Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 99-01; Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas II; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (5)- 1 :he City of CARLSBAD Planning Depart at P.C. AGENDA OF: April 21,1999 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING CO MMISSION Application complete date: n/a Project Engineer: n/a Project Planner: Elaine Blackbum SUBJECT: ZI- A Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and a Local Coastal Program Amendment to modify Chapters 21.04, 21.26, 21.27, 21.28, 21.29, 21.30, 21.32, and 21.34 of the Municipal Code to allow Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas associated with restaurants on private property citywide outside of the Redevelopment Area and outside of the CommerciaWisitor-Serving Overlay Zone. I. COMMEND AT10 N That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4482 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration and Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4483 and 4484 { of ZCA 99-01 and LCPA 99-01 based upon the findings contained therein. 11. I“ This zone code amendment is being processed pursuant to City Council direction and does generally three things. First, the amendment defines “Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas” (I.O.D.A.’s), distinguishing them from outdoor eating areas in general by size and location limitations. Second, it regulates the location and design of I.O.D.A.’s, requiring an administrative permit for such areas. Third, it excludes I.O.D.A.’s from parking requirement calculations (with some exceptions). Subsections A through E (below) provide a detailed discussion of the contents of the proposed ordinance and of the exceptions to and limitations on the I.O.D.A. ordinance. Outdoor dining areas associated with restaurants, deli’s, and other eating establishments can be provided under current regulations. Such areas are treated like indoor seating areas and are included in calculating the total floor area of the eating establishment, which in turn, is used to calculate the number of parking spaces required for the business. This proposed amendment would provide an incentive to businesses to include small outdoor dining areas by excluding those areas (up to 400 square feet in size) from the parking requirement calculation. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND As stated above, eating establishments in the City are already allowed to provide outdoor dining areas (on their private property). The outdoor dining area, like the indoor dining area, is included in the calculation of total floor area. The total floor area is the basis for determining how many I A .I .h ZCA 99-01/LCPA 99-01 TCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING k iAS I1 April 21,1999 Page 2 parking spaces are required for a particular business. (See Subsection “E” below for a detailed discussion of parking requirements for restaurants and other eating establishments.) In the summer of 1997, the City Council indicated that they wanted to provide an incentive to encourage eating establishments to provide outdoor seating areas. It was noted that, within the Redevelopment Area, “sidewalk cafes” are allowed both on private property and within the public right-of-way and form an attractive addition to the area. Council members recognized that, outside of the Redevelopment Area, privatization of public right-of-way was problematic and was not desirable. However, they wanted to provide encouragement for outdoor dining areas wherever they could be accommodated on private property. In response to this direction staff prepared a draft ordinance known as the Incidental Outdoor Dining Area (I.O.D.A.) ordinance. In September 1997 City Council approved the Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 96-10) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 96- 10) which created and regulated Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas. This ordinance allowed eating establishments to provide small outdoor dining areas which would be exempt from parking requirements (because they were not included in the business’ floor area calculation) by getting an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area Permit. (Note: An Incidental Outdoor Dining Area Permit was not required for Uoutdoor dining areas. It was only necessary if the applicant wanted to take advantage of the waiver of parking requirements available through the permit. If &e applicant wanted to provide parking for an outdoor dining area at Code requirements, he could do so with no special permit required.) When the LCPA was heard by the California Coastal Commission (in the summer of 1998) the Coastal Commission approved the proposed amendment with modifications. The effect of the modifications was to prohibit the possibility of Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas (and thus the parking waiver) on those Coastal Zone sites which are west of the railway line md alse are under-parked. Thus, those Coastal Zone sites on either side of the railway line which satisfied Code parking requirements for their indoor dining areas could provide an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area (with the attendant parking waiver); but those sites which were located west of the railway line & are not providing parking at Code requirements for their indoor dining areas will not be able to get an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area Permit (and the attendant parking waiver). This exception was the result of the Coastal Commission’s concern over the lack of public parking generally west of the railway line. They did not want to exacerbate any existing under- parking situations by allowing such businesses to further expand. In the mean time, the City Council has directed staff to prepare a new ordinance (the CommerciaWisitor-Sewing Overlay Zone) which contains specific regulations for some of the areas around the LEGOLAND development. This overlay zone creates more stringent parking requirements in some areas. Therefore, to maintain consistency with those regulations, an IODA permit would not be available within the CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone. Unfortunately, due to the inclusion of a sunset clause in the original ordinance and the fact that the Coastal Commission did not consider the LCPA until July of 1998, the approved ZCA automatically repealed in October 1998 before those Coastal Commission modifications could be adopted by the City Council. Consequently, staff has now prepared a new ZCNLCPA (“Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas 11”) which is essentially the same as the original ordinance except that it includes the necessary Coastal Commission modifications, precludes an IODA in L ZCA 99-01/LCPA 99-01 TCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING k jAS I1 April 21,1999 the CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone, and does not include a sunset clause. These “Incidental Outdoor Dining Area 11” regulations will allow small outdoor eating areas associated with restaurants outside of the Redevelopment Area to be excluded fiom City requirements for parking except in those Coastal Zone locations west of the railway which are already under- parked and except within the CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone. The proposed amendment consists of numerous text changes contained in the attached exhibits. Exhibit “X” (attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4483) is a draft Council ordinance for the proposed ZCA. Exhibit “Z” contains the same information but in a redlinedktrikeout version for easier reading. The ZCNLCPA will allow Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas of limited size on private property citywide outside of the Redevelopment Area and outside of the CommerciaVVisitor-Serving Overlay Zone. The proposed amendment accomplishes several objectives as discussed in detail below. A. The amendment defines an “Incidental Outdoor Dining Area”. The proposed amendment includes a definition of an “Incidental Outdoor Dining Area” to be added to the “Definitions” chapter of the Municipal Code. (See Exhibit X, Section I.) This definition distinguishes these “Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas” fiom outdoor dining areas in general. This distinction is necessary because the size limitation is the basis for allowing the parking waiver. The proposed definition of an “Incidental Outdoor Dining Area” was developed based upon Council’s direction to staff and the results of the surveys of related literature and other cities’ experiences with outdoor dining areas. The City’s current Municipal Code uses several terms for land uses which primarily involve food service and which have indoor seating, including “bona fide eating