which such property is situated; and,
3. A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property, which authorizes a use, or
activity, which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation
governing the parcel of property.
Carlsbad’s variance findings are not consistent with state law. For example, Carlsbad’s variance
findings applicable outside the Village Redevelopment Zone allow “exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances” of either a property or an intended use as a basis for granting a variance.
Conversely, state law allows only the “special circumstances” of a property, and not of the
intended use, as a basis for granting a variance. Moreover, unlike state law, all three Zoning
Ordinance sections require that a variance approval “not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare.”
Additionally, though not listed as findings specific to a variance, approval of a variance, as with
any land use approval, must be consistent with the General Plan and, when applicable, the Local
Coastal Program. Present variance findings for the Village Redevelopment Zone (Section
21.35.130) do not include a finding of consistency with either the General Plan, and neither this
section nor Section 21.51.010 require a finding of consistency with the Local Coastal Program.
Proposai
Staff has proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance’s three sections on variances to ensure
each section:
1. Is consistent with the other;
2. Matches the wording found in the State Government Code; and,
3. Includes findings for consistency with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program.
Furthermore, for Sections 2 1 S0.030 and 2 1.5 1.01 0, which provide the findings for variance
applications outside the Village Redevelopment Zone, staff recommends an additional finding
requirement of consistency with any applicable specific or master plan.
F. Change provisions affecting the review of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments
Background
Chapter 21.52 of the Zoning Ordinance (“Amendments”) establishes the procedures for
amending both the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The City adopted most of the contents
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 11
of this chapter as part of Ordinance 9060 in 1956. Although subsequently amended, much of the
chapter remains as originally adopted.
Proposal
Staff recommends amendments to Chapter 21.52 for the following reasons:
1. To revise appeal requirements
Revision of the chapter’s appeal provisions is recommended as discussed in item “D.”
above.
2. To limit the Planning Director’s review authority
In 1974, the City revised Section 21.52.030 regarding the review and filing of
amendment applications. The revision added the following paragraph to address the
planning director’s (formerly land use planning manager) role in considering an
amendment proposal:
“The land use planning manager shall review all such applications
and determine whether or not the requested amendment, supplement to or
change in regulations for the subject property will be consistent with all
applicable specific and general plans. If he determines the application will
be consistent, he shall file it with the planning commission for processing
in accord with this chapter. If he determines that the application will result
in an inconsistency, he shall so inform the applicant in writing and return
the application. Notwithstanding an inconsistency, the manager may file
an application with the planning commission for action if the commission
has approved a general plan amendment removing the inconsistency. The
manager’s determination may be appealed to the planning commission and
city council in accord with the provisions of this chapter.”
Unlike the determination a planning director makes regarding the completeness of an
application, which is based on specific criteria, the paragraph above gives the director the
additional and unfettered authority to return to the applicant an amendment application if
the director believes it is inconsistent with the general plan or an applicable specific plan.
Staff believes the appropriate limits of the Planning Director’s authority is to make a
recommendation, not a decision, regarding consistency. Staff recommends striking this
paragraph completely.
3. To eliminate time constraints on the council’s review of an amendment application
Section 21.52.100 requires the City Council to hold a noticed public hearing within 30
days of receipt of a Planning Commission resolution recommending approval of an
amendment or within 30 days of receipt of an appeal. Section 21.52.120 also places a 30-
day time restriction on Council review. Since it allows little time to accommodate
scheduling needs, full agendas, and holidays, staff recommends replacing this time
constraint with the phrase “as soon as practicable.”
I.
c
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 12
G. Repeal density provisions that are inconsistent with the General Plan
Background
In 1981, the City Council added the following section to the standards of the Residential
Multiple-Family (R-3)’ Residential Professional (R-P), Residential Tourist (R-T), and
Residential Waterway (R-W) zones.
“Maximum Allowable Density. The maximum allowable density shall be
twenty units per acre. A density of up to thirty dwelling units per acre may be
established by the planning commission or city council, whichever is the final
decisionmaking body for a project requiring a discretionary permit or entitlement
under this code, or the planning commission for all other projects if said body
finds that the density is consistent with the general plan and the provisions of this
code.
Except when the city council is the final decision making body for a project, a
decision of the planning commission establishing density may be appealed to the
city council not later than ten days after the decision or not later than the time for
appeal of the discretionary permit or entitlement for the project, whichever is
later.”
The City adopted this provision to reduce the maximum density permitted in the above zones and
achieve consistency with the density allowed by the General Plan in 1981. At that time, in
addition to the General Plan density ranges, another acceptable method for determining density
existed for apartment projects, based on a designated minimum lot area per unit. While the
maximum General Plan residential density was 30 units/acre, this alternative density method
allowed 5 1 to 72 apartmentdacre, depending on the zone.
