The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-03-19; City Council; 13560; Appellate ProceduresCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL AB# /q, 562 0 TITLE: MTG. 3/19 I96 APPELLATE PROCEDURES - ZCA 9546/LCPA 95-06 DEPT. CA RECOMMENDED ACTION: DEPT. HD. That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. IW-%&APPROVING ZCA 95-06 and ADOPT Resolution No. 96-q& , APPROVING LCPA 9506. Last year the City Council requested staff prepare procedures which would allow individual members of the Council to appeal decisions of the Planning Commission to the full City Council. Just prior to that request, our local state court of appeals rendered its decision in Cohan v. Citv of Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 547. The City Attorney’s office prepared a proposed zone code amendment to respond to the Council’s request while complying with the holding in the Cohan case. The Planning Department presented the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission (see Exhibits 4 and 5) at its meeting of November 15, 1995. The Planning Commission approved (4-2; Noble, Savary) those portions of the proposed ordinance which provided general procedures applicable to decisions of the Planning Director, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission, clarifying that the previously final decisions of those persons or entities were final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision, unless appealed, and clarifying that a member of the City Council (or Housing and Redevelopment Commission) could be an “interested person” for purposes of appealing such a decision. However, the Planning Commission rejected two other proposed portions of the ordinance: 1) Requiring that the written appeal specify the reasons for the appeal; and 2) that the decision of the officer or body be affirmed on appeal unless the appellant carried its burden of proof to show in what manner the lower decision was in error or in violation of the law. The Planning Commission action recommends deletion of the following provision from all applicable sections of the proposed ordinance amendment: The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board, or Planning Director is in error. The decision of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board or Planning Director shall be affirmed by the City Council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board or Planning Director is in error, inconsistent with state law, the General Plan, Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, or any applicable specific plan, master plan, zoning ordinance or policy of the City. As discussed in the Planning Commission Minutes, (see Exhibit 6) the Planning Commission recommended this modification (deletion of wording) to provide the City Council with greater flexibility in processing an appeal. The City Council may choose either to: 1) reinstate the language deleted by the Planning Commission; 2) adopt language that will still require specification of the grounds for the appeal, Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 13, S b 0 but make clear that the hearing is “de nova”; or 3) approve the Planning Commission recommendations. (In a “de nova” hearing, the applicant continues to bear the burden of proof to establish all the requisites necessary for approval, because it is a brand new hearing with no effect given whatsoever to the prior proceedings.) Based on the holding and reasoning of the court in Cohan, this office recommends Option 1. The Cohan case involves rather extreme facts regarding a 15 year attempt by developers to develop their semi-rural 47 acre parcel into a single family residential neighborhood. After many previous denials, the planning commission approved a proposed subdivision map and apparently five other development applications, including two oak tree permits, with the imposition of approximately 500 conditions. Although there was community opposition to the project, no citizen or neighbor appealed the decision, and the city council appealed the decision to itself and overruled the planning commission’s decision. The Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that the council’s appeal to itself was not authorized by the city’s own ordinances or other procedures, and that defect, along with the cumulative effect of other procedural errors, deprived the applicants of due process. The appellate court reversed the trial court decision and ordered the trial court to enter a new order nullifying the council’s appeal to itself. The court stated that its decision did not invalidate all appeals taken by a city council to itself from a decision of the subordinate agency. However the court stated: “We & emphasize, however, that if such a procedure is contemplated, it should be authorized by the ordinances or rules which govern appeals to such entity, and some direction should be given in such ordinances or rules concerning specification of grounds and appropriate burdens of proof.” (Cohan v. Citv of Thousand Oaks, suora, 30 Cal.App.4th at 559). The city argued that the appeal before the city council was a “de nova” hearing in which the council was not bound by the findings of the planning commission and could make its own determination on any relevant testimony or documents produced before it, rendering any statement of grounds for the appeal unnecessary and the placing of the burden of presenting evidence on the appellant meaningless. The appellate court stated: “As applicants, they had a right to know what they needed to prove to satisfy their burden of proof at the hearing on the appeal.” (Cohan v. Citv of Thousand Oaks, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at 557). The court noted that no elected individual council member appealed. The entire council appealed by motion in response to public comments with regard to a matter that was not on the city council’s agenda (a separate Brown Act violation). The court did not resolve the potential issue of disqualification of that individual member, if only an individual member had appealed. OPTION 1 Option 1 would be to reinstate the following language deleted by the Planning Commission modified approval action (4-2; Noble, Savary): Page 3 of Agenda Bill No. \ 3, S 6~ 0 “The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board or Planning Director is in error. The decision of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board or Planning Director shall be affirmed by the City Council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board or Planning Director is in error, inconsistent with state law, the General Plan, Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, or any applicable specific plan, master plan, zoning ordinance or policy of the City.” This office recommends the quoted language in response to the holding in the Cohan case that “some direction” be given in the ordinance authorizing City Council members to appeal planning matters to the City Council “concerning specification of grounds and appropriate burdens of proof.” The City Council already made the decision that the types of decisions that were delegated by ordinance to the Planning Director, Planning Commission and Design Review Board for final decision, subject only to appeal to the City Council, were the types of matters the City Council was comfortable with delegating. All of the municipal code sections proposed to be amended relate to non-legislative decisions (lesser permits), not to major general or specific plan amendments, or large tentative maps. Cloaking the decision of the Planning Director, Planning Commission or Design Review Board with a presumption of correctness and, therefore, requiring the “appellant” to carry the burden of proof as to the manner in which the decision erred, effectuates the statutory presumption that governmental acts have been properly performed by those empowered to do them. The proposed provision also would allow the public hearing on the appeal to focus only on those matters truly in dispute, substantially limiting the amount of testimony, documentation, and, therefore, time required to consider and resolve the matter. OPTION 2 Option 2 would also include the first sentence quoted above, requiring specification of the reasons for the appeal, but add a statement that the appeal matter is heard “de nova” by the City Council, leaving the burden of proof on the original applicant. Accordingly, although the City Council would have to listen to testimony regarding all issues, the specificity requirement would at least highlight for the parties those matters most significantly at issue, and somewhat focus the presentation. That, along with the clarifying language regarding the “de nova” status of the appeal hearing would also be responsive to the holding in the Cohan case. OPTION 3 Option 3 would be to approve the ordinance without the language recommended deleted by the Planning Commission. Although this would result in more flexibility for Council, as desired by the Planning Commission, this office feels it is not responsive to the holding in the Cohan case. It would result in unfocused lengthy appeals, giving no direction to appellants as to their burden of proof. 3 Page 4 of Agenda Btil No. /3,.sL7~ I For the reasons stated above, Option 1 is recommended, and the attached ordinance (see Exhibit 1) embodies that option. (Changes shown in underline/strikeout format on Exhibit A). The action also affects appeals within the Coastal Zone, and so includes a Resolution approving a Local Coastal Program Amendment (Exhibit 3) for all segments of the Coastal Zone. If approved by City Council, it will be processed by the Coastal Commission’s Executive Director as a “De Minimis” amendment. No public comments were received during the public review period. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Planning Director has determined that this project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA because it satisfies the basic rule that there is no possibility that the adoption of this ordinance amendment will cause a significant impact on the environment. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the implementation of this ordinance amendment. The application fee required for filing an appeal to the City Council ($120/single family and @go/other) remains the same, with the clarification that a member of Council can be an appellant. EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance No. A.&‘- 3 SZ (ZCA 95-06) 2. Exhibit “A” 3. City Council Resolution No. 96 - %J 4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3818 and 3819 5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 1 and November 15, 1995 6. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 15, 1995 a- _- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 s: g mwo, yr7 5x0 g 13 OWgj dua $O=jS 14 &1S 9'12% 15 S&$;i g,zi+: 16 p5g a:? p-5 l7 is 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. NS-353 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO APPELLATE PROCEDURES REGARDING PLANNING MATTERS TO ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE APPELLANTS AND TO PROVIDE UNIFORM PROCEDURES REGARDING THE TIME, FORM AND CONTENT OF APPEAL AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF UPON APPEAL. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: That Title 21, Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.06.130 to read as follows: "21.06.130 Effective date of order. The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by an interested person. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be affirmed by the City Council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Commission is in error, inconsistent with state law, the General Plan or any applicable specific plan, master plan, zoning ordinance or policy of the City. The filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the Planning Commission decision until such time as the City Council has acted on the appeal. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council." SECTION II. That Title 21, Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.45.073(a) to read as follows: "21.45.073 Appeal of Planninq Commission decision. (a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day period the applicant, any resident of the subject property, in the case of a proposed conversion of residential real property to a planned 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 - development project, or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be affirmed by the City Council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Commission is in error, inconsistent with state law, the General Plan or any applicable specific plan, master plan, ordinance or policy of the City. zoning The decision of the Planning Director on projects processed in accordance with Section 21.45.140 may be appealed to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the Planning Director within ten calendar days of the decision in the same manner and subject to the same burde-n of proof as appeals to the City Council. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council." SECTION III: That Title 21, Chapter 21.47 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.47.073 to read as follows: "21.47.073 Appeal of Planninq Commission decision. (a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day period applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be affirmed by the City Council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Commission is in error, inconsistent with state law, the General Plan or any applicable specific plan, master plan, zoning ordinance or policy of the City. The decision of the Planning Director on projects processed in accordance with Section 21.47.110 may be appealed to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the Planning Director within ten calendar days of the decision in the same manner and subject to the same burden of proof as appeals to the City Council. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the City 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 Council shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the City Council is final." SECTION IV: That Title 21, Chapter 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.50.100 to read as follows: "21.50.100 Effective date of order for variance or conditional use permit - Time for appeal. The order of the Planning Commission in granting or denying a variance or conditional use permit shall become final and effective ten calendar days after the rendering of its decision granting or denying the variance or conditional use permit unless within such ten-day period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by an interested person. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be affirmed by the City Council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Commission is in error, inconsistent with state law, the General Plan or any applicable specific plan, master plan, zoning ordinance or policy of the City. The filing of such appeal within such time limits shall stay the effective date of the order of the Planning Commission until such time as the City Council has acted on the appeal as hereafter set forth in this title. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council." SECTION V: That Title 21, Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.54.140(b) to read as follows: "21.54.140 Appeal of planning director decisions. (b) Whenever the Planning Director is authorized pursuant to this title to make a decision or determination such decision or determination is final unless the determination or decision is appealed by an interested person to the Planning Commission. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Director is in error. The decision of the Planning Director shall be affirmed by the Planning Commission unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Director is in error, inconsistent with state law, the General Plan or any applicable 3 _a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 g mw-3 yzr; crag 13 a:00 OWg dLt!J SO-j5 14 &gZ 9 *cJ2 15 aiS2 ZWv)(J i?E& 16 ps awg z-5 l7 u 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 specific plan, master plan, 'City. zoning ordinance or policy of the The appeal shall be filed in writing with the secretary of the Planning Commission within ten calendar days after the date of the Planning Director's decision. The Planning Director's decision or determination shall be made in writing. The date of the decision shall be the date the writing containing the decision or determination is mailed or otherwise delivered to the person or persons affected by the decision or determination. The Planning Commission action on an appeal shall be final. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council." SECTION VI: That Title 21, Chapter 21.80 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.80.080(a) to read as follows: "21.80.080 Appeal of Planninq Commission decision. (a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day period the applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be affirmed by the City Council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Commission is in error, inconsistent with state law, the General Plan, the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, or any applicable specific plan, master plan, zoning ordinance or policy of the City. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Council shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the City Council is final." EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the day of t 1996, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of I 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk I 5 * - _- EXHIBIT A h EXHIBIT "A" March 12, 1996 STRIKEOUT/REDLINE VERSION OF CHANGES TO TITLE 21 ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENTS REGARDING APPEALS OF PLANNING MATTERS 8821.06.130 Effective date of order. The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten ~~~~~~~~ days after the adoption of the resolution w ### decision un::~~~~~~~hin,,such ten-day period an appeal in writing ;:::::::::::::::::::::::::f:i::::x’::::::.:...:.:.....:.:.:.:.:.:.~::.:.:.:... ste of the Planning Commission de&ion until suchtime as the City Council has acted on the appeal. i..................... . . . . . . . . . .._.. . . . . .._.. .._.. .._.. .._\ . . . . .A*(' -..,:)r..?r~~~~~~~..~~..~~ .v.. . . . . . . . . . :,,, :::,::::,:.:::,:::: ...........::::... . . . . . . . ~,:,~):,~,'...",.,c' i',.,",.,'.',',",',...,.,..~,~ .2:rr.r." ,..'."":.~,:,:'.:.~.~.:,~............................................................................~.~.~........... ~aj~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a~~~~~~l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~2~~~~~~~~~~~:~~::~~::~~:~~~~::::~~::.:.:.:.:::.:::.~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~:.:.:.:::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::.:.:.:r.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: . . . . . :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~:.:.:.