establishment”, “restaurant”, and “deli”. The definition of an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area specifically includes each of these types of food service establishment. The proposed definition establishes a maximum number of seats and tables, and a maximum floor area for an “Incidental Outdoor Dining Area”. This was done in order to ensure that the Incidental Outdoor Dining Area remains accessory to the associated indoor restaurant. The proposed limitations are: a maximum of 20 or fewer seats (depending upon the number of indoor seats), 6 tables, and 400 square feet of floor area. B. The amendment allows Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas only in the zones in which restaurants and/or deli’s are already allowed (i.e., the C-1, 0, C-2, C-T, C-M, M, and P-M zones). Under current regulations, restaurants and/or deli’s are allowed in the zones cited above. The intent of the proposed amendment was to allow Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas as a part of otherwise allowed restaurants/deli’s. Consequently, the proposed amendment does not change the zones or locations in which restaurants or deli’s are allowed. In some of these zones the restaurants/deli’s require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposed amendment will allow Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas equally whether the restaurant/deli is allowed by right or by CUP only. In either case, the same administrative permit will be required. If a CUP is required for the restaurantldeli, the ( c - ZCA 99-01lLCPA 99-01 TCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING I 3AS I1 April 21,1999 Page 4 Incidental Outdoor Dining Area Permit (an administrative pennit) would be processed concurrently and would be acted upon by the Planning Director immediately following action upon the CUP by the Planning Commission. C. The amendment creates an administrative permit requirement for Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas. (See Exhibit X, Section 11.) It was the desire of Council to provide an incentive for restaurants to provide small outdoor dining areas with a minimal amount of cost and time to the applicant wherever possible. Consequently, staff has developed a recommendation requiring a new administrative permit (an “Incidental Outdoor Dining Area” Permit) for Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas. - The administrative permit/procedure proposed is similar to that required for administrative variances and second dwelling units. It will involve minimal cost to the applicant ($150.00) and can be processed quickly, while ensuring adequate review of applications. The procedure requires a 15-day noticing period for neighboring property owners within 300 feet. (Again, this is similar to the noticing area for administrative variances and second dwelling units.) The Planning Director’s decision on a permit request could be appealed to the Planning Commission. D. The proposed amendment provides design and locational criteria for Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas. (See Exhibit X, Section 11.) The proposed design and locational criteria were developed in order to accomplish several objectives. First, it protects the public right-of-way. Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas will be allowed on private property only, not in the public right-of-way, Second, it was necessary to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations governing alcoholic beverage service and access for persons with disabilities. The proposed criteria specifically require that Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas comply with such regulations. Third, staff wanted to ensure provision of adequate pedestrian and vehicular circulation and safety for both the incidental dining area and for surrounding usedareas. In addition, the proposed incidental dining area should not negatively impact traffic circulation. The proposed criteria establish these requirements. Each Incidental Outdoor Dining Area Permit application will be reviewed by Planning and Engineering staff to ensure that there are no negative impacts to traffic circulation. Staff also wanted to preserve compliance with current regulations which address aesthetic considerations (e.g., landscaping). The proposed criteria address this issue by prohibiting landscaping changes without Planning Director approval. E. The proposed amendment creates an exclusion from parking requirements for Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas. The only exception is that those sites located within the Coastal Zone west of the railway line which also do not provide on-site parking at Code-required amounts will not be able to obtain an IODA Permit. The proposed amendment excludes Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas from the floor area calculations used to determine the number of parking spaces required. (See Exhibit X, I L ZCA 99-01/LCPA 99-01 - .CIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING A ,AS I1 April 21, 1999 - j Section 11.) Currently, restaurants must provide parking for any indoor and outdoor use areas at the same ratio. Because Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas are restricted in size (number of tables and chairs and floor area) and are not usable at all times (e.g., during inclement weather), it has been determined that there will be no significant impacts from this exclusion. The Coastal Commission was concerned about the permitting of additional eating areas on sites west of the railway line which were also not parked at Code requirements. Therefore, the Coastal Commission approved modified wording which prohibits Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas on Coastal Zone sites west of the railway line which also do not provide on-site parking at Code requirements for their indoor seating areas. (Coastal sites located west of the railway line and which do provide on-site parking at Code-required levels can qualify for an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area Permit. Only those sites west of the railway line which are &Q under-parked could not qualify. ) That wording has been incorporated into the attached drafl ordinance. IV. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements: A. City of Carlsbad General Plan; B. Zoning Regulations Chapters 21.04 (Definitions), 21.26 (C-1 Zone), 21.27 (0 Zone), 21.28 (C-2 Zone), 2 1.29 (C-T Zone), 21.30 (C-M Zone), 2 1.32 (M Zone), and 2 1.34 ((P-M Zone) of the Municipal Code; and C. Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. A. General Plan The proposed zone code amendment is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Element (Commercial Land Uses) contains several goals including “a healthy and diverse economic base” (Goal A. l), promotion of “economic development strategies” for commercial and other land use types (Goal A.3), and the promotion of “tourist oriented land uses” which serve a variety of users. These goals are to be implemented through a variety of policies and programs including “to establish and maintain commercial development standards” to address various design concerns and ensure Compatibility between the commercial use and the surrounding land uses (Objective B.3). The proposed zone code amendment is consistent with these goals, objectives and policies. Restaurants which include outdoor dining areas represent an amenity (an alternative dining opportunity) which is attractive to both tourists and residents/employees in the City. The proposed amendment will not change the uses allowed in any zone. In addition, the amendment includes design and locational standards, among other requirements, which will ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. - !