Decreases to the General Plan density ranges have occurred since 198 1. Today, the General Plan
establishes a maximum residential density range of 15-23 unitdacre with a corresponding
Growth Management Control Point of 19 unitdacre. Since the above section allows a density of
up to 30 units/acre, it is clearly inconsistent with today’s General Plan.
Proposal
State law (Government Code Section 65860) mandates zoning ordinance consistency with the
general plan. Furthermore,, it is Carlsbad’s General Plan Land Use Element, not a particular zone
or group of zones, that sets density ranges. Staff recommends repealing the Zoning Ordinance
sections (21.16.070; 21,18.050(2); 21.20.100; and 21.22.080) that contain the provision
highlighted above.
H. Update Chapter 21.05 to reflect currently adopted zones
Background
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.05 (“Zone Establishment - Boundaries”) lists the different zones
in the City and provides other clarifying information about the City’s classes of zones and the
zoning map.
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Pane 13
Proposal
Section 2 1.05.01 0, last updated in 1983, identifies 27 different zones, including overlay zones.
Three of the zones listed no longer exist, and several current zones are unidentified. Staff proposes to amend this section to:
1. Eliminate the three zones that no longer exist (Commercial Limited Residential Zone, or
C-LR; Limited Multiple-family Residential, or R-3L; and Residential Density-High, or
2. Add the 11 zones the section does not currently identify, bringing the correct and current
total number of zones in the City to 35.
RD-H).
Section 21.05.020 identifies the “degree of restrictiveness” of the zones. “Restrictiveness” refers
to the types of uses a zone allows. For example, a residential zone is considered and identified as
more restrictive than a commercial zone. Amendments proposed to this section would simply
remove those zones (R3-L, RD-H and C-LR) that no longer exist.
I. Replace outdated titles, such as “land use planning manager,” with current titles,
such as “planning director”
Background
Over the years, Carlsbad has used different titles for the individuals and offices involved in the
land use process. In 1982, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to perform the following
changes:
1. Replace “planning director,” “director of planning,” “director,” and “city planner,” with
“land use planning manager” or “manager.”
2. Replace “planning department” and “office of the planning department” with “land use
planning office.”
Despite the 1982 amendments, subsequent Zoning Ordinance revisions have continued to use the
titles “planning director” and “planning department.” Moreover, both titles are commonly used
today, whereas “land use planning manager” or “land use planning office” are not.
Similarly, though ‘‘community development director” appears in the Zoning Ordinance, the
previous name given to the position, “building and planning director,” does too. Adding to the
confusion is the Zoning Ordinance definition of “land use planning manager,” which states that
“building and planning director” means the same as “land use planning manager” and “planning
director.”
Proposal
The title “land use planning manager” occurs well over 70 times in the Zoning
Ordinance. Staff estimates “planning director” occurs an equal or greater number of times.
Since use of both titles creates confusion, staff proposes to replace “land use planning manager”
with “planning director” in all but the following two exceptions.
1. Zoning Ordinance Section 2 1.10.080(d)( 1) currently gives the land use planning manager
authority to approve a substandard size for the buildable portion of a flag lot in the R-1
zone, subject to specific requirements. ’ Staff believes the authority to approve a
substandard size should coincide with the official or decision-making body that approves
the subdivision containing the panhandle lot. Therefore, staff recommends replacing
..
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Pane 14
“land use planning manager” in this section with “official or decision-making body with
the authority to otherwise approve the subdivision.”
2. In the R-E zone, Section 21.09.120(2)(F) requires the design of parking and access on a
panhandle lot to be to the satisfaction of the land use planning manager. In the R-A and
R-1 zones, the other two zoning districts that contain panhandle lot provisions, the city
engineer, rather than the land use planning manager, is the approving official. Staff
believes the city engineer is the correct review authority, and therefore recommends the
following change to Section 2 1.09.120(2)(F):
“Each lot shall have at least three nontandem parking spaces, with
an approach not less than twenty-four feet in length, with proper
turnaround space to permit complete turnaround for forward access to the
street. This parking and access arrangement shall be designated to the satisfaction of the city engineer w. 99
Additionally, staff recommends repealing the Zoning Ordinance definitions of both “director”
and “land use planning manager” and adding a new definition for “planning director” as follows:
“21.04.292 Planning Director.
‘Planning director’ means the director of planning of the city or his or her designee. In
addition, the term ‘director’ as used throughout this Title shall also mean the planning
director unless the context clearly requires otherwise.”
