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