-. ZCA 99-01LCPA 99-01 - CIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING A ,AS I1 - April 21,1999 Page 6 B. Zoning Regulations Under current regulations, restaurants and/or delis are allowed by right in the C- 1 (Neighborhood Commercial), C-2 (General Commercial), C-T (Commercial-Tourist), C-M (Heavy Commercial- Limited Industrial), and M (Industrial) zones and with a CUP in the 0 (Office) and P-M (Planned Industrial) zones. The code requirements for restaurant parking are: a) one space per 100 square feet (for restaurants less than 4,000 square feet in size) and b) 40 spaces plus one space per 50 square feet of floor area in excess of 4,000 (for restaurants of 4,000 square feet or greater). Restaurants which incorporate outdoor seating areas are allowed provided they satisfy all applicable requirements, including providing required parking at the appropriate restaurant parking ratio. The proposed zone code amendment will not change the zones in which restaurants or delis (with or without outdoor seating areas) are allowed. It simply allows a limited amount of such outdoor seating to be provided without having to provide parking for the area except for those areas within the Coastal Zone west of the railway line which are not parked to Code requirements and except for those sites within the CommerciaWisitor-Serving Overlay. For example, a restaurant which is designed to provide an indoor seating area and a 600-square foot outdoor dining area would be required to provide parking for all of the indoor seating area and for 200 square feet of the outdoor dining area (ie., the portion of the outdoor dining area which exceeds the 400-square foot “incidental” definition.) C. Local Coastal Program Because the project includes areas within the Coastal Zone and amends the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the project requires a Local Coastal Program Amendment which must be approved by the Coastal Commission following City Council action. The proposed amendment will be applicable citywide outside of the Redevelopment Area. Consequently, it will involve the Mello I, Mello 11, Agua Hedionda, East Batiquitos/Hunt, and west Batiquitos/Sammis segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. Staff has reviewed the proposed project with regard to the various Coastal segment programs and has determined that the proposed wording is consistent with all Coastal segment regulations. The proposed amendment is limited in its nature and will not change existing regulations prohibiting or restricting development on sensitive slopes, bluff tops, or agricultural lands. It also will not change any requirements for vista pointshiew corridors. Any proposed restaurant development in the Coastal Zone (with or without an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area) will be subject to essentially the same regulations and restrictions on development as currently exist except for parking requirements. The proposed parking exclusion for some Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas will not affect public parking in the Coastal Zone as the proposed Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas will only be allowed on private property. In addition, those restaurants located within the Coastal Zone west of the railway line which are currently under-parked will not be able to obtain an I.O.D.A. permit and the associated waiver from parking requirements. Therefore, it has been determined that the proposed parking exclusion is “de minimus” in nature and wilI have no negative impacts. Therefore, staff believes the proposed amendment is consistent with all existing Coastal regulations. \ .j .- L. ZCA 99-0 1 /LCPA 99-01 - CIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING A AS I1 - April 21,1999 Page 7 V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE W This project was reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to have no potentially significant effect on the environment. (See discussion in the EIA Part 11, attached.) Therefore, the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration on February 5, 1999. ATTACHMENT€: 1. 2. 3. 4. . Exhibit "Z", dated March 17, 1999 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4482 (Neg Dec) Planning Commission Resolution No. 4483 (ZCA) Planning Commission Resolution No. 4484 (LCPA) EB:eh:mh 1 k’ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 93 -- 23 24 25 26 27 28 NING COMMISSION RESOJAJTION NO. 4482 A RESOLUTION.0F THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNLA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT RELATING TO INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING AREAS ON PROPERTY LOCATED CITYWIDE OUTSIDE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND OUTSIDE OF THE COMMERCIALMSITOR-SERVING OVERLAY ZONE CASE NAME: INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DI”G AREASII ZCA 99-01 /J CPA 99-0 1 SE NO.: WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared a Zone Code Amendment and a Local Coastal Program Amendment pursuant to Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code regarding property owned by various owners, “Owner”, described as Citywide outside of the Redevelopment area and outside of the CommerciaVVisitor-Serving Overlay Zone. w (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of March 1999 and on the 21st day of April 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. ! , I c L 7 I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby -OVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND" dated February 5,1999, and "PII" dated January 20, 1999, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration (ZCA 99-01LCPA 99-01), the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect 'on the environment and thereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration. 2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration (ZCA 99-01LCPA 99- 01) reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of April 1999, by the following vote; to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L'Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Tigas , Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: v MICHAEL J. HOL&ILLER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4482 -2- A 1 - City of Carlsbad P Project AddressLocation: Citywide outside of the Redevelopment Area Project Description: The City of Caxlauac Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to modify the development regulations to allow incidental outdoor dining areas subject to Administrative Permit with some exemptions fi-om parking requirements. llas conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4471. DATED: FEBRUARY 5,1999 CASE NO: ZCA 99-OlLCPA 99-01 CASE NAME: INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING AREAS I1 PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 5,1999 Planning Director 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad. CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 @ RONMENTAL IMPXT AS- FORM - PART (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZCA 99-0 1 /LCPA 99-0 1 DATE: Januarv 20. 1999 BACKGROUND .. 1. CASE NAME:M 11 2. APPLICANT: City of Cdbad 3. 4. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las P- CA 92009 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMImD: N/A .. .. 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 7 Wdifv the develow replllatlnns to allow incidental outdoor dung areas subject tQ SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 , - DETERMINATION. - (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect@) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant .effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. * I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-0 1 ), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. /- PGnher Signahre Date Plhing DireEfarJs' Sigddu e Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 c STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. 0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “NO Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. ’ 0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. 0 Based on an “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could‘have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but d potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). 0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. e An EIR be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EM-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION . Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or-zoning? (Source #(s): () b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? () c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 0 d) Affect agncultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? () e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? () Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: 0 o 0 a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? () b) Induce substantial growth m an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? () c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? () 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 0 o c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? () n a) Fault rupture? () b) Seismic ground shaking? () d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? () U n U 0 o g) Subsidence of the land? () n e) Landslides or mudflows? () 0 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, gradmg, or fill? () h) Expansive soils? () i) Unique geologic or physical features? () IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? () b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? () c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? () d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? () U 0 0 O 0 0 0 Potmtially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mi tigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 0 151 0 0 151 0 0 IxI 0 0 151 0 0 Ixl 0 0 ls1 0 0 [XI 0 0 151 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ixl 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 Ixl 0 151 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 5 Rev. 03/28/96 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or- through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered dnection or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 a) Violate any air quality standard or cmtribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? n b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or bamers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? U 0 0 cl 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LessThan No Significant impact impact 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI IXI IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 €3 0 [XI 0 Ix1 0 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 ixI 0 €3 0 IXI 6 Rev. 03/28/96 - Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources). ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? () Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? () Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? () IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? () b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? () c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? () d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? () e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? () . X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? () b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? () b) Police protection? () c) Schools? () d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? () e) Other governmental services? () XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? () b) Communications systems? () c) Local or regional water treatment or dstribution facilities? () d) Sewer or septic tanks? () e) Storm water drainage? () f) Solid waste disposal? () g) Local or regional water supplies? () Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 A Potentially Significant Unless Mitlgation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No impact [xi IXI Lsl El €3 [XI El Ixl El IXI [XI [XI Ea Ixl €3 [XI Ixl Ix1 IXI [XI Ea €3 7 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated LessThan No Significant Impact Impact XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 0 n o n a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? () b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? () c) Create light or glare? () U U 0 0 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? () b) Disturb archaeological resources? () c) Affect historical resources? () d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 Ix1 0 [XI 0 [XI XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? () b) Affect existing recreational oppormnities? () 0 0 0 0 0 [xi 0 Ix1 XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable hture projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 [xi 0 0 0 IXI 8 Rev. 03/28/96 MI. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. In this case a discussion should identi@ the following on attached sheets: Section 15063(c)(3)@). a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined fiom the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 9 Rev. 03/28/94 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed project consists of a zone code amendment and local coastal program amendment, the result of which is to allow ‘“incidental outdoor dining areas” (Le., accessory outdoor eating area extensions of limited size to existing or otherwise-approved restaurants) subject to the approval of an administrative permit in areas of the City outside of the Redevelopment Area. These incidental areas will be limited in size and will be exempted fiom parking requirements in some locations/circumstances. It is the intent of this amendment to provide an outdoor eating opportunity for restaurant patrons to enjoy which is not currently available. It is anticipated that these incidental outdoor dining areas will be utilized in place of the currently utilized indoor seating during clement weather. This amendment does not create a new use and does not change the locations in which restaurant uses are currently allowed in any way. The code amendment will revise the wording contained in the City’s Municipal Code in various chapters to allow the proposed incidental use areas with approval of an administrative permit. The amendment will incidental outdoor dining areas up to a maximum of 20% of the number indoor seats or a maximum of 20 seats whichever is more restrictive. Accordingly, a typical incidental outdoor dining area project, when considered individually, would have no environmental impact, and in fact is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301(e)(l) of the California Environmental Quality Act, which allows additions to existing structures (up to 50% of the floor area of the structure or the addition of 2,500 square feet, whichever is less). Additionally, given the fact that this amendment will only apply to areas outside of the Redevelopment Area, and not all restaurants will be able to provide the outdoor area because of other constraints (e.g., inadequate space to accommodate the eating area, or inability to comply with specific design requirements such as Americans with Disabilities Act clearance requirements or other standards), no significant adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated. Therefore, staff has concluded that there will be no impacts resulting fiom this amendment. It should be noted that nothing in this amendment limits the nature or extent of environmental review required for any project which includes an incidental outdoor dining area. Such projects will be subject to the normal environmental review .process and, subsequently, to any mitigation requirements which may be required for such projects. As with any other allowed use, such projects will have to be evaluated on an individual basis for environmental impacts and, if necessary, application of appropriate mitigation measures. 11. ENVIRONMENT- A. Non-Relevant Items .) 1. J.and Use - The proposed code amendment will not conflict with the General Plan or zoning designations or any applicable environmental plans adopted by the City as the incidental outdoor dining areas will, by definition, only be allowed as extensions of existing or approved restaurant uses where such uses are already allowed. For the same reason the amendment will not be incompatible with existing or planned land uses in any area and will not impact agricultural uses or established communities. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 2. Housing - The proposed code amendment will not impact population or' housing in that the amendment will only allow the outdoor dining areas as an extension of existing or approved restaurants. Therefore, they will not induce growth or displace existing housing. 3. - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, no changes in topography resulting in unstable earth conditions, erosion of soils, ground shaking, landslides/mudflows, alteration of deposition patterns, or other geologic problems will occur. Again, the outdoor dining areas will only be allowed as minor extensions of existing or approved restaurants. . 4. Therefore, there will be no impact to water resources. Water - Again, no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment. 5. there will be no impact to air quality. Air 0- - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, 6. code amendment, there will be no impact to transportatiodcirculation. Circ- - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone 7. amendment, there will be no impact to biological resources. BiologiCal Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code 8. zone code amendment, there will be no impact to energy and mineral resources. ources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this 9. there will be no exposure to hazards. Hazards - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, 10. will be no exposure to noise impacts and no exposure to unacceptable levels of noise. Noise - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, there 11. amendment, there will be no impacts to public services. 12. zone code amendment, there will be no impacts to utilities and services systems. Public Services - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code Services Sv- - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this 13. there will be no aesthetic impacts. Aesthetics - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, 14. amendment, there will be no impacts to cultural resources. 