As with “land use planning manager,” staff recommends replacing “land use planning office”
with “planning department” wherever it occurs, except in the following two instances:
1. Zoning Ordinance Section 21.18.040, part of the standards of the R-P Residential
Professional Zone, indicates the land use planning office may approve, a variety of uses
by conditional use permit. This conflicts with Chapter 21 SO (“Variances-Conditional
Use Permits”), which in Section 21.50.040 states the Planning Commission has the
authority to grant a conditional use permit. Staff has also recommended citing Chapter
2 1.42 (“Conditional Uses”) as this chapter contains additional relevant requirements for
the review of conditional use permits. Therefore, Section 21.18.040 is proposed with the
following changes:
“2 1.18.040 Uses and structures permitted by conditional use
permit.
Subject to the provisions of Chapters 21.42 and 21.50, tThe following
uses and structures are permitted by conditional use permit appw&m&
(1) Circuses and carnivals and private clubs;
(2) Health facilities, long-term;
(3) Radio, television and microwave stations or towers;
(4) Professional care facilities.”
2. Section 21.46.130 states the land use planning office and the building and planning
department may approve a six-foot high fence in a required side yard or street side yard
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Pape 15
of a comer or reversed comer lot, subject to special conditions. Staff recommends that
the planning director, rather than the land use planning office or building and planning
department, have the ability to approve such a fence. This change will identify that a
person, rather than a department, makes the decision. Furthermore, the special conditions
(e.g., topography, building location) listed in the section on which a wall approval is
based are appropriate planning director concerns.
The final recommended Zoning Ordinance title change would replace “building and planning
director,” “building official,” “principal building inspector,” and, in most instances, “director of
building and planning,” with “community development director.” This replacement would affect
about 60 Zoning Ordinance sections. Further, because the Zoning Ordinance uses but does not
define “community development director,” staff recommends adding the following definition to
Chapter 21.04, Definitions.
“21.04.099 Community Development Director.
‘Community development director’ means the director of community
development of the city or his or her designee.”
Staff recommends replacing all but eight uses of “director of building and planning” with
“community development director.” Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2 1.80 (“Coastal Development
Permits - Agua Hedionda”) contains the eight exceptions. This chapter, adopted in 1983,
provides coastal development permit standards for the Agua Hedionda Lagoon segment of the
City’s Local Coastal Plan. Further, the sections (e.g., 21,80.040) in this chapter in which
“director of building and planning” occurs discuss filing and processing of coastal development
permits. Review of these sections clearly shows that “planning director,” not “community
development director,” is the appropriate replacement.
Besides the recommended changes to the Zoning Ordinance, staff has proposed to replace “land
use planning manager,” “director of building and planning,” “building and planning director,”
“principal building inspector” and “land use planning office” throughout the rest of the
Municipal Code in the same manner as described above. The ordinance proposing these title
changes is attached as a receive and file item for the Planning Commission’s information only.
Please note that staff has not proposed a complete replacement of the title “building official” as
the change requires additional review.
J. Add a definition for “wireless communication facilities” and incorporate by
reference a City Council policy on the same
Background
In October 2001, the City Council adopted Council Policy Statement 64, approving review and
operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities (WCFs), commonly referred to as
“cell sites.” To effectively carry out and communicate the purpose and guidelines of the policy
statement, the Council directed staff to prepare a zone code amendment that would incorporate
the policy statement.
The Zoning Ordinance contains no standards specifically for WCFs, nor does it specifically list
WCFs or antennas as permitted uses. Instead, the City permits such facilities through Zoning
Ordinance Section 21.42.010(2)(J), which is found in Chapter 21.42 (“Conditional Uses”). This
.. ..
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 16
section allows accessory public and quasi-public utility buildings and facilities by conditional
use permit in all zones.
Proposal
Staff recommends amending Chapter 21.42, Conditional Uses, by adding a new section that
would specifically identify WCFs as a conditionally permitted use in all zones, subject to
Council Policy Statement 64. The proposed section is as follows:
“21.42.010(16) All zones: Wireless communication facilities, which
must comply with City Council Policy Statement No. 64.”
Furthermore, since wireless communication facilities is a new term to the Zoning Ordinance,
staff further recommends adding the following new definition to Chapter 2 1.04, Definitions:
“21.04.379 Wireless communication facility.
‘Wireless communication facility’ means any component, including antennas
and all related equipment, buildings, and improvements for the provision of
personal wireless services as defined by the federal Telecommunications Act
of 1996 and as subsequently amended. Personal wireless services include but
are not limited to cellular, personal communication services (PCS), enhanced
specialized mobile radio (ESMR), paging, ground based repeaters for
satellite radio services, micro-cell antennae and similar systems which exhibit
technological characteristics similar to them.”
K. Miscellaneous, minor changes
Three additional minor changes are proposed:
1. Delete an unnecessary word in Section 21.45.020D of Chapter 21.45 (“Planned
Developments”) as follows:
“If there is a conflict between the regulations of this chapter and
any regulations approved as part of the city’s certified local coastal
programs, or a master or specific plan, the regulations of
the local coastal program or the master or specific plan shall prevail.”