~:~.:,::~~:::,~:::,::::::::::::~:::~:::~:::::::::::::::~:::~:::::::::::::~:::~:::~:::~ :.: .,.,.,.,.,.,. :.:.:., _.,.i,._.,.ii,_ :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:,:,:.:. conversion of residential real property to a planned development project, or any other interested person w zctxn cf . . . ?%i-l+zsE==: c-z ts t!ic c:t-f c- may be app;?aled to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the Plannina Director within ten calendar davs of the decision 8% ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :,:,~,>;.>ipiy .,.,..... __ ___... . . . . . . . . . . . ,_, ,(, F . . . . . . . . . ..I........................... :.:.~.;.;‘.: . . . . . ~:.:-:-:(-..~..~:-:;.:~~~:,~~,~,~~~,~~~. :.:.:‘~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _.._ :.:.:.:.:.:.~~:.~~~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~:.:.:.~~...:.~:.:~:.:.:.:.:.:.~:.:.:~:.:.~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: . . ..i......_...i_.......... ~:.:~,i~~..:~:~.::~~~:::~:~~::~:~~~:~~~~~~~~~::~:~:,::.~::~..~~~~~~:..~~~~~ l '.'.'.'....'.'.'.'.'......, . . . . . . . ,.A.. _._. Fees for filing an appeal under this seclxon 'shall be established by resolution of the City Council. Section 21.M by resolution of the-City Council. Acg "f3jgczl . to the city Cwil ekll bc filzd4c?k the Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the City Council is final." "21.50.100 Effective date of order for variance or conditional use permit - Time for appeal. The order of the Planning Commission in granting or denying a variance or conditional use permit shall become final and effective ten calendar days after the rendering of its decision granting or denying the variance or conditional use permit unless of the order of the Planning Commission until such time as the City Council has acted on the appeal as hereafter set forth in this title. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council." 2 "21.54.140 Appeal of planninq director decisions. (b) Whenever the Planning Director is authorized pursuant to this title to make a decision or determination such decision or determination is final unless the determination or decision is appealed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,_,,, ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,_,,_,_ Commission. .* . . . . . . . . '-, .,.,. ,( : : ,: :, i........ :.:::::$i~~~~~~~~~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i:,:~:::;i:~:::::;':::::.:.:.:.~.:.~~ . . . . :_j _... >:;.;.;.;. ~~~~,:,.,,:.l;,;:k~~~~:~~:~~::~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,.;(.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.: .,...,.,",'..~.);, i .,.,.ii,.ii,. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ::::::.:.:.:.:.:::::::~:::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .,....""........................,,~..,...,~....,.. ~ :,:,,,,,,, ,,_,,_,_ ::::::::..:::...,.,...,... .,....,., . ..i....... ~~~~rr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :::' (.,.,.,. :.) ..,. :.*:.:.:.:.:.$.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.:+:.:+:.. '.:+:.:.... i.. i... :.:.:.:.:.:.:.......:.. .i... .,.,../., )',_(,.,.,.,.,._.,.,.,.,. .,.,., ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,:,.. . . . . . . . . . . . ..(.....(.(_ :.,.:.,.:. ............. ..n........ _.... L":.~,:.~,.,'.~,.'.',.,'.'.'...'.......:.~.;,.~.):.~. * :...:. ~.):,:.':.:.':.~.: .:.:.: .:.:. '...."'.""'.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~ \'.'-'.'.Yi.'.".:.:.:.~:.:.'.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~ _..:.:.:.:.. ..: :__ :.:_,:. .:.,.'A:;:.: . . . . . . . . . . . ,.,,,, .:.,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...'.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~~~::: f,,,.i:f.:, ~ :.:..,......:.. . . . . . . . . . . ..'.'..............~.~.~.~.~ :::::j::::j::::.'.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:~::::::::. :.:.:. :.:.:.: :::::i:::::~::::::".:.,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::.:::::::::...:.: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .:f:: :,, :_: :::::: :.: :: ._.......,.,.. :,:+ :,'.'..,'.',',',',.,...,...,.,. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ : : : : :,:.;,:,: : :,: : :&.,; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i................. . . . . . .L...,.,. :.,.:.:i.f:t.;.:i.;.:.~.;.;.~.~.;.~ . . . . . . . . . . . .._...................................... :.:,::.:,:,:.. r;i.;.;(.;.:.:.~, i..,.....,.,.....,L.,. ,.,. .,.,.,.,.,._ ;.:.:.;.: ..,_ ~.:.~.~.:.~.~.:.~.~.~ . . . . . ~~~.~,;,;,;,~;,;,;,~,~,, (,,,,. ;,..;.;,~.):.:.;.:.:.)L:. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The appeal .,i :~~~F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Commission within ten calendar days after the date of the Planning Director's decision. The Planning Director's decision or determination shall be made in writing. The date of the decision shall be the date the writing containing the decision or determination is mailed or otherwise delivered to the person or persons affected by the decision or determination. The Planning Commission action on an appeal shall be final. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council." 1'21.80.080 Appeal of Planning Commission decision. C-%Lrrm Upon the filing of an appeal I the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the City Council is final." -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 g mwo, yr7 pl 13 3uam $044 14 c JZ "='g s au 15 Ii;? 0 g$&, p$ 16 as2 c-a 17 u o 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 96-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO ALLOW INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL OTHERWISE APPEALABLE PLANNING MATTERS IN ALL OF THE CITY'S SIX LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SEGMENTS. CASE NAME: APPELLATE PROCEDURES CASE NO: LCPA 95-06 WHEREAS, California state law requires that the Local Coastal Program, General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and WHEREAS, the City filed a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program, as shown on the proposed Ordinance dated March 12, 1996, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal Program Amendment, as provided in Public Resources Code section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said proposed ordinance/LCPA at its meeting of November 15, 1995 and recommended modified approval, deleting certain language related to specificity and burden of proof upon appeal; and ~ WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 12th day of March I 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing as _- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 g mwo, yr-7 %f4g 13 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 prescribed by law to consider the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and WHEREAS, Council prefers to reinstate the language deleted by the Planning Commission, thereby requiring that appellants specify the grounds for appeal and that appeals narrowly consider only those specified grounds, with appellants carrying the burden of proof as to those matters; and WHEREAS, state Coastal Guidelines require a six week public review period for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That at the end of the state mandated six week review period, starting September 7, 1995, and ending on October 29, 1995, no public comments were received. 3. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Council APPROVES LCPA 95-06, as shown on the ordinance dated March 12 , 1996, attached hereto and made a part hereof based on the following findings: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is in compliance with the requirements of due process and is consistent with the respective land use plans and the principles of good 2 -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 planning and public necessity, convenience and the public welfare. 2. The proposed amendment would be consistent with applicable Local Coastal Program standards, policies and provisions and will have no effect on coastal resources. 3. The proposed amendment is required to maintain consistency between the Zoning Code and the Local Coastal Program. 4. The Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA because it satisfies the basic rule that there is no possibility that adoption of this amendmentwillcause as significant impact on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 19th day of MARCH 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City C$erk (SE=) J , ,4 TTY’, i * r I3 ..- 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 ORDINANCE NO. NS-357 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO APPELLATE PROCEDURES REGARDING PLANNING MATTERS TO ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE APPELLANTS AND TO PROVIDE UNIFORM PROCEDURES REGARDING THE TIME, FORM AND CONTENT OF APPEAL AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF UPON APPEAL. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: That Title 21, Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.06.130 to read as follows: "21.06.130 Effective date of order. The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by an interested person. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be affirmed by the City Council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Commission is in error, inconsistent with state law, the General Plan or any applicable specific plan, master plan, zoning ordinance or policy of the City. The filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the Planning Commission decision until such time as the City Council has acted on the appeal. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council." SECTION II. That Title 21, Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.45.073(a) to read as follows: "21.45.073 Appeal of Planninq Commission decision. (a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day period the applicant, any resident of the subject property, in the case of a proposed conversion of! residential real property to a planned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 development project, or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be affirmed by the City Council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Commission is in error, inconsistent with state law, the General Plan or any applicable specific plan, ordinance or policy of the City. master plan, zoning Director The decision of the Planning on projects processed in accordance with Section 21.45.140 may be appealed to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the Planning Director within ten calendar days of the decision in the same manner and subject to the same burden of proof as appeals to the City Council. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council." SECTION III: That Title 21, Chapter 21.47 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.47.073 to read as follows: "21.47.073 Appeal of Planninq Commission decision. (a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day period applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be affirmed by the City Council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Commission is in error, inconsistent with state law, the General Plan or any applicable specific plan, master plan, zoning ordinance or policy of the City. The decision of the Planning Director on projects processed in accordance with Section 21.47.110 may be appealed to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the Planning Director within ten calendar days of the decision in the same manner and subject to the same burden of proof as appeals to the City Council. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the City 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 Council shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the City Council is final." SECTION IV: That Title 21, Chapter 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.50.100 to read as follows: "21.50.100 Effective date of order for variance or conditional use permit - Time for appeal. The order of the Planning Commission in granting or denying a variance or conditional use permit shall become final and effective ten calendar days after the rendering of its decision granting or denying the variance or conditional use permit unless within such ten-day period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by an interested person. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be affirmed by the City Council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Commission is in error, inconsistent with state law, the General Plan or any applicable specific plan, master plan, zoning ordinance or policy of the City. The filing of such appeal within such time limits shall stay the effective date of the order of the Planning Commission until such time as the City Council has acted on the appeal as hereafter set forth in this title. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council." SECTION V: That Title 21, Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.54.140(b) to read as follows: "21.54.140 Appeal of planning director decisions. lb) Whenever the Planning Director is authorized pursuant to this title to make a decision or determination such decision or determination is final unless the determination or decision is appealed by an interested person to the Planning Commission. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Director is in error. The decision of the Planning Director shall be affirmed by the Planning Commission unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Director is in error, inconsistent with state law, the General Plan or any applicable 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 specific plan, master plan, City. zoning ordinance or policy of the The appeal shall be filed in writing with the secretary of the Planning Commission within ten calendar days after the date of the Planning Director's decision. The Planning Director's decision or determination shall be made in writing. The date of the decision shall be the date the writing containing the decision or determination is mailed or otherwise delivered to the person or persons affected by the decision or determination. shall be final. The Planning Commission action on an appeal Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council." SECTION VI: That Title 21, Chapter 21.80 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.80.080(a) to read as follows: "21.80.080 Appeal of Planninq Commission decision. (a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day period the applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be affirmed by the City Council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Commission is in error, inconsistent with state law, the General Plan, the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, or any applicable specific plan, master plan, zoning ordinance or policy of the City. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . * I . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 E mwa 1?1-; crag 13 s:a 5LLam $045 14 F-JZ L+pg 2 -95 15 I&$$ 8z&- 05s 16 L a:; c-2 l7 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Council sha of the City 11 render its decision on the appeal. The decision Council is final." EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the and thereafter day of , 1996, .,: PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 1996, by the following vote, to wit: day of , AYES: NOES: ABSENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk 5 _ - 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 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3818 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIN G COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, TO ALLOW INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL OTHERWISE APPEALABLE PLANN-IN G MATTERS. CASE NAME: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO: ZCA 95-06 WHEREAS, the City Council has requested staff present proposed procedures to allow individual members of the City Council to initiate the appeal of decisions of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board, or Planning Director which are otherwise subject to appeal to the City Council by members of the public and/or the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Fourth District Court of Appeal decision in Cohan v. Citv of Thousand Oaks imposes due process restrictions on such types of appeals; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared proposed revisions to accomplish the City Council’s goal consistent with the due process limitations of said decision; and WHEREAS, such proposed changes take the form of a zone code amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of November, 1995, and on the 15th day of November, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said matter; and 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 Zone Code Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 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 Commission recommends APPROVAL of Zone Code Amendment, ZCA 95-06, according to Exhibit(s) “X’ , dated November 1,1995, attached hereto and made a part hereoc based on the following findings: 1. The proposed Zone Code Amendment is in compliance with the requirements of due process and is consistent with the principles of good planning, public necessity, convenience and the public welfare. 2. The Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA because it satisfies the basic rule that there is no possibility that adoption of this ordinance amendment will cause a significant impact on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of November, 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin and Monroy NOES: Commissioners Noble and Savary ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen ABSTAINz None mf olrELs~0~S, Chairperson CAIUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATIESI? MICHAEL J-0-R Planning Director PC RESO NO. 3818 -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 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING VARIOUS SECIIONS OF TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO APPELLATE PROCEDURES REGARDING PLANNING MATTERS TO ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE APPELLANTS AND TO PROVIDE UNIFORM PROCEDURES REGARDING THE TIME, FORM AND CONTENT OF APPEAL AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF UPON APPEAL. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Title 21, Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.06.130 to read as follows: “21.06.130 Effective date of order. The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by an interested person. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the Planning Commission decision until such time as the City Council has acted on the appeal. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council.” SECTION II: That Title 21, Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.35110 to read as follows: “21.35.110 Appeal to housing and redevelopment commission. The action of the Design Review Board is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless an interested person appeals a design review board decision on a minor project or denial of any other project by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk within such ten-day period. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the Design Review Board decision until such time as the City Council has acted on the appeal. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the ^ City Council.” SECTION III: That Title 21, Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.45.073(a) to read as follows: “21.45.073 Appeal of planning commission decision. (a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day - - - 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 period the applicant, any resident of the subject property, in the case of a proposed conversion of residential real property to a planned development project, or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested party. The decision of the Planning Director on projects processed in accordance with Section 21.45.140 may be appealed to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the Planning Director within ten calendar days of the decision in the same manner and subject to the same burden of proof as appeals to the City Council. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council.” SECTION IV: That Title 21, Chapter 21.47 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.47.073(a) to read as follows: “21.47.073 Apneal of planning commission decision. (a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day period the applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested party. The decision of the Planning Director on projects processed in accordance with Section 21.47.110 may be appealed to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the Planning Director within ten calendar days of the decision in the same manner and subject to the same burden of proof as appeals to the City Council. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the City Council is final.” SECTION V: That Title 21, Chapter 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.50.100 to read as follows: “21.50.100 Effective date of order for variance or conditional use nermit - Time for anpeal. The order of the Planning Commission in granting or denying a variance or conditional use permit shall become final and effective ten calendar days after the rendering of its decision granting or denying the variance or conditional use permit unless within such ten-day period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by an interested person. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The filing of such appeal within such time limits shall stay the effective date of the order of the Planning Commission until such time as the City Council has acted on the appeal as hereafter set forth in this title. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council.” ///I 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 /- SECTION VI: That Title 21, Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.54.140(b) to read as follows: “21.54.140 Anneal of Planning director decisions. (b) Whenever the Planning Director is authorized pursuant to this title to make a decision or determination such decision or determination is final unless the determination or decision is appealed by an interested party to the Planning Commission. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested party. The appeal shall be filed in writing with the secretary of the Planning Commission within ten calendar days after the date of the Planning Director’s decision. The Planning Director’s decision or determination shall be made in writing. The date of the decision shall be the date the writing containing the decision or determination is mailed or otherwise delivered to the person or persons affected by the decision or determination. The Planning Commission action on an appeal shall be final. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council.” SECTION VII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.80 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.80.080(a) to read as follows: “21.80.080 Anpeal of manning commission decision. (a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day period the applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested party. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the City Council is final.” SECTION VIII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.81 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of sections 21.81.080(a) and 21.81.080(e) to read as follows: “21.81.06 Anneal of Carlsbad design review board decision. (a) The action of the Design Review Board is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless the applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An iudividual member of the City Council can be an interested party. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten calendar days following the conclusion of the hearing, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is final. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council.” 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 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Sections VII and VIII also constitute amendments to Local Coastal Programs, and shall become effective when approved by the Coastal Commission or its Executive Director as Local Coastal Program Amendments. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the day of , 1995, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the - day of - 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor A ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk 4 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLU’IION NO. 3819 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIN G COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO ALLOW INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL OTHERWISE APPEALABLE PLANNIN G MATTERS IN ALL OF THE CITY’S SIX LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SEGMENTS. CASE NAME: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE No: LCPA 95-06 WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program, as shown on Exhibit “X,” dated November 1, 1995, attached and incorporated herein, has been filed with the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal Program amendment 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 (California Coastai Commission Administrative Regulations); and WHEREAS, it is generally desirable that administrative appellate procedures in the Local Coastal Program and Zone Code provisions for properties in the coastal zone be in conformance with such procedures outside the coastal zone, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of November, 1995, and on the 15th day of wovember, 1995, hold a duly notice public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment shown on Exhibit “X, dated November 1,1995, attached hereto, and; 1 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. . . . . 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 WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program. NOW- THEREFORE, BE lT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carl&ad, as follows: f-9 B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on September 7, 1995, and ending on October 29, 1995. No public comments had been received. c) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of Local Coastal Program Amendment, LCPA %- 06, as shown on Exhibit 7C,” dated November 1, 1995, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Flndln~s 1. 2. 3. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is in compliance with the requirements of due process and is consistent with the respective land use plans and the principles of good planning and public necessity, convenience and the public welfare. The proposed amendment would be consistent with applicable Local Coastal Program standards, policies and provisions and will have no effect on coastal resources. The proposed amendment is required to maintain consistency between the Zoning Code and the Local Coastal Program. The Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA because it satisfies the basic rule that there Is no possibility that adoptron of this ordinance amendment will cause a significant impact on the environmental. PC RESO NO. 3819 -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 A PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the PlaMingCo mmission of the City 6f Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of November, 1995, by the foanving vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Envin and Monroy NOES: Commissioners Noble and Savary ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen ABSTAINz None rubi wEI.~HCINS, Chairperson CARLSBADPLANNlN G COMMISSION ATTEST Planning Director PC RFSO NO. 3819 -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 NOVEMBER 1, t995 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO APPELLATE PROCEDURES REGARDING PLANNING MATTERS TO ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE APPELLANTS AND TO PROVIDE UNIFORM PROCEDURES REGARDING THE TIME, FORM AND CONTENT OF APPEAL AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF UPON APPEAL. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Title 21, Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.06.130 to read as follows: “21.06.130 Effective date of order. The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by an interested person. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the Planning Commission decision until such time as the City Council has acted on the appeal. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council.” SECTION II: That Title 21, Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.35.110 to read as follows: “21.35.110 Appeal to housing and redevelonment commission. The action of the Design Review Board is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless an interested person appeals a design review board decision on a minor project or denial of any other project by’ filing a written appeal with the City Clerk within such ten-day period. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the Design Review Board decision until such time as the City Council has acted on the appeal. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council.” .- ^ SECTION III: That Title 21, Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.45.073(a) to read as follows: “21.45.073 Anneal of nlanninp commission decision. (a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day v 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 period the applicant, any resident of the subject property, in the case of a proposed conversion of residential real property to a planned development project, or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested party. The decision of the Planning Director on projects processed in accordance with Section 21.45.140 may be appealed to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the Planning Director within ten calendar days of the decision in the same manner and subject to the same burden of proof as appeals to the City Council. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council.” SECTION IV: That Title 21, Chapter 21.47 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.47.073(a) to read as follows: “21.47.073 Anneal of nlanning commission decision. (a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day period the applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. Au individual member of the City Council can be an interested party. The decision of the Planning Director on projects processed in accordance with Section 21.47.110 may be appealed to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the Planning Director within ten calendar days of the decision in the same manner and subject to the same burden of proof as appeals to the City Council. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the City Council is final.” SECTION V: That Title 21, Chapter 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.50.100 to read as follows: “21.50.100 Effective date of order for variance or conditional use permit - Time for anneal. The order of the Planning Commission in granting or denying a variance or conditional use permit shall become final and effective ten calendar days after the rendering of its decision granting or denying the variance or conditional use permit unless within such ten-day period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by an interested person. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The filing of such appeal within such time limits shall stay the effective date of the order of the Planning Commission until such time as the City Council has acted on the appeal as hereafter set forth in this title. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council.” /II/ 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 SECTION VI: That Title 21, Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.54.140(b) to read as follows: “21.54.140 Anneal of nlannine director decisions. (b) Whenever the Planning Director is authorized pursuant to this title to make a decision or determination such decision or determination is final unless the determination or decision is appealed by an interested party to the Planning Commission. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested party. The appeal shall be filed in writing with the secretary of the Planning Commission within ten calendar days after the date of the Planning Director’s decision. The Planning Director’s decision or determination shall be made in writing. The date of the decision shall be the date the writing containing the decision or determination is mailed or otherwise delivered to the person or persons affected by the decision or determination. The Planning Commission action on an appeal shall be final. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council.” SECTION VII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.80 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.80.080(a) to read as follows: “21.80.080 Anneal of planning commission decision. (a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day period the applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested party. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the City Council is final.” SECTION VIII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.81 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of sections 21.81.080(a) and 21.81.080(e) to read as follows: “21.81.080 Anueal of Carlsbad desien review board decision. (a) The action of the Design Review Board is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless the applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested party. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten calendar days following the conclusion of the hearing, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is final. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council.” 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 - EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Sections VII and VIII also constitute amendments to Local Coastal Programs, and shall become effective when approved by the Coastal Commission or its Executive Director as Local Coastal Program Amendments. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the day of , 1995, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the -day of- 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: ._ 1 ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk 30 - h EXHIBIT 5 ' 3 0 November 15, 1995 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: ZCA 95=06/LCPA 95-06 - APPELLATE PROCEDURES - A Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to allow individual members of the City Council to appeal otherwise appealable planning matters to the full Council, requiring specificity with regard to the reasons for the appeal, and providing for the burden of proof upon such appeal. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3818 and 3819, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of ZCA 95-06 and LCPA 96-06 based on the findings contained therein. II. EXPLANATION On November 1,1995, the Planning Commission continued the project to November 15, 1995, due to the lateness of the hour. AITACHMENTS 1, Planning Commission Resolution No. 3818 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3819 ‘3. Staff Report dated November 1, 1995, with attachments. P.C. AGENDA OF: NOVEMBER 1, 1995 SUBJECT: ZCA 9%06/LCPA 95-06 - APPELLATE PROCEDURES - A Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to allow individual members of the City Council to appeal otherwise appealable planning matters to the full Council, requiring specificity with regard to the reasons for the appeal, and providing for the burden of proof upon such appeal. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3818 and 3819, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of ZCA 95-06 and LCPA 96-06 based on the findings contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The City Council has requested that staff prepare procedures which would allow a member of the Council to appeal decisions of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board, or Planning Director that are currently subject to appeal apparently only by the applicant or members of the public. Staff has prepared amendments consistent with recent court decisions that would accomplish the Council’s request. Additionally, staff has taken the opportunity to propose amendments to the code relating to appeals in general to avoid matters which have been found defective by the courts. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The recent Court of Appeal decision in Cohan v. Citv of Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 457 (as modified on denial of rehearing 12/21/94 1994 Cal.Lexis 1300) held that certain aspects of appeals of planning matters by a City Council to itself resulted in a deprivation of due process to the applicant for the underlying discretionary approval. The proposed ordinance remedies all the items in the Carlsbad Municipal Code relating to appeals found defective by the court. It allows individual members of the. Council, but not the full Council, to appeal planning matters to the full Council by following the same appeal procedures required of other appellants. It adds similar provisions regarding Planning Director and Design Review Board decisions. ZCA 95-06/LCPA 95-h - APPELLATE PROCEDURES NOVEMBER 1, 1995 PAGE 2 The proposed amendment adds a new requirement that the written appeal include the stated reasons for the appeal, so as to provide a focus for the decisionmakers’ consideration of the appeal and the presentation of evidence by the applicant., the appellant, and the general public. It also newly assigns the burden of proof to the appellant with regard to the presentation of evidence dete rmining whether or not the decision of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board or Planning Director will be sustained or overruled by the administrative appellate body upon appeal. The changes are shown on the attached Exhibit “A” in redline/strikeout format for your information. The City’s Zoning Ordinance also functions as the implementing zoning for Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). Accordingly, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is being processed to ensure consistency between the proposed amended zone code and the City’s LCP. The ordinance provides that those sections of the amended ordinance applicable to the Coastal Zone (i.e., Section 21.80.080 and 21.81.080) will not become effective until approved by the Coastal Commission. Iv. ANALYSIS The proposed zone code amendment/local coastal program amendment is in compliance with the requirements of due process and is consistent with the principles of good planning, public necessity, convenience, and the public welfare by providing clarity to the appellate process where matters are appealable to the City Council or Planning Commission following otherwise final action by the Planning Commission, Design Review Board, or Planning Director. The proposed amendment would also be consistent with applicable Local Coastal Program standards, policies and provisions and will have no effect on coastal resources. Therefore, staff recommends approval of ZCA 95-06 and LCPA 95-06 based on the findings contained in the attached resolutions. The proposed ordinance changes are shown in redline/strikeout format as an attachment to Planning Commission Resolution No. 3819. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This action is exempt from environmental review under CEQA in that the Planning Director has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. 1 A’ITACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3818 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3819 3. Notice of Exemption dated September 18, 1995 4. Exhibit “A”. g:ber 23.1995 33 - h - _ Notice of Exemption - . To: x, County Clerk From: City of Carlsbad County of San Diego Planning Department Attn: Mail Drop C-11 2075 Las Palmas Dr. 220 West Broadway Carlsbad, CA 92009 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 438-1161 Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemntion is in comnliance with Section 21152b of the Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act). Project Title Annellate Procedures ZCA 95-06/LCPA 95-06 Project Location - Specific C&wide Project Location - City: Carlsbad Project Location - County San Dleeo Description of Project: A Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to allow individual members of the Citv Council to anneal otherwise annealable nlanninp matters to the full Council, reauirine snecificitv with regard to the reasons for the anneal, and uroviding for the burden of nroof unon such aDDeal. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Carlsbad Name of Person or Agency Carrying out Project: City of Carlsbad Exempt Status: (Check one) - Ministerial (Sec. 21080@)(l); 15268); Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269@)(c)); Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Is Statutory Exemptions. State code number: “General Rule” Exemntion Reasons why project is exempt: There is no nossibilitv that the adontion of this ordinance amendment will cause a significant imnact on the environment. Lead Agency Contact Person: D. Richard Rudolf Area Code/Telephone/: (619) 434-2991 x2945 If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the i;roject? ’ _ Yes _ No , . Signature: Ih” Date: MICHAEL JxOLZ&LER Title: Planning Director 411 B,k/q r q Signed by Lead Agency q Signed by Applicant RRcDh RW October 1989 w EXHIBIT 6 PLANNING COMMISSION November 151995 PAGE 3 - - 3) ZCA 9546/LCPA 95-06 - APPELLATE PROCEDURES - A Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to allow individual members of the City Council to appeal otherwise appealable planning matters to the full Council, requiring specificity with regard to the reasons for the appeal, and providing for the burden of proof upon such appeal. _. Chairperson Welshons advised the public that if the Planning Commission recommends approval, the application will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the City Council has requested staff to prepare procedures which would allow individual members of the Council to appeal decisions of the Planning Commission that are currently subject to appeal only by the applicant or MINUTES 3fi - - PLANNING COMMISSION November 15,1995 PAGE 4 - c members of the public. Staff has prepared amendments consistent with recent court decisions that would accomplish the Council’s request. Additionally, staff has taken the opportunity to propose amendments to the code relating to appeals from the Design Review Board or Planning Director, as well as in general, to avoid matters which have been found defective by the courts. Mr. Rudolf reviewed the recent Court of Appeals decision in Cohan v. Citv of Thousand Oaks (1994) and explained the basis for the lawsuit. Although it is generally felt that the same situation could not occur in Carlsbad, he believes the procedural changes being recommended would be in the best interest of the City to guarantee against that albeit remote possibility. A Local Coastal Program Amendment is being processed to ensure consistency between the proposed amended zone code and all of the City’s LCP segments. Chairperson Welshons inquired if the changes to Exhibit “X” have been incorporated into the document being presented for approval. Mr. Rudolf replied that the changes have been incorporated. There are no additional changes. Commissioner Savary inquired if a City Council member were to make an appeal to the full Council, would they be able to vote on it. Mr. Rudolf replied that it would be handled on a case-by-case basis. Council member personal involvement in the case could be considered bias, but merely appealing to have the matter reviewed by the full Council might not. Chairperson Welshons stated that if the appellant must provide the burden of proof, it seems that the Council member would automatically be involved. Mr. Rudolf replied that the Council member making the appeal might only be doing so to as a “place holder.” Chairperson Welshons inquired if someone could circumvent paying fees by going through a Council member. Mr. Rudolf replied that the City Council member would be required to pay the fee. It would then be turned over to someone else to make the presentation. Commissioner Erwin read the addition to the ordinance which states that “The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be affirmed by the City Council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Commission is in error...“. He is very concerned that this would limit the City Council from having latitude in a matter. He recalled the problems which came up about the proposed U. S. Cellular antennae at Chase Field. Staff recommended it. The Planning Commission approved it. The Mayor pulled it. When it went to the City Council, it was denied. The way he reads this new verbiage, the City Council would not have the latitude to do that. Mr. Rudolf replied that frequently items come to the Commission which may be passed with a 4-3 vote. Reasonable people have differences of opinion. The City Council could see the matter differently than the Planning Commission did. The Council could legitimately conclude there was an “error” sufficient to reach a different conclusion. Commissioner Erwin is concerned*that this amendment might be tying the hands of the City Council. The Planning Commission looks at the technical side of an issue and whether or not it complies with the regulations. The City Council must deal with the human side of an issue and the Chase Field event is a good example. He likes the idea that a Council member can appeal an issue but he is worried about tying their hands with such detailed wording. Chairperson Welshons opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Kathleen Wellman, 4212 Isle Drive, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and inquired about the current and proposed methods for City Council decisions. Mr. Rudolf confirmed her assumptions. Ms. Wellman stated that she is a probate attorney so this is an area new to her. However, from what she has heard tonight, she believes the proposed method will be more clear as it relates to burden of proof. She stated MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION November 15,1995 PAGE 5 that she would be interested in knowing whether or not there have been cases filed other than Thousand Oaks. Mr. Rudolf replied that have been some older decisions concerning City Council bias, but Thousand Oaks is the only one he is aware of which relates to the appeal process. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairperson Welshons declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Erwin is concerned that we will be tying the hands of the City Council, although he does like the language which gives a Council member the ability to file an appeal. Chairperson Welshons asked Commissioner Erwin to state which language he is opposed to. Commissioner Erwin replied that is opposed to the language in Exhibit “X” which was added to each section. It starts on Line 14 and reads, “The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be affirmed by the City Council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Planning Commission is in error, inconsistent with state law, the Genera/ Plan or any applicable specific plan, master plan, zoning ordinance or policy of the City. n This language appears in each section and he would like it deleted in each section. Chairperson Welshons stated that in Section 21.35.110 it refers to the Design Review Board, etc. Commissioner Erwin stated yes. Chairperson Welshons stated that this language states that the Council will affirm the decision unless the appellant produces a preponderance of evidence that the Planning Commission (or other body) made errors or their decision was inconsistent with state law, etc. Commissioner Erwin stated yes. He feels that this language which was added is too restrictive and ties the hands of Council. Commissioner Compas inquired if he would like the language deleted with nothing to replace it. Commissioner Erwin replied yes. The only thing which would be added would be to allow Council members to initiate an appeal and pay filing fees. Commissioner Monroy stated that we need to keep the appeal process simple. He has a problem with making it too difficult. Commissioner Noble has no problem with the wording proposed by staff. It does not deny anyone the right to appeal. Commissioner Erwin replied that the appeal can be filed but it does not allow the City Council to do anything about it. He stated that the Chase Field antenna was a political decision. Mr. Rudolf commented that the Commission is free to decide either way. The new provision does two things. There could be one or 25 reasons for an appeal. This change would focus on the reason for the appeal and would guide the Council’s consideration and help prevent an arbitrary decision. There have been cases imposing personal civil rights liability on Councilmembers for arbiiary decisions. This provision could prevent someone from ending up with a huge personal judgment against them. Chairperson Welshons agrees with focusing on one condition for an appeal. She tends to like the wording which Commissioner Erwin wants removed. Commissioner Erwin commented that the City Council can always override our decision and put this terminology back in. His main wncern is to allow the City Council the latitude necessary to make decisions that are appealed to them or that they choose to appeal themselves. He would rather not restrict their decisions. PLANNING COMMISSION November 15,1995 PAGE 6 ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3818 and 3819, recommending approval of ZCA 95-06 and LCPA 96-06, based on the findings contained therein, except for the language which he found objectionable and read into the record, and appears in each section of the proposed amendment. VOTE: 4-2 AYES: Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Welshons NOES: Noble, Savary ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Noble requested the record to show that he voted against the motion because it deletes some of the requirements necessary to protect the City. He noted that the Chase Field antenna incident was whether or not to set a precedent by allowing a private venture on public property. . . PROOF OF PUBr”ATlON G - (2010 8 2011 C.C.P.) - : STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times . formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the dates of June 30, 1989 (Blade-Citizen) and June 21,1974 (Times- Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen) and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate) for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and the North County Judicial District; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: March 8, 1996 . I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Caliiomia, this 8th day of March, 1996 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising This spat- for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of Public Hearing . - - i I 1 Ca~sbaa Califomla, at 6:Oo P.M. on Tuesday 1200 Carlsbad Village Dhve ~arc( i _. .I ar ’ city Council Ch ti~ty 0, ~flsbad will hi/d’. L’v ‘O”“C’ an? b e& a public hearing at the members Of the CitY Council to appeal otherwise Local Coastal Program Amendment to allow individual lg, 1% to msider a Zone CddeAmendm&t and‘ wealable Planning matters to the full C appeal. requmng specificiy with regard to the reasons Foyt$ such appeal. and Prowding for the burden of proof “PO” i i If YOU have a”Y Questions regarding this ma~er Deppnent. at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4445, please CalI Chns DeCerbo In the ptannlngj YOU challenge the z and/or Local Coastal Prc anm PevL. ” You may be llmlted to raisl ~-..- -uu= Hmerlulner kA- It Igram Amendment in cOun bY Y?” Or Sqmeone else at -the ‘“g onlv thnan i.z~~.-- ,airs, t, --- ‘“““=a ,“,DWlj described in this notice or in wdttan Imn---- delivered to the City of kadsbad C public heating Or Pr’or, to the public hearing. APPLICANT: City of Carl&ad , _.I, n D /~-~~ &al 46083 March 8, CARI COW, ml-. --, ,.,-.. - * PROOF OF PUBTATION (2010 & 2011 G.C.P.) - : STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times , formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the dates of June 30, 1989 (Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times- Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen) and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate) for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and the North County Judicial District; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: March 8, 1996 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at California, this of March, 1996 8th day NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising This spac’4: for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of PubLic Hearing . --------L-----------,__,,, -------------------------- NOTICE IS HEREBY CWEN that the City COunCil >f the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive. Car&bad California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday. March ig 1996’ to consider a Zone Code Amendmept, and LO& Co&ta1 Program Amendment to allow lndlvldyal members of the City Council to appeal otherwlse abpe&ble planmng matters to the full COUnCll, requiring specificity with regard to the reasons for the aooeal, and providing for the burden Of prOOf UPOn skh appeal. tf you have any questions regarding this matter. please call Chris DeCerbo In the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4445. If you challenge then Zone Code Amendment and/or Local Coastal Program Amendment In WUI’t you may be limited to raising only those iSsUeS raised ~-___ A,__ -, ,,,,, ,.,,,b,ic hearlnq -. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZCA 9%6/LCPA 95-6 APPELLATE PROCEDURES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, March 19, 1996, to consider a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to allow individual members of the City Council to appeal otherwise appealable planning matters to the full Council, requiring specificity with regard to the reasons for the appeal, and providing for the burden of proof upon such appeal. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4445. If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment and/or Local Coastal Program Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior, to the public hearing. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH: March 8, 1996 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 1, 1995, to consider a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to allow individual members of the City Council to appeal otherwise appealable planning matters to the full Council, requiring specificity with regard to the reasons for the appeal, and providing for the burden of proof upon such appeal. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after October 26, 1995. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at (619) 488-, 1161, ext. 4445. If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment and/or the Local Coastal Program Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: ZCA 95-06/LCPA 95-06 CASE NAME: APPELLATE PROCEDURES PUBLISH: OCTOBER 20, 1995 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION CD:kr 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-l 161 63 I- (Form A) TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST ,Attached are the materials necessary tar you to notice ZCA 95-06jLCPA 95-06 - Appellate Procedures tor a public hearing betore the City Council. Please notice the item tar the council meeting of . Thank you. Assistant City Man-- January 3, 1996 Date I -- I - ZCA 95-06/LCPA 95-06 - Appellate ; Procedures - LABELS ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST 101 S RANCH0 SANTA FE RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 /; i f ,; I ,’ 1 / SAN DlEGO COUNTY, Dept. 5201 RUFFIN RD STE ‘B SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 PACIFIC COAST l-WY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CARLSBAD UN[F SCHOOL DIST 601 PINE AVENUE CARLSBAD CA 92006 ’ I LEUCADIA COUNTY WTR DIST I! 1960 LA COSTA AV I j! CARLSBAD CA 92009 I , EfiGINEEhNG DEPT CITY OF CARLSBAD - PLANNING DEPT - CHRIS DECERBO CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA Q2069 SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069 VALLECITOS WR DISTRICT 766 SAN MARCOS BLVD SAN WRCOS CA 92069 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AV ENCINITAS CA 920243633 CITY OF VISTA POBOX1966 VISTA CA 92065 CAUF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 330 GOLDENSHORE #50 LONG BEACH CA 90602