15. Recreational - The proposed amendment will not increase the demand for parks or other recreational facilities and will not affect existing recreational opportunities because the proposed amendment will not induce growth in the City and will not reduce the number or amount of areas currently planned for recreational uses. Cultural Resourca - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code 11 Rev. 03/28/96 * .t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NG COMnlISSION RESQLUTION NO. 4483 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND CHAPTERS 20.04,21.26, 21.27,21.28,21.29, 21.30, 21.32, AND 21.34 RELATING TO INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING AREAS ON PROPERTY LOCATED CITYWIDE OUTSIDE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND OUTSIDE OF THE CASE NAME: INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING COMMERCIALMSITOR-SERVING OVERLAY ZONE AREAS II E NO: ZCA 99-01 WHEREAS, the .Planning Director has prepared a proposed Zone Code Amendment pursuant to Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to allow Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas associated with restaurants on private property citywide outside of the Redevelopment Area and outside of the CommerciaVVisitor- Serving Overlay Zone (“the property”); and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council Ordinance, Exhibit “Xn dated, March 17, 1999, and attached hereto INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING AREAS I1 ZCA 99-01; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of March 1999 and on the 21st day of April 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony arid arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Code Amendment; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: * 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission ROVA1, of INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING AREAS I1 (ZCA 99-01), based on the following findings: Findings: 1. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment ZCA 99-01 is consistent with the General Plan in that it does not create a new use not already allowed or anticipated by the General Plan. 2. That the proposed ZCA reflects sound principles of good planning in that it does not change the types of uses already allowed in any zoning district and is, therefore, consistent with the intent of Chapters 21.04, 21.26, 21.27, 21.28; 21.29, 21.30, 21.32, and 21.34 and it continues to require adequate parking for allowed uses. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 21st day of April 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Trigas ABSTAIN: COURTNEY E. &I”; Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. &LZN&LER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4483 -2- , . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit “X” March 17,1999 A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO AMEND TITLE 21, CHAPTERS 21.04,21.26, 21.27, 21.28,21.29,21.30, 21.32, AND 21.34 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING AREAS ON PROPERTY LOCATED CITYWIDE OUTSIDE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND OUTSIDE OF THE CASE NAME: INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING AREAS I1 COMMERCIALMSITOR-SERVING OVERLAY ZONE. NO.: ZCA 99-01 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Title 21, Chapter 21.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.04.188.1 to read as follows: 4.188.1 Incidental Outdoor JIungAm~ .. &< Incidental Outdoor Dining Area” means, everywhere except within the Redevelopment Area Local Coastal Program Segment and except within the CommerciaWisitor-Serving Overlay Zone, a small extension of an indoor restaurant, bona fide eating establishment, or deli which extends outdoors beyond the walls of the restaurant and which is used exclusively for eating, drinking, and pedestrian circulation therein. Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas shall be utilized only as extensions of restaurants providing indoor seating and which are properly licensed for such service. On properties located west of the railroad right-of-way and outside of the Village Redevelopment Area, Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas shall be allowed only where the existing indoor restaurant, bona fide eating establishment, or deli provides on-site parking in compliance with the parking ratios specified in Chapter 21.44 (Parking Ordinance) of the Municipal Code. Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas may be located on private property only (not in the public right-of-way). The maximum number of seats, tables, and square feet allowed in an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area shall be limited to: a maximum of 20% of the number of indoor seats or a maximum of twenty (20) seats, whichever is more restrictive; and, a maximum of six (6) tables; and a maximum of 400 square feet in area. (i) (ii) (iii) Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas may be allowed pursuant to Chapter 21.26 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Any amount of outdoor dining area exceeding the above limitations shall not be considered “incidental” for purposes of this definition.” SECTION 11: That Title 21, Chapter 21. 26 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.26.013 to read as follows: .. .. 21 7.6.013 Incbntal Outdoor Dinlngeas Demitted bv -ve Dem Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas may be approved by administrative permit for restaurants, bona fide eating establishments, and deli’s in the C-1, 0, C-2, C-T, C-M, M, and P-M zones outside bb 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of the Redevelopment Area and outside of the CommerciWisitor-Serving Overlay Zone except on those sites located within the Coastal Zone west of the railroad right-of-way which do not provide parking for their indoor seating on-site in compliance with Chapter 21.44 (Parking Ordinance) of the Municipal Code. The owner of the subject property shall make written application to the Planning Director. Such application shall include all materials deemed necessary by the Director to show that the requirements of Subsection (c) hereof are met. If the site is in the Coastal Zone, the application shall also constitute an application for a Coastal Development Permit. The Director shall give written notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property of pending development decision after the application is complete, at least fifteen calendar days prior to the decision on the application as follows: Contents. The notice shall include all requirements of Section 21.54.061 of this code, including a notice of a public comment period of at least 15 calendar days sufficient to receive and consider comments submitted by mail prior to the date established for the decision. The notice shall also include a statement that a public hearing shall be held upon request by any person and a statement that failure by a person to request a public hearing may result in the loss of that person’s ability to appeal approval of the administrative permit by the Director to the Planning Commission. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the permit. The Director may waive a public hearing on an administrative permit if notice has been provided in accordance with subsection (a)(l) of this section and a request for a public hearing has not been received by the city within 15 calendar days fi-om the date of sending the notice. If a request for a public hearing is received, a public hearing before the Director shall be held in the same manner as a Planning Commission hearing. In either event, the Director’s decision shall be based upon the requirements of, and shall include, specific factual findings supporting whether the project is or is not in conformity with the requirements of Section 21.26.013(c). The Director’s decision 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. If the matter includes a Coastal Development Permit, unless the decision is appealed to the Planning Commission, the Director shall provide a notice of final action in accordance with Sections 2 1.201.160 and 2 1.201.170. Development Standards. All Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas shall comply with the following development standards: (1) All applicable requirements of the State of California Disabled Access Regulations (Title 24). (2) All applicable requirements of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, if alcoholic beverages are served in the outdoor area. (3) Be operated only during the hours of operation of the associated restaurant. (4) Provide adequate circulation to accommodate normal pedestrian traffic and circulation for the outdoor dining area. Pedestrian clearance between tables andor walldfences shall be a minimum 42” wide. (a) (1) (b) (c) (5) Not be located where the Incidental Outdoor Dining Area would: (A) (€3) (C) (D) (E) encroach into the public right-of-way; eliminate any existing parking spaces; interfere with vehicle or pedestrian circulation; remove or reduce existing landscaping (unless equivalent additional present a traffic hazard; or, landscaping is provided elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Planning Director); -2- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (F) be incompatible with outdoor dining, in the opinion of the City Engineer, because of the speed, volume, or nearness of vehicular tl2fliC. (6) When calculating square footage for purposes of determining parking required per Chapter 21.44 of this Code, space used for Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas pursuant to this section shall be excluded.” SECTION III: That Title 21, Chapter 21. 