2. In Chapter 21.83 (“Child Care”), correct a word in Section 21.83.030A. as follows:
“Any child day care home providing care for the children of only
one family in addition to the provider’s owns children.”
3. In Chapter 21.04 (“Definitions”) and in Chapter 21.46 (“Yards”), amend Sections
21.04.065(a)(4) and 21.46.020, respectively, regarding allowed protrusions above
building height limits. Proposed changes will make the standards regarding roof
structures, towers, chimneys, and the like easier to understand and apply. Recommended
revisions are as follows:
“21.04.065(a)(4) Building height is measured to the peak of the
structure. Per Section 21.46.020 of this title, protrusions above height
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
limits may be allowed
we.”
“21.46.020 Allowed protrusions above height limits. Roof
structures specifically for the housing of elevators, stairways, tanks,
ventilating fans or similar equipment required to operate and maintain the
building, fire or parapet walls, skylights, architectural features or towers,
flagpoles, chimneys, smokestacks, wireless masts and similar structures
may be erected above the height limits prescribed in this title but no roof
structure or any other space above the height limit prescribed for the zone
in which the building is located shall be allowed for the purpose of
providing additional floor space, or be taller than the minimum height
requirement to accommodate or enclose the intended use. However, the
exception in this section does not apply if there is a specific provision
protrusions under elsewhere in this title for the E&M~w&A
consideration 1. 79
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program Consistency
The proposed Zoning Code Amendment will not result in any inconsistencies with the General
Plan, Local Coastal Program, or Zoning Ordinance, as demonstrated below:
A. General Plan Consistency
1. The proposal serves to clarify and improve the processing of land use applications
and use of the Zoning Ordinance. This is consistent with the General Plan Land
Use Element Overall Land Use Pattern Goal A.l, which seeks to enhance the
image of Carlsbad as a desirable community.
2. The proposal repeals density provisions that are inconsistent with the General
Plan. State law (Government Code Section 65860(c)) mandates that the Zoning
Ordinance be consistent with the General Plan.
3. The proposal incorporates by reference the City Council policy on wireless
communication facilities. This is in keeping with General Plan Land Use Element
Overall Land Use Pattern Objective B.2, which states in part, “To create a visual
form for the community, that is pleasing to the eye . . .”
B. Local Coastal Program Consistency
1. The Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the Local Coastal
Program (LCP). Accordingly, staff has prepared an LCP amendment to ensure
consistency between the LCP and Zoning Ordinance.
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
C.
2. The proposed amendment does not alter any coastal zone regulations, land use
designations or policies, with which future projects processed according to the
amendment must comply.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency
1. Proposed amendments make the Zoning Ordinance easier to use. This is
consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 21.02.010), which
is “. . .to serve the public health, safety and general welfare and to provide the
economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land
resources.”
2. Proposed amendments do not conflict with other Zoning Ordinance provisions.
Rather, they correct some current inconsistencies.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The initial study (EIA Part 11) prepared for this project did not identify any potentially significant
environmental impacts. Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration.
Staff published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration in the newspaper and mailed
the notice to the California Coastal Commission, State Department of Fish and Game, State
Clearinghouse, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Staff received no comments in response to
the notice during the 30-day public review period.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5449 (Negative Declaration)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5450 (ZCA)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 545 1 (LCPA)
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Proposed amendments to other titles of the Municipal Code (MCA 03-01 - for
information only)
a. Changes to Title 19 regarding appeals
b. Changes to various titles of the Municipal Code amending the titles of various
city officials involved in land use review.
Strike-out and bold version of proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments (ZCA)
Strike-out and bold version of proposed Municipal Code amendments (MCA)
6.
7.
..
,- -
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09/MCA 03-01
CASE NAME: Various Code Changes
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
REQUEST ANDLOCATION: The proiect revises portions of the text of the Zoning
Ordinance and, to a lesser extent. other titles of the City’s Municipal Code. A Local Coastal
Program Amendment is necessary because the Zoning Ordinance is the imdementing ordinance
of the Local Coastal Program. The proiect includes no development and it does not affect any
particular property or section of Carlsbad; instead, the proposed text changes would affect the
processing and review of land use applications proposed throughout Carlsbad by:
Revising and standardizing variance findings and the appeal process for many land use
Revising and clarifying; some review procedures and development standards:
Replacing and repealing outdated or superseded names and titles;
Repealing density provisions inconsistent with the General Plan, and;
Addinp a definition for wireless communication facilities and incorporate a city policy
on the same.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N/A
APN: N/A Acres: N/A Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: N/A
Density Allowed: N/A
Existing Zone: N/A
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: N/A
Density Proposed: N/A
Proposed Zone: N/A
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: N/A Water District: N/A Sewer District: N/A
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A
-.. .. .-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration recommended for adoption