26 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Subsection 2 1.26.02 1 (1) to read as follows: “( 1) All uses shall be conducted wholly within a building except such uses as gasoline stations, electrical transformer substations, nurseries for sale of plants and flowers and other enterprises customarily conducted in the open;” SECTION IV: That Title 21, Chapter 21. 27 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.27.035 to read as follows: 7.035 Incid-1 Outdoor Duaang Areas pmnitted bv adnustrative pe& .. .. 66 Subject to the development standards set forth in section 21.26.013(c) an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area may be approved by administrative permit pursuant to section 21.26.013(a).” SECTION V: That Title 21, Chapter 21. 28 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.28.012 to read as follows: 8.012 Incidental Outdoor Dmng Areas permhd by admwtrative permit. .. .. 66 Subject to the development standards set forth in section 21.26.013(c) an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area may be approved by administrative permit pursuant to section 21.26.013(a).” SECTION VI: That Title 21, Chapter 21. 28 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Subsection 21.28.020( 1) to read‘as follows: “( 1) All uses shall be conducted wholly within a building except such uses as gasoline stations, electrical transformer substations, horticultural nurseries, and other enterprises customarily conducted in the open.” SECTION VII: That Title 21, Chapter 21. 29 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.29.045 to read as follows: .. .. “21.29.045 Subject to the development standards set forth in section 21.26.013(c) an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area may be approved by administrative pennit pursuant to section 21.26.013(a).” Incidental Outdoor Diueas Demitted by admlnlstrative pauL -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 .-- - SECTION VIII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.30.01 5 to read as follows: 0.015 Inc- Outdoor l3lmnp:itted bv admlmstrati - ve Derm It, Outdoor Dining Area may be approved by administrative permit pursuant to section 21.26.013(a).” .. .. Subject to the development standards set forth in section 21.26.013(c) an Incidental SECTION IX: That Title 21, Chapter 21. 30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Subsection 21.30.020(2) to read as follows: “(2) All uses shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, or within an area enclosed on all sides with a solid wall or uniformly painted fence not less than five feet in height, except such uses as gasoline stations, electrical transformer substations, horticultural nurseries, and other enterprises customarily conducted in the open, provided such exclusion shall not include storage yards, contractor’s yards and like uses;” SECTION X: -That Title 21, Chapter 21.32 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.32.015 to read as follows: 2.015 Outdoor Din ma Areas omed bv administrat ive pea .. .. bb Subject to the development standards set forth in section 21.26.013(c) an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area may be approved by administrative permit pursuant to section 21.26.013(a).” SECTION XI: That Title 21, Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.34.035 to read as follows: 4.035 Incidaal Outdoor Dining; Areas dtted by ac€mu&ative permit .. .. bb Subject to the development standards set forth in section 21.26.013(c) an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area may be approved by administrative permit pursuant to section 21.26.013(a).” Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill -4- 8 * 1 2 '3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ill Ill Ill Ill EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be effective within the City's Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.) e INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the day of 1999, and thereafter. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk (SEAL) -5- * * 1’ I i 1 1 i I E s 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - c - t PLANNING COMMISS ION RESOLU TIONNO. 4484 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO FIVE SEGMENTS (EXCLUDING THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA) OF THE ‘ CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM BY AMENDING CHAPTERS 21.04, 21.26, 21.27, 21.28, 21.29, 21.30, 21.32, AND 21.34 RELATING TO INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING AREAS AS THE IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCES FOR CARLSBAD’S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS ON PROPERTY LOCATED CITYWIDE OUTSIDE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA OVERLAY ZONE CASE NAME: CASE NO: LCPA 99-01 WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program, AND OUTSIDE OF THE COMMERCIALNISITOR-SERVING INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING AREAS I1 General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director has filed a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program designations regarding property owned by various owners, “Owner”, described as Citywide outside of the Redevelopment area and outside of the CommerciaWisitor-Serving Overlay Zone. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal Program Amendment dated January 12, 1999, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of March 1999 and on the 21st day of April 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment. WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on February 3, 1999 and ending on March 17, 1999, staff shall present to the City Council a summary of the comments received. C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission COMMENDS APPROVAL of INCIDENTAL, OUTDOOR DINING AREAS 11, LCPA 99-01, according to Exhibit “X” attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4483, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program mendment is consistent with all applicable policies of the Mello I, Mello 11, Agua Hedionda, East BatiquitosEIunt, and West Batiquitos/Sammis segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, in that the proposed amendment is limited in its nature and will not change existing regulations prohibiting or restricting development on sensitive slopes, bluff tops, or agricultural lands, and will not change any requirements for vista pointshiew corridors. 2. That the proposed amendment to the -Me110 I, Mello 11, Agua Hedionda, East BatiquitosEIunt, and West Batiquitos/Sammis segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to maintain consistency between the proposed amendment zone code and the City’s Local Coastal Program. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” PC RES0 NO. 4484 -2- - l... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c c You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. .If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at 'a regular meeting to the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 21st day of April 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L'Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Trigas ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: < Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4484 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I Exhibit “Z” - March 17,1999 REDLINE/STRIKEOUT VERSION OF ZCA 99-01 AND LCPA 99-01 SECTION I: That Title 21, Chapter 21. 04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.04.188 to read as follows: “21.04.188.1 Incidental Outdoor Dininp Areas. Incidental Outdoor Dining Area ” means, everywhere except within the Redevelopment Area Local Coastal Program Segment and except within the CommerciaWisitor-Serving Overlay Zone, a small extension of an indoor restaurant, bona fide eating establishment, or deli which extends outdoors beyond the walls of the restaurant and which is used exclusively for eating, drinking, and pedestrian circulation therein. Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas shall be utilized only as extensions of restaurants providing indoor seating and which are properly licensed for such service. On properties located west of the railroad right-of-way and outside of the Village Redevelopment Area, Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas shall be allowed only where the existing indoor restaurant, bona fide eating establishment, or deli provides on- site parking in compliance with the parking ratios speciJed in Chapter 21.44 (Parking Ordinance) of the Municipal Code. Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas may be located on private property only (not in the public right-of-way). The maximum number of seats, tables, and square feet allowed in an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area shall be limited to: a maximum of 20% of the number of indoor seats or a maximum of twenty (20) seats, whichever is more restrictive; and, a maximum of six (6) tables; and a maximum of 400 square feet in area. (0 (io (iii) Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas may be allowed pursuant to Chapter 21.26 of the Any amount of outdoor dining area exceeding the above Carlsbad Municipal Code. limitations shall not be considered “incidental” for purposes of this definition. ” SECTION 11: That Title 21, Chapter 21. 26 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.26.013 to read as follows: “21.26.013 Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas may be approved by administrative permit for restaurants, boiiafide eating establishments, and deli’s in the C-I, 0, C-2, C-T, C-M, M, and P- M zones outside of the Redevelopment Area and outside of the ComnrerciaWisitor-Serving Overlay Zone, except on those sites located within the Coastal Zone west of the railroad right-of- way which do not provide parking for their indoor seatirig on-site in compliance with Chapter 21.44 (Parking Ordinance) of the Municipal Code. The owner of the subject property shall make written application to the Director. Such application shall include all materials deemed necessary by the Director to show that the requirenrents of Subsection (e) hereof are met. If the sire is in the Coastal Zone, the application shall also constitute an application for a Coastal Development Pernrit. The Director shall give written notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property of pending developmerit decision afler the application is complete, at least fijieen working days prior to the decision on the apptication as follows: Contents. The notice shall inclitde all requirements of Section 21.54.061 of this code, including a iiotice of a public comnieirtperiod of at least 15 working days sufficient to receive mid consider cottrments subniitted by iiiail prior to the date established for the decision. The notice shall also include a statetnent that a public lieuring shall be held upon request by any Incidental Outdoor Difiinp Areas vermitted bv administrative vermit. (a) (1) 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 person and a statement that failure by a person to request a public hearing may result in the loss of that person’s ability to appeal approval of the administrative permit by the Director to the Planning Commission. (b) The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the permit. The Director may waive a public hearing on an administrative permit if notice has been provided in accordance with subsection (a)(]) of this section and a request for a public hearing has not been received by the city within 15 working days from the date of sending the notice. If a request for a public hearing is received, a public hearing before the Director shall be held in the same manner as a Planning Commission hearing. In either event, the Director’s decision shall be ibased upon the requirements oJ and shall include, specific factual findings supporting whether the project is or is not in conformity with the requirements of Section 21.26.013(~). The Director’s decision 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. If the matter includes a Coastal Development Permit, unless the decision is appealed to the Planning Commission, the Director shall provide a notice offinal action in accordance with Sections 21.201.160 and 21.201.1 70. Development Standards. All Incidental Ouidoor Dining Areas shall comply with the following development standards: (1) All applicable requirements of the State of California Disabled Access Regulations (Title 24). (2) All applicable requirements of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, if alcoholic beverages are served in the outdoor area. (3) Be operated only during the hours of operation of the associated restaurant. (4) Provide adequate circulation to accommodate normal pedestrian traffic and circulation for the outdoor dining area. Pedestrian clearance between tables andor walldfences shail be a minimum 42” wide. (c) (5) Not be located where the area would: (A) (B) (C) (0) remove or reduce existing landscaping (unless equivalent (E) (F) encroach into the public right-of-way; eliminate any existing parking spaces; interfere with vehicle or pedestrian circulation; additional landscaping is provided elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Planning Director); present a trafjc hazard; or, be incompatible with outdoor dining, in the opinion of the City Engineer, because of the speed, volume, or nearness of vehicular traffic., When calculating square footage for purposes of determining parking required per Chapter 21.44 of this Code, space used for Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas pursuant to this section shall be Excluded. ” (6) SECTION 111: That Title 2 I, Chapter 2 1.26 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Subsection 21.26.020( 1) to read as follows: “(1) All uses shall be conducted wholly within a building except such uses as gasoline stations, electrical transfomier substations, Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas (as defined in Chapter 21.04), and nurseries for sale of plants and flowers and similar enterprises customarily -2- .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - I - conducted in the open;” SECTION IV: That Title 21, Chapter 21. 27 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 2 1.27.035 to read as follows: “21.2 7.035 Subject to the development standards set forth in section 21.26.013(c) an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area may be approved by administrative permit pursuant to section 21.26.013(a). ” Incidental Outdoor Dininp - Areas permitted bv administrative permit. SECTION V: That Title 21, Chapter 21. 28 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.28.012 to read as follows: “21.28.012 Subject to the development standards set forth in section 21.26.01 3(c) an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area may be approved by administrative permit pursuant to section 21.26.01 3(a). ” Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas uermitted bv administrative permit. SECTION VI: That Title 2 1, Chapter 2 1. 28 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Subsection 2 1.28.020( 1) to read as follows: “( 1) All uses shall be conducted wholly within a building except such uses as gasoline stations, electrical transformer substations, Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas (as defined in Chapter 21.04)’ and horticultural nurseries, and similar enterprises customarily conducted in the open. ” SECTION VII: That Title 21, Chapter 21. 29 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.29.045 to read as follows: “21.29.045 Subject to the development standards set forth in section 21.26.013(c) an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area may be approved by administrative permit pursuant to section 21.26.013(a). ” Incidental Outdoor Dininp Areas permitted bv administrative permit. SECTION VIII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.30.015 to read as follows: “21.30.01 5 Subject to the development standards set forth in section 21.26.013(c) an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area may be approved by adniinistrative permit pursuant to section 21.26.013(a). ” Incidental Outdoor Dininp Areas permitted bv administrative permit. SECTION IX: That Title 21, Chapter 21.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is -3 - r I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 amended by the amendment of Subsection 21.30.020(2) to read as follows: “(2) All uses shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, or within an area enclosed on all sides with a solid wall or uniformly painted fence not less than five feet in height, except such uses as gasoline stations, electrical transformer substations, Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas (as defined in Chapter 21.04), and horticultural nurseries, and similar enterprises customarily conducted in the open, provided such exclusion shall not include storage yards, contractor’s yards and like uses;” SECTION X: That Title 21, Chapter 21.32 of the Carlsbad Munjcipal Code.is amended by the addition of Section 21.32.015 to read as follows: “21.32.01 5 Subject to the development standards set forth in section 21.26.013(c) an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area may be approved by administrative permit pursuant to section 21.26.013(a). ’’ Incidental Outdoor Dininp Areas permitted bv administrative permit. SECTION XI: That Title 21, Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.34.035 to read as follows: “21.34.045 Subject to the development standards set forth in section 21.26.013(c) an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area may be approved by administrative permit pursuant to section 21.26.013(a). Incidental Outdoor Dininp Areas permitted bv administrative permit. -4- - t- PLANNING COMMISSION April 21,1999 EXHIBIT 5 Page 4 1. ZCA 99-0 1lLCPA 99-01 - INClDENTAl~ OUTDOOR DINING AREAS II - Request for approval of a Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and a Local Coastal Program Amendment to modify Chapters 21.04,21.26,21.27,21.28,21.29, 21.30, 21.32, and 21.34 of the Municipal Code to allow Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas associated with restaurants on private property citywide outside of the Redevelopment Area. Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne introduced the item and stated that the Commission's action on this item is not final and will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. Mr. Wayne introduced Senior Planner, Elaine Blackburn. who presented the staff report as follows: This is a request for a Zone Code Amendment and a Local Coastal Program Amendment to create a category called Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas. These will be small, limited size dining areas associated with indoor seating at restaurants arid other food service establishments. A few years ago, City Council requested that staff develop an ordinance that would provide some sort of incentive for restaurant and other eating establishment management to provide some small outdoor -seating areas associated with their restaurants and delicatessens, etc. Staff researched the subject and ultimately recommended something called an Incidental Outdoor Dining Area. It had to be given a special name in order to give it special regulations. Staff then recommended that these areas be a maximum of 400 square feet in size with a maximum of 6 tables. The number of outdoor seats then would be limited to 20% of the number of seats inside the restaurant, up to a maximum of 20 seats. That ordinance was approved and sent to the Coastal Commission. When the ordinance came back from Coastal Commission, the Zone Code Amendment had nearly expired. Council had put a 1 year sunset clause on it to give it a test period. During that period, no applications were received for Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas and consequently it had a very short life. The wording was then re-drafted to adopt the Coastal Commission's recommended modifications which consisted of a very limited amount of exception. The Coastal Commission was very concerned about allowing these Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas in locations west of the Railroad in areas where there is not enough parking, per the City Code, for the indoor eating areas. The ordinance was subsequently revised to include the modified wording. In the meantime, Council has been working on special regulations for the Carlsbad Ranch area, othetwise known as the CommercialNisitor Serving Overlay Zone. The regulations that are being created for that overlay zone actually require more parking. It is a more restrictive parking requirement than might be in place elsewhere. The desire was not to allow these Incidental Outdoor Dining Area permits in that area, because it essentially waives 4 parking spaces. When this Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment were originally approved, also associated with it was a Municipal Code Amendment that changed some of the regulations regarding the water fees and how the water fees for a particular restaurant or food service use were calculated. That change remains in place as it did not expire and does not need to be addressed again. The only remaining benefit from athis Incidental Outdoor Dining Area permit, at this point, is the waiver of approximately 4 parking spaces. This revised ordinance (with the Commission's recommendation for approval) will go forward to City Council and perhaps be re-implemented. Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Blackburn to review the errata sheet dated April 21, 1999. Ms. Blackburn pointed out that the following corrections: 1) The phrase . . . and outside of the CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone . . . has been added to the end of the original title of Resolution No. 4483. 2) The phrase . . . and except on those sites located within the CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone . . . has been added to line 30 of Ordinance No. 21.26.013. 3) The phrase . . . and except on those sites located within the CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone . . . has been added to line 24 of Ordinance No. 21.26.013 on the REDLINE/STRIKEOUT VERSION OF ZCA 99-01 AND LCPA 99-01. fl (- PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1999 Page 5 Referring to Line 1, Page 2, Exhibit X (the old version of the Ordinance No. 21.26.013), Commissioner Welshons asked why the phrase . . and the CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone . . . was not added immediately after . . . of the Redevelopment Area . . . rather than at the end of the ordinance, as it now appears. Ms. Blackbum replied that the exception is that it is outside of the Redevelopment Area. Ms. Blackburn then stated that it is possible that it does not make any difference where the phrase is located and asked Mr. Rudolf for his opinion. At the request of Commissioner Welshons, Chairperson Heineman called a recess at 6:30 p.m. The Commissioner reconvened at 6:32 p.m., with six Commissioners present. Chairperson Heineman stated that Mr. Wayne and Mr. Rudolf had reviewed the language and found that the language is appropriate in either place and is clear about the exception. Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Blackbum to state some of the experiences staff found while researching outdoor dining ordinances in other cities. Ms. Blackburn replied that they had called many cities and asked if they have similar outdoor seating allowances and whether the allowances applied to the entire city or just to their redevelopment areas. In most cases it was found to be just in redevelopment areas. However, there were examples of outdoor dining outside of redevelopment areas. That information formed the basis on which staff based their recommendation for this ordinance. Some of the cities stated that in some cases, they allowed the outdoor areas to get too large and there were parking problems as a result. This information, too, was helpful in crafting Carlsbad's ordinance. Also, they leamed that they had to be careful of the ADA requirements and be sure that there is adequate pedestrian circulation. Commissioner Welshons referred to the design standards in Exhibit X, and asked if there is more detail on what those A.D.A. standards are. Ms. Blackburn replied that what staff wanted to do was to require compliance with whatever was applicable at that time, since those regulations may change over time. Generally, what applied here was enough aisle width for circulation of pedestrians and food servers, etc. The reason the ordinance is worded as it is, is because regulations may change from time to time and it is important to stay current with them. . In terms of counting seating, Commissioner Welshons asked if outdoor bar-type seating, with stools instead of chairs, count as seats. Ms. Blackburn replied that the stools are counted the same as chairs and are included in the maximum number of seats allowed. Chairperson Heineman opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak. Seeing no one wishing to testify, Chairperson Heineman closed Public Testimony. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Compas, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4482, recommending approval of the Negative Declaration and Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4483 and 4484, recommending approval of ZCA 99-01 and LCPA 99-01, based upon the findings contained therein, including errata sheet dated April 21, 1999. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Heineman, Compas, L'Heureux, Segall, Welshons, Nielsen